Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about the Budget operating allowance?

In the Budget Policy Statement (BPS) yesterday, I announced that the operating allowance in Budget 2024 would be less than $3.5 billion. The operating allowance is the amount of money allocated in the Budget to fund new spending and revenue initiatives. To put this amount in perspective, the operating allowance, on average, across the past four Budgets was around $4.5 billion. In Budget 2022, the allowance was around $6 billion, and in Budget 2023, it was $4.8 billion. So the Budget we will release on 30 May will be significantly tighter than those in the immediate past, and it will also contain personal income tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders.

Miles Anderson: When will she announce the operating allowances for future Budgets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said in the Budget Policy Statement, the operating allowances for Budgets 2025 to 2027 will be set out in the Fiscal Strategy Report, which is one of the Budget documents. Operating allowances for future years are planning assumptions that improve the accuracy of fiscal forecasts. They are often amended and revised over time. To give the House one historical example, the operating allowance for the most recent Budget in 2023 was announced as being $2.6 billion in Budget 2020, but as the years went by, it was raised to $2.7 billion, then to $4 billion, then to $4.5 billion, and then to $4.8 billion—some $2.2 billion more than indicated three years earlier. That is why I take any comments about future allowances with a large grain of salt when those comments come from the Labour Party.

Miles Anderson: What reaction has she had to the Budget Policy Statement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’ve seen many positive comments on the Budget Policy Statement. However, someone did accuse me yesterday of refusing to provide a concrete Budget allowance in the BPS and said, “Oh, it’s highly embarrassing for a finance Minister to be unable to do what has been required of every finance Minister since the introduction of the Public Finance Act.” That assertion is wrong. The Public Finance Act does not require anything from the finance Minister with regard to Budget allowances, and, in fact, it makes no mention of Budget allowances whatsoever. What is highly embarrassing is for someone to publicly accuse a Minister of breaching an Act of Parliament while getting basic facts wrong, and I am disappointed in the Opposition spokesperson Barbara Edmonds.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: The Hon Megan Woods.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Sorry?

SPEAKER: The Hon Megan Woods—you know yourself, yeah.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is it correct that the reason that she has broken the convention of providing an operating allowance in the Budget Policy Statement is because coalition Budget negotiations have broken down, or coalition partners can’t agree?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, that’s another one from the Labour Party fantasy file—the same file they get their idea that a new tax will somehow make New Zealand more prosperous. In fact, what we have here is a party that had a very strong convention. The Labour Party’s convention was every time they said they’d stick to a spending limit, the next opportunity they had, they broke it. Well, this Government is going to break that convention.

Miles Anderson: What other feedback has she seen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I did have another, quite different reaction to the BPS yesterday. I received a lovely email from someone whose name I will protect for her privacy, but I do think the House would benefit from hearing this as it represents a point of view that is often missing in the media commentary. This is what the email said: “I thank you, the National Party, and the coalition Government for promising to honour the tax cut. It is a way to help the squeezed middle, and especially mature singles, who are often forgotten. I am one of them, with a mortgage on one average income to spread across many bills. It is difficult out there for people like us. For once, I feel like the unseen can get some relief, whatever the amount—really appreciated.”, and yet the members opposite would take it from her.

Question No. 2—Disability Issues

2. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Did the reports she received from Whaikaha that she referred to in her answer to question No. 4 yesterday contain figures of those who used disability support funding for pedicures and massages, or did they just contain anecdotal evidence?

The report contained advice from the ministry which outlined that the uses of flexible funding that Whaikaha would pause are for a range of services including, “self-care services such as massages, hairdressers, pedicures, and other appearance or therapeutic services that some carers have accessed as part of carer support or individualised funding.” I have received further advice from officials that the evidence Whaikaha relied on in making the decisions to clarify what funding could be spent on came from a range of sources, including analysis of spending data, concerns raised directly with Whaikaha by providers, including individualised funding and choice in community living hosts and needs assessment service coordination organisers on what funding was actually being spent on, and feedback directly from the community. I have also been advised by officials that expenditure information from providers indicates that, in a number of instances, individualised funding has been used to purchase Lotto tickets, alcohol, and tobacco. Clearly, the system set up under the previous Government did not have appropriate settings in place.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. If I heard the Minister correctly, in response to a written question, she expressly quoted from a document, and I would request that she table that document.

