Oral Questions

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

Yes. The IMF has recently been in New Zealand to conduct its annual review of the economy. It released a concluding statement today that describes its preliminary findings. Consistent with other forecasters, the IMF expects growth to remain slow in 2024, before picking up in 2025. It’s the lagged impact: the legacy of the last Government of monetary policy tightening, suppressing domestic demand. As a result of this slowing in demand, the IMF expects inflation to come back into the Reserve Bank’s 1 percent to 3 percent target range in the third quarter of 2024.

SPEAKER: Joseph Mooney.

Joseph Mooney: [Looks at phone] My apologies, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: What’s that, sorry?

Joseph Mooney: What other—[Interruption] Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Hang on a moment.

Joseph Mooney: What other reports has the Minister seen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, thank you to the member. He’s allowed to ask me any question he likes about the IMF report, because I have a lot of comments to make about it. One of the things the IMF report comments on is New Zealand’s fiscal position, saying that the Government is running a structural fiscal deficit with a spending-to-GDP ratio higher this year following Budget 2023’s sizeable operating and capital allowances. The IMF also says that, in recent years, debt has increased more rapidly in New Zealand than in many other advanced economies, and that New Zealand’s debt will continue its upward trajectory if there is no decisive consolidation. Members will recall that I have consistently been saying the same thing about New Zealand’s deficit and debt in this House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I understand there’s a little bit of a pantomime that goes on when it comes to Government questions. But a member getting out of their seat to go and ask a Minister what question they’re allowed to ask in the middle of trying to ask a question somewhat makes a mockery of the Parliament’s process.

SPEAKER: Firstly, you’ve probably lost the point of order on the opening statement with regards to “pantomime”—sympathetic as one might be to that suggestion. But it’s also not possible, even with your considerable amount of skill, to have lip-read what was actually being said when someone had their back to you. So a point is made.

Hon David Seymour: How do these levels of debt fit within wider time frames over several decades or even as long as the Deputy Prime Minister’s lifetime?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I outlined to this House yesterday, New Zealand’s debt levels are now at a level that we haven’t seen since the late 80s, mid-1990s.

Joseph Mooney: What are the IMF’s policy prescriptions that she’s seen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The IMF says that the Government’s fiscal strategy should signal a strong commitment to consolidation, and it says that Budget 2024 should adopt a tight fiscal stance to help reduce inflation. More broadly, the IMF’s statement says that policies to boost housing supply are urgently needed and that changes in zoning can be effective. I’m sure my colleague the Minister of Housing clearly agrees wholeheartedly. The IMF also goes on to say that reforms are needed to revive New Zealand’s slow productivity growth.

Joseph Mooney: How is the Government planning on addressing New Zealand’s productivity challenges?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Last Friday, I set out the Government’s growth strategy in a speech to the Auckland Business Chamber. The strategy has five pillars: building infrastructure for growth and resilience; lifting educational achievement and skills; strengthening trade and investment; promoting innovation, science, and technology; and improving regulation. The Government cannot do this alone; it requires businesses to pitch in as well, and feedback is that business welcomes the chance to work with a Government intent on removing obstacles rather than tying them up in regulation and red tape.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do, and in particular I stand by this Government’s action to restore responsibilities by Kāinga Ora tenants to respect their home and their neighbours if they want to remain in their State house. The status quo is not fair on neighbours faced with disruptive or abusive behaviour and nor is it fair on taxpayers, who foot the bill for that house, to fail to uphold the standards expected of that rent. And I have to say, I agree with that member when he said that he didn’t do enough on unruly tenants in six years, and that’s quite obvious, because there are 335 serious complaints every month over the last three months and, in particular, there are three evicted tenants in the last year. So I make no apologies for being tough on making sure we make sure Kāinga Ora tenants are meeting their obligations.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who made the decision to change the criteria for access to disability support entitlements, and was the Cabinet consulted on that decision?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say on that is that there has been no change to the disability services support budget from the budget that was set in your last Government. What there has been is a tightening up of the criteria of the modifications and equipment budget to make sure that disabled people are getting the direct support that they need.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was actually, “Who made the decision?” The Prime Minister has just indicated that there has been a decision made to change the criteria. I asked him who made that and whether Cabinet was consulted on it.

