Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially our announcement yesterday that the Government is taking action to support young families with the cost of living crisis. FamilyBoost will help to reduce pressure from the cost of early childcare education (ECE) and support families to be able to get ahead, and from 1 July, parents of young children can get back up to 25 percent of their weekly fees, up to a maximum of $75 per week. We also want to support families who face financial challenges returning to the workforce, and ECE fees are a big barrier parents face when they head back to work. I’m telling you FamilyBoost is going to help them with that, and that’s what this Government is about doing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement that tax deductibility changes will reduce rents, or would he like to revise that in light of advice that his Government has received that rents are primarily driven by household income and relative supply and demand for housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Across housing in New Zealand, we have a supply challenge. We have a supply challenge whether you want to own a house, whether you want to rent a house, or whether you want to secure one in social State housing. What we’re doing is making sure that we can ensure that, actually, as downward pressure on rents is passing costs on to landlords that end up leading to higher rents is not an acceptable answer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is a better use of $2.9 billion: tax cuts for landlords, or retention of food in schools, expanding fees-free tertiary education, and retaining free prescriptions, with money left over?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say is I’ve seen a lot of commentary about school lunches. School lunches will continue to be funded; we just want to make sure that the system is more effective and that wastage is removed, and if there’s a better way to deliver it at lower cost, we’ll look to do that.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that the advice the member alluded to about the effects of mortgage interest deductibility on rental housing continued on to say that in the long run, reductions in rents could be expected, and would he advise members, as a matter of general practice, to read all the evidence instead of selectively quoting some?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say is that when the previous Government actually removed interest deductibility, they received advice to say that that would likely put upward pressure. It puts downward pressure on rents. Passing costs on to landlords that only get passed through to renters with higher rents isn’t the way forward.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What’s the better use—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait, wait—just wait. Some people on your side of the House were offering comment. Now that that’s over, please continue.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker—and my colleagues in Labour. What is a better use of $2.9 billion: tax cuts for landlords, or maintaining Jobs for Nature, which provides investment in conservation projects and jobs in rural communities, and doubling the funding for the Department of Conservation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I can tell you we’re a Government that’s going to rebuild this economy, and that means that we are going to make sure—

Chlöe Swarbrick: How—how?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, listen to what I’m about to say. We’re going to make sure that we actually make sure Government spending is very effective so that we actually protect our front-line services, we are going to give low and middle income working people tax relief—that’s something that the Labour Party and the Green Party used to believe in; they were people that they used to support, but they don’t seem to care about it anymore—and, ultimately, we’re going to work out how to grow this economy. We have a great future ahead of us, and that’s what we’re going to balance in our Budget.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has his Government wound down the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s just transitions unit, and, if so, how many more climate change jobs are on the chopping block?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we are interested in is actually delivering on our climate change goals—that’s actually what matters here. The means by which we deliver those goals may differ from the previous administration, but our commitment is incredibly strong to deliver those commitments.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statements from his Minister for Regulation that risks to endangered native dolphins’ lives are the equivalent to driving a car, and, if so, are we to expect that this Government will wind back marine protection in line with their war on nature?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the premise of that question and the way that it was characterised.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to be clear to the House that I’ve made no such statement. However, some people are unable to understand the point of an analogy about risk, rather than literally suggesting dolphins would drive cars.

SPEAKER: OK, thank you for that. We’ll have the question again, but bear in mind that what has just been—it now must be taken as the word of the House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statements of his Minister for Regulation making equivalences between the risks to endangered native dolphins’ lives and driving a car, and, if so, are we to expect that this Government is going to wind back marine protection in line with their war on nature?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, a question must be substantiated, and that last statement is utterly outside of parliamentary order and will lead to disorder if she’s allowed to get away with it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I can very happily table the likes of the Environmental Defence Society’s many press releases which speak to this Government’s agenda being a war on nature.

SPEAKER: Yes, but the member is not here as an advocate for anybody other than those who voted for her. I think, the question, in the first place, was borderline, and has now gone over that. So try again with another question.

Hon Member: Taking another question?

SPEAKER: No, I’m giving you an extra one.

Chlöe Swarbrick: An extra one? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yeah, unbelievable generosity, given the circumstances!

Chlöe Swarbrick: What, then, is a better use of $2.9 billion: is it tax breaks for landlords, or half-price public transport fares which ease cost for struggling families and help us to meet our climate-emission goals?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We make no apologies for being on the side of renters in New Zealand. We care deeply about folk in New Zealand who are renting properties. The previous administration loaded costs up on landlords and they got passed through to renters with higher rents—$170 more on average every single week. We’re on the side of renters. We’re taking action to make sure we can do something about it.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes. In particular, our commitment to deliver tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders; in stark contrast to that member, who’s embarking on yet another campaign to raise taxes, because it seems that no matter the circumstances, the solution offered by that member’s party is always more tax—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the precedent set by David Seymour, the statement the Prime Minister has just made is incorrect. I therefore ask that he desist from making it.