SPEAKER: Is the Minister quoting from a document she has in the House?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I don’t have it in the House with me, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Can she confirm that at least 26,000 carers currently accessing carer support through Whaikaha will be impacted by the changes announced on 18 March?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, I can confirm that carers that were accessing the funding for care services such as massages, hairdressers, pedicures, and other appearance or therapeutic services, or for purchasing Lotto tickets, alcohol, or tobacco will be impacted.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What advice—

SPEAKER: Just wait.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: —did the Minister receive prior—

SPEAKER: Excuse me; just wait. Your own team seem a little unsettled. Carry on.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What advice did the Minister receive prior to 18 March on the number of people in total who would be impacted by the changes that were announced on 18 March?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I said, I received a range of information, and the numbers certainly were not fully explained that would be impacted, but that is because the vast majority of carers use their support for assisting in their care of their disabled loved ones. Those carers do an absolutely amazing job, and they should not be being impacted by a very small number of people who are using it for the purposes that I’ve outlined.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Did the Minister or her office sign out, as part of this report or any other report, wording that was used in Whaikaha’s announcement of the 18 March changes?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Whaikaha advised me that they had a comprehensive engagement and communication plan in place. Clearly, that did not happen. I have apologised that that did not happen, as did the chief executive (CE) of Whaikaha.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. That question was very specific about whether the Minister had signed out a briefing that then appeared on the website. That answer did not address that specific question.

SPEAKER: Well, I think it did address it, because it talked about a process that the Minister was aware of in relation to the question. Well, members can shake their heads all they like. I’m sitting here listening to it. I listen to the questions; I listen to the answers. I think we’ll move on.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Can I ask it again?

SPEAKER: As part of whatever your allocation is. Use it up as much as you like.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Did the Minister or her office sign out, as part of this report or any other report, wording that was used in Whaikaha’s announcement of the 18 March changes?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Whaikaha advised me that they had a comprehensive engagement and communication plan in place. Clearly, that did not happen. That is why I have apologised and that is why the CE of Whaikaha apologised.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, when I asked a question about whether the Minister signed out a report and she didn’t answer it, your ruling was that her answer didn’t get close to—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Start again. Sorry, there was noise here.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: I’m just seeking your guidance, because last week I asked a very similar question about whether she signed out a particular report. The Minister didn’t get close to answering or addressing that question, and when I put that to you, you did request that she have another go at answering that question.

SPEAKER: Well, I might have. That was last week. This week, I just heard the Minister say what she was advised of. It may not satisfy the member who’s asking the question, but it does address the question. Is there another supplementary on this?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I know that you go to great lengths to ensure consistency in the approach to question time. The difficulty we have there is that on one occasion you saw fit to ensure the Minister responded specifically to the question about whether she signed a briefing. This time, the question is pretty much the same. If the question was “Has she received advice?” of course that would have been addressing it—no question—but on two occasions she was asked whether she had signed a briefing, which, of course, is different to receiving advice, and on both occasions she simply said she received advice.

SPEAKER: I would have thought the inference in that was enough, but if you also look at 207/2, you’ll see that it’s not my role to judge the performance of a Minister; it’s to simply ask the question, “Has the question been addressed?” And my judgment is that it has.

Question No. 3—Education

3. to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has she seen about student behaviour in classrooms?

A report published by the Education Review Office this morning showed that behaviour in New Zealand classrooms is amongst the worst in the OECD. This report tells us an important story about what is happening in our society that is mirrored in our classrooms. It gives us the evidence that we need to make important changes to support our principals and our teachers, including the ones we’ve already made to better support our hard-working teachers.

Mike Butterick: What action has the Government already taken to improve behaviour in classrooms?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The report said that 51 percent of teachers mention device use reduced the ability to concentrate and may be one of the causes of worsening behaviour. We’ve already taken action to ban cellphone use in our classrooms, and the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Feedback from Hornby High School was that they had no reports of cyber-bullying since the ban was introduced. So we know the effects of this policy on behaviour is already having positive impacts. We will take the recommendations in the report and see what further we can do to support our hard-working teachers.

