Oral Questions

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

Last week, ANZ released its business outlook report and its consumer confidence report, both of which come out monthly. These show that consumer confidence continues to rise, albeit off a very low base, and business confidence is on a strong upward trend, despite levelling out in February.

Joseph Mooney: How does consumer and business confidence compare to previous years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In 2022 and 2023, consumer confidence fell to the lowest level ever reported in this survey—lower than the global financial crisis and lower than during the COVID lockdowns—and, strike me down, business confidence was also the lowest it has ever been, in 2022 and 2023. Again, it was lower than in the global financial crisis and lower than during the COVID lockdowns. So it is very heartening indeed that consumer and business confidence is rising off the all-time lows recorded under the previous Government.

Joseph Mooney: What do the results say about people’s own expectations?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The consumer confidence survey shows that, in net terms, people expect that they and their family will be better off financially in a year’s time. At present, people are wary about purchasing major household items, but this measure is on an upward trend and is considerably better than it was last year.

Joseph Mooney: What do the results say about business expectations?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Business Outlook survey saw lifts in most forward-looking indicators, such as businesses’ own activity, investment intentions, employment intentions, and profit expectations. Together with the consumer results, this reinforces that New Zealanders are more optimistic about their future under this coalition Government.

Question No. 2—Environment

2. to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What is his most immediate priority in the portfolio?

My highest priority is delivering on the Government’s 100-day plan to begin stopping the implementation of new significant natural areas, known as SNAs. SNAs are an unjustified and unhelpful intrusion into private property rights and are getting in the way of productive farming. ACT’s coalition agreement with National commits to stop the implementation of new SNAs and to review their operation. I have been working with officials, and I intend to take a plan to Cabinet on the most effective way to do that.

Mark Cameron: What examples has he seen recently that highlights the challenge farmers and other landowners face from SNAs on their property?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Landowners have told me that if you’re unlucky enough to have an SNA identified on your property, you are likely to be prohibited from undertaking any new activity or development in that area. I have also seen that these restrictions will be applied to areas that are not very significant. For example, a sheltered gully with some trees—a bit of matagouri which offers a great sheltered area to graze a few sheep after shearing or in a storm.

Mark Cameron: What is the effect of those restrictions?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Apart from being at a disincentive to voluntarily conserve areas of indigenous biodiversity, farmers know well what happens when the ability to actively manage land is restricted. If SNAs are applied to areas with low biodiversity value, then without the landowner managing pest and weed - control, it will just go to gorse, broom, and wilding pines.

Mark Cameron: What will he do in the long term to restore property rights and protect indigenous biodiversity?

Hon Peeni Henare: Oh, this better be good.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: It is good. Landowners are already voluntarily protecting areas of native biodiversity—over 180,000 hectares are already protected through QEII National Trust. Put together, that would be our fifth-largest national park, all voluntarily. Many more have committed to enhance biodiversity on their land without formalising it. The way to protect biodiversity on private land is to work collaboratively with landowners, including farmers, foresters, and iwi, to incentivise the sustainable use of land, and to show them that their work to protect the biodiversity is valued and then they will want to do more.

Hon Damien O’Connor: To the member, is he aware of the EU’s requirement to prove that there is no deforestation taking place in areas that are supplying the EU market, and that, in fact, the protection of SNAs will assist farmers to access that high-value market?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Yes, I am aware of that clause in the ETA, and what I would say and point to is the fact that there is already—

Hon Members: ETA?

Hon Members: FTA.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Sorry, the EU free-trade agreement. But there is already a great number, as I pointed out, of farmers who are voluntarily protecting biodiversity. When I go and visit farms and I see farmers now, they are taking massive pride in the work they are doing on their farm. We will work collaboratively with them to enhance that effort and to do more.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: My question is next; seeing that supplementary questions are over, I’m speaking to the Speakers’ Ruling 170/4, which is, “Ministers not only have a right to determine which of them is the appropriate Minister to answer a question, they also have a duty to the House to decide on the appropriate Minister to answer.” The question I put up today, which is question No. 3, was initially put forward to the Minister for Social Development and Employment and is with respect to the Ministry for Social Development emergency housing grants. It has been transferred to the Minister for social housing; however, it is the Minister for Social Development and Employment that has responsibility for the grants.

SPEAKER: OK, OK, OK—

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, I want to rule.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. The member makes a good point, but the member may also have missed what I said in the House yesterday, which is that this Government has taken a decision to make the housing-related functions relating to emergency housing the responsibility of the housing portfolio. Those functions have been delegated to the Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing), Minister Potaka, which is why the question has been transferred into the housing domain. I appreciate that’s a difference from the past, but that’s been a deliberate policy decision.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, you’re dealing with a point of order before the end of question time with respect to question No. 2. So why did you take that point of order when we still hadn’t got rid of the supplementaries for the second question? It’s just not the order of business.