SPEAKER: That’s right. The Prime Minister can withdraw that part but continue with his answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I withdraw and apologise. What I’d say to you very clearly is that member’s policy is to increase taxes. We know what the economic agenda of the Labour Party is: it’s spend more, borrow more, tax more. That’s something—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That is also incorrect.

SPEAKER: Look—[Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If it’s good enough for David Seymour, it’s got to be good—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know, and I’m trying to come up with a wise ruling. Give me a minute! It’s well known that the Government can’t use the questions opportunity to attack Opposition policy. That’s not how it works. So an answer that leaves that out, I think, is not beyond the bounds of the Prime Minister’s capability to address the House.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, yes, I am incredibly proud of our commitment to deliver tax relief to hard-working low and middle income working New Zealanders, unlike the other side.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: On what date did he first become aware that his Government had cut entitlements to disability support services and respite care?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s just not true. There has been no reduction in the funding in the disabilities budget compared to what the previous Government funded in the year before, and, further, we have made a commitment to increase funding this year, and as we go through a Budget process, there will be further increases as well.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did Penny Simmonds request a pre-Budget commitment to boost disability support funding to Whaikaha?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, we’ve been working to the previous Government’s budget. There has been an overspend and an overrun. There has been more money put into the ministry for this year, and there will also be more money put into the Budget 2024 process as well.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific as to whether or not a pre-Budget commitment had been sought, and the Prime Minister hasn’t addressed that.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he did when he said that they have a Budget process and were working to the—pre-Budget, working to the previous Government’s budget. I think that’s a reasonable addressing of the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did Penny Simmonds or her office advise his office of the changes to entitlements to disability support services and respite care prior to Whaikaha’s announcement on 18 March; if so, when did they advise him?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say firstly in response to that is that the Minister and the ministry have actually apologised for the anxiety that they caused through what was a poor communication of changes to the policy settings. We also have ensured that any future front-line changes to policy settings in the ministry of disabled services will actually be brought before Cabinet as well.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether the Prime Minister or his office was told about it before the announcement was made, and again the Prime Minister hasn’t come even close to addressing it.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s one of those questions that’s got a yes or no answer—hasn’t it?—which you can’t ask, essentially, in this House.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: No, it was “on what date”.

SPEAKER: Hang on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It was also on what date he was asked. I mean, some indication addressing the question—he’s talked about what the Government are doing going forward, not actually what the question was about, which was whether or not he knew about it before the announcement was made.

SPEAKER: I think the Prime Minister could elucidate a bit on that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, as I’ve said before, the ministry made changes to the policy settings. They were poorly communicated, and that did not go through Cabinet. That is why it caused unnecessary anxiety and confusion, for which we apologise. The Minister and the ministry have subsequently apologised for that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has indicated the decision didn’t go through Cabinet. He hasn’t indicated whether or not he knew about it before it was announced.

SPEAKER: Well, given that the agenda of Cabinet—the member, more than many others in this House, would know—is set by the Prime Minister, I would assume that you’ve got the answer that you need.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Prime Ministers don’t receive only information that goes to Cabinet; they receive information on decisions Ministers are making every day. I’m asking the Prime Minister whether he knew about this decision before it was announced. It shouldn’t be a difficult question.

SPEAKER: That’s a fair question. Given that’s the nature of it, the Prime Minister could answer that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was unaware of that, and it did not go through Cabinet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Penny Simmonds’ decision to reduce entitlements for disability support, respite care, insulin pumps, and glucose monitors for disability communities; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say is very important to the community: they need to know we have been working to the previous Government’s budget. We are putting more money in this year to make sure that any cost overruns are actually being able to be managed, and, importantly, there is further increases in the budget coming in Budget 2024. What I’ve also ensured is that any future changes to front-line services are actually brought forward to Cabinet, and, importantly, we also need to make sure that there is ongoing money, but also an ongoing review to make sure that that money is being spent appropriately and that it actually gets to people who are disabled and actually need those core support services.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What does it say about his confidence in his Minister that he is now stopping her from making any decisions in this portfolio without taking them to Cabinet first?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have complete confidence in the Minister. By her own admission and that of her ministry, she’s apologised for the confusion and the anxiety—that those changes were poorly communicated and poorly consulted on—but we’ve made changes to the process going forward, and that’s a good thing.

Question No. 3—Workplace Relations and Safety

3. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has she made in her portfolio?