Mike Butterick: What can we do to better support our teachers when it comes to student behaviour?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The report stated that less than half of new teachers reported being able to capably manage behaviours in the classroom in their first term. A significant number of teachers feel demoralised and are considering leaving the profession. I know from talking to principals and teachers that initial teacher education is a key solution to helping our teachers manage behaviours in the classroom. Initial teacher education is a priority for this Government, and we are already looking at what changes we can make to help better manage student behaviour.

Mike Butterick: What comments has she seen on this report?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Ruth Shinoda from the Education Review Office said this morning, “We need a national approach to how we manage behaviour in our schools so our kids can get the best out of their education. We need to increase support for teachers, alongside setting clear expectations from all of us about what good behaviour looks like so we can prevent and respond to this challenge effectively.” I agree with Ms Shinoda that we need a more nationwide, consistent approach to what behaviour is acceptable, and what consequences there are for unacceptable behaviour. We want to support principals with minimum standards that are consistent across the country so there is agreed and widely understood expectations in this area.

Question No. 4—Justice (Firearms)

4. to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): Is it important that licensed firearms owners take the time to revise the rules of firearms safety over the coming months?

With the first cold snap of the year about to hit New Zealand, many deer hunters are keenly anticipating getting out and about in the back country in search of roaring stags this long weekend. As licensed firearm owners, it is our responsibility to ensure that before we hit the hills in search of rutting deer, we have revised the rules of firearm safety. Understanding and adhering to these rules is crucial to prevent incidents and ensure that everyone has an enjoyable time in the outdoors.

Cameron Luxton: Of the seven basic rules of firearm safety, which is the most important?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: All of the seven rules of firearm safety are important. However, during the roar, rule No. 4, identify your target beyond reasonable doubt, is mainly the one to be emphasised. Failure to properly identify a target could lead to tragedy. No matter how experienced a hunter is, they should take their time to keep a clear head and treat every roar as if it’s coming from a fellow hunter, because it very well could be.

Cameron Luxton: What advice would she give licensed firearm owners who are travelling with firearms this roar season?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: It is important that licensed firearms owners follow the guidelines for the storage and transportation of firearms and ammunition to the letter. These guidelines have changed significantly over the past couple of years, so it’s important that licensed firearm owners revise them again and understand what their new requirements are.

Cameron Luxton: What other points would she like to make regarding firearm safety this roar?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Treat every firearm as loaded and pay attention to the firing zone. After properly identifying a target and before firing, a hunter should ask themselves, “What could happen if I miss?” Hunters need to be sure of what is in between them and their target and what is beyond. A solid backstop is a must. Good luck out there to everybody who is going to be hunting during this roar, and stay safe. As the old saying goes, it’s better to go home with no meat than no mate.

Question No. 5—Public Service

5. to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she agree with Nicola Willis’s promise in 2023 that no cuts will be made to any front-line services?

I often agree with Nicola Willis, although I have observed that, from time to time, she does fall short of perfection. I would like to add some additional context to her comment for the member. The coalition Government is focused on shifting resource from the back office to front-line services, and in making that commitment, we are not committing to doing things the way they have always been done. We are not going to ban ourselves from looking at other ways we could do things better or differently to ensure the resources we’re employing have a bigger impact for the people we’re seeking to serve. Furthermore, I anticipate that in some cases where our Government reprioritises resources from back-office functions, that member and her colleagues will mischaracterise it as a cut to front-line services. They will be wrong, but their political motivations are clear.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What evidence has she seen that assures her that proposed job cuts at the Ministry of Health won’t impact the Government’s ability to respond to public health emergencies?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen the guidelines that were provided to all agencies when they were asked to identify reprioritisation and savings measures, and I have spoken with the Minister of Health about his expectations in relation to his agency and his view that we need resources in our hospitals, in our emergency rooms, immunising our children. And I agree with his priority.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What evidence has she seen that assures her that proposed job cuts at the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) won’t impact the Government’s ability to respond to biosecurity emergencies?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This could get a bit repetitive. However, I have seen the clear guidelines that were given to Government agencies about the proposals that they would put forward for savings. Furthermore, in the case of MPI, I’ve been assured that MPI is not proposing any reductions to its front-line services and that statutory staff—such as veterinarians, animal welfare, fishery, food-compliance officers, and biosecurity teams at the border—remain. The primary sector can have confidence that MPI’s key functions—including biosecurity, food safety, forestry, and fisheries—will not be compromised by the proposed changes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What evidence has she seen that assures her that the safety of children or prisoners or prison staff will not be impacted by cuts to support services at Oranga Tamariki or Corrections?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I have sat down with the Minister for Oranga Tamariki, and its chief executive, and I have been assured by them that, actually, they are looking forward to the opportunity to ensure more of our resources are focused on supporting vulnerable children and that less of our resources are focused on middle management.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has the Minister interrogated the assurances of the chief executives that she cited in response to two of the preceding supplementary questions by requesting evidence that that is the case, and, if not, why should New Zealanders believe her claim that no cuts are being made to front-line services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m getting a bit of a flavour for what the last regime might have been like—interrogations and evidence—but, actually, that doesn’t at all marry up with what we saw in practice, does it, which is that spending got completely out of control, resources were tied up in the back office, the headcount in public agencies exploded, and New Zealanders were left wondering, if spending’s increased by 80 percent in just six years, what have we the people got to show for it. Well, the member’s right: there’s a different Government in charge now with a different approach, and we’re going to drive value for those taxpayer dollars.

