Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s action to set students up for greater success by mandating all schools to use the tried and tested structured literacy approach. It’s going to be a big job for this Government to tidy up the mess that we inherited in educational achievement, but we’re up for it. We’re ambitious for our kids. We’re going to make sure they get the education they need so we can get the country back on track.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the current national gender pay gap?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the current national gender pay gap?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, just under 9 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s very good—[Interruption] Does he think it’s acceptable—[Interruption] Does he think it’s acceptable that women—

SPEAKER: Just hang on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think it’s acceptable that women working in New Zealand earn just under 9 percent less than men for the same work; if not, what’s his Government going to do about it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, we actually want to see pay parity in this country. We’re going to work very hard to make sure that happens.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he think we have a gender pay gap in New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, there’s a longstanding number of reasons that, you know, has caused that pay gap. That’s not acceptable. We’re going to keep working hard on it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What are some of those reasons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there’s a number of reasons for it, but I’m just telling you it’s an unacceptable gap. We’re going to work hard on it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as this matter is related to gender and it’s very important for the Government, has he received information as to what a woman is?

SPEAKER: Look, these questions may be enjoyable for the Minister, but they’re not particularly useful for the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is this Government abolishing the pay equity task force?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because it’s the responsibility of Government agencies.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he disagree with the Public Service Commission when it identifies that pay equity settlements have been powerful vehicles for closing gender, Māori, Pacific, and ethnic pay gaps that still exist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if he doesn’t disagree with that, why is he abolishing the task force that does that work?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Agencies can do it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he commit his Government to reducing the gender pay gap at least as fast as it has over the last six years, when it’s reduced from 12.2 percent to 7.1 percent just before the last election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said earlier, I will be committing to lowering the pay gap.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, in the context they were given.

SPEAKER: Very hard to take another supplementary on that. When you think about the nature of that question—I’ve raised this with the House before—look at Standing Order 397. You can continue, but when these questions are asked, a “yes” kind of ends it. Well, think about it: where can you go after that? How do you elucidate on “yes”?

Chlöe Swarbrick: You point out contradictions.

SPEAKER: There is none. No, no, that’s not the point of a question time, with all due respect, Chlöe—it’s not. So I’m just saying: carry on now, but watch out for that in the future.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement, “I seriously hope that I get the support of the Greens for this legislation, because if you want serious delivery on our climate change goals, we need to build renewable energy projects much faster.”, and, if so, will he rule out fast-tracking, coal mining, oil drilling, and all other fossil fuel projects that increase emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to that member: we’ve had a very interesting ministerial statement and debate in this House. What was very obvious to me is that if you actually want us to deliver on our climate change goals and commitments—which we all want to do in this House—I’d just encourage the Green Party to support the fast-track legislation, and also the ban.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that existing processes already enable wind farms to be consented, with over 1,904 megawatts’ worth of capacity currently consented and unbuilt?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I am very well aware of is it took eight years to consent a simple wind farm not very far from this place here in Wellington. It took two years to build it—it therefore took 10 years to actually get the benefit of clean, renewable electricity. What we’re doing under fast track is making sure that we can double the amount of renewable electricity. We support renewable energy projects; we fast-track consent them within one year; we get them built in two; we get the benefit in three, not 10, years. I would think that that member in the Green Party would want to support that legislation.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, “It’s through a select committee process, open for any sensible ideas to improve the legislation”, and, if so, will he set down the list of projects to be inserted in Schedule 2 at the select committee stage in order to improve transparency and public scrutiny of the legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg: yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Atiawa, Taranaki Whānui, Ngāti Raukawa, and other iwi that, “We too are frustrated that things take so long and cost so much. We, too, want more affordable homes and infrastructure, but we also want clean, healthy taiao, waterways, beaches, and kaimoana.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s what we’re saying, but what we’re saying is we want to see fast-track legislation passed, we want to get things built in this country, and we want renewable energy and electricity to be doubled. The way we do that is we get things moving much quicker than what we’ve been doing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Ngāti Toa Rangatira and other iwi who just stood out on the Parliament forecourt today: “So we say to you, Minister, by all means streamline, reduce time and cost, but do not repeat the mistakes of the past; do not give affected laymen hired and fired every three years the power to make decisions that will last 100.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said to the member today and also yesterday, there is a select committee process going on. The Minister for Infrastructure has already intimated that we are open for any reasonable contributions through that process. We’ll take that into consideration after the select committee process finishes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Ngāti Toa Rangatira and other iwi who said today, “Development brought homes and infrastructure, but also polluted waterways, poisoned kaimoana, sedimented harbours, diminished health, ghettoised communities, and breaches of Treaty rights—all from unwise, unchecked development.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’d just say to that member: either you’re serious about solving climate change or you’re not. You keep talking about it, but you don’t put the plans in place to do anything about it, right? It’s a lot of bumper stickers, it’s a lot of Post-it notes; that’s what you’re doing. You’re not actually putting the plan in place. We’ve seen it under the previous administration. We’re in the situation we are today with an energy security challenge because it was all “Kumbaya”, a lot of bumper stickers and headlines, but no plan. So what I’d say to everybody in this House: come on board in a bipartisan way, support our reversal of the oil and gas ban, support our fast-track legislation, and let’s go get renewable energy built in this country.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister, having regard to the sincerity and integrity of that last question, was he or Minister Brown or Minister Jones asked to the meeting outside the Parliament at lunchtime so that we would know for ourselves what they are saying, and not the Green Party’s and Māori Party’s pretence at what they’re saying?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was unaware of that meeting, but we welcome the contributions, as I said, through the select committee process.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How can a question that begins by inviting the respondent to provide a commentary on the quality of the last question possibly be within order?