I recently announced my priorities, which are intended to restore business confidence and certainty. That is the way businesses are able to create more and better jobs, which is better for Kiwi workers. My priorities are related to the Holidays Act, contractors’ arrangements, health and safety law and reform, and performance metrics for public services. Over the last six years, employers would be forgiven for feeling like they have been pitted against workers, but I believe that the frustrations both employers and workers are facing are connected. Labour market regulations are becoming increasingly complex, making it harder for employers and workers to reach the solutions that work for both of them. Flexible labour markets are the best environment for businesses to grow. When businesses thrive, the economy thrives.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is she planning to do to improve certainty in contracting relationships?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: An important change I intend on making comes from the ACT-National coalition agreement. It includes the commitment to better protect choice and freedom to contract for workers and businesses. I’ve asked my officials for advice on how to achieve certainty for contracting parties, so that their intent, when entering into a contract for services, is upheld. Many New Zealand businesses use contractors in situations where engaging an employee to do the work would be inappropriate, or not as effective. I understand that 90 percent of contractors report that they are satisfied, or very satisfied, with their jobs, and that they would prefer to continue being self-employed, rather than to have a paid job working for someone else.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is the Minister planning to make changes to the Holidays Act?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I want to confirm that delivering improvements to the Holidays Act to simplify and clarify the law is one of my top priorities. I understand that change has been a long time coming. The previous Government’s Holidays Act Taskforce began work in 2018, but were not able to deliver on changes by the end of their term in Government. I’ve heard from many a small business who spends a lot of time trying to comply with the Holidays Act rather than getting on with their core business. The first action that I’m going to take is to make sure that any changes to the Act are workable, that they are a material improvement on the status quo. One of the reasons why it has taken so long to deliver change is that the previous Government’s proposals were so complex that it was very difficult to get draft legislation. If the draft legislation is hard, then it is going to be very difficult to implement—

SPEAKER: Just an answer, thank you.

Camilla Belich: Will the Minister guarantee that no employee will have a reduction in entitlements due to her proposed Holidays Act changes?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I am intending on consulting widely about the Holidays Act changes, and I look forward to the member being part of that consultation.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What reforms to health and safety is she planning?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The Health and Safety at Work Act is now almost 10 years old. I think it is an appropriate time that we take a step back and assess whether the health and safety system is fit for purpose. Businesses want to keep people safe and healthy at work, and workers want to keep themselves and their colleagues safe and healthy at work. But one of the things I hear consistently is that businesses and workers alike either struggle to understand the reason for some of the costly health and safety regulations, or they are struggling to know what to do in order to comply. So we want to simplify and clarify the law for both workers and businesses. Before we embark on that reform, I want to hear from workers, I want to hear from businesses, and I want to hear from people who know how to keep workers safe at work. So we will be starting public consultation.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What announcements has she made recently about supporting low- and middle-income families?

Yesterday, we announced that from 1 July, low to middle income parents with early childhood education costs will be able to claim back up to 25 percent of their early childhood education (ECE) fees to a maximum of $75 a week. Families who qualify for the maximum reimbursement will receive $975 in their bank accounts from October and another $975 every three months thereafter. This new FamilyBoost initiative will provide real relief for families struggling with the cost of living.

Tim Costley: How many families and children will benefit from FamilyBoost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Many families are struggling with high housing, childcare, and daily living costs. An estimated 21,000 low to middle income families will qualify for the maximum reimbursement of $975 every three months, and, in total, FamilyBoost will help support more than 140,000 children and their families. I am very proud that this Government is able to provide extra assistance to support so many hard-working New Zealand families.

Tim Costley: How can Kiwi families access this support?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To ensure the repayment goes swiftly and accurately to eligible parents and their caregivers, early childhood invoices are submitted directly through Inland Revenue’s online system, myIR, which I am advised can be used from a phone. Parents and caregivers will be able to submit ECE invoices every three months, with FamilyBoost refunded as a lump sum. Inland Revenue is currently talking to the early childhood sector about the best way to make this as simple as possible. Overnight, I am advised that early childhood services are already considering measures to make this as easy as possible for the parents they serve, including talking to their IT providers about issuing three-monthly invoices and assisting parents to upload these to the IRD.

Tim Costley: What are the other benefits of FamilyBoost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, childcare is one of the biggest costs for families, and members of this House who have had young children will know that full well. According to the OECD, childcare costs in New Zealand are among the highest in the world—at 37 percent of household income. Being able to afford early childhood education fees can be a barrier to entering the workforce, particularly for a second earner in a household. FamilyBoost will make it easier and more worthwhile for families with young children to work, by directly assisting them to pay those ECE fees.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she agree the announcement made yesterday is hundreds of millions of dollars’ less support to families than the previous Government’s early childhood education Budget ’23 support package, which she scrapped?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’d reject that as a false analogy because, actually, it’s hypothetical. The reason for that is there were serious questions raised by early childhood providers and others about where the commitments made by the previous Government were even deliverable at all. It was a phantom policy, and I tell you a really big difference: this money—this cold, hard cash—goes direct into the bank accounts of parents. There is no middleman or -woman; this is real cost of living relief for New Zealand families.

