Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement regarding funding for disability support services, “They have been trying to deal with that, and we have been working with them to deal with that since they alerted me in December”; if so, on what date was she first alerted to these funding issues?

Yes, I do. I also stand by my statement yesterday that there has been no reduction in funding for disabled people and no disabled people will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support. The ministry is clarifying what this funding can be spent on to ensure it goes towards the direct needs of the disabled person. Parents and carers will still be able to use the support budget to pay for within-region travel and essential equipment and devices. We have inherited a situation from the previous Government where insufficient funding was provided for the policy settings that were in place. We are taking steps to address that short-term issue, but we will clearly need to address the longer-term issue as well, and I’m taking advice on that. The first I was alerted to the potential issue was 15 December, but, at that time, the ministry believed that they could manage potential overruns. I want to offer my sincere apologies to the disabled community. We absolutely accept that the engagement with the community over this change was inadequate and has created unnecessary uncertainty. We have taken that criticism on board and we will do better in the future.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: On what dates did she first advise the finance Minister of a forecast overspend in disability support services that would require a change to the purchasing rules and equipment and modification services?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: In December, the ministry believed that they could manage this overrun. In subsequent months, that amount continued to trend towards an overspend. The context of this is that since 2018, the number of people accessing disability supports has increased by around 50 percent compared to population growth of 8.5 percent over that same period. The previous Labour Government was aware of this increase but did nothing to address the sustainability of the disability support service budget, but I assure the community that no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very clearly about a date: what date did she advise the finance Minister? Her answer was long but went nowhere near that.

SPEAKER: The Minister might like to consider the question again.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Minister and myself have been discussing Budget process over a number of months, and the Minister of Finance has been very clear that there will be additional funding to maintain crucial front-line disability services; she gave that answer in the House yesterday.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. If the Minister doesn’t know or can’t recall, she should say so, but that again didn’t answer the question, which was very clearly: what date did she inform the Minister of the cost overruns?

SPEAKER: Well, I think that the addressing of the question is accepted on the basis that she indicated over a number of months they have been talking about increased funding.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: On what date did she first request a pre-Budget commitment for additional funding for Whaikaha to retain flexibility of funding for disability support services?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I’ve said in my previous answers, 15 December was when I first was alerted to the issue. This is a matter that had been known by the previous Labour Government, and nothing had been done. The ministry thought that they could manage the overrun at that time. From this year onwards, they have been watching that fund engagement trend upwards and I have been in discussion with the Minister of Finance to do with the budgetary process.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Once again, the Minister gave a long amount of information about the problem but didn’t actually answer the question, which was: when did she seek additional pre-Budget funding?

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect to your position, the question itself makes an assumption about a process, and therefore I think any answer the Minister gave could be reasonable if it talked about matters that would relate to a Budget process, which she did.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that she first learnt about the cost blowout here on 15 December and that, prior to that, no prior warning had come to any Minister in charge of that portfolio?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I understand that the previous Government were made aware of the issues, and on 15 December I was made aware of the issues. At that time, the ministry felt they could deal with it, but the trend continued upwards and, therefore, I had ongoing discussions with the Minister of Finance.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Did she advise Cabinet or the Prime Minister’s office that Whaikaha would be making changes to remove flexibility of funding; if so, on what date did she do so?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Whaikaha have been dealing with a fund that the previous Government had no settings and no regulations around. That has left Whaikaha in a situation where they were dealing with a fund that absolutely increased enormously over the last few years. They have been trying to work with this. We are now working with them, and we also will be working with the disabled community around putting settings in place to ensure that the funding is directed and focused towards the needs of the disabled person. It is regrettable that there were no settings put in place by the previous Government to assist Whaikaha with the management of this fund.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Did she or her office sign out a briefing to approve the changes that took effect on 18 March, and, if so, when?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Again, I answered this question yesterday. On 14 March, I was advised that these changes would be implemented from 18 March. I absolutely regret that we did not have fulsome engagement with the disabled community and that our communication could have been much better and could have not contributed to some of the anxiety that has occurred in the disabled community.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order. Again, the question was not when it was brought to her about the changes that took effect on 18 March; it was very specific: did she or her office sign out a briefing approving those changes? It wasn’t addressed.