SPEAKER: That’s right, but we’re doing it anyway, so—[Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, we’re not.

SPEAKER: Yeah, we are. Don’t argue—don’t argue.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Is it the same point of order or not?

Ricardo Menéndez March: It’s speaking to the point of order, yes.

SPEAKER: Well, it better be new stuff because I’m ready to give the ruling on this.

Ricardo Menéndez March: OK, so just responding to what Mr Bishop said, there’s a difference between the housing side of the—

SPEAKER: No, I’m not interested in that. That’s not a point of order. I spoke the other day about the need for people to be specific about which point of order they’re speaking to. That is not speaking to a point of order; it’s offering an opinion.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Well, it is speaking to Speakers’ ruling 170/4, and—

Hon Nicola Willis: That’s what Governments do; they change things.

SPEAKER: Look, don’t interfere when someone is—when someone is taking a point of order, the House is silent. Now, I’d just say to Mr Menéndez March, this is something that I am ready to rule on, so make his point, make it succinct if he wants to, but we will be moving on beyond that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: So I’ll make it succinct. Ministry of Social Development front-line staff have a direct responsibility to the delivery of emergency housing grants; therefore, the responsibility on both question Nos 3 and 6 sit within the Ministry of Social Development—

SPEAKER: You’re off beat again, because if anyone reads Speakers’ rulings from about 170 right through to 174, there are numerous recommendations from multiple Speakers that make it clear that it is the Government’s choice as to who answers the question, not the Speaker’s. If I refer particularly to 174/1, it makes it clear that only in very exceptional circumstances would the Speaker interfere, and I don’t intend upending those previous rulings. We move now to question No. 3 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, I accept that ruling and I accept the explanation given by the Leader of the House, but it is on the basis of both that I raise this point of order. It is that if, on that basis, questions are transferred to the Hon Tama Potaka, I find it interesting, therefore, that my question, which was originally posed to him, has been transferred to Chris Bishop. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 173/5. If the Leader of the House, the Minister of Housing, has said that all responsibility regarding emergency housing, social housing, has been delegated to Tama Potaka, I don’t believe that there is justification to then transfer my question, which relates solely to that, to the Hon Chris Bishop.

SPEAKER: Well, 173/5 doesn’t quite get to that point, but—

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, Mr McAnulty’s question has been transferred to me because—and I appreciate that he may not have read the delegations, but the question of funding for income-related rent subsidy places and the structure and funding of the appropriations for Vote Housing are within my delegation. The delegations make it clear that the social and emergency housing delegation sits with Minister Potaka. We have actually clarified what was a, frankly, pretty messy situation before.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Question No. 3—Housing (Social Housing)

3. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing): Will the Government’s new approach to emergency housing grants result in more New Zealanders living on the streets?

Yes, the Government’s new approach is part of a wider response to end large-scale use of emergency housing and to get New Zealanders, tamariki, and whānau into homes faster.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has he received advice or evidence showing that New Zealanders who will no longer be able to access emergency housing special needs grants under this Government’s new approach will all find housing and not end up living on the streets?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We receive advice on housing matters on a regular basis, and the advice that we’ve received is that we will continue to focus on ending the large-scale use of emergency housing and getting whānau and tamariki into homes faster.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the previous Minister for social development and Minister for Social Housing who introduced the emergency housing special needs grant, Paula Bennett, who stated, “This is the first time any Government has committed ongoing dedicated funding for emergency housing, because we recognise that not everyone has access to a safe and stable home.”; if yes, why is he looking to reduce access to that support, and pushing more New Zealanders back to sleeping in cars?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We recognise that there are many people with genuine needs that need emergency housing, and we will continue to support those people with genuine needs to have emergency housing accommodation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not he’s received any reports that say his task now to solve this problem has been massively exacerbated by bringing in 148,000 immigrants as at December last year?

SPEAKER: No. Look, you’ve got to stop doing this. It’s not a fair question because it’s not his responsibility. His responsibility is for emergency housing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I asked has he got a report.

SPEAKER: Well, OK, I probably didn’t pick that up. The Minister may answer it.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’ve not received any reports in that respect, but there is a serious need and a genuine need amongst some whānau and tamariki to have emergency housing.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is it now this Government’s strategy to make it harder to access emergency housing grants so as to reduce the number of New Zealanders in emergency housing on their books at the expense of more New Zealanders sleeping rough outside our businesses, in our carparks, and in our parks?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We need bold and radical solutions to end the housing crisis that has been exacerbated under the previous Government. We need to get the country back on track, and particularly with housing, and we will do that through a wide series of responses and steps, one of which is prioritising the tamariki and whānau who have been sleeping in emergency accommodation for 12 consecutive weeks or more.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, stop. Your own side is speaking across the House while you’re trying to ask a question. Please, don’t do it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment that “I am not saying that it is going perfect; what I am saying is that we will have fewer children in motels, and that is what we are out to achieve.”, and, if so, is living on the streets more perfect than living in a motel?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I agree with my learned colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the member for Taupō, in that we do need absolute radical and bold solutions for our housing crisis, and it is tough for those folks, and no one in this House wants to see whānau, tamariki, and mokopuna living in emergency housing for an extended period of time, but that is what we have seen over the last six years.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will we see homelessness situations like that of West Auckland tetraplegic woman Tracey Penney, who was living in her van in January 2017—it was widely reported on—arise again because of the changes to the treatment of homeless Ministry of Social Development clients?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I please reiterate that we will support those with genuine need to have emergency housing, but our aspiration is to end the large-scale use of emergency housing, particularly in places like Hamilton and Waikato, where there are over 500 kids living in emergency housing right now.