SPEAKER: Well, the problem is that the primary question is about as open as you could possibly get. I said that it creates its own problems. I made it clear that the member could continue, but when Marama Davidson mentioned and was quoting, apparently, from protestors who are at the front of Parliament today, it’s not unreasonable to ask a question if the Prime Minister or any of his representatives were invited to speak there.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you therefore indicating that Government members can use their questions to attack the Opposition, which previous Speakers have repeatedly ruled is out of order?

SPEAKER: Well, I would think it would be a very odd thing for me to rule that someone asking a question about whether they were invited to speak to a protest group was somehow attacking the Opposition. I don’t think that’s the case.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I think you should look at the question again.

SPEAKER: Well, the member’s asking me often to look at questions, and I do. I will do that again.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. The Māori Party was brought into the question of the member, and we didn’t ask the question. So I’d like that reviewed, and to ensure that the Māori Party isn’t brought into any of a debate that we weren’t part of.

SPEAKER: Say that last part again.

Rawiri Waititi: I would hope that Te Pāti Māori was not brought into the debate where we didn’t ask the question. When that member asked the Prime Minister a question, he used Te Pāti Māori after the Greens had asked that question. We weren’t part of that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. I can help out here.

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Perhaps later when you and I meet over some conditions that were not met around that protest, then we can discuss this matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The real point is if Te Pāti Māori are so concerned at being mentioned, why were they there and the rest of us not invited?

SPEAKER: That’s not a point of order—it’s not a point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Previous Speakers have ruled very clearly that matters outside the House are not matters of order in the House. The point of order by Winston Peters breached that, but, actually, so did the ruling that you have just delivered.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting—if you are unhappy with that, you’ve got a course of action you should take.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I feel exactly the same. Te Pāti Māori wants to express our extreme concern at the fact that the Speaker’s raised something that had nothing to do within the House and has made assumptions before he’s actually met with the member and the co-leader of Te Pāti Māori.

SPEAKER: I’ve made no such assumptions.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “We have gone line by line through our savings program to ensure that we have cut the chaff but not wheat”?

