Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Disability Issues?

Yes, I do, and the Minister has a very important job to do, fixing a system that is, frankly, not fit for purpose which she inherited from that member’s previous Government, and I am confident she’s going to do exactly that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: On what date did either Penny Simmonds or her office inform his office that Whaikaha had changed entitlements to disability support services and respite care?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I found out when it was released in the media.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who made the decision to remove Penny Simmonds’ ability to make decisions around disability support funding or criteria without Cabinet sign-off?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is not what’s happened. All that we have said is that we expect major changes to front-line services across a range of portfolios that impact New Zealanders to be brought to Cabinet for a good discussion.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, was Nicola Willis incorrect when she said, “We’ve also directed, as a Cabinet, that any further decisions that the ministry makes about changing its criteria, its funding, needs to be properly consulted, properly sequenced. It needs to go [before] Cabinet before it’s enacted.”; if so, who made that decision?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is correct, but we expect all Cabinet Ministers to bring forward issues in their portfolios when they’re making significant changes to the front line for discussion in Cabinet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why didn’t Penny Simmonds do that before changing those criteria?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As we have said, she didn’t bring it to Cabinet, and as a result there was no Cabinet discussion. That is something the Minister has apologised for, and she will do going forward.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should the New Zealand public have confidence in the Minister for Disability Issues when he has, effectively, removed decision-making delegations from her?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. All we’re saying is that all Ministers, on their portfolios, need to bring forward to Cabinet conversations around any changes to front-line services that are major and significant and that will impact New Zealanders. That didn’t happen in this case. The Minister has admitted that up front, has learnt from that experience, and we’re moving forward.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he commit to restoring full eligibility for carers in disability communities now that the responsibility for that has been taken off the Minister for Disability Issues?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh look, that is a mischaracterisation of the situation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether his Government is going to be guided by what may be described as the Roosevelt principle: that we’ll try our hardest but we may not always get it right, but we’ll keep on trying, rather than saying that we’re perfect, never apologise, and say that we’re the podium of truth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think that’s right. I think when Ministers make mistakes, they admit them, and then they learn from them and they move forward. But what I’d say to you is important is that this is a Minister that is actually making sure there is more money going in this year than there was last year under that previous Government, and—importantly—in Budget 2024, there’ll be even more money in place for people who need the disabled support and resource they need.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe the Minister for Disability Issues’ claim that “since 2018, the number of people accessing disability supports has increased by around 50 percent compared to population growth of 8.5 percent” is a sign that too many people are claiming disability support?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say is what we have is a Minister who is actually ensuring there’s more money going in this year, over and above the Budget that the previous Government left us, and, importantly, is making sure there is more money going into Budget 2024. There is a review of disability services to make sure that, actually, money being spent has actually been going to disabled people to get the support and the resource they need. That’s a good thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether he felt that the Minister’s characterisation that the growth of around 50 percent in disability support compared to 8.5 percent over the same period was a sign that too many people are claiming disability support. The Prime Minister hasn’t even come close to addressing that.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s true, but the Speaker is not the adjudicator of the answers, as you’ll be aware from your deep understanding of the Standing Orders, and I’m not—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You might not be the adjudicator of the answers, but you do have to ensure the Ministers address the question that was asked.

SPEAKER: Well, that is true and I think he did address it, and, in the end, that’s where it lies.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made on the Budget?

Earlier today, I released the Budget Policy Statement 2024. The Public Finance Act requires such a statement to be presented to the House each year. It contains the goals and objectives that will guide the Government’s decisions in the forthcoming Budget and it sets out the Government’s short-term fiscal intentions and long-term fiscal objectives. And, yes, I can confirm that the operating allowance will be less than that left to us in the half-year update.