SPEAKER: OK, well, ask it again. We’ll pretend it hasn’t happened, and you can get another answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who made the decision to change the criteria for access to disability support entitlements, and was the Cabinet consulted?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The ministry made the decision to tighten up the criteria for modifications and equipment, which is a piece of the total disability services budget.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Minister for Disability Issues seek additional funding to meet the shortfall in disability support funding before reducing the entitlement criteria?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I want to be clear with that member about is that this Government is maintaining the total budget that the member’s Government signed off in May last year. The total budget for disability services has remained unchanged. That is an area of pressure, and that is something that we’re considering for our Budget with respect to how we can better support front-line services.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t the question that was asked. It was actually a very straight question. You indicated yesterday that, if I ask straight questions, you’ll have more sympathy. The question was very straight and simple: did the Minister for Disability Issues seek additional funding to meet the shortfall in disability support funding before reducing the entitlement criteria?

SPEAKER: Yes, but the answer that came—I did listen to your question, and I listened to the answer—was that the Government is working a different process, I suppose you might say, with regards to a more comprehensive, I think the term was, full budget approach, which I think does answer the question. It certainly addresses the question, which, as you know, is all that has to happen.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It cannot possibly address the question, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, it cannot possibly be addressing the question. The Prime Minister has indicated that the overall budget hasn’t changed. The question of whether the Minister had asked for more money hasn’t been addressed at all.

SPEAKER: Well, look—OK. The Prime Minister can have another crack at it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, the total budget for disability support services remained unchanged from that member’s previous Government commitment in the Budget last year—one. Number two: what I’d say to you is we’ve got a Budget process going between now and when the Budget is delayed, and there’s an understanding that yes, we need better support for some front-line services. That will be considered as part of a normal Budget process, which the member will well understand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Minister for Disability Issues ask for more funding to meet the shortfall?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And as I’ve explained to that member, we’re in the middle of a Budget process where we are working through the needs of the Budget for May. That is part of that process. We are cognisant of the need for better front-line services support in a number of areas, and we’re working hard to deliver that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the estimated funding shortfall for disability support entitlements in the current financial year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that is a discussion for the Budget process, which is up and running right now.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the estimated annual cost of reinstating interest deductibility for landlords once that policy is fully implemented?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’m very proud about that policy is making sure that it delivers for the renters of New Zealand. The Labour Party used to care about renters in New Zealand, but they lifted rents up $170 per week—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister doesn’t know, he can say he doesn’t know, but to simply not answer the question and then attack the Opposition, when the question is a very straight one—there was no assertion in it; it was simply a straight question as to what the cost of a Government policy which has been announced is.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The total cost is $2.9 billion over four years.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why can Cabinet agree on tax cuts for landlords prior to the Budget, as announced on 10 March and as indicated in the statement that he’s just made, but not on boosting disability support funding and instead cutting entitlements for the families who receive them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely with that last part of that statement. What I’m saying to the member very clearly is that this Government is working to the budget that that member and his Government put in place last year. That is the total budget that we’re working for. We have a new Budget coming at the end of May, and we are considering a range of needs and a range of front-line services.

Question No. 3—Health

3. to the Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to deliver better cancer services?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In our first few months, we have made progress in both the cancer diagnostic and cancer management spaces. These announcements have been backed up by the introduction of an ambitious faster cancer treatment target. That target aims for 90 percent of patients to receive cancer management within 31 days of a decision to treat. This will help ensure the delivery of timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What steps has the Minister taken to improve access to diagnostic cancer services?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Just last week, the Prime Minister and I were at the launch of a new mobile breast screening unit in Counties Manukau. This is a great example of taking health services directly into communities and is expected to reach up to 6,000 women a year. These mobile units will have an important role to play in our recently announced age extension for breast cancer screening, which was announced as part of our 100-day plan.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why is it so important to improve access to diagnostic cancer services?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Improving access to diagnostic services will save lives. That is why it is so important to us. The extension of breast cancer screening means that around 120,000 additional women will be eligible for screening every two years. We know that catching more cancers early means better treatment outcomes. I’m informed an additional 22 lives could be saved every year on the current uptake and 65 with full uptake.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other steps has the Minister taken to improve access to diagnostic technology across New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I thank the member for his question—I’m sure that, as a representative for the South Island, this answer will be of particular interest to him. The Government recently announced that Health New Zealand has approved funding for an updated set of criteria that will allow for about 1,000 more publicly funded PET/CT scans per year in the South Island. For example, this will remove geographic variation that previously meant people in the South Island would have to travel to the North Island to access publicly funded PET/CT scans.

Question No. 4—Energy

4. to the Associate Minister for Energy: What actions, if any, has he taken to establish a fuel security plan?

Apologies, Mr Speaker, there’s a frog in my throat. The coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party commits to the establishment of a fuel security plan to safeguard transport, logistics, and emergency services from any domestic or international disruption. The Government is moving quickly to establish such a plan, with a study into NZ fuel requirements planned to begin this later, including an investigation into the reestablishment of the Marsden Point refinery, shamefully closed down.