Question No. 6—Workplace Relations and Safety

6. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What advice, if any, has she seen on the impact of the Government’s coalition agreement policies on workers?

I’ve already delivered two of the commitments from the ACT-National coalition agreement in my portfolio: to repeal the fair pay agreement system and expand the 90-day trials to apply to all businesses. I’ve also implemented a moderate annual increase in the minimum wage, as required by the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement. In each case, I’ve received a regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment which included mentions of the impacts on workers. I consider and appreciate the advice I receive from officials on all fronts, but I also consider a wider range of views when forming my policy decisions.

Teanau Tuiono: Will she guarantee that workers will be able to continue to clarify their employment status in the Employment Court?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have only received very early policy scoping advice on contracting arrangements, so the member will have to wait for further policy decisions to be made, but one thing that’s very clear from the coalition agreement’s intentions is that this Government intends to clarify the law to make certain for both businesses and workers what are employment or contracting arrangements.

Teanau Tuiono: Is it correct that she will not promise workers that they will continue to have the right, as they have for decades, to clarify their employment status in the Employment Court?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: We are not removing the courts from New Zealand. However, what this Government is intending to clarify for all businesses and workers is what the law and the intention under the law and the intention of this Government is when it comes to businesses and their arrangements with contractors and workers. Parliament sets the laws, which the courts follow.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she acknowledge that minimum wage workers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation through working as contractors, and, if so, will she ensure they are able to clarify their employment status in the Employment Court?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: As I have suggested earlier, I have only received very early policy scoping advice on the contracting arrangements. This is very early in my work programme, and I’m very excited to clarify the law about the role of contracting arrangements and employment law arrangements within existing New Zealand law. I think it’s very important to note that we want all businesses to thrive, we want all workers to thrive, and it’s very important that we’re giving clarity for both workers and businesses about what their rights and their obligations and their opportunities are in New Zealand’s economy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether she believes that it is sound industrial relations to clarify one’s employment status before they commence a job, not halfway through when there’s a dispute?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you for the question. I think it’s very important for everybody to know what they are signing up to under the law. There are many, many people who sign contracting arrangements every day who are very satisfied with the terms of their contracts—90 percent of people who are in contracting arrangements are satisfied or very satisfied with being self-employed and not being employees, and we should uphold their rights to continue to be contractors.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she recognise that employees treated as contractors have included people such as the Gloriavale workers, who worked full time from age six years old and were able to protect their rights because they were deemed employees by the Employment Court?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: When it comes to the issue of Gloriavale, the labour inspectorate is there to help Gloriavale understand their obligations when it comes to employment law and the Employment Relations Act. I think it’s very important that we’re looking at this from all across New Zealand; that everybody knows what their obligations are, they know what their rights are under the law, and, where there is any form of exploitation, the relevant authorities are notified so that everybody has their rights upheld under our Employment Relations Act.