Rima Nakhle: What will be in this year’s Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Members will have to wait until Budget day—30 May—and I’m so glad that they’re anticipating so eagerly to see the details of this year’s Budget. But in terms of the broad parameters—

Hon David Parker: You asked that question yourself—it wasn’t us.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —I can tell members that there will be personal income tax relief in the Budget. This tax relief—and Mr Parker will be pleased to hear this—will be funded from within the operating allowance, and the operating allowance will be less than the $3.5 billion allowance indicated in the half-year update. This means the Government will not be borrowing extra to pay for tax relief, and it means tax relief will not be adding to inflationary pressures.

Rima Nakhle: What else will be in this year’s Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Tax relief is just one part of Budget 2024. The Budget will also have a strong focus on public services. Spending on front-line services will be reprioritised, despite some people practically fainting at the thought that the Government could do things differently and more effectively, and the Budget will deliver on Government policy commitments, including many of those in the coalition agreements.

Rima Nakhle: What are the Government’s fiscal intentions and objectives?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As set out in the Budget Policy Statement, the Government’s fiscal strategy is to return to surplus, get debt going down rather than going up, as it has been over the last five years—and as some members opposite want to continue to see it do—and it will reduce Government spending as a proportion of the overall economy. The legacy we inherited of elevated, lazy spending will take several Budgets to fix, but the first steps will be taken in Budget 2024.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government’s policies and actions?

Yes, and especially today’s Budget Policy Statement (BPS), which is setting out the coalition Government’s Budget priorities, and they are to deliver meaningful tax relief to low and middle income working New Zealanders, to identify enduring savings, to improve public services, to keep tight control of Government spending while funding high-priority initiatives and urgent cost pressures, and to develop a long-term, sustainable pipeline of infrastructure investments. The BPS charts, I think, a moderate, responsible course correction for New Zealand which will support New Zealanders struggling with a cost of living crisis.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by the Government’s decision to only increase the minimum wage by 2 percent when inflation is at 4.7 percent, which is a cut to the minimum wage in real terms?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. What I support, though, is actually growing our economy and making sure that we do everything we can to end the wasteful spending so we can protect front-line services, doing everything we can to give tax relief to low and middle income working families, and to make sure that we have growth in our economy. That’s what we’re focused on.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the fact that this effective cut to the minimum wage will increase child poverty rates, given that 64 percent of families in poverty are in work?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. The real opportunity for New Zealand is to grow our economy. Our economy, for four of the last five quarters, has been shrinking and been in recession. We need to grow our economy. That’s how we get to lift wages for all and get people out of a cost of living crisis.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How are workers meant to keep up with rising food and rent costs when the Government is cutting their wages in real terms?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what they need is a Government that’s going to have responsible financial management, rather than an 84 percent increase in Government spending, which drove up domestic inflation, which drove up interest rates, which put the economy into shrinking, into recession, and creates a rising risk of unemployment. We need to deal with the underlying cause, which is inflation; get spending under control; bring inflation down; get interest rates down; get the economy growing; and keep people in employment.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he commit to delivering annual increases to the minimum wage that keep up with rising costs—

Hon Willie Jackson: No.

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: —to ensure workers—

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: —have a livable income—

SPEAKER: Hang on—just wait on. Can you start that again? Someone over there made a comment. That’s quite unnecessary during the middle of a question. Please start the question again, and we will have people hearing the question in silence.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia ora. Will he commit to delivering annual increases to the minimum wage that keep up with rising costs to ensure workers have a livable income to support their w’ānau; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we are committing to is FamilyBoost, which is a programme to give 100,000 low and middle income working families some relief so that they can put that towards their early childhood education centre costs, and we’re also committing to tax relief for low and middle income workers—a group, frankly, that the Labour Party and Te Pāti Māori used to care deeply about.

Question No. 4—Disability Issues

4. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: When she told this House last week that carers have been able to spend on “such things for themselves as pedicures, as massages, as overseas travel”, what evidence or data does she have to base that statement on?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I had a paper that was given to me by Whaikaha in February which noted, from providers, that the fund had been used for such expenses. I didn’t make any insinuation that those would be inappropriate; that was just stating what the fund had been used for at that time.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does—

Hon Members: Table it.