SPEAKER: I think that’s a fair point. The question talks about whether a briefing on the changes—look, ask your question again. It’s not my job to interpret the question. It’s hard enough as it is.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Did she or her office sign out a briefing to approve the changes that took effect on 18 March; if so, when?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Again, as I said both today and yesterday: on 14 March, I signed the briefing that the implementation would occur on Monday, 18th.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does she say to the mother who emailed her office and said, “Once or twice a year, I have taken myself off for a night when I’ve been able to find someone to come to my house and look after the children. I do not claim carer support for this but have utilised our respite funding. That’s two nights a year I get to sleep undisturbed—that I get to sleep in past 7 a.m. Is this unreasonable?”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The access to that funding, under the settings that were there previously—absolutely nothing wrong was done by the person who accessed that. What we are saying is we need to look at the settings to ensure that the funding support goes to the person with the disability.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Has she seen any recent reports on the New Zealand economy?

Great question. Yes. This morning, Statistics New Zealand released the latest GDP figures. These showed that real GDP fell 0.1 percent in the December quarter of last year. Looking a little further back, the release also shows that GDP fell in the December quarter of 2022, the March quarter of 2023, and the September quarter of 2023. So 2022 and 2023 were certainly difficult years for the economy and, therefore, difficult years for New Zealanders and their families.

Greg Fleming: Where is the New Zealand economy right now?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member raises a good point, because GDP is reported some way after the event—the release today is about what happened last year. What I can tell members is that when I talk to people and to businesses around the country, they are definitely doing it hard. But economic conditions will improve. GDP is expected to pick up this year, although strong population growth will limit per capita growth. In next week’s Budget Policy Statement, the Treasury will say more about its current view of the economy.

Greg Fleming: Does today’s GDP release have any impact on this year’s Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government’s plans for the Budget have not changed. These include delivering tax reductions to provide cost of living relief to New Zealanders who have seen no change in personal income tax rates and thresholds for 14 years. Can I reinforce to members that those tax reductions will be funded by reprioritisations, savings, and new revenue measures. This package of measures will not add to debt. I make an observation about those who oppose tax reduction. When the economy is going well, they say tax reduction must not happen because it will be inflationary; when the economy is not going well, they say tax reduction must not happen because we can’t afford it. The truth is that members opposite believe the Government can spend money better than New Zealanders can on their own families; well, I disagree.

Greg Fleming: Does today’s release have an impact on other Government activities?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Declining GDP in the December quarter does reinforce the importance of the Government’s plan to restore fiscal discipline to public spending and to drive more economic growth. I’ve said a lot about fiscal discipline in the House recently. Last Friday, I gave a speech to the Auckland Business Chamber setting out the Government’s growth strategy. This Government knows that a strong economy determines our standard of living, job and business opportunities, and the quality of public services. We are focused on rebuilding the economy after years of economic mismanagement.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she agree with Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, who said that the Sunday Star-Times is “right, of course” when they reported that the Government is facing a fiscal hole of $5.6 billion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister is right and would prefer that the member opposite, I’m sure, quoted him in the full context, because what is true is that our Government has inherited a fiscal hole from a previous Government who had in place a structural deficit, spending beyond the country’s means. What is not the case is that Vernon Small’s figure bears any relation to the affordability of our tax package, and I can reassure the member opposite that when the families in Auckland Central get their tax reduction and get their childcare tax rebate, they can be sure it will be funded responsibly through reprioritisation, and I look forward to her explaining to them why she would stop them getting it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether she has received, apart from the 100,000 ways of spending the taxpayers’ money, one idea from over there on how to make the taxpayers’ money?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Well, yeah, it’s—you’ve got—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Let me give it a go.

SPEAKER: You’d love to give it a go, but you’ve got no responsibility for any ideas that may or may not exist on the other side of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s no proscription as to where the Minister of Finance might get advice or submissions from. She gets them from all around the world—she gets them from the IMF, she gets them from the OECD—so why are you proscribing it? It’s a very reasonable question; they’ll hate the answer—that’s the only problem with it.

SPEAKER: Well, let me hear it again. Ask the question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance: alongside the 100,000 ways that she has received by way of advice to spend the taxpayers’ money, has she received one idea on how the taxpayers may make some money from those parties over there?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister makes two very good points. There have been occasions where the member opposite and I have shared ideas, and the unit title reform bill is an example of that. But the Deputy Prime Minister also highlights something very important, which is that those who wish to spend a country’s money should probably also be thinking of ideas for making it. On this side of the House, we are resolutely pro-growth, pro-development, and anti - red tape, and I wish the Greens would join us in that mission.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Would the Minister consider addressing that structural deficit in the economy, which she just cited, through recommendations from the Treasury, or even the likes of the IMF, whose recent reports stated—and I quote—that we could achieve a more efficient, equitable tax system with a comprehensive capital gains tax?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. No country has ever taxed its way to prosperity, and how wrong-headed is it that the answer to every economic problem that member ever sees is always “Tax them more.”