Camilla Belich: Does the Minister agree that it is sometimes the case that during an employment relationship, the nature of the work will change and it may be necessary to seek clarification at an Employment Court or the Employment Relations Authority, and will this policy be maintained despite her commitment to change the law in relation to contractors?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: As I’ve suggested, I’m in very early scoping work about the changes to clarify the law for the Employment Relations Act, and I look forward to the member being part of that consultation and bringing her views in the relevant time.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she think it’s bad that people at Gloriavale, who work from six years old, full time, were able to clarify their employment status in the Employment Court—the opinion?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I would also like to note this question was regarding the advice that I’ve received on the coalition agreement’s commitments. We are not changing anything specifically in the coalition agreement to do with Gloriavale. However, where employment law fits within my purview for the coalition agreement, which is to clarify the intent that Parliament sets for employment relations, for contracting arrangements, and for employment agreements, this Government will be clarifying that law. I only, at this stage, have very early policy scoping advice. However, I expect more advice to follow and I look forward to engaging with the member at a further date.

Question No. 7—Science, Innovation and Technology

7. to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: What recent announcement has she made in the science, innovation and technology portfolio?

Yesterday, I was pleased to announce the establishment of a Science System Advisory Group. This group will help us explore the well-documented issues facing the science sector and will be chaired by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who will also chair the University Advisory Group appointed by the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills, the Hon Penny Simmonds. The Science System Advisory Group has been tasked with delivering two reports: the first in June 2024 and the second in October 2024. It will form the basis of what is needed to enable this Government to bring about the changes needed to ensure the science and higher-education systems are well-placed to deliver maximum benefit for the country and its people.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is this needed?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The issues facing the science sector are very well documented. Science, innovation, and technology are critically important to rebuilding the New Zealand economy. With a country of our size and with a limited human and financial capital and markets, we need to focus our approach to science and innovation. Unfortunately, the status quo is not working. We have great scientists and innovators, but we as a Government must ensure that taxpayer money is being spent wisely and creating benefits for the economy. This advisory group will address these issues and provide us with advice.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will the Science System Advisory Group tie in with the University Advisory Group?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, we understand the critical link between our universities and science and the Crown research institutes. For too long, these sectors have not had the synergy required and have been disjointed in the way that they operate. It is critical that we get these two sectors working in conjunction with each other to ensure that we can turn research excellence into global impact. And while the two advisory groups will operate separately, having the same chair of each group will ensure that any changes made can benefit both science and higher-education sectors.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What goals does she have for the portfolio?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: So many goals, but right now there are real opportunities for New Zealand in areas of emerging and existing research, such as space and aerospace, biotechnology, quantum technology, advanced materials and medical technology, alongside other areas of strength and high potential. But commercialisation is essential to the success of science, innovation, and technology, and the Government will support more partnerships between the public and private sectors to see better outcomes from the amazing science research being done in New Zealand. We will also deliver on our election promise of establishing a dedicated gene technology regulator, investigating changes to employee stock ownership plan taxation, and delivering tech visas to get the best talent to New Zealand.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: How much will Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s Science System Advisory Group review and reports cost?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you very much for that question. I’ve had a look at that and it’s actually about just over $400,000 for the entire system—which is pretty amazing, considering that was pretty much what one Government agency might have spent on gifts for its outgoing CEO.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: How is this not a waste of the time and effort put in by the science sector in fully documenting the issues in the sector and developing a plan which was contained in the 2022 Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways White Paper?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, thank you so much again for that question. That Te Ara Paerangi was, frankly, a waste of paper. In fact, the forestry people should have taken back the money. It was really a shame, because I was looking for something that didn’t just say, “Oh, everything’s going really well and we just keep doing a bit more of it.”—nothing in there about where we need to be. So that was a waste of space. This is actually about getting things done. And unlike a previous Minister in this role, I actually get stuff done.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Which Minister in the Government has primary responsibility for delivering 500 police officers within two years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Myself, as the police Minister.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did his office inform the New Zealand Herald that Casey Costello holds—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just start again. There will be silence when people ask a question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did his office inform the New Zealand Herald that Casey Costello holds responsibility for delivering 500 in two years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because the Hon Casey Costello is my associate, and she is assisting me as part of her delegation in the delivery of the 500, and I think it’s a fair recognition of her that the last 1,800 was a great New Zealand First policy and the next 500 is another great New Zealand First policy.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he confirm and put on the record that the response his office gave to the New Zealand Herald—that Casey Costello held primary responsibility for delivering the 500 in two years—was incorrect and false?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think the member is getting a bit hung up on the word “primary”—[Interruption] I can assure her that myself and my very competent associate will be working together to deliver the 500 police officers over the next two years.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister how long did it take him to authenticate that they’re not 1,800 but that the 2,338 extra police officers was, in fact, New Zealand First work and not Labour’s, as they claimed?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that’s a very good question. Labour claimed New Zealand First policy of 1,800 additional police officers—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know where you’re going to go. Just make your point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question in itself, it is questionable whether that was in order—whether there is ministerial responsibility on which party claimed success for what, and whether that is accurate or not clearly isn’t the responsibility of the police Minister. And, immediately upon attempting to answer it, it was straight into—against the ruling that you made to this House just earlier this week.