SPEAKER: Well, when your own team’s quiet, then go ahead.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister quoted from a document. Will she table that document?

SPEAKER: No, you can ask the Minister if she is quoting from a document that she has in her possession in the House. If it’s here and she’s relying on it, then perhaps you could ask that question. Other than that—do you have the document with you?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No.

SPEAKER: OK. That’s the end of that.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Supplementary, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yep, just wait for your own colleagues. Away you go.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she agree with her office, who told Newshub that they didn’t have any numbers but that the Minister had heard it anecdotally, and, if so, does this Minister make policy decisions based on hearsay?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No, I don’t make policy decisions based on hearsay. I had a paper from Whaikaha which indicated that providers had stated the fund was being used for such purposes.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she accept that her statements and actions haven’t been evidence-based and have led to disability communities losing trust in her as their Minister and to the Prime Minister stripping her of her major decision-making ability in this portfolio and giving it to Cabinet?

SPEAKER: Just a minute. All members in this House should be taken at their word, and what I heard the Prime Minister say earlier was that there has been no stripping of responsibility; there’s been what appeared to be a return to normal practice. So I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she accept, based on what her office has told Newshub, that her statements and actions haven’t been based on evidence and they have led to disability communities writing in droves, saying that they have lost their trust in her, and to the Prime Minister saying that Cabinet will be making major decisions on her behalf?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No, I have not been making decisions on hearsay. I had a paper from Whaikaha that outlined, from providers, what the spending had been spent on. Thank you.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What is the point of her remaining as the Minister for Disability Issues if Cabinet is now chaperoning all her decisions in this portfolio—

SPEAKER: No.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: —and the very communities—

SPEAKER: Sorry, no.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: —that she claims to represent—

SPEAKER: Sorry—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: —no longer have confidence in her?

SPEAKER: Sorry, look—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: The member should know the system of Government we have in New Zealand. There is Cabinet collective responsibility for all Government decisions, so that question is not in line with even our system here, let alone in order for the House. Have another try, at no loss to the party’s allocation.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What is the point of her remaining as the Minister for Disability Issues, given that there’s been reporting that she will not be making major decisions in her portfolio—

SPEAKER: No, no. See, that—look, I’m sorry, you can’t do this: you can’t infer something that is not correct. No Minister makes decisions outright on matters like this. There would always be a Cabinet paper, and—[Interruption] I’m still ruling. There will always be a Cabinet paper, so just think about how you’d ask that question—it is possible.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was trying before—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, I was first.

SPEAKER: No, he was trying before, which—frankly, I shut him down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You’ll never be first from now on!

SPEAKER: Sorry, can you say it so that I can hear it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point is very specific. You’ve got members of Parliament getting up there and then statements which they cannot in any way justify, verify, or authenticate, they’re putting it in as part of their question over and over, day in, day out, and that is not the standard of this House and it should be restored to what it used to be.

SPEAKER: And that is what I ruled on right at the start of question time, and I’m just gently taking the Parliament to that place. So I’ll hear the point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Two things on your ruling, Mr Speaker. The first is that it’s actually incorrect. The Cabinet Manual does not require Ministers to consult Cabinet on every decision that they make. In fact, the Prime Minister determines which—[Interruption]. It’s a point of order—it’s a point of order. The Prime Minister determines which decisions they want the Cabinet to be consulted on or not, so that is absolutely a legitimate question. The second of which is a member claiming in their question something that has been reported is an absolutely legitimate thing to do in a question. The Minister can disagree with the reporting, but actually claiming that it has been reported is not out of order and is in keeping with past practice in the House for the entire time that I have been here.

SPEAKER: Well, two things. The first thing is I’m perhaps a victim of my own experience, which would suggest that if a Minister is going to be making changes to the expenses or incurring greater expense than the Budget has allowed, then they would normally take that to Cabinet. I’m not going to argue with you over that. On the issue of how the answer has been given, Speaker’s ruling 207/3 probably helps me get to the position I have, as does Speaker’s ruling 207/4—and you could go right through it. Some of these, I admit, are a little bit conflicting, but I am trying to get to a point where we have a question time that does elicit information and gets it. So would the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan like to ask that question again with a little bit of a different focus?