Hon David Seymour: Will the Government actually allow for the FamilyBoost policy in the costings it does in its Budget, and is that a general policy of the Government—to actually put aside money to fund the things it promises the public—or will this Government simply make it up and hope to lose the election so someone else can inherit the problem?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Minister makes a very good point—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. How on earth was that fitting with the requirements in Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders, given that it was clearly designed to make a political point?

SPEAKER: Well, the point is that every question is designed to make a political point. The second part of it is that there was no mention of other Governments’ or previous Governments’ policies: it was as much, I suppose, on the edge of Standing Orders as the question in the first place. So, on that basis, it’s not out.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: A different point of order?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes, it is. On that basis, speaking generally, if a question involves a hypothetical scenario, then that, too, should be ruled out.

SPEAKER: That is the case in Standing Orders; it can be. But that would leave us with a very, very bland question time, and given that today there are actually four questions that I think are the ultimate blandness, that’s not looking good for the House and the public information that’s supposed to come from it. So that won’t always be the case, but I appreciate that you’re pointing out what is currently in Standing Orders.

Hon Chris Bishop: I just wonder if, for the House’s elucidation, you could outline what the four sort of bland questions you’re referring to are.

SPEAKER: Oh, no, no. I think members of Parliament are well and truly capable of working out what is bland and what’s not. Can we then progress with the balance of that answer, which I’m sure will be brief.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Minister makes a very good point, and yes, our Government has learnt the lessons of history. Where previous Governments announced poorly costed, funded, and poorly consulted early childhood education policies, we—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —have chosen—

SPEAKER: No—stop there. Stop there. Stop there, otherwise I’ll get a barrage of points of order over here, and they would be right.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m a member of this House and I’d like my question addressed. Is the Government intending to put aside the money to actually allow this policy to be funded?

SPEAKER: Then you should have asked that simple question, rather than the bits that elicited the balance of the argument.

Hon David Seymour: It’s precisely the question I asked, and it hasn’t been addressed.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what. Because I’m a reasonable person, if you can ask the question again without the sideswipe, that would be great.

Hon David Seymour: Seeking a clarification: that’s an extra supplementary question for ACT?

SPEAKER: No; it simply replaces the one that you’ve got, not adding to your list. You’re not going to eat into your total by asking again. Get on with it, please—the House is impatient.

Hon David Seymour: Well, I’d like the Minister of Finance to tell the House: has the Government set aside, in its budgeting, adequate funds to show that the statements of the Government coming out at Budget time will actually indicate enough money is available to fund this FamilyBoost policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. This policy has been fully funded, with $723 million provided over the forecast period, and the Budget will reflect that. I think it’s really important that members of this House understand this fact: we have costed this policy based on 100 percent uptake, because we want every single family in New Zealand who qualifies for this policy to know that the funding is there for them. So get out there, members opposite; tell the people in your electorate—

SPEAKER: Thank you. No, no; we don’t need that. We don’t need that. It’s very helpful, I’m sure, but—

Tim Costley: Has the Minister seen any reaction to the FamilyBoost announcement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’ve seen a lot of very positive reactions to yesterday’s announcement, many from mums and dads who really need this cash. I’ve also seen reaction from those in the early childhood education sector. For example, the New Shoots Children’s Centre’s director said, “Parents are definitely doing it tough, like everybody in New Zealand, so I think any support for parents is going to be brilliant”. And the Early Childhood Education Council chief executive said, “It will be just such a welcome relief for parents who have been facing such high child care costs.” They are right, and it is a shame that some people opposite have sour grapes about relief for working parents.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her commitment not to cut frontline services?