Yes. Ministers have gone line by line through savings proposals with a focus on reprioritising funds currently tied to lower-value programmes, programmes that don’t align with the coalition Government’s priorities, and non-essential back-office functions, including contractor and consultant spend. We will keep our commitment to New Zealanders to stop wasteful spending, improve value for money, and drive resources to front-line services. I would remind the member opposite that every dollar we spend has an opportunity cost, and for so long as people are waiting for surgery, for specialist appointments, and are struggling to pay the bills, we owe it to New Zealanders to get maximum value from every dollar.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are 111 operators the wheat or the chaff?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I find it distasteful for any member of this House to refer to people in those terms. My statement referred to programmes, and I don’t think anyone in this House should ever refer to a person as “chaff”.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are the roles at Callaghan Innovation, which she is proposing to cut, the wheat or the chaff, when, last year, R & D spending increased by the largest amount since records began?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said, every dollar that the Government spends has an opportunity cost. Ministers in this Government are doing the right thing by looking through all spending, not just to see whether it is well intended or sounded nice in a press release but whether it is driving the outcomes and results that were promised. It shouldn’t be a surprise to that member to learn that there’s a lot of dollars that have been wasted.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister please explain what she means by “opportunity cost”, in case it is helpful to the Opposition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think the Minister asks a good question—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is this in order?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —because this is a concept that I think some may struggle with—

SPEAKER: Just a minute, sorry—just a minute. Look, if someone raises a matter in a question, surely it can be followed up in a question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The last part of his question was totally out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, the last part of the question—I agree. OK. You’re quite right. So we’ll get that struck from the Hansard. Please don’t do that again, Mr Seymour.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Mr Speaker, I realise there is sensitivity about the term—

SPEAKER: No, that doesn’t help either.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —“Opportunity cost”: what that explains is that for every dollar that the Government is using, the alternative is that, actually, it stayed in the bank account of a New Zealander who is struggling with the groceries. It’s a dollar that could have gone to progress surgery faster for someone waiting on a waiting list. It is a dollar that could have been used by someone who is waiting to pay the bills. So we owe it to New Zealanders to ensure that every dollar is going to its maximum value.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What advice, if any, has she received about the risks that cuts to the Department of Internal Affairs’ anti - money-laundering team could put New Zealand on the international grey list, which would significantly reduce foreign direct investment inflows?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the member wants to ask a specific question about a specific programme, she should either put it to the Minister or put it to me on notice. I can’t recall having received any advice about that, but I am very proud that this is a Government that’s going to be hiring 500 police, and they’re going to be cracking down on crime.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she say, “We have gone line by line”, but whenever this side of the House asks about the specifics of the cuts, the answer is “It is an operational matter”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, because there’s 21 days to wait until Budget day, and if the best that the member has is that she’s a bit upset that I’m not giving her all the details of the Budget yet, then I suggest she get someone better to write the questions.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government’s fiscal intentions and objectives?

Well, the member asks a very good question, and I do actually have an answer prepared. The answer is that the Government’s key short-term fiscal intentions for the next four financial years are set out in the Budget Policy Statement. They are to put net debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward trajectory towards 40 percent, to work towards a surplus via a steadily improving trajectory for the operating balance, and to reduce core Crown expenses as a percentage of GDP. The Government’s key long-term objectives, looking ahead over the next 15 years, are to maintain net debt within a range of 20 percent to 40 percent of GDP, subject to economic shocks, and to control growth in Government spending so that, over time, core Crown spending reduces towards 30 percent of GDP.

Nancy Lu: In what direction have these key variables been travelling over the last few years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The operating balance excluding gains and losses has been in deficit for the past five years. Net debt has increased as a percentage of GDP for the past five years and is now more than double what it was in 2018-19. And core Crown spending has been well above 30 percent of GDP for the past five years. The Government will turn this situation around and restore the books to order. However, members, this will not be an instant fix. It will take time to turn around, and there may well be some bumps in the road. It will involve difficult choices and trade-offs, and the important thing is to make steady progress over the medium term.

Nancy Lu: Will the Budget provide any more information on fiscal policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. The Fiscal Strategy Report will be released alongside the Budget and will lay out a plan to achieve the objectives I have mentioned. This will include setting out the operating allowances for future Budgets that the member opposite is so excited by. The Fiscal Strategy Report will also include fiscal forecasts and projections so people can see how net debt, the operating balance, and core Crown spending are expected to track in the near term and over the next 15 years.