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Sure. What is the point of her remaining as the Minister for Disability Issues, given that she has lost the confidence of the very communities that she represents in Government and has made statements about carers that her office has confirmed were based on anecdote, and, if so, will she resign?

SPEAKER: It just takes time, but, sooner or later, we get there.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: First of all, I will confirm that my decisions weren’t based on hearsay; they were based on a paper that was given to me by Whaikaha. Secondly, I won’t resign, because I have inherited a situation where Whaikaha have a budget set by the previous Government that was insufficient for the settings that were in place, and so additional funding has had to be given to ensure they can get through the end of this year. A review will be undertaken to put in place the systems, the processes, the settings that should have been put in place by that Government when they set the ministry up.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about assisting New Zealanders who need to travel to receive health treatment?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the coalition Government announced an $18 million boost for New Zealanders that have to travel for health treatment. These changes are long overdue for the national travel assistance (NTA) scheme, with its last increase to mileage and accommodation rates back in 2009. During this time, the scheme has been plagued by bureaucratic claiming processes and local variations that have seen families who couldn’t afford the upfront costs of treatment having to delay their treatment or choose less-effective options. This needed addressing, and this boost will help to remove those barriers.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why was it a priority to boost funding for this scheme?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: New Zealanders have endured a prolonged cost of living crisis, making it more difficult for those who need to travel for health treatment. We know that the NTA provides critical financial assistance for those who need to travel for treatments relating to cancer, renal dialysis, diagnostics, and other complex care that can’t be provided locally. It is important that we support this group of New Zealanders with increased assistance during their time of need.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What changes to the scheme will New Zealanders see?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Those who claim the NTA will see significant changes. This boost allows for increased mileage and accommodation rates, easier prepayment and claiming options, changes to eligibility in order to better target those in need, and better promotion and awareness of the scheme. We expect that around 4,500 extra New Zealanders will benefit from this boost.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will this announcement ease the cost of living challenges for those who need to travel for treatment?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This boost will see the mileage rates rise from 28c to 34c a kilometre, and the nightly accommodation rate change from $100 to $140 a night. More flexible payment options, including prepayment and the ability to do more online, will also be piloted and phased in. While some districts offer prepayment options, most whānau currently need to fill out paper-based forms to seek reimbursement. For many, this has been a challenge. We will support them with this boost.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement earlier today that in Budget 2024, this Government’s spending will be targeted, effective, and within our means.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Did she confirm to reporters yesterday that Cabinet had approved additional funding for Whaikaha until the end of the financial year; if so, how much money was pre-committed against Budget 2024 for that purpose?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and that figure is Budget-sensitive, so I won’t be releasing it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that Whaikaha will “get vast orders of magnitude more in additional funding for front-line services”; if so, why was the additional funding allocated not enough to reverse the significant eligibility changes that her Government made without any warning or consultation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have repeatedly confirmed in this House and elsewhere that in our Budget, more funding to provide front-line support to people with disabilities will be a priority, and that member is now asking me to comment on issues that are a matter for the Minister for Disability Issues and that are matters that that member should put on notice.