Andy Foster: What fuels does the Minister see are critical for our fuel security in the coming decades?

Hon SHANE JONES: We share a desire that Kiwis should be free of reliance on fossil fuels in the near future. That stuff, however, belongs in an Enid Blyton storybook. New Zealand will continue to need gas to keep our economy functioning. Sadly, from time to time, Indonesian coal will be relied upon to keep the lights on. This is a stark reminder to the people who sit under a rock, not appreciating the genuine complexity of energy resilience.

Andy Foster: What recent causes of fuel insecurity in New Zealand is the Minister aware of?

Hon SHANE JONES: I am aware that, despite the willingness of the executive and directors of the Marsden Point refinery to seek an accommodation with the last Government, the last Government watched the demise and death of the Marsden Point oil refinery—an awful blow to Northland, and a wicked act undermining the resilience of New Zealand. But not only has it put fuel security at risk, it has endangered cardon dioxide supplies for beer and food. It was also, we should remember, the majority producer of jet fuel. In fact, all shipping fuel and more than half of our diesel came a lot more confidently and reliably to New Zealand as a consequence of that refinery. And the people who closed it down thought that they were doing the right thing via climate change—they have worsened the resilience of our nation.

Andy Foster: As a result of that closure, what actions is the Minister taking to review the opportunities that there are around Marsden Point?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I have said, we are investigating the reestablishment of Marsden Point refinery. Sadly, we are left to gather the—

Scott Willis: Sadly, we are left with you!

Hon SHANE JONES: —results of an awful decision, made over the last two years, and it’s driven—sir—by a mixture of wokeism, a mixture of naivety, and an unwillingness to accept that without gas, without fuel, the nation will collapse. With New Zealand First in charge of such an initiative, our resilience will prosper.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister—

SPEAKER: Yeah, hang on. No, I haven’t called you yet. Just before we go on, I suppose—I was going to use the word “poetic”, but it’s not really poetic; it’s interesting and colourful, but not particularly helpful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There are Parliaments that actually admire the exquisite use of the English language—we did, formerly, until a recent time. So might I just say that is important to us.

SPEAKER: Can I just say, could you speak into your microphone, because I couldn’t hear you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll say it loudly. There was a time when Parliaments, and ours was one of them, would admire the exquisite use of the English language. If some members of Parliament can’t understand that, then that’s their problem. That’s my point.

SPEAKER: Well, hang on. Speaking to the point of order—

Rawiri Waititi: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: —my point simply was—

Rawiri Waititi: I get knocked down.

SPEAKER: My point simply was that—do you want to hear or not? My point simply was that the Standing Orders, which you didn’t refer to, do require that Ministers answer within a number of criteria that are laid down in the Standing Orders. Some of that language stepped well outside that, and I’m simply pointing that out.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How long, without pipeline supply and in the event of a tanker disruption, would this country be, in terms of days, before we reached an absolute and total crisis?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m advised it is between 17 and 21 days. The situation is grossly worsened by the closure of our refinery, reflective of the shallow thinking behind that decision maker.

Question No. 5—Finance

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

Yes, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement from yesterday’s question time asking whether New Zealanders can see $123 billion worth of value generated for the $123 billion worth of Government debt racked up since 2017.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her commitment to not cut front-line public services; if so, how does she reconcile that with the Police Association’s comments today that the indefinite freeze on hiring non-sworn officers is already causing backlogs and delays, and that this policy would take police officers off the street?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. That is an operational matter for the police.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis that “obviously we will need to increase health funding at a minimum at the rate of inflation.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In a rare breaking out of bilateral consensus across the House, National, in its fiscal plan, had the same quantum of cost pressure funding for health as the Labour Party, and I agree that that was a good amount.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she commit to increasing funding for Whaikaha to maintain crucial front-line services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she see as a greater priority for her Budget allowance: respite care for Debbie, the parent of two adults who have disabilities in my electorate of Mana, who has been a caregiver for 36 years and a sole caregiver for 30 years, or meeting the $800 million blowout in the cost of tax cuts for landlords?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the assertion at the back of that question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why are Government’s coffers an open pit for landlords but not for disabled communities?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I reject that entirely, and I would note and caution the member that the ministry for disability services is operating on the appropriation that the previous Labour Government gave it.

Question No. 6—Agriculture

6. to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to support the Primary sector?