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister, then, disagree with the consistent advice from the Treasury that we would have a more productive economy with the implementation of a capital gains tax, fixing the incentives which currently see far too much money flowing into bidding up house prices?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I disagree with quite a lot of the Treasury advice and I also agree with quite a lot of the Treasury advice, and what I think the member opposite should be very careful about is cherry-picking Treasury advice, because I can tell her that Treasury don’t agree with her anti-growth, pro-regulation perspective. They know that that’s a recipe for disaster in our economy.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Yes, I do, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement that hard-working New Zealanders deserve tax relief. Given that data today confirms our economy has experienced a double-dip recession, I know those hard-working New Zealanders will be appreciative of soon being able to keep more of their money.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: On what date did she decide not to progress a pre-Budget funding commitment for Whaikaha, as she told Stuff yesterday?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That’s not what I told Stuff yesterday, but let me clarify the situation for the member. The Ministry of Disabled People had been invited to submit for cost pressures as part of Budget 2024 as we view the services they provide as critical front-line services and intended to provide them more funding in the Budget, and they did so with the Minister. Subsequent to that request, I was advised in early March that there was a risk of the disability services—Whaikaha—exceeding its appropriation. Treasury advised me at that time that this could be dealt with through the usual Budget process, and, obviously, yesterday it became clear there are more immediate issues.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did the change to disability support happen without warning or consultation with those affected when she made the decision to progress it as a part of a normal Budget process?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I can’t speak to that because I was not involved in making those decisions.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does the Minister stand by her comments to Stuff yesterday: “On balance, … we got to was that we would just make decisions as part of a normal Budget process”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That’s correct, because what I was advised was that Whaikaha had sufficient funding to make it through, so long as we made Budget decisions on the time line that we were planning and so long as we did agree to additional funding on that time line. We had been clear that we were providing significant additional funding. We were clear that the decision would be finalised by Cabinet in time for that to give Whaikaha security of funding going forward.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she decide to increase the level of cuts required of Whaikaha to 7.5 percent rather than the 6.5 percent she campaigned on, and is requiring of other agencies, given she received a briefing from the Minister of disabilities in late 2023?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would just assure the member that the ministry for disability services is expected to get vast orders of magnitude more in additional funding for front-line services—vast orders of magnitude more than any small changes they make to ensure their back office is more efficient. We haven’t exempted them from the process we are asking all Government agencies to do, because we are conscious every dollar that is saved by not spending it on another policy adviser or administrative person, consultant, or contractor is a dollar that can actually go to support people with disabilities.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that she was “surprised” by this decision, and, if so, is that because the Minister for Disability Issues never alerted her to the situation, or does she just not read the paper setting out the rationale for an early decision?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Question No. 4—Immigration

4. to the Minister of Immigration: When, if ever, can Palestinian New Zealanders expect her response to their repeated calls for a special humanitarian visa to bring their family members safely to New Zealand?

First, let me start by acknowledging the unimaginable humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Our thoughts are with all Palestinian New Zealanders who have family and friends there. The Government, along with our international partners, are closely monitoring the evolving situation in Gaza. I receive weekly updates on the visas issued and have regular conversations with officials on what other countries are doing. At this time, the evidence is that a special humanitarian visa is not a solution to the current crisis. For example, I’m told that Canada, the only country that have created a special visa, has received 986 applications—on 1 January, they opened that—and only 14 of those people have managed to complete secondary screening. It is heartbreaking to hear reports like the one this morning on RNZ of a man whose ex-wife and two children have visitor visas that we granted in December, who have still not been able to get out of Gaza. I do not want to give false hope to people that a visa will enable them to leave Gaza. As and when the situation changes in Gaza, we will reconsider our position.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Which option would enable more lives to be saved: the status quo or creating a special humanitarian visa to reunite family members of Palestinian New Zealanders with those that are still in Gaza?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll reiterate what I said: New Zealand has already been issuing visitor visas to family members of Palestinians here in New Zealand, and we have not been able to get them out. Unfortunately, the situation is a border situation, and simply issuing visas like the Canadians have done—like we have done—will not mean we can get people out of Gaza. As and when the situation changes in Gaza, we will reconsider our position, and we are monitoring the situation daily.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that, since October last year, only 10 visitor visa applications by Palestinians have been granted, whilst 13 have been rejected, and that seven times more visas are still being granted to Israeli nationals than Palestinian nationals when both of them are supposedly prioritised?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t know if the member has up-to-date numbers. I believe that the numbers of people who have been issued visitor visas are higher than that. The issue that we have, as I’ve said, is that people are not able to get out of Gaza. Many of the visas that we have issued are for people who are still waiting to get out and cannot get out.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has she requested advice on options to reunite family members of Palestinian New Zealanders beyond just monitoring the situation?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have asked for that. I asked for that very early on, and I was advised that we have set up a special, dedicated number of staff at Immigration New Zealand who are processing visitor visas for family members. We have a special, dedicated inbox. We are expediting those, and we are taking the humanitarian situation into consideration when we are granting those visas. But the situation remains, like the man who was on RNZ this morning who has an ex-wife and children in Gaza. We have issued them visas, and they cannot leave. As and when the situation changes, we will reconsider our position.