Yes. I stand by the full text of that commitment, which I spoke to at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and where I went on to say, “In committing to front-line service, we are not committing to doing things the way they have always been done necessarily because, actually, we think there’s a strong case for improving the delivery of front-line services.” In some cases, it may be that the services that New Zealanders are receiving, whether it’s from their hospital or their school, aren’t actually delivering the results they want. So we are not going to ban ourselves from looking at other ways we could do things better, differently, so that we can ensure the resources we are deploying have a bigger impact for the people we are seeking to serve.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she consider the additional staff at the IRD processing over 7 million invoices a year for her early childhood education tax credit a back-office function; if so, how fast can parents expect their childcare rebate to be paid into their bank account?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would consider it a back-office function, and I think it’s important that all back-office functions are as efficient as possible. We are currently in consultation with the early childhood sector to work out how we make the delivery of this policy as efficient as possible. It’s our expectation that this rebate be delivered as quickly as possible, and that’s why we’re consulting.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she reverse her Government’s decision to remove eligibility for funding for diabetes monitors that allow carers to sleep through the night without having to worry about sudden death from a slump in glucose levels?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If the member wishes to ask questions about the disability services portfolio, she should put them on notice to that Minister.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she confident that none of the changes proposed in the recent restructuring documents released by the Ministry of Health, Ministry for Primary Industries, Ministry for Ethnic Communities, Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Customs, and other ministries will impact front-line services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That is the expectation we have conveyed to chief executives.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with John Key that her commitment to fully fund her tax changes through Public Service cuts is too hard and risks plunging the country into discontent, as reported by the New Zealand Herald?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: John Key would be very unhappy to hear the member opposite mischaracterise his comments in that way. And I would put to her that we should have honour in this House with comments that we make and how we represent others.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As has been referred to in this House a number of times, and as was used in reference to your response to the Hon David Seymour earlier, we take members by their word. Barbara Edmonds was quoting John Key. If the Minister disagrees with that, she should say so. She should not be questioning the honour of members in this House in order to respond to a fair question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, all members elected to this House are considered honourable members, and so that is a reference that is not best made. Would the Minister like to say further on that?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think it is very important that when members represent others by way of paraphrase, they take care to be very accurate.

SPEAKER: I think a withdrawal and apology for the dishonourable point would be helpful.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sorry?

SPEAKER: I think a statement of withdrawal and apology for the reference to the dishonourable nature of members would be helpful to the whole House.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she committed to meeting the $2.8 billion Treasury estimates is required to maintain the level of existing services for the impact for forecasted inflation and wage growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have previously made clear our commitment to ensure that there is more funding available for front-line services.

Question No. 6—Infrastructure

6. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What steps is the Government taking to address New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit?

This morning, I laid out the steps the Government is taking to close New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit. Estimates vary on the size, but let’s call it $100 billion or more—that’s 80 Transmission Gully motorways. We have outlined a plan to fix this deficit: firstly, doing a better job of maintaining our existing assets; secondly, a credible pipeline of infrastructure projects—as part of that, developing a national infrastructure plan over 30 years—thirdly, reducing the barriers that are holding back infrastructure delivery, such as the Resource Management Act; fourthly, improving value for money; and, fifthly, new ways of funding and financing infrastructure.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What will the 30-year national infrastructure plan involve?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve asked the Infrastructure Commission to develop a 30-year national infrastructure plan by the end of next year. This will include a national view of infrastructure projects that are planned and are being planned, an assessment of infrastructure priorities, and an analysis of long-term infrastructure needs. The purpose of the plan is to demonstrate a pipeline of major projects that make New Zealand a place worth doing business. We need the talent and the capital in this country, and part of that is to demonstrate the scale of the opportunities in the coming decade. The 30-year plan will help get our infrastructure system humming again.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What did the Minister say about the Government’s proposal to establish a national infrastructure agency?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’ll be establishing a new national infrastructure agency by 2025 to connect offshore capital with New Zealand domestic infrastructure opportunities, amongst other jobs. The public sector infrastructure landscape is a crowded one and there are overlapping roles and functions, so rather than rushing into establishing a new agency, I’ve commissioned a piece of work to fully understand what the Crown wants and needs from a high-performing infrastructure system and who’s doing what in the system and what needs to change. Treasury’s leading this work alongside the Infrastructure Commission, and I’ll have more to say on that very soon.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How does the Government intend to improve and increase the use of infrastructure funding and financing tools?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The coalition Government’s very open to opportunities for the private sector to invest its capital to deliver high-quality infrastructure for New Zealand. These projects leveraging private finance obviously need to stack up based on cost-benefit analysis and the public good. To pave the way for more projects that leverage private finance, I’m asking officials to modernise the Crown’s infrastructure governance, procurement, funding and financing, and asset management policies and frameworks. Solving New Zealand’s infrastructure challenges will be hard, but with a good plan and a clear target, we can do it—and this Government will deliver.

Question No. 7—Seniors

7. to the Minister for Seniors: What recent reports has she seen regarding the aged-care sector?

On 7 March, the Aged Care Commissioner released her first report, titled Amplifying the voices of older people across Aotearoa New Zealand. The report has drawn on engagement with thousands of people from our important older communities alongside their families, whānau, carers, and service providers. The report is consistent with and aligns to what I’ve been hearing from the older New Zealanders and advice I have received around opportunities to better support aged-care services going forward.