Last Thursday, I declared drought conditions for the top of the South, as a medium-scale adverse event, to give farmers certainty. Conditions on the ground across Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson districts are extremely dry and likely to get worse in the coming months. On Monday, I visited the region to meet with farmers and growers, and was told that day-to-day conditions on the ground are extremely tough and they are particularly concerned about access to stock or feed and water. This declaration unlocks further support for farmers and growers, including tax and Ministry of Social Development support, and is on top of the $20,000 that the Minister for Rural Communities, the Hon Mark Patterson, and I made available to the Top Of The South Rural Support Trust last month.

Miles Anderson: How is the Minister supporting dry conditions elsewhere in New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, whilst the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd is indicating that no other region is yet in a meteorological drought, I’m aware that many regions have had extended periods of very dry conditions. For farmers, this comes on top of financial pressures arising from input-cost increases, increased rate rises, and reduced incomes associated with low commodity prices. Therefore, I’ve instructed officials to update me daily on conditions around the country. I’m particularly concerned about the Canterbury and Otago regions, as I am hearing that, for some farmers, they’re already at 100 percent supplementary feed levels. Unless conditions improve considerably in the coming days, I expect to make further announcements.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How is the Government supporting farm productivity levels?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, last week, I announced a partnership which will help New Zealand’s pastoral farmers save $332 million per year in productivity losses, by eliminating the significant impact of facial eczema. Facial eczema affects farm productivity levels by reducing growth rates, fertility, and production, and can cause animal welfare concerns. This programme will provide farmers with practical tools and solutions so they can get on with the job of providing the safe, high-quality food that New Zealand is so well known for. The Government is co-funding this $20 million project with Beef + Lamb New Zealand to ensure New Zealand’s farmers remain world best.

Tim van de Molen: What else has he announced to support New Zealand farmers?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, we’re investing in a further seven catchment groups across the Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, and the Wairarapa to ensure farmers and growers have the on-the-ground resources they need to achieve better environmental outcomes. Catchment groups led by farmers and community members do significant work across the country to sustainably achieve common goals, improve farm practices, and to share best-practice information. It’s vital we support local farmers’ efforts to improve land management practice and water quality measures, and the coalition Government’s investment of $3.3 million will deliver better outcomes for rural New Zealand.

Question No. 7—Police

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

Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will there be a freeze on hiring non-sworn police staff, including those who answer 111 calls and prepare police files for court, as reported today by the New Zealand Herald?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s an operational matter for the commissioner in terms of where he deploys his personnel.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with police advice released under the Official Information Act regarding police employees that these corporate functions will be an important and necessary enabler to support the Government’s priority of recruiting an additional 500 new front-line police over the next two years; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, again, that is an operational matter and a matter for the Commissioner of Police.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he guarantee that waiting times for 111 calls will not increase under his watch?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, what I can guarantee the public of New Zealand is that they have got a Government that is serious about reducing violent crime. And, in the last six years, we have seen a massive increase in violent retail crime and violent crime relating to gangs, and you have a Government and a Minister that are actually committed to getting on top of that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I asked a pretty straight question, Mr Speaker. I asked whether he’ll commit that waiting times for 111 calls will not increase under his watch. You’ve been very clear, Mr Speaker, in the past that that’s not an opportunity to attack the previous Government. I think the people of New Zealand deserve a clear answer on a matter of such high importance.

SPEAKER: Well, it is a matter of high importance, and the Minister started by saying what he would guarantee. If you read the Standing Orders—

Hon Ginny Andersen: So that’s a no.

SPEAKER: Well, you can take it whatever way you like, but the Standing Orders make it clear the question must be addressed, and I think it was.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Based on the ruling that you have just made, if we asked the Minister how much something costs, he could simply put his hand up and say, “Well, I can tell you how much something else costs.”, and that would be addressing the question. It would make question time into a complete and utter farce. Addressing the question means you actually address the question; you don’t get to ask a different question of yourself and then answer that one instead.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a very interesting point of order, and it’s been taken once before in this House by a member who asked the Speaker at the time: if he asked someone the price of something and he got the answer back that was just, “Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb”, would that be addressing the question? The Speaker said yes, and it’s quite clear in here. So it’s nothing new. In this case, I’m saying that the member addressed the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. So are you ruling that the word “rhubarb” is a sufficient answer to any question that is being asked? Because that’s, effectively, what you’ve just ruled.

SPEAKER: No, I’m not. But a previous Speaker did offer that view to the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As you’ve made a ruling that requires those that are making points of order—

SPEAKER: No. Hang on a minute; be careful. I have not made a ruling. I’ve just said—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Excuse me, sir—

SPEAKER: I’ve just said—so you know, so it will help you with your point of order. I’ve just said that, if the Speaker considers a question is addressed, it’s addressed.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes, sir. I’m referring to a previous ruling.