Question No. 4—RMA Reform

4. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made regarding the establishment of a new fast-track consenting one-stop shop regime?

Earlier today, alongside the Prime Minister and the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of Transport, I announced the coalition Government’s new one-stop shop fast-track approvals regime, and, this afternoon, the House will consider that legislation in its first reading. New Zealand has been stuck in the slow lane for far too long when it comes to getting the major projects we need to get our country growing again. We are determined to cut through the thicket of red and green tape holding New Zealand back by fast tracking consents for projects of regional and national significance whilst protecting Treaty settlements and the environment.

David MacLeod: How will projects be fast tracked under the new regime?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Very good question. There are two ways projects can be fast tracked: they can either be referred by the joint decision of the Ministers of infrastructure, regional development, and transport upon an application, or by being listed in Schedule 2A of the bill. Projects in Schedule 2A will be automatically referred into the fast-track process—

Hon Grant Robertson: Is there anything in Schedule 2 at the moment?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: And just on Mr Robertson’s point, the bill does not currently contain any projects listed in Schedule 2A. The Government will be—

Hon Grant Robertson: When will we find out?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, very soon. The Government will be setting up a thorough and transparent process, a fast-track advisory group of independent experts to provide advice to Ministers on what projects should be included. And, in the coming weeks, we will appoint the group, publish the criteria, and Ministers in the Cabinet will receive advice on those projects.

David MacLeod: How will the environment—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait a moment.

David MacLeod: How will the environment and Treaty settlements be protected under the new legislation?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: All of the projects—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How will the Treaty be protected?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that was actually the question, and if you give me a chance, I’ll answer it. All the projects considered under the new fast-track regime will be considered by an expert panel. And, of course, the expert panel process is not a new one, because that process was set up by the last Government when it came to their own COVID-19 fast-track regime. That expert panel will apply relevant consent and permit conditions. Panels will have a maximum of six months to do so. The projects will then be sent back to joint Ministers to either approve it or decline it, and they’ll be able to refer the project back to the panel if the consent conditions are too onerous. The bill contains extensive protections around Treaty settlements and the environment, but we also must make—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What about the Treaty?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve just answered the question about the Treaty. You really need to listen. But we also must make it clear to the world that New Zealand is open for business once again and build a pipeline of projects to grow the economy and improve our productivity. Today’s announcement is a step towards that.

Question No. 5—Media and Communications

5. to the Minister for Media and Communications: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes.

Hon Willie Jackson: What actions, if any, has she taken to support the media sector in light of job losses at Newshub and Television New Zealand?

Hon MELISSA LEE: The Government is committed to working with the sector on ways to ensure sustainability. As I have previously stated, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is currently before select committee, and I’m awaiting the committee’s report. I’m working with officials to modernise the media system in New Zealand to level the playing field for our local broadcasters. I want to encourage more private and international investment in our local content.

Reuben Davidson: Does she agree with the comment of David Seymour that “These are the people that cry, ‘Oh you’ve got to give us sympathy, and you’re inhumane and you should be kinder to us.’ ”, and, if not, why not?

Hon MELISSA LEE: The Hon David Seymour has his own views and he is responsible for his comments. As a shareholding Minister, it would be irresponsible for me to interfere in TVNZ’s editorial independence. I believe and honour TVNZ’s editorial independence. The media perform an important duty in our democracy, and this should be protected. What I think we should be focusing on is the people who are facing uncertainty over their jobs and livelihoods, and not squabbling over he said, she said. It is ironic to actually get this question from that member, considering his colleague, when as Minister, was making comments about a presenter on Q + A.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister think singling out reporters for doing their job is appropriate, and, if so—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on. Mr Jackson, if you don’t mind, when I ask you to, please stop.

Hon Simeon Brown: Own goal!

Hon Willie Jackson: Throw him out, Mr Speaker!

SPEAKER: It’s not far off. If we’re having a rule—and we are—that questions are asked in silence, observe it. Contain yourselves with, perhaps, a deep breath, and holding until the end of it—something like that. But we’re not going to have those sorts of outbursts in the middle of questions. Start again.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe singling out reporters for doing their job is appropriate, and, if so, has she spoken with David Seymour, who is one of the senior Ministers, about respecting the independence of the fourth estate?