Nancy Lu: Does the Government’s fiscal policy accord with recent advice from the OECD and the IMF?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. The OECD’s advice is for the Government to steadily reduce the fiscal deficit. It also said that the Government should limit the rise in public debt and thereby increase the fiscal buffer available for the next negative shock. The IMF also has a medium-term view. It says that the Government should signal a strong commitment to fiscal consolidation, and it recommends—

Chlöe Swarbrick: And fixing the tax system!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and this is an important point that the member should listen to—that consolidation be gradual, credible, and durable. The legacy we have inherited of elevated and lazy spending will take several Budgets to fix, but the first steps will be taken in Budget 2024.

Hon Chris Bishop: Do the Government’s fiscal intentions and objectives include funding Treasure Island?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Mr Speaker, life’s a question of priorities and that’s not one for us.

SPEAKER: No. Let it go. Sit down. Sit down!

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. So that’s—

SPEAKER: Just a minute. We’re having a point of order, so we’ll have a bit of quiet.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s three question times in a row now we’ve seen the Government Ministers abuse questions or points of order that are clearly not in order and are intended to make a political point. And so I’m interested, Mr Speaker, what moves you intend to make to act as a disincentive to continue doing it.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. That question was completely within order. In fact, most of the question contained words from the primary.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting sort of suggestion. I’ll have to look at both of those things at a later point. So we’ll move now to question No. 5.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, point of order. I seek leave to correct my answer.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought, is there any objection? There is none.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m just conscious that there are a number of funds for which programmes apply for funding. And I’m not sure how Treasure Island gets its funding and whether or not it is eligible for NZ On Air funding. What I know is that it’s a programme—

SPEAKER: Sit down. That’s enough. Look, I’ll be blunt with the Government side: I’m not going to tolerate a lot more of this, OK? Attacks on the Opposition—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s all humour.

SPEAKER: It’s not. Well, if you think it’s humour, that’s great. I’ll tell you what, Mr Peters, you seem to know more about my job, and I certainly know a lot more about you; do you want a swap?

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I’m still ruling. What I have ruled is we’re moving now to question No. 5.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the funding of arts and media is actually a topic of intense public interest at the moment. And I think that, on the one hand, I understand your rulings about attacking the Opposition, but at what point should members be constrained from asking questions about a highly topical issue because of the sensitivity and the humourlessness of the Opposition?

SPEAKER: Yeah, it’s another point for me to consider.

Question No. 5—Tertiary Education and Skills

5. to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Does she stand by all her answers to oral question No. 8 on Thursday, 2 May 2024?

Yes. I especially stand by my answer that Te Pūkenga has left a legacy in the vocational education sector that is a disaster, with student numbers falling, financials getting worse, staff leaving, and generally industry feeling they are not being supported. I also stand by my statement that they did not have a credible pathway back to being financially viable. This Government is committed to take decisions to disestablish Te Pūkenga and consult on a proposed replacement model this quarter as outlined in the Prime Minister’s action plan for New Zealand.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: At her meeting with the chair and the chief executive of Te Pūkenga on 30 November 2023, did she instruct the chair and the chief executive to cease recruitment for new management positions and extend the employment contracts of existing managers who were due to cease employment in April 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I stand by all my actions in meetings with Te Pūkenga. I cannot direct Te Pūkenga but I have a right to make my views known and to inform them about the Government’s policies and the intended direction for the vocational education and training sector.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Did the Minister suggest to the chair and the chief executive of Te Pūkenga at her meeting with them on 30 November 2023 that they should cease recruitment for new management positions and extend the employment contracts of existing managers who were due to cease employment in April 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I said, I cannot direct Te Pūkenga to do the things that the member has suggested but I do have a right to make my views known and to inform them of decisions by the Government regarding policies on the vocational education sector.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: At that meeting, did she make her expectations clear that she expected them to cease recruitment for new management positions and extend the employment contracts of existing managers who were due to cease employment in April 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I made my expectations clear that I expected Te Pūkenga to ensure they did nothing that would thwart the direction of the policy that this Government was taking, with the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister aware that expressing expectations in such a way may amount to a direct operational instruction to the chair and chief executive of the Crown entity, which would be a breach of the Crown Entities Act and the Cabinet Manual?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I did not direct Te Pūkenga to take actions. I cannot direct Te Pūkenga to take actions. I can express to them my views and the policy of this Government, and I was able to follow up a letter of expectations to Te Pūkenga on 5 December, confirming what my expectations were.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: What recent reports by the OECD and the Education Review Office has she seen on the New Zealand education sector?