Tim Costley: What is the Government doing in response to the situation in Gaza?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Immigration New Zealand has, as I said, a specialist team working on applications. Since 7 October, we’ve received 71 applications from Palestinian nationals around the world. Of these, we believe 15 applications are from people who, to the best of our knowledge, may have been in Gaza at the time of their application or shortly before lodging. We’ve issued seven visas to people who are immediate family members of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents, and I would encourage any Palestinian New Zealander who has immediate family members in Gaza that they would like to travel to New Zealand to go to the Immigration New Zealand website to apply for a visa, which will be promptly assessed by the specialist team. Unfortunately, as I’ve said, that does not guarantee them a way out of Gaza. As we have seen, we have already done this, and many of those people we have issued visas to are still unable to leave. The New Zealand Government has also provided a total of $15 million in humanitarian assistance, including through the World Food Programme, UNICEF, and the International Committee of the Red Cross to address the urgent humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with MP Erica Stanford, who said, 14 days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that “Desperate Ukrainians in New Zealand have been unable to rescue wider family members because immigration Minister Kris Faafoi has not created a [special] pathway to let them come to New Zealand”, and, if so, will she afford the same urgency to Palestinian New Zealanders who are urgently waiting to be reunited with their families?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I do agree with that member in Opposition, and the reason I do is because those people in Ukraine were able to leave—they were able to get on a plane and get to New Zealand. The situation in Gaza is that they cannot leave, and I’m not going to be issuing visas, which is issuing false hope, for people on a great scale who cannot leave. But as and when the situation changes, we will reconsider our position.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What further actions beyond monitoring the situation has the Minister explored?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my primary answer: every single week, in my bag I ask for updates on the visas that have been issued to Palestinian nationals. I ask for an update on each individual family situation so that I can see who has been issued a visa and who has been able to leave. I have regular conversations with my officials on what other countries are doing, which is why I was able to tell the member about the situation with the Canadian visa, which is the only country in the world that has issued a humanitarian visa and has not been able to get people out. We are monitoring the situation. We are asking about what other countries are being able to do so that we can closely follow them if and when the situation changes.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with Minas Al-Ansari, speaking for Kiwi Palestinians with family in Gaza, who said that “Right now, our family members are being killed and we are helpless to save them. One member of our community has lost 120 members of their family. If Erica Stanford, this National-led government had granted special humanitarian visas early, as was done for Ukraine, there is absolutely no doubt lives would have been saved.”, and, if so, how many more lives need to be lost before she considers a visa?

SPEAKER: No, no, the last part of that question is not acceptable. Just withdraw that last part, because you can’t ask someone to comment on a quote and then say “if so”—doesn’t work. So put it grammatically correctly to the House, but don’t repeat the whole question. It’s too long.

Ricardo Menéndez March: I can cut the quote then, but does she agree with Minas Al-Ansari, who said, “Right now, our families are being killed and we are helpless to save them.”—

SPEAKER: Yeah, we got all that; just the last part—just rephrase the very last part of the question.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with Minas Al-Ansari, who said, “If Erica Stanford, this National-led government had granted special humanitarian visas early, as was done for Ukraine”—

SPEAKER: No, sorry—OK, look, that’s the end of the question. You can’t rephrase it; you’re not carrying on with it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Sorry, there’s a quote here; I’m trying to shorten it as much as I can.

SPEAKER: Well, this is your fourth go at it—get it right. Just take the last part off—it’s pretty clear; pretty simple.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Yeah, I’ll just repeat the quote without this last bit then: does she agree with Minas Al-Ansari, speaking for Kiwi Palestinians with family in Gaza—

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, that’s it. Finished—thank you. Move now to—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How is it that a member is supposed to repeat the end of a question by reframing that whilst not offering the question in its full context?