SPEAKER: Oh, OK.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If I’m given the opportunity, I’ll be able to clarify it.

SPEAKER: Good.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The ruling I’m referring to, sir, is that where you’ve asked members to indicate the Speakers’ rulings or Standing Orders that they are referring to in points of order. It’s a point that you made to the Rt Hon Winston Peters—or referred to earlier—and you yourself in that ruling have referred to the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. I don’t expect you to have them on hand straight away, but it would be useful for the House if you could refer to those that you are ruling on.

SPEAKER: Good. Well, the Clerk has very helpfully helped me out by referring to Standing Order 396(1). Any further questions?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Yes, we have a further question. Will he guarantee that uniformed officers will not be pulled off the front line into support-staff work as a result of this freeze on police employees?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, again, what I will guarantee is this Government is going to support our police with legislation that will allow them to go out and police gangs properly so they don’t take over rural provincial towns like they did under the previous Government, and they get on top of the violent retail crime, which grew at over 500 percent under the previous six years of the Labour Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Mark Mitchell that “The police need to get a sense that there’s some strong political leadership and some strong political leadership coming within their own organisation to actually back them and allow them to get out there and do their job at the moment”, and if so, will he finally show some leadership and actually give the police the support and the pay that they deserve?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Of late, this House would appear to observers, particularly experienced observers, as rather absurd. You’ve got a question to Mark Mitchell: “Does he agree with Mark Mitchell?” Is that the best we can do in this Parliament in 2024?

SPEAKER: I think the more interesting part of that would be the way it’s answered, given that the member finished her question with what, effectively, was an opinion about the Minister’s performance.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I do agree with Mark Mitchell, and the fact of the matter is our police had six years of weak political leadership, where they didn’t back them. Their job became more dangerous, and this Government has come in saying that we will back them. We will give them the powers that they need to get out there and do their job. So, yes, they do have much stronger political backing, without a doubt.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements and policies?

Yes, in the context they were given.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister name one action his Government has undertaken since coming to office that has directly reduced the cost of living for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have removed the Auckland regional fuel tax. We have actually ensured that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand is focused on reducing inflation. There are many things that we are doing to actually grow this economy, reduce the cost of living, and lower inflation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister telling us that petrol or fuel is now cheaper in Auckland than it was prior to him coming to office?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it will be from 1 July. But what I’d say to that member is what has been exciting to see and good to see is that fresh fruit and vegetables are down 9.3 percent. That’s a step in the right direction. We are determined to lower the level of inflation, to lower the cost of living, so we can get interest rates down, so we can get this country growing again, and, importantly, so we can keep people in employment. It’s that simple.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Who will benefit the most from his Government’s proposed tax cuts: landlords and high-income earners, or lower-income New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, you’ll have to wait till the Budget. But we are very clear: we are going to deliver tax relief for low and middle income workers. Those are the people that the people of the Labour Party and the Green Party used to care about. We care deeply about middle and low income workers because they are waking up each day, giving it a go, doing everything right, paying their taxes, and they deserve a break after 14 years.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept the advice of the Climate Change Commission that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) should be seen as a means to meet emissions reduction targets, not a revenue-gathering tool, and if so, why is he still planning to raid the Climate Emergency Response Fund to pay for tax breaks for the rich?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We believe very strongly that the ETS scheme is the way in which we bend our curve on emissions, period.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: We’ve got one more from Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does the Prime—[Interruption] The co-Deputy Prime Minister may take a seat.

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Wait on, wait on. Wait for silence.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How does the Prime Minister reconcile one of his Government Ministers, just this question time, talking about urgent measures necessary to support farmers impacted by climate change, and, on the other hand, his Government’s commitment to pour oil and gas on the climate crisis fire by re-opening exploration?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This Government is committed to delivering on our climate goals and commitments, period. What we’re doing very clearly is we want to double the amount of renewable electricity in this country. How are we doing that? We’ve actually got fast-track consenting provisions in place to get renewable energy projects built faster. That’s a good thing for emissions, and I look forward to the Green Party’s support on that. Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: has he, in the interest of the Greens and Labour Party, and in the cost of living, reduced the cost of lemons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m sure that was part of the 9.3 percent decline in fresh fruit and vegetables.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context that they were given.