I recently received the OECD Economic Survey of New Zealand 2024, which confirmed student achievement is declining, equity is not improving, and outcomes are too variable. The need for change to education in New Zealand is clear. Many of the support elements that should strengthen the delivery of this essential public service are lacking. For example, the OECD notes that New Zealand must focus on introducing a sufficiently detailed curriculum, efficient assessment tools, specialist subject teaching practice and curriculum implementation advice, and initial teacher education tailored to the unique demands the system imposes. I am pleased to report that, last week, I announced six priorities that directly address these challenges, on top of implementing our two policies in our first 100 days that the Education Review Office (ERO) have recently reported on.

Sam Uffindell: What recent reports has she seen on the implementation of the one hour a day of reading, writing, and maths policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The latest update I have received from the Education Review Office states that before the Government introduced this policy, one in five schools were not teaching an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths. By April this year, nearly 99 percent of schools that are required to teach an hour a day have now introduced a policy to do so. Additionally, ERO found that 92 percent of schools meet the requirement of the away all day cellphone policy. The recent OECD report also found that the quality of the hour a day policy will be improved with the ban on cellphone usage in class time. The support for these two policies has been overwhelming.

Sam Uffindell: What findings did the OECD report on the Government’s plans for education?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m proud to say the report found—and I quote—“A welcome step in improving the curriculum is the Minister of Education’s appointment of a ministerial advisory group to provide advice to the Minister on the English, maths, and statistics learning areas for year 0 to 10”. I further quote: “Under the Government’s Teaching the Basics Brilliantly policy, the Government is further reinforcing curriculum reforms to improve outcomes in literacy and mathematics by introducing the requirement for schools to teach year 0 to 8 children an average of an hour a day each of reading, writing, and maths.” I couldn’t have written it better myself, and what more could I want to confirm that this Government is on the right track?

Sam Uffindell: What did the OECD report state on curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The OECD report stated that improving the curriculum and its implementation are crucial to lifting achievement. The report highlighted the need for a clear specification of knowledge, skills, and values in our curriculum. I have been clear that a shift to a knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum that clearly states what our kids need to know in order to build mastery of the core skills of reading, writing, and maths is a foundational piece of work being delivered by this Government. I demonstrated our commitment to supporting quality implementation with a commitment of $67 million from Budget 2024 for professional development and resources for teachers to ensure that every child learns to read using structured literacy approaches.

Question No. 7—Mental Health

7. to the Minister for Mental Health: Does he stand by his statement that the full-time equivalent roles of the Suicide Prevention Office will increase by one full-time equivalent role to 6.5 roles; if not, why not?

Yes, and also including my other statements that the Public Service Association (PSA) union should apologise for politicising suicide and misleading New Zealanders by putting a press release out that was misleading—where they were told by the Ministry of Health that, and they continued to mislead New Zealanders.

Ingrid Leary: How many of the 6.5 roles he has referred to are focused entirely on preventing suicide?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Clearly, we’re under a change process at the moment, but what I can tell the House is that the Suicide Prevention Office currently has 5.5 fulltime-equivalents. The structure within the Ministry of Health will take it up to 6.5, and I’ve recently been informed—because under the last Government, the Suicide Prevention Office was shifted first to the Māori Health Authority—now it’s put back into the Ministry of Health. The funding and contracting functions within Health New Zealand will even increase the fulltime-equivalent above 6.5.