Hon Shane Jones: Kia kaha for Whaikaha—kia kaha.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary. Will the “vast orders of”—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute—hang on. Wait on. [Interruption] Yeah, quite right—I don’t know who it was either.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will the “vast orders of magnitude more” funding she has promised be sufficient to reinstate funding for respite care; if so, why is she making carers wait until 1 July when she has already committed to more funding?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have made myself clear already, and so I’ll make it even simpler: we will be increasing funding for disability services in our Budget because we view it as a priority front-line service, and if the member has detailed questions about ministerial decisions relating to that service, she should put those questions to the Minister responsible.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why won’t she finalise her commitment to provide “vast orders of magnitude more in additional funding” now and end the significant distress her Government’s changes have caused, or are Budget pre-commitments only prioritised for residential property investors?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there’s a couple of problems with that statement from the member, which actually are similar to her last supplementary question yesterday, where she also paraphrased things quite inaccurately. Actually, what I had said in relation to vast orders of magnitude was that the additional funding going in would be vast orders of magnitude more than the savings that were being asked for, and then the second part of her question made another false assertion. Just this week, the Government announced significant new money—hundreds of millions of dollars—to ensure that low and middle income families with young children get more money in their bank accounts with our FamilyBoost childcare policy. That’s a priority for us. This is a Government that understands working people have done it tough for too long with the prolonged cost of living crisis that the previous Government presided over. Our Budget will make sure that they get relief in their bank accounts and back pockets, that we target additional spending carefully to the services they rely on, and that we won’t waste it like the people opposite did.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What recent reports has he seen on the Brynderwyn Hills?

Well, good news for Northland: State Highway 1 across the Brynderwyns will open tonight until 2 April, for the Easter weekend, with work currently under way to ensure the resilience of this critical route being paused to allow holidaymakers to travel north. As Kiwis prepare their travel plans for Easter, the coalition Government is encouraging New Zealanders to support, visit, and explore Northland, as the region is open for business.

Grant McCallum: Why is this work happening on the Brynderwyns?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Weather events last year caused severe under and over slips on State Highway 1 at the Brynderwyn Hills. The recovery works the New Zealand Transport Agency is undertaking will increase the resilience of this critical route to ensure that it is able to withstand future weather events. But the reality is that this work will only buy a certain period of time and resilience, and long-term planning is also needed. Hence why the coalition Government has listed the alternative Brynderwyns as a road of national significance in the Government policy statement.

Grant McCallum: How is this work progressing?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I was up there yesterday with the good member of Parliament for Northland and seeing excellent progress has been made. Already, 113,000 cubic metres of dirt has been moved of the 145,000 cubic metres which need to be moved, and there is more work to be done. It will be open over Easter and completed in May. This is great progress.

Grant McCallum: What will the reopening mean for local businesses and residents?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The temporary opening over Easter will mean that people travelling to and from Northland will be able to use the Brynderwyns without having to use the alternative route. This is great news for the Northland economy but also, at the same time, the temporary closure has allowed this work to be done at pace so that this important State highway can be brought back to a more resilient standard.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context they were given.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his answer to me at question time yesterday that “what we are interested in is actually delivering on our climate … goals”, and, if so, how does he intend to do that when his Government has axed the just transitions unit and emissions reductions jobs at the Ministry for Primary Industries?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are deeply committed on delivering our net carbon zero 2050 goals, and one of the ways we’re going to do that is doubling the amount of renewable electricity in this country.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How many climate change jobs is the Prime Minister comfortable with his Government axing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I want to make sure that there are more jobs for people in the New Zealand economy, and what we’re doing is wanting to grow our economy. One of the ways we do that is by introducing fast-track consenting.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has his Government paused the appointment processes for the independent Climate Change Commission?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s something that I’m not aware of.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table an Official Information Act request response from the Minister of Climate Change.

SPEAKER: Is it widely available?

Chlöe Swarbrick: No.

SPEAKER: Has it been released on the website of the organisation it came from?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’m not aware of that, Mr Speaker. All right, supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, the House will make its own decision. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? The member can table it.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: For the benefit of the country and the House and the member asking the question, could the Prime Minister tell us: what on earth would a climate change job be?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not sure. I’m really just interested in jobs.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no reductions in funding for the independent Climate Change Commission?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can guarantee is that this is a Government that is working incredibly hard to deliver on our climate change commitments. That is what we’re doing. We’re also a Government that’s determined to grow our economy and deliver on our climate change commitments. We can do both those things at the same time.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So is the Prime Minister there saying that he cannot or he will not commit to reductions in spending for the independent Climate Change Commission?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we’re interested in is making sure that spending is delivering on lowering our emissions and spending is delivering a growing economy—that’s what our Government is fixated on.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, I do stand by my statements. I especially stand by the statements I recently made in my speech to the Auckland Business Chamber outlining my priorities in the workplace relations and safety portfolio. My priorities to simplify and improve the Holidays Act, increase certainty for those in contracting relationships, reform health and safety, and put in place measures for the performance of front-line services will help increase labour market flexibility and improve business confidence, and I believe that these moves will be positive steps for both businesses and workers.