Rawiri Waititi: How many Māori will be evicted from their homes as a result of this Government’s recently announced Kāinga Ora (KO) policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we actually hope there’ll be very few evictions from KO properties, but we make no apologies for actually evicting tenants who are abusing their neighbours with threatening and abusive behaviour. We think that’s fair: we think it’s fair for those people that are on the wait-list that are desperate to get a State house, and we think it’s fair for the neighbours that are enduring those abusive tenants.

Rawiri Waititi: How many of the 25,000 people on the social housing list are Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: A significant number, and they deserve their shot at a State house, as well. That’s why we are very clear that we will deprioritise abusive KO tenants, and we will give those people on the State house wait-list a shot at getting a home.

Rawiri Waititi: What wraparound support is his Government providing to Kāinga Ora tenants to keep them in their homes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there are wraparound supports, but what I would say to you very clearly is we are standing up very, very strongly to say that KO tenants who actually abuse their neighbours and are threatening, do not pay their rent, do not get on a rent repayment plan—that is unacceptable. We need to give people who are on that wait-list a shot at a State house. We need to respect the neighbours that are in those communities, who are actually doing it tough and being abused daily.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you made a ruling around acronyms. Again, we’ve heard an acronym today. The other thing is that the question was quite clear: what wraparound support is the Government providing—not whether there is any—in those Kāinga Ora homes?

SPEAKER: Yeah, the first point is that it was in regards to acronyms in primary questions. But I would appreciate the House refraining from using those and using the whole term—fair point. The point about the nature of the question—I’m sure the Prime Minister would want to say a little bit more on the matter.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, there is a range of support services, and particularly in our community housing providers, there’s even higher levels of pastoral care and support that’s going to those vulnerable tenants that are in those properties as well. We’ll continue to support community housing providers, Kāinga Ora houses, and we’re going to make sure that people get the wraparound support. But we are going to call time on tenants that are actually abusing their neighbours, because others deserve a shot. We believe strongly in rights and responsibilities. You can’t just take the rights of being a Kiwi without actually having the responsibilities to each other and to the country.

Rawiri Waititi: What is his Government doing to ensure that Māori who are evicted from Kāinga Ora housing as a result of his Government’s policies do not end up homeless?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m sorry, but today, there are children waking up in scungy motel rooms. Today, there are children waking up on living room floors of friends’ and families’ houses. Those families are desperate to get a State house, and they deserve their go at that. They deserve their shot at that, and we are not going to tolerate badly behaving, unruly, disruptive, threatening tenants—period. [Government members applaud]

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you! Does he agree with 60 percent of New Zealanders that the cost of living is the biggest issue facing the country, and, if so, what immediate actions will he take to address the cost of living crisis for lower-income whānau?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely—that is the number one issue in this country for everyday New Zealanders. It is that they are struggling with the cost of living crisis, and the reason is very simple: the previous administration—the previous Labour Government—increased Government spending by 84 percent. It lifted domestic inflation, it raised interest rates, it supressed economic growth, and it has created rising unemployment. That is the story of economics, and that’s why we’re tackling the root cause of it: getting inflation down below 3 percent, so we can lower the cost of living, keep people in employment, and keep people in their homes.

Rawiri Waititi: Will his Government support my bill to remove GST from food and provide immediate relief for whānau who are struggling to put kai on the table, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, because it would be administratively complex. But what I look forward to is Te Pāti Māori’s support for our programme to actually give low and middle income working New Zealanders tax relief at the Budget. I look forward to his support because that’s the best way in which we keep money in the pockets of low and middle income workers—Māori or non-Māori—so they can navigate the cost of living and spend their money as they see fit.

Question No. 10—Disability Issues

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, particularly my statement that no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What actions prior to 18 March did she take to seek additional funding for Whaikaha since she first found out about the forecast overspend in December last year?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The situation that Whaikaha are dealing with is a funding envelope that was given to them by the previous Government—the Labour Government—and then a situation where they had no regulations, no rules, and no settings around the individual funding flexibility. 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. [Interruption]

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I’m about to just suggest that, when a Minister is giving an answer on something as serious as this, the House does listen, as opposed to the barrage that was sort of coming out at that time. Point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question itself was really clear, asking the Minister what actions she’s taken. In response, we got a description from her perspective of the issues, but that wasn’t the question. Therefore, it didn’t address what was required.

SPEAKER: Well, look, I could rule on that, but I couldn’t hear it, largely. I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear the answer. So perhaps the Minister could answer the question one more time.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I addressed it by advising that we have been working on this since December. We have been looking at what settings, what regulations, need to be put in place around the flexible, individualised funding.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about what actions she took to get additional funding.