Tanya Unkovich: Is the Minister aware of any ongoing work to address opportunities to improve aged-care services?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: A review into aged-care funding and service models is under way, and I expect it will create a pathway to deliver better care for older people. The review will emphasise some key points, among these a stronger focus on supporting New Zealanders to receive the support they need at home. Additionally, we must ensure more efficient transitions through aged-care services, as well as greater capacity to support those with complex needs. I’ve asked for advice on immediate vulnerabilities and what is needed to sustain capacity while this work is being completed.

Tanya Unkovich: What other initiatives are under way to better support the lives of older New Zealanders?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This Government knows that supporting seniors across all aspects of their lives is critical for safeguarding their health and wellbeing. That’s why improving the lives of seniors is stated as a priority for the Government in our coalition agreements. The Office for Seniors, in collaboration with other departments, has been progressing work on coalition priorities, including upgrading the benefits of the SuperGold and Veteran SuperGold Card, building on the local government rates rebate scheme, and making it easier to build subsidiary dwellings that can be used to support multigenerational living. I have been meeting with key stakeholders across the sector, who have been open about the opportunities to better support seniors across New Zealand. Finally, we have a dedicated, capable, and committed workforce and NGO sector, who I applaud for their ongoing efforts to respond to the needs of our older people.

Question No. 8—Disability Issues

8. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement in the House, “no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services”; if so, why are insulin pumps and diabetes monitors being excluded from Whaikaha’s disability support funding?

Yes, I do stand by my statement. Diabetes is a serious health condition affecting many New Zealanders, and I’m advised that avenues such as Health New Zealand and Pharmac support New Zealanders to gain access to funding for insulin pumps and monitors. The expectation is that health devices to address health conditions are dealt with under Vote Health. If, however, these have previously been funded with disability funding, I am clear that continuity of service continues for those individuals while these funding services are clarified.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does she say to carers who are concerned that defunding these critical devices will lead to an increase in “dead in bed” syndrome?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: So I have sought clarification from Whaikaha whether these monitors are funded through third-party providers under the previous rules with disability funding. I am clear—absolutely clear—that we must ensure that access is available if there have been people that have received them through disability services prior to 18 March. But I will be asking Whaikaha to work with those individual families to see whether they have been accessing health support where it is appropriate. This highlights the issues that we are working with, with Whaikaha. They are working to a budget that was put in place by a previous Government that was insufficient in terms of being able to meet needs. It has also had to put in place guidelines, and so it is important that we review the systems, processes, financial management, and the policy settings so that funding is coming from the appropriate source.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does the Minister consider speech therapy for a 17-year-old non-verbal, severely intellectually disabled young man effective support that should be funded through Whaikaha’s disability support funding; if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Again, we have asked Whaikaha to ensure that they are working with families where there are essential services needed for the disabled person to be able to function, they will be working with them to ensure those services and equipment are provided.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she agree with David Seymour that her Government has gone too far in its cuts, and that “we do have a responsibility in our society to help people who genuinely have no other source of help and have no other way of changing their situation”, and, if so, will she reinstate flexibility of funding while she works with the impacted communities on a longer-term solution?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It needs to be very, very clear that there has been no cut in funding. There has been additional funding given to get Whaikaha through to the end of the year. Whaikaha has been working to a budget that was put in place by the previous Government, which was insufficient for the policy settings they were working to. We have further indicated that there will be additional funding put in place. There is no cut in funding.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does the Minister say to the woman who emailed to say—and I quote—“Today I found out from Enliven Disability support services and my psychologist that Government has said I cannot use my funding to pay for psychology sessions, despite it meeting the four purchasing guidelines outlined by Whaikaha. For me, it was the pathway to rehabilitation, successful social interactions and managing crippling anxiety, and I was hoping to return to work in the not too distant future. Now that has been taken away from me.”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I’m not aware of the individual case, but the member has answered the question herself, if she said that it met the guidelines of the funding. Therefore, if it meets the guidelines of the funding, it should be funded.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on period products in schools?

I’m thrilled to announce this Government has increased funding to ensure free period products are available for all young women in intermediate, kura, and secondary schools. It’s through careful spending that this Government has redirected funding to where it matters most: learners and schools. We’re committed to ensuring that all young women have equal opportunities in education to go on to live the life they want.

Katie Nimon: What data and evidence supported this decision?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: A study by the University of Otago estimated that up to 95,000 young women could be missing school because of a lack of access to period products. This Government is committed to reducing barriers for learners. I want to be clear about the link between attendance and achievement: regular school attendance is essential for lifting student achievement. This announcement is just one of our plans to reduce barriers to attendance and lift achievement in schools.

Katie Nimon: What feedback has she received from the public?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve already received lots of positive feedback. Dignity New Zealand wrote to me, expressing their relief and appreciation upon hearing our announcement. The Children and Young People’s Commission wrote, “I’m pleased to see the Government making this investment to reduce barriers to school attendance and normalising this aspect of mokopuna health.” One member of the public reached out to write that this increase in funding has created one less concern for young women in their school. We will continue to empower our young women to fully participate in their education without the burden of period poverty.