Hon MELISSA LEE: I believe and honour all editorial independence of our media because they perform an important duty in our democracy, and that should be protected. In terms of the comment, I think, as I said previously, it is ironic to watch this member ask this question, given his previous interview on Q + A.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order. We’re talking about a shareholding Minister here; we’re not talking about me when I was a previous Minister. The question is very relevant. Can you ask this Minister to answer or address the question.

SPEAKER: Well, most certainly the question is being addressed. How it’s being addressed may not find favour with everyone in the House, but it is also rife within Speakers’ Rulings that it is not unreasonable for Ministers of a successive Government to point out situations that existed in a previous Government. It’s the attack aspect that’s the problem. Carry on.

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. I seek leave for the member to be able to ask his question again.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t seek leave for someone else. Can I just say that is very disorderly. You cannot seek leave for another member, and that member does know that’s the case.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Mr Speaker, point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: In silence.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Regardless of whether you agreed with the point of order made by the Hon Willie Jackson or not, throughout that there was the exact response that you asked the Government not to do whilst questions were being asked. If we’re going to require points of order to be heard in silence, they should be made to be heard in silence.

SPEAKER: Good point.

Hon Willie Jackson: What impression does the Minister think she gives out to those who’ll be losing their jobs at Television New Zealand and Newshub that, at the exact time she was refusing to do media, she was attending a luxury resort on the taxpayers’ dollar—what is the impression she gives out to the public and to all the poor people who’ve been losing their jobs? And here’s this beautiful photo for everyone—

SPEAKER: Thank you—is that the end of the question?

Hon Willie Jackson: —to have a look at. What was the impression that she’s giving out to the public—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. You’ve gone way over the top.

Hon MELISSA LEE: That is the substance of the previous Government. That member does not even know that that photo was taken at the New Zealand Open, and I was there as the Minister responsible for funding the Major Events Fund. However, at the time when the announcement was made this morning, I was in my office doing work, but yesterday I did not actually see the announcement alert that came to my office because I was doing an interview with one of the media companies.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order again, Mr Speaker. The question is clear: what impression is she giving to the public when she should’ve been doing her job, and—

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry—Mr Jackson, I’m sorry; the problem here is that your question has been refuted in its content by the Minister, so there is no further action to be taken.

Question No. 6—Housing (Social Housing)

6. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing): Can he guarantee that the increased scrutiny on emergency housing eligibility he announced yesterday won’t lead to more people becoming homeless?

E oati ana au ki tēnei Whare rangatira nei e ngana ana te kāwanatanga Haumi me au nei, ao, pō, pō, ao, kia puta ngā tāngata me ngā whānau me ngā tamariki e noho ana ki roto i ngā whare ohotata ki ō rātou kāinga ake. E mihi ana.

[I swear to this noble House that the coalition Government and myself are endeavouring, by night and by day, to get the people, the families, and the children that reside in emergency housing into their own homes. Thank you.]

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the purpose of asking someone living below the poverty line, who can’t afford a private rental, to look for unaffordable housing while waiting for secure, affordable public housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As mentioned earlier today, we need bold and radical solutions for our housing crisis, and we are absolutely committed to ending the large-scale use of emergency housing and to help whānau and tamariki, in particular, get into homes faster.

Ricardo Menéndez March: If he can’t guarantee that his policies won’t leave more people in the street and without safe shelter, why is he going ahead with them?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As mentioned earlier, we’re absolutely focused on ending the large-scale use of emergency housing, and there will be some engaging and tough decisions and considerations for officials to make. However, we intend to end large-scale emergency housing, which has been absolutely exacerbated by the previous Government.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is he not able to guarantee that his policies will lead to more people being homeless, because the policies will actually create more reasons for front-line Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff to deny special needs grants to enable people to be in emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: What I can guarantee is that this Government and myself—

SPEAKER: Sorry, rephrase that. That’s not a question; that’s a statement of opinion, and we’ve had a discussion about that already this week. Ask a question.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can he guarantee the public that there will be no increase—or incidence—of people becoming homeless as a direct result of the increased ability of front-line MSD staff to deny people special needs grants for them to access emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can guarantee that this Government is committed to getting New Zealanders—tamariki and whānau—out of emergency housing and into homes faster. And I can also guarantee that our officials will work hard to ensure that whānau do not end up in emergency housing and end up in alternative housing before they get there.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. 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 implications will the exclusion of a Treaty clause from fast-tracking legislation have on Māori fundamental rights and interests in resource consents, especially for hapū and iwi who have not settled yet?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact is that that exclusion will have a very positive outcome for Māori because now things will be based on merit and not just elitism and racism, which ordinary Māori never asked for in the first place.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What qualifies a project as having significant regional or national benefits, and how are these economic benefits weighted against environmental costs?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All aspects for consideration will be very jealously guarded in terms of the research on them—they’ll go through a serious process of examination—but we are a country that needs to get our mojo back and real fast, and not have certain elitists stopping every project that we should be developing. We’ve got the resources, we’ve got the people; we just need—and now have got—the leadership.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How much money will be set aside to mitigate risks of failed fast-tracked projects, such as we saw with Tamarind Taranaki oil projects, which cost the Government hundreds of millions of dollars in bailout?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Certain expenditure is always warranted, but none of it will amount to the $1.2 billion that vanished on three waters.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Minister of Housing: How many additional social houses will be created as a result of the Priority One category for emergency housing announced yesterday?