Ingrid Leary: How can it be true that a role about drug checking or another about addiction strategy and two general adviser roles are focused entirely on preventing suicide, and, if not, does he now revise downwards his figures of how many roles at the Ministry of Health will be specifically focused on suicide prevention?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, the problem the member has is she’s basing her questions off another misleading PR that the PSA union put out on Friday that was factually incorrect, and she should go back to her union mates and ask them to apologise.

Ingrid Leary: Is he aware that 565 people in New Zealand died of suspected suicide to the year end 30 June 2023, and, if so, how does he think that cutting the number of roles focused on suicide from five roles down to two roles will help prevent suicides in New Zealand?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, I can’t be any clearer: the current Suicide Prevention Office sits at 5.5 fulltime-equivalents; after the proposed restructure, which is still a proposal, it’ll go above 6.5. So if that member’s worried about bereaved families of people who took their life—565 of them—tell the PSA to stop politicising suicide.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that our coalition Government is committed to increasing funding for Gumboot Friday, and would the Minister outline how the provision of those front-line mental health services will make a difference to New Zealanders, and has the PSA put a PR out about that?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? The fixation on the back office in what’s important is about increasing access to timely suicide prevention and postvention, and this is what this Government will deliver.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What proposals has the Minister announced regarding the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system?

Last week, I announced the Government’s intention to strengthen oversight of organisations that care for our most vulnerable children. These changes include restoring the single Children’s Commissioner, and making the Independent Children’s Monitor an independent Crown entity instead of a departmental agency hosted within the Education Review Office. These changes will enhance oversight of the entire Oranga Tamariki system to deliver greater accountability, improving vulnerable children’s safety and welfare.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government proposing to restore the single, independent Children’s Commissioner?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We believe children deserve a fierce, independent champion. In 2022, the Children’s Commissioner was disestablished and replaced by a five-person board. Our view, and the view of many others, is that the board weakens the visibility and advocacy of the commissioner’s role. For years, the single, independent commissioner was effective, and we are restoring the single commissioner to be a strong advocate for children.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government proposing to make the Independent Children’s Monitor a Crown entity?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The children’s monitor must operate at arm’s length from the Government, and being based within the Education Review Office means it is not fully independent. Making the monitor a Crown entity will establish a structure to protect its independence and allow it to provide robust assessments and comments on how institutions treat vulnerable children. This fulfils a coalition agreement with the ACT Party.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Minister proposing these changes now?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our Government wants to get on with this work because we are concerned about the safety and welfare of our children. We will also bring forward the review of the Children and Young People’s Commission Act 2022 and the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022 to give everyone a say on the changes and also enable input from the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care.

Question No. 9—Oceans and Fisheries

9. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What strategies, if any, are being implemented to protect marine wildlife from harmful fishing practices?

I thank the member for that question. Around 12,000 people are employed in the fisheries sector—$2.3 billion worth of exports for the current year. Strategies are being implemented that impact on the ability of the industry to mitigate. A national plan of action for seabirds, a national plan of action for sharks, a dolphin threat management plan, and, beyond that, there is also an extensive regulatory set of measures to manage risks for specific species.

Teanau Tuiono: Does official advice show that cameras on boats are an essential accountability measure, and, if so, why is he planning to wind this back?

Hon SHANE JONES: The roll-out of the cameras is continuing, and, obviously, camera footage from time to time, when it is tested, is giving additional ballast to the models that the civil service already rely upon in terms of fisheries management.

Teanau Tuiono: What advice, if any, has he seen on reasons why the reported number of dolphin captures has increased by 700 percent since cameras were put on boats?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, a great deal of focus is now upon dolphins, but inevitably when the fishing industry interacts with the sea of Tangaroa, from time to time there will be captures. This is already in the model. It’s called the wildlife interaction with industry. The Minister before me, and other Ministers before her, received advice as to how initiatives can be sharpened to lessen the impact on vulnerable mammals. One was recently seen in Rongotai on its way to the Chathams!

Steve Abel: What measures, if any, will he implement to mitigate bycatch from surface long-line fishing, given data shows that albatrosses are caught at a rate of 350 percent higher than reported by industry?