SPEAKER: Because you can’t ask a question for an opinion when in fact you are finishing the question by inferring that the content is irrefutable, which, effectively, the words “if so” do. I asked him to change it several times.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I hear that, Mr Speaker, and I guess, just for sake of clarity for the House, then it would be the most, kind of, due process for the question in its full—

SPEAKER: It’s never been a problem for others to correct a small part at the end. I’m just not happy that we’re now trifling with the House when other people are able to comply with those requirements.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order. Sorry, Mr Speaker; so just to clarify in good faith, what you had asked me was to shorten the quote altogether, which I tried to do. None of the quotes that I had tried to repeat while shortening it were outside of what I had repeated. So I tried to cut the second bit and just repeat the question as it was. My intention is absolutely not to trifle with the House; it is to comply with what was requested of me.

SPEAKER: Well, your intention is not meeting its intent. So can we just drop the “if so” part of the question.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Done—I can do that.

SPEAKER: Good, thank you. The Hansard will record that; the Minister may like to comment.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I would say that of course the situation is unimaginable, but I would say that, unfortunately, the comments that that man made are not true. We know that people in Palestine who have temporary visas to get out have not been able to get out. We granted visas in December and people still are unable to get out. It is, unfortunately, not a visa issue; it is a border issue, and as I’ve said a number of times, if that changes, we will reconsider our position.

Question No. 5—Trade

5. to the Minister for Trade: What actions has the Government taken to support New Zealand trade?

Today, the House will complete the final legislative process required to bring the New Zealand - European Union free-trade agreement (FTA) into force on 1 May, many months earlier than expected. This legislation is being passed in a record time of seven weeks so that New Zealand businesses can realise benefits as soon as possible. In particular, this early entry into force date means our kiwifruit industry will see $43 million worth of tariff savings this year. We also estimate that 35,000 tonnes of onions will be exported to the EU after 1 May, saving our onion exporters $3 million per season. Without this early entry into force, both the kiwifruit and onion growers would have missed the season’s exports and paid many tens of millions of dollars’ worth of tariffs.

Sam Uffindell: Why has the Government moved so quickly to get this agreement into force?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the Government’s drive to get the legislation passed in record time is to see the immediate tariff savings of $100 million per year on New Zealand’s exports from day one. For the first day of implementation, duties will be removed from 91 percent of goods exported. A wide range of sectors will see these immediate benefits: 99.5 percent of fish and seafood trade will enter tariff-free from day one, as will 97 percent of New Zealand’s wine and mānuka honey exports. The EU has completed its ratification process last year; it is now up to us to deliver and do our part to bring the agreement into force, and that’s what the House will do today.

Catherine Wedd: What benefits will New Zealanders see as a result of this agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY: New Zealand will remove all tariffs on imports originating from the EU. New Zealand consumers and businesses will benefit from access to cheaper products imported from the EU, on a range of goods including footwear, apparel, cosmetics, furniture, chocolate, kitchen appliances, machinery, motorhomes, forklifts, and some agricultural goods. The EU is our fourth-largest services trading partner, worth $4.4 billion. We estimate there will be significant savings, between 10 to 20 percent, in the costs for New Zealand service exporters that trade with the EU. The economic gains from the FTA will help to soften the impact of the cost of living increases for New Zealanders and helps to rebuild our economy.

Tim van de Molen: How was it possible to get this legislation through so quickly?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the EU - NZ FTA officially enters into force on the first day of the second month after the legislation has passed through the House. Therefore, it was vital we fast tracked this legislation through Parliament as quickly as possible. I’d like to recognise the work done by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and members from all parties, who worked collaboratively to speed up the process while still hearing the views from all submitted. I’d also like to recognise the considerable efforts of the Hon Damien O’Connor and all parties in this House for agreeing to progress the ratification of the EU FTA legislation so quickly.

Hon Damien O’Connor: To the Minister: given the importance and the value of this agreement—

SPEAKER: That’s not a question word—the member’s been here a long time.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Sorry, I got it—if this legislation is so important, why did the Government prioritise the removal of smoking protection, over the passage of this legislation?

Hon TODD McCLAY: It’s no wonder that member is no longer the Minister responsible. But what I would like to do is thank him for his hard work on an agreement that will help deliver for all New Zealanders, and recognise how hard it must be to be a Minister for Trade in a Labour Government.