The Government’s creation of the priority one category will prioritise getting families with children out of emergency housing, under stable social housing, sooner. Therefore, more social housing is not created directly as a result of this policy change. We’ve committed, through our manifesto, to increase the number of social housing places in line with the previous Government’s funding track. The member will note that the previous Government left a fiscal cliff of funding for social housing, so any future funding is subject to Budget decisions. The priority one category is only the beginning of the steps we will be taking to end the large-scale use of emergency housing motels and returning them to rarely and briefly needed—as a last resort. Addressing the issue of emergency housing is complex and, as I said yesterday, will require a sustained and coordinated effort over multiple years to achieve our aim. But the key thing is we’re not going to sit by like the last Government did and ignore it. We are taking action.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. That was a reasonably straight question. It was a question on notice. I’m sure it wouldn’t have been accepted if it wasn’t a straight question. But throughout that response from the Minister, it was attacking the previous Government, which—you have ruled yourself—is inappropriate.

SPEAKER: I have. But when I’ve said that, it’s if the question opens with an attack. But if it’s used as a comparison between two positions, Speakers’ rulings are very clear that that is permissible. So I’ll keep a listen out. I think there was some language used in there, like “fiscal cliff”, that was probably unacceptable, but I’m sure that the next question will be better answered.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why, then, did the Government make an emergency housing announcement without committing to funding more additional social housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, for a couple of reasons. One is that you don’t need to do both things at the same time. The second point is that not everyone who goes from emergency housing goes into social housing. Actually, the housing system is extremely complex. The relationships between emergency housing and social housing and transitional are actually not linear. We see private landlords and the wider housing system as a part of the solution, and work is under way across every part of the housing continuum: from homeownership, through the rental market, through the private landlord market, and through the social housing generally.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If they can’t stay in emergency housing and the Government won’t commit to funding more social housing, transitional housing, or rental places, where are they supposed to go?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member’s question is based upon a false assumption. There is more social housing coming. The Budget 2023 increased social housing places by 3,000. That goes on top of Budget 2022. So between 18 months ago and two years, up until June 2025, there are 6,000 new social housing places, delivered both by Kāinga Ora and by the community housing sector. So there are more social housing places. Decisions around future social housing funding is a matter for the Budget—the member will have to wait.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The previous question, the Minister referred to additional social housing. I too have used the words “additional” and “more”. By virtue of that, it is on top of what has already been committed. All the Minister just outlined are social houses that were funded by the previous Government, and I’m asking him about his commitment, that he stated in his answer, to funding additional social houses. It’s not appropriate, I believe, for the Minister to point to things that are happening, particularly when it wasn’t him that established those.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll let you go right through that point of order, because, essentially, you were making a point that is outside of the Standing Orders as such. But the answer that I heard relates to the date 2025, where there is more social housing; that’s still at least 18 months off and through one more Budget period. So I think the claim is not right, and nor is the point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he guarantee to the House that his Government will not sell off social houses like what happened the last time National were in Government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha—ha, ha!

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why’s he laughing? It’s not funny.

Hon Nicola Willis: You did it!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll just wait for colleagues—

SPEAKER: No, no, just answer it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The previous Government sold social houses, so let’s just be really clear about this. The last Labour Government sold social houses, and the policy settings that Kāinga Ora was operating under, in relation to the difference between the 2008 period and the 2017 period, did not change after the Labour Government was elected. It is true that the National Government from 2008 to 2017—which, by the way, I’m not responsible for, but I’m happy to comment extensively on—transferred ownership of some social housing in Tauranga to Accessible Properties. Here’s the thing—here’s the thing: the people living in the houses were social housing tenants. It’s just that the Government did not happen to own the underlying house. And, actually, on this side of the House, we are relatively agnostic about who provides housing to people in need. Unlike the last Government, we do not have an obsession with the idea that the Government should do everything in housing. We back communities, we back the private sector, and we back housing for Kiwis.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If the Minister is unwilling—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for that silence.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If the Minister is unwilling to provide that guarantee, will he at least guarantee to the House that levels of homelessness will not increase as a result of the announcement made yesterday?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The fastest way to increase homelessness would have been for the Government to continue with the funding track we inherited, which would have seen 10,000 State houses sold off by Kāinga Ora because of that member’s party’s woeful mismanagement of one of the biggest companies in New Zealand. Under the funding track we inherited, in writing Kāinga Ora was planning to sell 10,000 State houses. We’re not prepared to sit around and tolerate that. That’s why we’re reviewing Kāinga Ora.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If homelessness goes up under his watch, will he resign?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I plan on being a better Minister responsible for homelessness than the last one, the Hon Marama Davidson, who saw homelessness skyrocket to record levels and couldn’t even spend the money that Megan Woods allocated to her.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about transport investment in New Zealand?