Katie Nimon: Who is going to benefit from this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This initiative will continue to support 200,000 young women in our schools. A lack of access to period products can be stressful, disruptive, and can impact students’ confidence and wellbeing. This is an issue of dignity. Young women should never have to miss out on their education or face the embarrassment because of something as simple as access to period products. This support will help families get their children to school feeling confident and supported so they’re ready to learn and do their best. And, yes, it is targeted at young women who have periods.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is this policy for young women in intermediate, secondary, and kura, as stated in the PR and by the Minister today, and does that mean young people in other schools don’t menstruate?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I think I was very clear that it’s available to young women in intermediate and kura and schools. There are no changes to the policy apart from the fact that we’re funding it an extra half a million dollars a year to make sure that there is equal access to as many women as possible.

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

10. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements and actions?

Yes, and in the context they were given.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with A People’s Review of Kāinga Ora—In Defence of Public Housing report, released today, that “The private housing market has failed to provide everyone with a decent, stable and affordable home. The state should have a stronger role in the ownership and provision of rental housing.”, and, if so, what steps will the Government take to increase the supply of publicly owned rental housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I do agree: housing has been an abject failure in this country after six years of the previous administration. What we have to do is increase supply of private houses, increase the supply of rental properties available, and increase the supply of social and State housing available as well. We’ve got plans to deal with all three.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware of the finding of the report that building good quality public housing at scale and pace can save Government spending in the long term through reduced need for landlord subsidies and through savings in health budgets, and, if so, does this suggest that increasing the supply of public housing is consistent with this Government’s stated commitment to social investment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said earlier, we want to increase the supply of houses available in the private market, we want to increase the supply of houses available in the rental market and increase the supply of houses available in the social housing part of the market, too.

Hon Marama Davidson: [Interruption] Is he concerned, then, at the ability of the private rental—

SPEAKER: No, no, wait on. Please, start again.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned, then, at the ability of the private rental market to provide New Zealanders with affordable housing when almost 350,000 people have to access the accommodation supplement because private rents are too high?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don’t know how to explain this any differently to the member but it’s an “and, and, and”. We need to make sure that we have private housing made available to people who want to purchase homes, we need to make sure that we increase the rental supply of rental properties for people who need to rent them, and we need to increase the supply of social housing stock as well. It’s an “and, and” so that all three aspects of the housing market are actually accelerated.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to ensuring that any changes to Kāinga Ora, following the review, are directed at creating a more efficient and effective build programme to deliver public housing at scale rather than any wind down of existing projects?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We will await the findings of the review but what we are clear about is that we want better performance from Kāinga Ora.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received any reports about the gulf or gap he’s going to have to fill, having inherited a 100,000-homes promise that ended up with 2,000 being built by the administration that the original questioner came from?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think it’s quite well established that KiwiBuild was an utter failure.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is he prioritising tax cuts for landlords instead of building more public housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are committed to making sure that we build more houses in general in this country. That has been an absolute disaster under the previous administration. This Government takes getting houses built seriously. We do that through the private market, the rental market, and the social housing market.

Question No. 11—Ethnic Communities

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

Yes, in the context they were made and undertaken.

Hon Jenny Salesa: Does she stand by her statement that—and I quote—“More than a quarter of our population in 10 years’ time will be from ethnic communities.”, and, if so, how does she reconcile that with the proposal to reduce the number of permanent staff at the Ministry for Ethnic Communities by 14 percent?

Hon MELISSA LEE: There are currently about 22 percent of New Zealanders who actually belong to ethnic communities. However, you know, at a time when New Zealand is facing a cost of living crisis, agencies have been asked to identify where they can make savings or make changes in order to deliver savings. Decisions related to staffing numbers at the ministry are operational and Budget sensitive.

Hon Jenny Salesa: Does she stand by her statement that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities has a budget analogous to—and I quote—“the smell of an oily rag”, and, if so, how does she justify that with the ministry staff reducing by 14 percent?

Hon MELISSA LEE: I’m not so sure if the member is actually correct in suggesting that there is actually a 14 percent cut, because anything that is related to staffing numbers is actually for the ministry to answer as it is operational. In terms of the ministry operating on the smell of an oily rag, the member should know, as the former Minister—

Hon Jenny Salesa: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Jenny Salesa.

Hon Jenny Salesa: Speakers’ ruling 182—

SPEAKER: Hang on, wait—slow down. Everyone wants to listen.

Hon Jenny Salesa: Speakers’ ruling 182/3 states that Ministers have to answer on operational matters.