Question No. 6—Health

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

on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, in the context in which they were given, including his action of congratulating the new Minister for Mental Health on his great announcement this morning of rolling out mental health peer support workers in emergency departments.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he issue a statement on 29 November that said Labour’s smoke-free changes would have resulted in an illicit market for tobacco when he had been advised that the evidence did not support that statement?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I take a range of advice, and if that member had read her own regulatory impact statement from the legislation she passed in 2021, she would have seen that advice.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can the Minister recall that the regulatory impact statement said that the illicit market in tobacco was decreasing, at a time when New Zealanders had one of the highest prices of cigarettes in the world, and, if so, how can he justify his decision to make a statement that the smoke-free laws that Labour put in place would increase the illicit market?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I can justify that statement from the advice in her own regulatory impact statement in 2021 that said, “Any additional actions that will reduce the supply, availability, and appeal of smoked tobacco products will add to the incentives to import illicit tobacco products.”

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How is it truthful to repeatedly claim that the legislation will grow the black market when, subsequent to the regulatory impact statement and before the Minister made his statement on 29 November, he had been advised that there was no evidence to support that claim?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I receive a range of advice, including another statement from that regulatory impact statement in 2021 that said organised syndicates were involved in illicit tobacco trade.

SPEAKER: I’ll just make the point that it’s not appropriate in a question to infer that any member of the House is less than truthful. There is another process for that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that documents reveal his office has been involved with undermining smoke-free policies while he has said to health workers this policy has nothing to do with him?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, what is correct is that I’ve received a range of advice from many different stakeholder groups, including submissions from stakeholders during the process when that bill went to select committee, such as the Food and Grocery Council, who submitted to the Health Committee that limiting retail could create significant additional opportunities for organised crime, including gangs.

Question No. 7—Mental Health

7. to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made regarding mental health?

Today, I’m pleased to announce a new mental health and addiction peer support service in hospital emergency departments (EDs). The service will see peer support workers embedded within EDs to provide additional support for those with mental health needs and their families in a time of need. It will also help connect people in crisis to community support. I’ve heard from many in the sector who want to see peer support specialists playing a greater role in helping to address some of the challenges faced by our mental health services, including using their established workforce to start taking the pressure of our specialist services in EDs.

Carl Bates: What actions is the Government taking to grow the peer support workforce?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Today, I also announced a $1 million workforce fund over two years that’s been set up to provide a level 4 New Zealand certificate in health and wellbeing peer support training and specific training for working in EDs. Peer support specialists play a vital role within this workforce and it’s essential that we put in place specific initiatives to grow and support them.

Carl Bates: What impact will these new services have on emergency departments?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’ve been advised that between 13,000 and 14,000 people present annually to EDs with mental health issues. This service will help provide timely mental health and addiction support for those in need whilst helping relieve pressure on ED staff. This service will also support police, who respond to a number of mental health call outs, and, in many cases, have to wait with the patient for several hours in ED before they can be handed over to a mental health specialist. Embedding peer support workers in ED will allow for a warm handover from police, which will mean they can get back on the street faster to keep our community safe.

Ingrid Leary: Will the Minister commit to appropriate levels of care for people experiencing mental health distress from when they arrive in the emergency departments continuously and until after they leave by peer support and medical workers to ensure this programme keeps people safe and can’t be exploited to gain waiting time targets for ED?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: What I can commit to is this Government will get more money out of the Beehive to the grassroots NGOs that are ready to respond to the needs in mental health. That’s exactly what we’ve done today with uncommitted funding that they left sitting in the Beehive.

Carl Bates: What feedback has he received from the mental health sector?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Today’s announcement has been described by the sector as a positive move, with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission saying people who are experiencing mental distress who arrive at EDs will be supported while they wait. This will be positive for both the department and people seeking help. The peer support workforce has a lot to offer and it’s encouraging to see the expansion of these roles.

Question No. 8—Courts

8. to the Minister for Courts: What recent policy statements has she made?

I recently announced the introduction of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill to Parliament, contributing to the Government’s 100-day commitment to enable more virtual participation in court proceedings. This bill enables the use of audiovisual link technology, which proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic to support access to justice and a safer option to attend court for victims.

Todd Stephenson: Will introducing audiovisual-link courts contribute to more efficient court proceedings?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. Enabling audiovisual-link technology in court proceedings offers increased efficiency by providing flexibility in how parties participate. This flexibility may reduce the time and cost associated with attending court in person, including travel expenses and transport security costs.