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister and I released the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, announcing that we are focused on investing in new roads of national significance, better public transport, and a well-maintained roading network, enabling Kiwis to get where they want to go quickly and safely. Kiwis around the country voted for our focused transport plan, and now we are delivering.

Rima Nakhle: What does the Government policy statement mean for Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, 57.8 percent of Aucklanders voted for the coalition Government at the last election, and our draft Government policy statement prioritises the projects that we campaigned on: Mill Road, a project that that member of Parliament campaigned on very, very hard. The East-West Link and the north-western Alternative State Highway are listed as new roads of national significance. While Auckland’s infrastructure deficit has worsened in recent years due to project cancellations and non-delivery by the prior Government, our Government is focused on delivery.

Cameron Brewer: Supplementary: what does the Government—

SPEAKER: Wait on, you’re not called yet.

Cameron Brewer: —policy statement mean—

SPEAKER: Wait, you’re not called yet. Now you stand up, please—Cameron Brewer.

Cameron Brewer: What does the Government policy statement mean for the public transport users in north-west Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Very good news. It’s great news: the Government is investing up to $4.4 billion on public transport infrastructure and services. We’re focused on starting work on the north-west rapid transit corridor to unlock housing and economic growth in Auckland’s North-West. We have a strong track record of delivering better public transport in Auckland, the City Rail Link a case in point, and we will continue this legacy.

Paulo Garcia: What progress has been made on the Government’s 100-day plan commitment to axe the Auckland regional fuel tax?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, very good news: last night, the Government passed legislation to axe the 11.5c per litre fuel tax for Aucklanders. We’re not a Government that will continue to tax Aucklanders to fund cycle lanes, expensive speed bumps, and blanket speed limit reductions. This tax is gone on 1 July.

Stuart Smith: What does the Government policy statement mean for the top of the South?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: In addition to the Woodend bypass, a second Ashburton bridge, and investment in critically important bridges in the South Island, we’ve listed the Hope Bypass in the South Island as a new road of national significance. This project, paired with the new $500 million Pothole Prevention Fund, will allow motorists at the top of the South get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Question No. 10—RMA Reform

10. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Why should economic Ministers decide what is worthy of proceeding, rather than an expert panel, as suggested in the new fast-tracking legislation?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because the whole purpose of the fast-track consenting regime that we are introducing is to fast track economic development projects.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Will the projects yet to be included in Schedule 2A and 2B of the proposed bill be referred to select committee for scrutiny, including the ability for the public to submit?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, that’s not the intention. Instead, what we’re doing is running a process that is independent of the Government. Recommendations will come to Ministers; the projects will then be inserted into the bill by an Amendment Paper—or it used to be called a Supplementary Order Paper. There will be plenty of opportunities for the public to engage on that, and I look forward to that.

Hon Rachel Brooking: How will the public be able to engage in the process he just referred to?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s a public democratic process. People who are keen on having the projects inserted into the bill will be able to submit them to the expert panel that we’re setting up to consider those projects.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Why is the Minister for the Environment not involved in the decision-making process when the Ministers of infrastructure, regional development, and transport are?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because, as I say, this is a one-stop shop fast-track consenting regime specifically designed to accelerate infrastructure, housing, transport, aquaculture, mining, the extractive industries—all of the things that New Zealand needs more of rather than less of. The relevant environmental considerations are best handled by the expert panel. They’re the experts for it. They’re going to be asked to apply the relevant environmental permits and conditions to it, and then those decisions will come back through the process for Ministers to either approve or decline. It’s not actually wildly dissimilar to the COVID-19 fast-track legislation set up by the previous Government. We’ve actually modelled the new law on the old regime introduced by the last Labour Government. We thought it was such a good idea we’ve taken it the next step further, elevated it up a bit, and gone for national and regionally significant projects. I thank the former Minister and the former Minister for the Environment for the idea.

SPEAKER: That’s good. Just keep those answers fairly succinct.

Hon Simeon Brown: Is the Minister aware of any work done by the prior Government to put forward legislation for exceptions to the Otago regional water plan, National Policy Statement—

SPEAKER: No, no—stop there.

Hon Simeon Brown: —for Freshwater Management, and Public Works Act in regards to Lake Onslow?

SPEAKER: Sorry, when I say stop there, if members don’t, then their time in the House will not be very long at all.