SPEAKER: That’s right, but the question, though, was in order, because it asked him about how long it had taken him to assess, which is not an unreasonable question. Words matter, if I may quote one of your former colleagues. And, on the answer, it’s not appropriate to start out with an attack on a previous Government, but it is OK to reflect upon the content of the question.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: It didn’t take me very long at all to understand who was responsible for the policy around the 1,800 additional police officers for our police service, and it didn’t take me long to understand and work out that, in fact, they only delivered 1,500 because 300 were authorised officers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Police advice, released under the Official Information Act, that retaining non-sworn staff will be important and necessary in order to deliver 500 police within two years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I agree. Non-sworn staff have a critically important role to play in the Police.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he commit to not cutting or reducing any non-sworn roles within Police this financial year and next financial year in order to enable police to deliver a 6.5 percent cut and also make sure the 500 are delivered?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, firstly, it’s not a 6.5 percent cut. As an incoming Government, it became obvious—although we had very clear ideas—that the previous Government has left a shambles behind. You are economic—or the previous Government are economic vandals.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You can’t say “you”, Mark. Learn the rules.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the previous Government—Megan Woods might get upset about it, but the fact of the matter is you’ve been economic vandals. The books are a shambles, so what we’ve had to do as the incoming Government—and we’ve been very clear. We’ve been very clear with our chief executives, including the commissioner, as we’ve asked him to go and look for where there are savings, because the country accepts the fact that, under the previous Government, there has been a bloated bureaucracy, an enormous amount of investment, not much to show for it, and, actually, we are being responsible with taxpayers’ money. Now, in terms of the Police, we’re being very clear that we’re going to be focused on delivering stronger, better front-line services that actually provide better services to the members of the public, as they should expect.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister going to take, and has he been advised to take, a very practical, common-sense, experienced view to his administration rather than dreaming the pie-in-the-sky stuff?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Good question. Yes—

SPEAKER: It should be a very brief answer, I think.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Good. That’s enough. Well done.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is it true that Winston Peters called you and asked you to take back the responsibility and not delegate it?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That is absolutely not true.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, if we’re going to have people getting up and talking about how this House should be run in question time, asking a question without any authority or any record or any authenticity is just plain outside of the Standing Orders. And, therefore, I’m raising a point of order to ask her to apologise for that.

SPEAKER: Well, given the tenor of the day, that is probably—well, hang on a minute.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I beg your pardon?

SPEAKER: No, hold on—wait on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I want two apologies now.

SPEAKER: Well, I tell you we’d be here all day apologising if every member wanted to be apologised to. Can I just say, while the question itself might have been wide, it is in line with the opening question, which was: does he stand by all his statements and actions? So the question is OK.

Question No. 9—Building and Construction

9. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has he made on removing red tape in the building system?

Today, I announced that the Government is cutting all that dam red tape. [Interruption] Thank you. Arguments in favour of retaining existing settings simply do not hold water. Dam safety regulations imposed by the previous Government are set to come into force on 13 May, but farmers and growers have warned us about the downstream effects, which include an unreasonable amount of compliance cost for the relatively low risk posed by small dams that are used in farms across New Zealand for water storage. This week, the coalition Government has agreed to raise the height threshold of the dams caught by regulations from 1 metre to 4 metres.

James Meager: What impact will these changes have?