Todd Stephenson: Will the introduction of audiovisual in court support victims?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. The use of audiovisual links in our courts will enable victims of crime to remotely observe criminal trials, if suitable technology is available and remote viewing is deemed appropriate by a judicial officer or a court registrar. This will allow victims to avoid potential re-traumatisation and intimidation often associated with attending court in person.

Todd Stephenson: What will this Government do to ensure the use of audiovisual links in New Zealand’s courts is fit for purpose for the future?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Cabinet has endorsed a first-principles review of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010, given the significant advancements in audiovisual-link technology since the Act was passed in 2010. This review will inform possible ways of enhancing and updating audiovisual link capabilities within our court system. The results of this review will be assessed later on this year.

Question No. 9—Veterans

9. to the Minister for Veterans: Does he stand by his statement that the Veterans’ Independence Programme is “a great thing to be able to do”; if so, does he support Veterans’ Affairs’ move to restrict access to the Veterans’ Independence Programme?

To the first part of the question: yes. To the second part of the question: also yes. I strongly support the prioritisation of existing resources that are available, particularly to those ex-service personnel who have been injured or become ill as a result of their service to New Zealand. As the situation currently stands, as we inherited, it takes, for example, 361 days, on average, for a disablement pension claim to be processed and provided. Clearly that’s not acceptable, and anything that we can do to improve the situation for those veterans is not only the moral thing to do; it is the legally required course of action, in accordance with the Veterans’ Support Act.

Greg O’Connor: Does he agree with former Minister Craig Foss that “Under the VIP support is available to all veterans with qualifying service, whether or not they have a service-related injury … This means that more veterans will be able to access the services and support provided by Veterans’ Affairs than ever before.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I strongly support the idea that, to the greatest extent possible, the New Zealand Government would provide independence-type services to veterans, even those who have not been injured or become ill as a result of their services to New Zealand. That is why, referencing my quote to the New Zealand Herald recently in the first part of the primary question, I stated that it’s “a great thing to be able to do”. It’s not a thing that we’re able to do, however, at the moment, in the context of the situation we’ve inherited to the extent that those resources are taken away from those who have made claims and are waiting up to a year, on average, to receive the help they need, deserve, and are entitled to under the Act.

Greg O’Connor: What action, if any, has he taken to retain entitlements to the Veterans’ Independence Programme?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The scheme continues to exist, and we will advocate as much as possible for its continuation. However, on the current parameters, the resources available and as appropriated by the last Government, it is not feasible to continue those at the expense of more fundamental core and non-discretionary functions.

Greg O’Connor: Does he believe suspending entitlements to the Veterans’ Independence Programme is acceptable when his Government campaigned on ensuring veterans receive the care, recognition, and support they deserve?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, it’s more acceptable than the situation that has been allowed to prevail, which many people across the country have raised to me and various local representatives, such that they seek the care that they need, deserve, and are legally entitled to under the Veterans’ Support Act. Clearly there’s a prioritisation that has needed to be made. Obviously, we will improve the situation as best we can, including by improving the processes, potentially working with non-Government agency or organisation partners. For example, I acknowledge the RSA for reaching out and offering such support. That’s work that we’re actively engaged in.

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the Mana Mokopuna report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and the National Iwi Chairs Forum, and the rangatahi surveyed called for harsher consequences for racism?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government’s position, and my position as the Prime Minister, is that I agree with that entirely. When people are racist, they should be called out for doing it, because it’s a disaster for democracy. And you know what it looks like and it means, don’t you?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I, please, seek clarity on what the last comment from the Prime Minister meant when he said, “I know what it looks like”? From my perspective, I didn’t understand that they’re allowed to ask me questions or answer questions with a question.

SPEAKER: Sorry, it’s not appropriate to go that way. Ask another question, or ask the question again.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does he see is his role in combating increased racism being experienced by rangatahi according to the Mana Mokopuna report?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the most critical thing that’s involved, in terms of combating racism, is to point out the fallacy and the deceit and the lie of one people being superior in their DNA to another.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like to bring in Speakers’ rulings 59/2, 59/4, and 121—the personal reflections. Distasteful and disorderly, as far as not addressing the real issue here, which is our mokopuna wanting to see a Government that addresses racism, not to hear from a Prime Minister who believes that it is his role to tell the person asking the question what a racist is. I don’t think that’s what the mokopuna in this report were seeking. If we can just say focused, as the Prime Minister said, and keep the decorum to the kaupapa.