Camilla Belich: Why did she decide—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on. There are a lot of commentators in the House; we just need one questioner.

Camilla Belich: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why did she decide not to continue the all-of-Government response to Gloriavale Christian Community in December last year?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My understanding is that Ministers across Government will work in their respective portfolios with Gloriavale. Within the workplace relations and safety portfolio, the labour inspectorate is continuing work with Gloriavale, and I understand that other Ministers, where it’s related to their portfolios, will also uphold those roles. However, it’s not necessary to have more bureaucracy for us to have an overview of what is happening in Gloriavale.

Camilla Belich: How will she ensure the important work of the all-of-Government group continues—namely, that members of the Gloriavale community can work without threat of penalty, receive their minimum legal entitlements, and not face avoidable serious harm, and that those that wish to leave Gloriavale can leave freely, with appropriate support?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I will respond in the area that I am responsible for. My understanding is that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, within the labour inspectorate, have worked in the past with Gloriavale to make sure Gloriavale are aware of the minimum entitlements and obligations under the Employment Relations Act, and they continue to do so.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How will the Minister ensure that the rights of children at Gloriavale will be upheld and protected, given the disestablishment of the Gloriavale - West Coast Stakeholder Group?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Once again, in the area that I am responsible for, which is employment law under workplace relations and safety, I will speak to the fact that I’m aware that the labour inspectorate has done work to ensure that Gloriavale are working to uphold minimum standards, and I’m advised that they will continue to do so without the all-of-Government approach.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The all-of-Government group that we’ve just referred to previously reported to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The current Minister has disestablished it and is now refusing to answer broader questions about the work of that group on the basis that she is only responsible for the workplace—basically, the labour component of that. The Minister was previously responsible for the totality of that work and was, therefore, the answerable Minister to the Parliament. The Minister disestablished the group and, therefore, is being asked what she has done to ensure, in making the decision to disestablish the group, that that work is continuing. Her refusing to answer them on the basis that she’s not responsible for them can’t stand. It was her decision to disestablish the group.

SPEAKER: I’m not sure that the question was asked quite so specifically as to get past that point. Clearly, the Minister doesn’t have responsibility for something that’s disestablished, other than the disestablishment. So I’ll ask the Hon Willow-Jean Prime to ask the question again, with no loss to the Labour Party.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure. The question was: how will the Minister ensure that the rights of children at Gloriavale will be upheld and protected, given the disestablishment of the Gloriavale - West Coast Stakeholder Group?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you very much for the question. Look, my understanding is that it’s very important for us to ensure that members of any group understand their rights and their obligations under the law, and I would expect that across New Zealand. But within Gloriavale, I am aware that the Minister for Education, for example, has members within the education portfolio working with Gloriavale to ensure that education standards are upheld. I am also aware that the Minister for community and social development has members of her officials who are working to ensure that members who leave the group also have support, and within my purview, which is workplace relations and safety, the labour inspectorate is continuing to do work to make sure that the rights of workers are upheld under the minimum standards that we expect of all people across New Zealand. It is not necessary for there to be added bureaucracy to ensure that all of these relations can happen within their respective purviews.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she advocate in Cabinet to ensure that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is adequately resourced to work with other Government agencies to protect children at Gloriavale, and, if so, how will they be coordinated?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I believe I’ve addressed the question—that I don’t believe that added bureaucracy is necessary to ensure the safety of children within Gloriavale. There are specific areas of law where every one of my Cabinet colleagues who has an area of specific interest for Gloriavale and the rights of children will be working to uphold that within their own agencies.