Hon SHANE JONES: That question is a very good question. As of today, officials, at the leadership of the director-general, are working through what additional measures should be pursued to ensure that trawl and long-line vessels are not indiscriminately, or disproportionately, having a deadening effect on albatrosses and other such birds. A pilot project is under way on the east coast of the South Island. No one on this side of the House is happy when an albatross disappears, but, once again, technology is delivering results. The director-general and his team are ascertaining whether or not additional measures may be required to improve the ability of the fishing industry to cope with the occasional death of a seabird or a mammal.

Steve Abel: Will he introduce fishing-related mortality limits or bycatch kill limits for leatherback turtles, considering New Zealand vessels caught more turtles in 2021-22 than United States and Australian vessels combined?

Hon SHANE JONES: I won’t comment on either Australia or America, other than to say, on an ongoing basis, the officials of the Ministry for Primary Industries, on behalf of our Government, are engaging with the industry. Indeed, there are four occasions every year when such engagements take place. Engagement takes place also with civil society and a number of the green groups. Many of those suggestions will be taken on board, but I repeat yet again: this is the wildlife industry. This is an industry that generates wealth well over $2 billion, jobs well over 12,000, and anyone who thinks there won’t, from time to time, be a critter that goes by the way does not understand how wildlife industries function.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statement of Paul Goldsmith that “One of the pillars of democracy is that every adult has an equal say in who governs them, and through that vote, an equal say in important government decisions affecting their lives”, and is he committed to an electoral system in which the franchise is as accessible and broad-based as possible?

In response to the first part of the question: yes. My comment was in response to the previous Government moving away from the fundamental principle of equal voting rights in the Canterbury regional council Act, which this Government has indicated it will overturn. In relation to the second one: yes, within the scope of appropriate legislative rules. For example, we have no plans to broaden the base to enfranchise murderers currently spending time in prison, which I understand is the Greens’ policy.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does he consider it a success that 110,000 voters, the population of Dunedin, enrolled on election day and thereby had a say in important Government decisions affecting their lives?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m not sure it was necessarily a success. I would say that it’s been a significant change over the last two elections to enable people to enrol on election day. Yesterday, we had the delivery of a report from the Auditor-General which outlined many, many problems with the election result and count in 2023, where quality checks weren’t done or they weren’t done with the rigour required, and then the national quality assurance checks weren’t carried out with the information required, and then the processes weren’t in place. So that was a very concerning report, and it’s concerning because all New Zealanders need to have confidence in the electoral system. One of the issues raised in that report was the extra pressure in the system caused by election-day registration.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: When he said to Mike Hosking this morning that “Every three-year cycle there’s a law to review the election and we’ll be making some changes.”, was he referring to disenfranchising the 110,000 voters by removing their ability to enrol on voting day?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, certainly I reject any such suggestion around disenfranchisement. There are two steps that happen, actually. We’re going to be getting a report in the next week or so from the Electoral Commission, which is a standard report within six months of the election, which outlines some of the issues that were raised. I think everybody in this House is aware that a number of problems were experienced through the election. Whole boxes of votes were lost, there were dual votes not counted, and there were a whole range of issues that need to be dealt with. So every three-year cycle, Parliament considers the situation and makes sure that our electoral laws are in shape, and I have indicated that we should be considering all those things.

Cameron Luxton: Does he agree that the ACT-National coalition agreement to repeal race-based appointees to Environment Canterbury moves Kiwis towards an equal say in who governs them?

SPEAKER: Look, that’s very wide of the primary question. Do you want to try something different?

Cameron Luxton: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question’s asking if he believes that an equal say is important in Government decisions. This is something that is moving Kiwis—in my opinion; I’d like to know the Minister’s opinion—towards an equal say.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and I’ve just asked you to ask that question in a different way to the one you just had, which you more or less could do under your point of order, so do it again.

Cameron Luxton: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that clarification. Does the Minister agree that as part of the ACT-National coalition agreement to repeal the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu—

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry. The question is not about the Canterbury regional council; it is about electoral integrity—so ask a question that goes to that heart. Last chance.