Hon CHRIS PENK: These changes will mean around 1,900 fewer dams will be impacted by the new regulations, reducing compliance costs by more than $13.3 million. It will also better align dam safety regulations with the requirement for dams over 4 metres to also have a building consent. This higher threshold strikes a balance between managing risk while easing the regulatory burden faced by owners of smaller dams, such as farmers and growers.

James Meager: What feedback has he received on these changes from regional New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The feedback’s been extremely positive. By extraordinary coincidence, it was from the member’s very own electorate of the mighty Rangitata that we have heard farmers saying that they were attempting to comply with the regulations at the cost of some $5,000 each, not to mention the additional ongoing compliance burden and administrative costs. On-farm water storage is crucial for supporting greater resilience, particularly with the impact of extreme weather events such as droughts. Rather than making life harder for rural New Zealand, this Government is making it easier.

James Meager: Is the Government planning on making more announcements on removing building red tape?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Why, yes; this Government is focused on reducing costs and removing unnecessary red tape so that we can get the economy back on track. You can expect to hear a lot more on how the coalition Government is going to remove unnecessary regulations that are merely adding costs and getting in the way of Kiwis trying to build.

Question No. 10—Oceans and Fisheries

10. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Āe.

Steve Abel: Does he stand by his statements that the fishing industry “deserve respect”, and that he would “stand up for people who regard fisheries as part of their birthright”, and does he therefore share the opposition of fishers to seabed mining, that totally destroys the seabed with flow-on impacts to fisheries?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’ve gone from the champion of the provinces to the leader, the leading politician, who is going to ensure that the fishing industry is not demonised or driven out of existence by stupid Green policies.

Steve Abel: I have a point of order on that response, please.The question was quite specifically about whether he shared the opposition of fishers to seabed mining, that totally destroys the seabed with flow-on impacts to fisheries.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think have another crack at that.

Hon SHANE JONES: Point of order. That question had multiple limbs, and I responded to one of those limbs relating to my status as the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. I repeat again: the answer that I’ve given adequately covered one of the limbs of what was an octopus-like question.

Steve Abel: When meeting with mining lobbyists Straterra on 23 January, on the resources and associate energy portfolio, did he, in his capacity as fisheries Minister, communicate the longstanding opposition of the fishing industry to seabed mining?

Hon Judith Collins: You can’t have questions across portfolios.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You can’t do that.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s right. Just try again to get it inside the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries portfolio.

Steve Abel: OK. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on—we don’t talk while there’s a question being asked, or about to be.

Steve Abel: Does the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries share the opposition of fishers to seabed mining that totally destroys the seabed with flow-on impacts to fisheries?

Hon SHANE JONES: There are some apocryphal, unbounded, dangerous assertions in that question. The processes that are in play pertaining to applicants seeking to gain access to the half a trillion dollars’ worth of wealth on the bed of the sea are entitled to go through that process. That is shared space enjoyed also by quota owners.

Steve Abel: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe he answered the question which was specifically about whether he shared the opposition of the fishing industry to seabed mining.

SPEAKER: Well, look, I think it is one of those that I spoke of earlier. If you have a look at a Speaker’s ruling I’m leaning heavily on today—it’s 207/2. I think, in consideration of that, the Minister has addressed the question. Ask another supplementary.

Steve Abel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the decision to cancel progress of the Kermadec sanctuary, did he consult with interested and impacted iwis, such as Ngāti Kuri, before making this decision?

Hon SHANE JONES: The decision that the member refers to is a decision of the Cabinet. In terms of talking to the associated iwi, it may involve me talking to myself. That is a decision endorsed by the entirety of the Cabinet, and it reflects the fact that nothing in the Kermadecs will change as a consequence of the overdue decision today, whether it’s noddies on land or pufferfish at the sea.

SPEAKER: We move now to question No. 11—

Steve Abel: Point of order. I think I have one more supplementary, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, my apologies, sorry. I thought your leaning back was satisfaction with the answer.

Steve Abel: It may have been in amazement. But I do have a supplementary, please.

SPEAKER: Steve Abel.