SPEAKER: Well, OK, you can’t expect the answer, or anticipate the answer, is going to be given as you want it. That certainly did address the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. During that answer, you raised some concern that Opposition members were making too much noise during the answer. I think this highlights the challenge that we’re getting into, where Ministers don’t address questions that are being asked and don’t make an attempt to actually get to the question that’s being asked. There is going to be more disturbance, and the ruling that you made earlier that suggests that Ministers don’t, in fact, need to answer questions—

SPEAKER: No, I didn’t say that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —or make an attempt to answer questions is actually going to make that problem worse.

SPEAKER: No, that’s not quite—that’s not a reasonable interpretation of what I said, and, look, I haven’t asked the House to be quiet, other than for people asking questions, up until today. This is a pretty serious matter, as I understand it, and so the answers are important. Now, whether or not they’re addressed to the satisfaction of the questioner is quite a different analysis to the one that I have to make. But there are further supplementaries.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Yes. Why didn’t she go to Cabinet to ask for additional funding for Whaikaha?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There is a Budget process that is in place, but the most prudent thing was for us first of all to get discipline and settings in place for the funding that was already there, which was not put in place by the previous Government. As the Minister of Finance has said in her answer, there will be more funding for the disabled sector, but it is absolutely imperative that we get the settings, the policies, the regulations, and the rules in place for the funding as it is now, before anything additional has to be done.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Prime Minister correct that these changes were made by the ministry, and, if so, was she consulted prior to the changes being announced and implemented?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It was a decision by the ministry, but, yes, I was consulted.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she accept that parents and carers require respite to enable them to have the capacity to care for a disabled person?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We absolutely accept that there does need to be support for our disabled community, and so no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services, equipment, or support.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: When will she apologise to our disability communities for the callous accusations she made about parents and carers; the changes themselves, that will significantly affect the wellbeing of carers; and the appalling way in which they were communicated?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I regret enormously that the disabled sector is having to work through what Whaikaha are having to deal with, which is the mess that was left by the previous Government in setting up a ministry without the right settings and rules in place for them to be able to administer their funding.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “Our collective failure to build enough houses has trapped people in poverty, it has increased inequality, it has made us poorer rather than wealthier”, and, if so, will he commit to delivering enough new public homes through Kāinga Ora to clear the wait-list?

To the first part of the question: yes, I agree with my statement. To the second part of the question: no decisions have been made around that. We have Kāinga Ora under review right now. The question also assumes that the way to clear the social housing wait-list—which I note went up 500 percent in the last six years—is to build Kāinga Ora public homes. That is not the case. We need to think about how we can grow the community housing sector, and also we need to think about how we get rent affordability better under control, because the ultimate driver of how people end up on the wait-list is when they can’t afford the private rental market. So we reject the assumption that the only way to house people in need is to build more public homes. Actually, we need more houses across the supply continuum, from market housing to affordable rentals through to Kāinga Ora, but also the community housing sector. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. It’s your own member who’s just trying to ask a question.

Tamatha Paul: What advice, if any, has he received on the impact of increased public housing supply on overall housing supply and affordability?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, building more public housing obviously increases the supply of houses—that is self-evident. So, in the sense that I have received advice around that self-evident proposition, I have received that. But, as the member knows, we have a comprehensive programme of work under way across the drivers of housing supply, going out at the edge of our cities and going up, sorting out the infrastructure funding and financing constraints, and making sure we incentivise councils to believe in housing growth. We’ve also got a programme of work around improvements to the rental market to make sure that we get more landlords entering the market to put downward pressure on rents. And we have a whole programme of work, which I’m leading with Minister Potaka, around social housing, and, of course, sorting out the squalid mess that is emergency housing.

Tamatha Paul: What advice, if any, has he seen on how a net decrease of public housing places over the past 40 years has impacted rental affordability at the same time as total households renting have more than doubled?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, well, there’s quite a lot in that question. It is true that a failure to build enough houses has ultimately made rents more unaffordable—that is why our failure to build enough houses over the last six years saw rents increase by $170 per week under the previous Government. The ultimate answer to New Zealand’s housing challenges are to build more houses. The way to do that is to free up land inside our cities; make sure councils zone enough land; we create abundant development opportunities and make sure that we build the infrastructure and we have a resource management system that facilitates the building of the infrastructure so that we build more houses, both at a private market level—because that is the ultimate way we get rent under control—but also, as part of that, we build more social houses. The Government has a role to play in that, but also the community housing sector has a very important role to play in that as well. We are far more about supporting the community housing sector on this side of the House than members opposite in the past, who think that Kāinga Ora is the answer to everything. Actually, it isn’t.