Question No. 10—Space

10. to the Minister for Space: What recent announcement has she made in her Space portfolio?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There’s so much excitement, isn’t there?

SPEAKER: At least start with a little bit of reasonable behaviour.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Wait till they’re calm—thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced the establishment of the Prime Minister’s two new Prizes for Space. These will be annual awards to recognise the innovative and rising talent in New Zealand’s growing space sector. There will be two prizes: one prize of $100,000 will be awarded to someone who has demonstrated outstanding achievement and contribution to the New Zealand space sector, and a further prize will be awarded to a student in years 12 or 13 and the inaugural winner will receive a trip to visit Rocket Lab space facilities both here in New Zealand and in the United States. Space is a vast field with huge potential for the New Zealand economy. Encouraging young people into this exciting area is good for them and it’s good for the country and, by the way, the world.

Sam Uffindell: How will this stimulate growth in the sector?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What an excellent question. These awards raise the profile and prestige of the New Zealand space sector. They showcase the high-calibre individuals working in our space sector, including academic researchers and industry professionals, and they will inspire the next generation of innovative and talented people to pursue a career in space. There is a great opportunity for New Zealand to capture an even larger share of a sector projected to reach—and wait for this—US$1 trillion by 2040.

Sam Uffindell: How does this announcement tie in with other recent announcements she has made?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, yesterday’s announcement is just one announcement among others that I have made to show our commitment and aspiration for space. On 31 January, I welcomed an agreement with Australia that will benefit New Zealand researchers to participate in collaborative research projects through Australia’s SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre; on 5 March, together with the climate change Minister, the Hon Simon Watts, I welcomed the successful launch of MethaneSAT, a state-of-the-art satellite designed to accurately detect methane emissions and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change; and just last week, we announced New Zealand’s research being sent to the International Space Station. It’s so exciting.

Sam Uffindell: What is her vision for the portfolio?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I want to see space and aerospace as key contributors to New Zealand’s economy, active participation across manufacturing, spacecraft being launched, and the use of aerospace-enabled data, all supported by a robust regulatory regime that keeps pace with innovation. Next month, I will attend the Space Symposium in Colorado, which will provide an opportunity to hear from representatives of the international space community, and you can be sure I will be promoting New Zealand’s space sector to everyone.

SPEAKER: From—sorry, I’m just composing myself. I was tempted to make a comment, but I won’t—well, I will. So is it from “Crusher” to “Rocket” now, or how’s it going to work?

Question No. 11—Regional Development

11. to the Minister for Regional Development: Does he stand by his statement in this House that “Seabed mining has a legitimate place in New Zealand’s regional economy”; if not, why not?

Yes, and given that GNS Science have provided information that the value of so-said seabed is one-half a trillion—$500 billion—including phosphate in the Chathams and manganese nodules in the Kermadecs.

Steve Abel: Did he stand aside from decision making on the proposed seabed mining projects by Trans-Tasman Resources because of the fishing industry’s “serious concern that the marine environment will be materially harmed with flow-on effects for the fishing industry”?

Hon SHANE JONES: He is directing that question to the Minister for Regional Development, who did no such thing.

Steve Abel: How does it contribute to the Taranaki region to allow an Australian mining company to suck 50 million tonnes of seabed each year for 35 years in a way that harms local fisheries and, in the mining company’s own words, “totally destroys the seabed”?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, the matters pertaining to the application and the activity the member refers to are currently before a panel chaired by a retired High Court judge. The value of the principle of comity between Parliament and judicial processes should not be underestimated.

Steve Abel: Did he raise the concerns of environmental groups and experts, local iwi, and the fishing industry—who have fought against this seabed mining for 10 years—in his four-hour meeting with mining lobbyists Straterra on 23 January?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously, that meeting involved me listening to that minerals sector. The minerals extractive sector has a rich, legitimate, and profoundly important place to play as we derive responses to climate change, rather than hysteria and alarmism.