SPEAKER: Stay on the point, OK? So your point, essentially—well, the point you quote is not something I can rule favourably on. The Prime Minister, in this case, answered the question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. The personal reflection is about a reference that was neither made from this person asking the question or this party, and that is the point that I’m making.

SPEAKER: I know that. But my point to you is that he did not make a personal reflection; he made a statement in an answer, and that’s what the Hansard will show.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister agree that education-based solutions are key to combating the increase of racism being experienced by rangatahi at school, and, if so, what is his Government doing to improve education in this space?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is the Government’s position that education and every other utility should be used to combat racism in our society, and we’re going to go to the ends of the earth to ensure that that happens.

Question No. 11—Revenue

11. to the Minister of Revenue: What announcement has the Minister made on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill?

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced with the Minister of Finance that the coalition Government would be introducing an Amendment Paper to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. The Amendment Paper enacts several changes to the tax system to keep good on our coalition commitments to ensure New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn. These changes include restoring interest deductibility for residential investment properties and reducing the brightline test from 10 years to two.

Nancy Lu: What other changes are included in the Government’s Amendment Paper?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The Amendment Paper closes a loophole that enables offshore online casinos to pay less tax than New Zealand operators. Currently, the only tax that applies to offshore online casinos is GST, where casinos in New Zealand are facing much higher taxes. From 1 July, offshore operators will be required to pay a gambling duty of 12 percent on gross betting revenue, therefore closing this loophole.

Nancy Lu: When will the other changes come into force?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Changes to the brightline test will come into force from 1 July 2024 alongside the gambling duty changes. Interest deductibility will be restored in stages, with 80 percent of a deduction allowed from 1 April 2024 and 100 percent from 1 April 2025.

Nancy Lu: Has the Minister seen any reports on the bill’s treatment of trust tax?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes. Originally, the bill required many lower-income trusts to pay the top tax rate of 39c in the dollar. However, I’m pleased to see that the Finance and Expenditure Committee accepted the Government’s advice for a $10,000 trustee income de minimis to be introduced. This means that around 87 percent of all trusts in New Zealand are unlikely to be impacted by the change to the top tax rate. This is a sensible and pragmatic change, and I thank the committee for their work.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is his Government prioritising a $2.9 billion tax cut for landlords over other election promises that would have helped middle-income families and cost less from Crown accounts, like raising the Working for Families abatement threshold?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What is a priority for this Government is actually delivering on our coalition agreement and putting downward pressure on rent, and this is what these changes will do.

Question No. 12—Auckland

12. to the Minister for Auckland: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon’s “commitment to Aucklanders” in the New Zealand Herald today that the Government is “ruthlessly focused on rebuilding the economy and reducing the cost of living so more Kiwis can get ahead”; if so, what actions will he take to deliver cost of living relief for Aucklanders?

on behalf of the Minister for Auckland: Yes, the Government is ruthlessly focused on rebuilding the economy and reducing the cost of living. That is why we are axing the Auckland regional fuel tax (RFT) on 30 June this year, and why the transport Minister is in Auckland today outlining the coalition Government’s plan to get Auckland moving again.

Shanan Halbert: Is the Government’s own analysis of the Auckland regional fuel tax repeal correct that “Removing the RFT is unlikely to have a substantive impact on households”; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think the member will be pretty aware that when he goes to the petrol station and people pay less money for the petrol because they’re not paying a regional fuel tax, they will have more money in their pockets. And that’s what we’re setting out to achieve.

Shanan Halbert: What action is he taking on behalf of Aucklanders, who are facing additional public transport costs, registration fees, and tolls and/or pricing schemes following the repeal of the regional fuel tax?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’ll be saying to them that they’ll be very pleased—well, they’ll be very concerned that they’re driving around in Auckland, whether they’re in cars or on buses, crawling around at 30 kilometres an hour and going over speed bumps everywhere because of the strange priorities of the previous Government, and my message to them is: help is on its way. You’ve got a Government that’s going to actually help them move around more quickly. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait—just wait.

Shanan Halbert: What action is he taking—

SPEAKER: Just—hang on. Now you can start.

Shanan Halbert: What action is he taking on of Aucklanders who are facing a proposed 23 percent increase in their water rates?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, he’d be better to ask the Minister for Infrastructure such a question. But we’re very focused on ensuring that all Aucklanders get access to things. That’s why we’re trying to reduce the inflationary pressures in this city by bringing some discipline back to Government spending and by reducing the regulatory burden that many businesses, including the providers of water services in this country, have to deal with. So, long term, we’re going to take the pressure off Aucklanders in that regard.