Question No. 11—Justice

11. to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing its commitments in relation to restoring law and order?

On Tuesday, we introduced and have now passed legislation to stop taxpayer funding of section 27 cultural reports that proliferated under the former regime, consuming more than $7 million out of the legal aid budget. Yesterday, we introduced legislation to give police greater powers to search for firearms so that they can keep them out of the hands of serious gang offenders and help keep our communities safe. Today, we will be introducing legislation to give police greater powers to deal with gangs, who, for too long, have been allowed to behave as if they’re above the law.

Rima Nakhle: What is the legislation that the Government is introducing today going to do?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill does four things: we’re prohibiting the display of gang insignia in all public places; we’re giving the police the ability to require gang members to disperse from gatherings that disrupt the public; we’re creating new non-consorting orders to stop specified gang members from associating; and, finally, we’re amending the Sentencing Act to make gang membership, on its own, an aggravating factor at sentencing.

SPEAKER: Just a small question. So you’re asking that question about a bill that’s being introduced today. There were no bills introduced today. So the timing is not very tidy on this one. There may be a different way to ask subsequent supplementaries.

Hon Grant Robertson: Sorry, Mr Speaker, point of order. Just in light of that ruling, the member appeared to be quoting from an official document—i.e., the bill—and I’d invite him to table it.

SPEAKER: No, no. You can’t invite him to table it. I can ask him if he’s quoting from an official document.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can you ask him, then?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I’m not.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What is it, then?

SPEAKER: No. That’s something you can speculate on, not ask about.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why is the Minister pushing his wasteful gang insignia ban when his own department and the Chief Science Adviser has said, “A challenge of this suppression strategy is that there is no strong evidence it works to reduce long-term offending behaviours or eliminate gangs”? It’s science.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Why? Because we don’t agree with that analysis. Actually, we’ve seen a 50 percent increase in gang membership under the previous Government, and we want to stop that, because we believe that law-abiding citizens should be going about their business without being intimidated by gangs.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government doing this now?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because the gangs have been recruiting faster than the police over the past six years, from 6,000-odd in 2018, to 9,000 at present—a 50 percent increase. They’ve been emboldened to take over public places and to continue to be associated with crime. That is why a firmer response is required now.

Rima Nakhle: How many actions relating to restoring law and order in the 100-day plan has the Government completed?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government is committed to a number of immediate actions in the 100-day plan, from stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 reports, to abolishing the previous Government’s prisoner reduction target, to taking the first steps to ensure prisoners on remand can access rehabilitation programmes, and many other things that my colleagues—Ministers Mitchell, McKee, and Chhour—have progressed. The first reading of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill today rounds out the 100-day plan.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. The question was how many, and the Minister didn’t answer it.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s a little unusual for the Opposition to be worried about a Government question not being answered, but the Minister might like to address that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think the member can count for himself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether he’s received reports that suggest he should listen to real evidence, such as is coming out of Western Australia, where they’ve tried exactly what we’re doing here now, as against this academic trivia that is taken as being evidence in this country now?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, indeed, I listen to a wide range of evidence, and, of course, one of the strongest issues around gang insignia has been the success of the previous bill introduced by the Hon Todd McClay, which banned gang patches from schools, hospitals, and public buildings, which has been very successful.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why is he pressing on with his insignia ban, given the advice he received from the Ministry of Justice that the reduction in visibility of gangs experienced by Queensland and Western Australia is simply the product of gangs relocating to other jurisdictions that impose fewer restrictions, and New Zealand’s unitary nature means there is no alternate jurisdiction to which gangs can relocate?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, of course, we’d be happy if the gangs relocated somewhere else and cleared out of this country and left our people alone.

Hon Nicole McKee: What law and order actions has this Government committed to, beyond the 100-day plan, to protect small-business owners from retail crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I thank the member for that question. Retail crime has indeed exploded in the previous six years, with reported victims of retail crime up by 110 percent. The Government’s committed to restoring real consequences for crime, which is why, as part of the coalition agreement with ACT and supported by New Zealand First, we’ve committed to adding additional aggravating factors during sentencing where the victim is working solo or adjacent to the dwelling. This will add further protections to small-business owners from retail crime and is amongst the many steps that we have taken to rebuild confidence in the justice system and to restore law and order.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why is the Minister pushing non-consorting laws rather than following reliable Australian evidence, such as the New South Wales Ombudsman’s 2016 review of its anti-consorting laws, which found they required significant use of police resources without a clear benefit to the public interest?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Why? Because we think it’s important to give the police extra tools to deal with gangs in this country, given that over the last five years, there’s been a 50 percent increase in gang activity. And it’s time that we had some extra tools to help the police do their job and keep our communities safe.

Rima Nakhle: Does the Minister consider it acceptable to disagree with advice from his officials?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I do, from time to time. We don’t necessarily agree with every piece of advice that we get from officials here in Wellington, and we treat all advice with respect, but, fundamentally, when a Government is elected to deliver on a policy to keep our country safe, we will deliver on that policy.