SPEAKER: Just—answers are answers and they should be as concise as possible. That was an interesting contribution to the House.

Tamatha Paul: Does he accept the findings of the Growing Up in New Zealand study that housing stability is critical for young people, and, if so, what is he doing to maintain housing stability for young people in public housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Absolutely, which is why I gave a speech two or three weeks ago talking about the failure of Governments in the past to fundamentally sort out the land supply restrictions that have held New Zealand back from growing housing. We have a comprehensive programme of work in conjunction with our New Zealand First coalition partners, where we’re committed to making it easier to build 60-square-metre granny flats on land; and alongside our coalition partners in the ACT Party, making the Medium Density Residential Standards optional but at the same time making sure we explore the idea of GST-sharing with councils to make sure that councils go for housing growth. The ultimate answer to all of these problems is to build a bucketload more houses than we’ve done in the past, and we’re committed to doing that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was all well and fine, but that that didn’t address the question, which was around stability in public housing. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on. Wait. Sorry, just calm down.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Like, genuinely just raising that point.

SPEAKER: Start again.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. That was all well and fine, but it did not address—

SPEAKER: And the House will listen to a point of order in silence.

Ricardo Menéndez March: That did not address the question, which is around housing stability of young people in public housing—

SPEAKER: Speak up, I can’t hear you.

Ricardo Menéndez March: It didn’t address the question, which was around stability for people in public housing. The Minister talked about land supply and addressed a range of issues, but none of which actually—

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I disagree with you. I think the Minister has made it very clear that his answer to almost any question around housing for any sector of society is housing supply, and I think that it does well and truly address the question.

Tamatha Paul: Will he ensure that demand for housing from the wait-list is met by building new homes rather than by evicting families already in public housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the demand for public housing places—as I said in the answer to the primary question—will be met from a variety of sources. One way to cope with the demand on the wait-list is to build Kāinga Ora houses—that is true. Another way is to facilitate the building of the community housing sector so that people go into social houses. Another way is to make sure that people don’t end up on the wait-list in the first place, and the way to drive that is to make rents more affordable. People end up on the wait-list because they can’t afford the private rental market. So, as I said in answer to the primary question, we reject the idea that the way to solve social housing is just to build more public housing. Actually, that has a role to play, but going for housing growth across the supply continuum is extremely important, and that’s what we’re committed to.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about building consent delays?

Today, I announced that we are putting the spotlight on building consent delays. It’s already a matter of law that building consents and code compliance certificates—or CCCs—must be completed within 20 working days. However, feedback from builders on the ground, and frustrated homeowners, is that they often take a lot longer, causing frustrating and costly delays. This coalition Government is taking steps to reduce those delays and speed up the building consents system by requiring councils to submit data for building consents and CCCs every quarter.

Paulo Garcia: What impact do building consent delays have?

Hon CHRIS PENK: These delays increase the cost of building and make it harder to build, as well. The delays also limit the sector’s ability to deliver the affordable houses that Kiwis deserve and need. In the words of my colleague and friend Chris Bishop, in answering a previous question, “This Government is tackling the housing crisis by going for a bucketload of housing growth.”

Paulo Garcia: What data is currently available on building consents?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Unbelievably, there is currently no consistent nationwide data on building consent time frames. This means that there is little accountability and transparency for the delays being experienced by builders or Kiwis just looking to do some DIY. However, starting next month, building consent authorities will be required to report time frames for building consents and CCC applications, with this data being published on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website every quarter.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What steps will the Minister be taking to ensure that building consent authorities have the appropriate resources to meet these new requirements?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: More bureaucracy.

Hon CHRIS PENK: There is no more bureaucracy involved, because this data is already collected. Because building consent authorities are required to understand how long it is that they’re taking to process the consents, it’s merely a matter of them reporting that existing information. In response more particularly to the question around resources, it’s precisely because we need to understand if there are shortfalls in resources, or perhaps system reform that’s required, that we are wanting to have such reforms based on evidence, the hard data that we’re getting currently, rather than just the anecdotal information that we’re currently relying upon.

Paulo Garcia: What impact will these changes have?

Hon CHRIS PENK: There will be three key impacts. The first is transparency and accountability within the current system; second, collecting the data will help to inform any system reform that is needed in the future to work out our ambitious plan to streamline the building consent process; and third, it will provide a baseline for comparisons in the future to monitor the effects of other building reforms that we are taking in this space.

Members who have to leave, could I ask them to please leave silently. I call upon some honourable member to move that this House take notice of miscellaneous business.