Steve Abel: Does he support the view of the International Seabed Authority that it strongly recommends a pause on seabed mining until there is a clear understanding of the impacts that the industry may have on the marine environment, its living resources, and those dependent on them?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, within our domestic jurisdiction, there are opportunities to excavate, extract, and take rare earth seabed minerals necessary for the climate change journey. There is also the New Zealand involvement in a working group, under the UN, dealing with high-seas international waters mining. The latter does not drive the former.

Question No. 11—Environment

11. to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she regret that the Minister for the Environment is not listed as a decision-making Minister in the Fast-track Approvals Bill when those decision-making Ministers can override Resource Management Act prohibited activities?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she regret that the Minister and the Ministry for the Environment have not been involved in work to extend marine consents by 25 years under the Resource Management Act?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she regret contacting the Otago Regional Council to slow down its water plan to improve water quality?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I contacted the Otago Regional Council to release them from the obligation that had been placed on them by the previous Minister for the Environment, to ensure that I extended the date for their statutory deadline for notifying their freshwater planning instrument so that it was in line with all other councils.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she regret the potential for extended marine protection today being taken off the table for the Kermadec Islands?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Kermadec Islands have already got a considerable amount of protection and I’ll list it for the member: there is a marine reserve around each Kermadec island out to 12 nautical miles, there are regulations prohibiting bottom trawling, there is a minerals reservation—prevents new mining permits, and there are a range of marine wildlife regulations. There are already a range of protections in place.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she regret accepting the environment portfolio when she is powerless to protect the environment?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I reject that assertion.

Question No. 12—Mental Health

12. Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau to the Minister for Mental Health: What is his response to the rate of suspected suicide which, according to Te Whatu Ora’s data for 2022, is 51.9 per 100,000 for Māori males aged 25-44 years compared to 16.4 per 100,000 for non-Māori males?

on behalf of the Minister for Mental Health: I can respond that any loss of a young life is an unspeakable tragedy. The suicide rates in New Zealand are unacceptably high and disproportionately affect some groups in New Zealand, including Māori men. That’s why this coalition Government is so focused on improving access to mental health.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What evidence-based initiatives that specifically address suicide rates is the Minister considering in the next five-year Suicide Prevention Action Plan, and how will these address the disparities of suicide rates between Māori and non-Māori?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The work on the next Suicide Prevention Action Plan has just started to set the direction of priorities and clear owners and accountability for the five-year period. This coalition Government is committed to reducing suicide rates in New Zealand. That’s why we’ve established the first mental health portfolio. As Minister for Mental Health, this role will bring a clear focus for mental health and addiction and suicide prevention for all New Zealanders. We’re working with our coalition partners to fund front-line services such as Gumboot Friday and the I Am Hope charity. This Government is also working to establish the mental health innovation fund to increase access to mental health services in this term of Government.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What procurement process, therefore, was used for the I Am Hope trust to receive $6 million of public money?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I do not have that information to hand. I am sure the Minister will be able to respond in writing.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Therefore, has the I Am Hope trust, who provide free counselling in schools, made a different to the inequity of youth suicide rates between Māori and non-Māori, which was 34.1 per 100,000 for rangatahi Māori compared to 16.9 for non-Māori youth?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I am unable to provide that specific information, but if the member would put it in a written question, I am sure the Minister could respond.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What Māori-specific initiatives is the Minister funding with regard to suicide prevention?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I have stated before, the coalition Government is committed to reducing suicide rates in New Zealand and better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. This is why we are focused on committing delivering of services close to home and as close to hapū as possible.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Fortunately, Māori are New Zealanders, which is a good thing. Does the Minister accept therefore—[Interruption] I was purely responding to the “all New Zealanders” comment, excuse me, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: We’re going to do all of that again because there is too much noise. And no little commentary at the start would be most in order.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister accept that colonisation and racism are a leading contributor to high suicide rates for Māori?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I cannot speak for the Minister himself, but, no, I don’t accept that assertion.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his view on the impacts of statements by Government Ministers that marginalise rangatahi from their whakapapa, such as comparing Māori and Pasifika spaces to apartheid and segregation, on the mental health of rangatahi?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I reject the assertion in that question. I will state again: we’ve said we will bring healthcare for all New Zealanders closer to home and closer to community. This will serve Māori and non-Māori well.

SPEAKER: I’ll just make the point, too, that that last supplementary was quite a distance from the primary, which as a supplementary we tend not to do.