Question No. 12—RMA Reform

12. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he stand by all his statements and policies?

Yes.

Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement with regard to the fast-track bill, “I want a thorough and transparent process.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes.

Hon James Shaw: How does introducing legislation with such extraordinary ministerial powers, under urgency, less than an hour before it is due to be debated in the House, with two critical schedules withheld from public scrutiny, meet the standard of “thorough and transparent”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, how do I count the ways? Firstly, the Government announced that we were doing this back in late January, early February. I made that a public announcement, and we published the framework and the design of the scheme. That went out to all and sundry—iwi; post-governance settlement entities; environmental NGOs, who’ve been voluminous in their criticism of it, but we’ll take that as read. The public has had many chances to engage on this. Officials have been working away designing the bill. The bill has been introduced, albeit, yes, under urgency, to meet the 100-day commitment to get it into the House, and the reason why it’s under urgency is to send it to a committee as soon as possible so the public can have their say on this extremely important piece of legislation. There are a number of other examples that I could point to.

Hon James Shaw: How can he justify limiting public consultation when projects that are on the secret Schedule could include, coalmines, deep-sea mines, and projects that have already been turned down by the courts—

SPEAKER: No. Can I just say—you refer to a secret schedule. We heard, earlier in the day, there’s nothing on the Schedule. So don’t use language like that.

Hon James Shaw: How can he justify limiting public consultation when projects that will be on the Schedule could include coalmines, deep-sea mines, and projects that have already been turned down by the courts on environmental grounds, whilst overriding protections for fresh water and indigenous biodiversity?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I justify it in the same way that the previous Government introduced the COVID-19 fast-track regime, which included 17 or maybe 19 projects listed in the Schedule that were automatically referred to an expert panel. That member was a member of the Government that supported that regime in the last Parliament. It’s very similar. Actually, we’ve been even more transparent in the sense that we are running an independent process for projects to be referred to the Government to insert in the bill. In the last Parliament, the COVID-19 fast-track regime, a bill was presented, there were 17 projects listed in the Schedule, and those projects got referred to a fast-track consenting expert panel.

Hon James Shaw: Is he aware—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just give yourself a minute while the House composes itself.

Hon James Shaw: Can you advise me whether the House is composed enough?

SPEAKER: Well, actually, wrong choice of words—it’s never likely to happen. But carry on anyway.

Hon James Shaw: Can he confirm that one of the key differences from previous fast-track legislation is that the ultimate decision to approve or decline projects will now sit with Ministers rather than with independent experts?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. That’s a key design choice of the regime. We’re proud of it. We’re determined to cut through the red tape holding this country back and to get on with building things this country needs.

Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that rushing legislation with such extraordinary executive powers through Parliament, under urgency, with little public scrutiny—

SPEAKER: Sorry. You can ask that again. How many times do people have to be told to be quiet while questions are being asked before some people spend quite a bit of time out of the House?

Hon James Shaw: Let me count the ways.

SPEAKER: That’s not helpful, Mr Shaw—you know that.

Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that rushing legislation with such extraordinary executive powers through Parliament, under urgency, with little public scrutiny, creates a risk that any of the projects that are approved as a result of this bill could find themselves subject to future scrutiny, which could include the loss of the consent, possibly without compensation?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, a couple of points to make there. Firstly, the bill is not being rushed through Parliament. The bill is being read a first time this afternoon, and if it meets with the House’s approval, it will be sent to a select committee for consideration. It will go to the Environment Committee. I’ve got full confidence in the chair of the Environment Committee and, actually, the Environment Committee, to do a good job. There will be a full public submission process. Prior to the bill being introduced into the Parliament, there has been extensive consultation on the design parameters of the bill. There’s been extensive engagement with iwi and Māori groups; I’ve been meeting with them regularly over the last few weeks alongside Minister Potaka. The simple reality is that this will be one of the most well consulted on bills and regimes in recent history. To the member’s second point, in throwing around language around cancellation of consents without compensation, I would just say to the member he needs to be very careful in relation to comments like that. I think all members in Parliament have an obligation to bear in mind sovereign risk to New Zealand and the way in which projects happen.

SPEAKER: Can I just make the point that it is not for the executive to pre-empt Parliament. There is no bill, and so the suggestion that it will be read this afternoon does pre-empt Parliament. It’s a fine point, but, none the less, one that should be taken into account by Ministers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister how seriously he takes the threat, malignant as it is, that people who make, under the process passed by this Parliament, legal application for a permit should be threatened that when the Government changes they will not be compensated for their construction that was allowed and permitted in the first place?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the Acting Prime Minister makes a good point, and I just repeat what I said before, which is that I think members generally need to be careful when it comes to threatening things, like the leader of the Green Party threatened in his supplementary question.