Steve Abel: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The very specific question was: did you raise the concerns of environmental groups and experts and local iwi and the fishing industry in that meeting with Straterra?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’ll gladly answer that.

SPEAKER: Well, we’ll have another crack at the answer.

Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm I did describe the behaviour of some of the pixie-like hapū in Taranaki as not reflective of true tikanga Māori.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he proposed to get a report into how he has been often described—always described, in some cases—as being on the side of the fishing industry and now being opposed to it?

Hon SHANE JONES: At one level, I am the champion of the fishing industry. I respect the constitutional role I hold because there are many stakeholders in that industry. At the other level, I am the promoter of responses through responsible utilisation of our minerals sector to derive sensible advances in relation to climate change actions that New Zealand will need to take, not the least of which are minerals for electric bikes.

Steve Abel: Further to your point about the importance of not interfering in judicial processes, does he think that it is appropriate to override the Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Authority, and all of New Zealand’s environmental protection laws to fast track destructive seabed mining?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously, in the event that the member’s referring to the fast-track legislation, it’s in the House, it’s before the select committee, and I encourage all New Zealanders, either private or public, to bring their concerns—

Chlöe Swarbrick: You’re not telling them what’s in it.

Hon SHANE JONES: —and bring their ideas and improvements—I don’t want to hear from the galah over there—and that’s an open process.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which activity will the Government support off the Taranaki shore: offshore wind energy or seabed mining? You cannot have both.

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, the last part—you don’t do that with the last part of the question. It doesn’t quite fit.

Hon SHANE JONES: I thank the member from Taranaki for that question. She would know there’s endless amounts of wind from that part of the country.

Question No. 12—Statistics

12. to the Acting Minister of Statistics: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

On behalf of the Minister, yes and yes.

Reuben Davidson: Does he agree with Dr Kate Prickett of Victoria University of Wellington that “In short, the cancellation of the Living in Aotearoa Survey means the government will escape being held to account for how our most vulnerable children are doing.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, no, I do not accept that observation. The household economic survey is being retained, whereas it would otherwise have come to an end in 2024. That’s a more robust, better-quality survey to provide the information that the Government needs on which to base policy decisions in relation to child poverty reduction and other Government aims, and also to monitor the effectiveness of those policies going forward.

Reuben Davidson: Is he concerned that this cut will limit the Government’s ability to track and reduce child poverty?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, there is no cut, and as I’ve said, I do not believe, on behalf of the Government, that there would be any negative implication in terms of our ability to measure child poverty. Indeed, the chief statistician, who has statutory independence for these operational decisions regarding methodology of collecting data, has assured various Government Ministers that he does not see that there would be such an outcome either.

Reuben Davidson: What steps, if any, has he put in place to ensure Stats NZ can comply with its obligations under the Child Poverty Reduction Act to collect data on persistent child poverty?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, I reiterate my comment in response to the previous supplementary question that the Government has been assured by the chief statistician, exercising that person’s statutory independence, that they will be able to monitor that data, in particular to meet the statutory objectives—the 10 requirements under the child poverty Act—to be able to measure that progress.

Reuben Davidson: How, given that the coalition agreement commits to decisions being made using data and evidence, will quality decision-making with and for some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders still be possible when the very measure of their needs has been quietly taken away?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, I reject the characterisation of that one particular, relatively new survey as being a sole measure or the sole measure. Indeed, there are a number of measures. I’ve referred already to the household economic survey. Additionally, there’s the use available of administrative data, which—as per the last census—conduct and analysis enables us to fill in gaps, so to speak. There are a lot of Government agencies that contribute to the ability to gain a full picture, and, in addition, I note that work is being undertaken by other Government Ministers for which, on behalf of the Minister, I’m not responsible, but I know it will be very helpful—for example, digitising Government services will be very helpful in this regard.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.