Cameron Luxton: OK. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe that electoral integrity is improved by New Zealanders having faith that we are moving away from a race-based representative system, as is happening in Canterbury?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think it is important that all New Zealanders have equal voting rights, and the previous Government did move away from equal voting rights in the local government setting and we have committed to change that.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: If the Minister supports equal voting rights, will he commit to equal voting rights for busy working New Zealanders who get to vote only by enrolling on voting day?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think if he looks—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I think that’s everybody.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: For most of the electoral democratic history of this country, people have had to enrol the day before election day—including in the 2017 election, which I think I recall was a reasonably important one for the Labour Party. If he’s suggesting that somehow there was a democratic deficit in the 2017 election because people weren’t able to enrol on election day, I think he’s rather confused.

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Minister of Health: When he committed to providing “timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders”, did he consider the implications of this generalisation for Māori women, who suffer disproportionate rates of maternal and infant inequities compared to non-Māori women?

SPEAKER: Shane Jones—sorry; Shane Reti.

Oh, boy. I’ve so got to go to the gym! This Government is committed to providing timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders, including Māori women. In fact, I was honoured to be asked to officially open Te Kotuku extension last month in Whangārei. This facility will provide in-patient care for tamariki from birth until their 15th birthday. In addition, the new neonatal unit will provide comprehensive care for unwell or premature babies. This Government cares about the health needs of all children and parents.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister agree that Māori-led health initiatives such as Ngā Wānanga o Hine Kōpū, a wānanga run in Te Tai Tokerau for hapū māmā are critical for the health and wellbeing of our people, and, if so, will he continue resourcing these types of initiatives?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I agree with is that the use of activities such as Hapū Wānanga, which is a free kaupapa Māori antenatal service, is useful to help reduce some of the uneven harms that we have in mortality for New Zealand women.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister accept that racism and oppression are contributors to the fact that Māori women in pre-term labour are less likely to receive the full and necessary amount of antenatal steroids?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is what the Health Status Report tells us, which is that birth complications are more common for Māori, Pacific, and Indian women, and that these groups are more likely to have pre-term births and require blood transfusions after delivery.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has he seen about the recent announcement of a $1.9 billion investment in Corrections?

Many. The one I was most proud to see was one titled “Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announces $1.9 billion plan to make … [New Zealand] safer.” That plan includes financing to deliver 810 new beds at Waikeria, taking its total capacity to over 1,860. It meets the funding shortfalls Corrections is currently grappling with, gives the system extra capacity and staff to provide real consequences for crime, provides rehabilitation, and moves money from the back office to the front line of Corrections. The Government is working hard to restore law and order and get New Zealand back on track.

David MacLeod: What changes is the Government making to rehabilitation?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: As part of our investment in Corrections, there will be additional finding for the department to deliver on our 100-day plan commitment to provide access to rehabilitation for remand prisoners, which has the potential to benefit 1,400 prisoners at any given time.

David MacLeod: How much is the Government investing in delivering rehabilitation to prisoners on remand?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: As part of our $1.9 billion announcement, $78 million has been set aside to ensure that the remand population has access to, and is provided, the critical rehabilitation programmes that they need. This is to ensure that the time remand prisoners spend in the corrections system gives them the best chance of rejoining society in a positive way.

David MacLeod: Last supplementary: what programmes will remand prisoners have access to?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thanks to this investment, alongside our recent 100-day plan, remand accused prisoners will be provided access to non-offence - based programmes. Remand convicted prisoners can expect to be provided the full suite of rehabilitative programmes.

Hon Nicole McKee: Has the Minister seen any reports of children being sent to prison?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, this morning, I saw the comments from the Leader of the Opposition that children can “take comfort from the fact that if things go wrong for them, there’s an 810-bed prison waiting for them and they can get a free hot healthy lunch when they go to prison”. Not only is this deeply reductive, I find it highly offensive to consign our children to prison in this way, especially given that this Government has had to top the school lunches programme up after the previous Government left a fiscal cliff.

Hon Nicole McKee: Is the Government investing in any remand capacity in the Chatham Islands?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That question would be better directed to the MP for the Chatham Islands.