SPEAKER: Well, just a minute—I’ll just have a quick look at that. That’s one I’m not terribly familiar with. [Seeks advice from Clerk] Yep, OK, so ministries can’t answer to the House; only a Minister can, so can I suggest that we have the question again with that in mind, and then the Speakers’ ruling might apply.

Hon Jenny Salesa: Does she stand by her statement that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities has a budget analogous to—and I quote—“the smell of an oily rag”, and, if so, how does she justify the ministry staff reducing by 14 percent?

SPEAKER: Yeah, but that’s the problem. She doesn’t have to justify that; it’s not her responsibility. There must be another way of asking that question.

Hon Jenny Salesa: How can she justify, given that she made a statement that said the ministry is operating under the smell of an oily rag, the cuts to the ministry?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s the same problem, but I’ll see what you can say.

Hon MELISSA LEE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are no cuts currently. Everything in relation to staffing numbers that the ministry are currently consulting is just that—consulting—and the decisions will be made as part of the Budget process.

Hon Jenny Salesa: Will she commit to no cuts to the Ethnic Communities Development Fund—ECDF?

Hon MELISSA LEE: As I said, the decisions on the actual funding or staffing numbers, it is actually Budget sensitive and the decisions are for the ministry to answer. Having said that, the ministry does an amazing job. As the member who actually asked the question—who was a former Minister—will well know, it is a very small ministry who works very hard to support the work of the ethnic communities, and the Ethnic Communities Development Fund does amazing work to provide for the ethnic communities.

Hon Jenny Salesa: Does she agree with her coalition partner the Hon David Seymour when he stated—and I quote—“I very seldom find someone that can point to anything concrete that they’ve done.”, when talking about the Ministry for Ethnic Communities; if so, are these cuts a step towards abolishing the Ministry for Ethnic Communities?

Hon MELISSA LEE: I don’t have responsibility for Mr Seymour’s comments. However, I feel that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities does an amazing job, and I support them 100 percent.

Question No. 12—Trade

12. to the Minister for Trade: What actions has the Government taken to support trade with the Middle East?

Since taking office a few months ago, we’ve worked quickly with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to progress exploratory discussions on a possible comprehensive economic partnership agreement (CEPA). In January, I travelled to the UAE to meet with ministerial counterparts, and again the following month to attend the 13th World Trade Organization ministerial conference. While there, and following constructive meetings with the UAE trade Minister, New Zealand announced the start of public consultations on a possible CEPA with the UAE. Exploratory discussions between our two teams are progressing well, and a decision on launching negotiations will be taken later this year.

Catherine Wedd: Why has the Government asked for the public’s view on an agreement with the UAE?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, we’re interested in what the public think—73 percent of New Zealand’s trade will be covered by trade agreements once the EU-NZ free-trade agreement (FTA) enters into force on 1 May. However, an important gap in our FTA coverage is the Gulf region. The launch of public consultations represents a significant next step in New Zealand’s ongoing consideration of a deal with the UAE, complemented with three rounds of exploratory discussions held to date. We’re keen to hear from civil society and businesses currently exporting to the UAE market, or with an interest in doing so—Māori exporters and all New Zealanders. Submissions are open until 31 March, and information on how to submit is available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.

Catherine Wedd: How would an agreement with the UAE be important to New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The UAE is a top-20 export market for New Zealand and our largest market in the Middle East, with exports totalling over $1 billion last year. The UAE is also an important hub for New Zealand companies operating in the region and vital to New Zealand’s connectivity to the Middle East and beyond. Other countries are progressing trade negotiations with the UAE—including Australia, who are expected to conclude a deal by the end of this year—so the Government is committed to ensuring New Zealand exporters remain competitive in that market.

Catherine Wedd: What else has he announced to support New Zealand trade?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, our work towards the CEPA with the UAE will serve to further grow trade opportunities in Europe as goods and services exported to Europe transit through this busy Middle East hub and will do so more easily. Yesterday, the EU-NZ FTA gained Royal assent, confirming that the deal will enter into force on 1 May. That’s great news for our horticulture industry, and, as the member asking the question will know, with the apple harvest in full swing, the onion harvest almost complete and pack houses across the Hawke’s Bay, the Bay of Plenty, and the East Coast, and elsewhere packing for Europe, these industries will be able to see the immediate savings of the EU trade deal. Given the year that they’ve had of the cyclone recovery, this deal means a lot of our apple and onion exporters will do better.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the consultation process on the proposed deal between the UAE and New Zealand be undertaken on the principles of Trade for All—which includes obligation to consult with Māori, small and medium enterprises, women, and all groups across New Zealand—to ensure that whatever trade deal is arrived at will benefit all New Zealanders?

Hon TODD McCLAY: In, I think, my second answer to the second supplementary, I mentioned all of those groups. So, yes.