Oral Questions

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

Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has he broken his promise of no new taxes and no increases in fuel tax, given yesterday he announced a driver’s tax through hiking registration fees, plus a 22c per litre increase in fuel taxes, albeit on a delayed timetable?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As the Acting Prime Minister, I made no such announcements yesterday.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why isn’t he willing to defend the Government’s decision to break the promises the Prime Minister made before the election?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, as the Acting Prime Minister, I stand by the things that I say, and I’m very happy to begin by giving that group a lesson in constitutional law in this country, about how this Parliament is properly run under the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who is correct: Nicola Willis, who said, “We’re not increasing taxes. We’re making an adjustment to a fee.”, or Nicola Willis, who said, “If it looks like a tax and it quacks like a tax, it’s a tax.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, obviously, the first statement she was making was on behalf of this Government, and the second statement she was making was on behalf of the last one.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking of statements made by the last Government, who is correct: Christopher Luxon, who said, “they’ve got a culture of entitlement at the heart of this Government, right? They think they’re entitled to your money. They think they’re entitled to waste it.”, or Christopher Luxon, who said, “I’m entitled to the entitlements that everybody else has [at the moment].”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The first statement that he was making was on his behalf, but I do support that statement. With the second one, he was pointing to what happens when you have 30 years of managerial neglect when it comes to Government properties—much of which was the responsibility of that Government over there—that sees millions and millions of dollars of assets wasted because of ideology, and I can recite all of the circumstances of that, which have now cost the taxpayer so much more money than looking after Ministers. But it began with the ideology of a man called Roger Douglas.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the total cost of retrospectively restoring mortgage interest deductibility for rental properties, and how many school lunches would that pay for?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, that will be itemised with particularity by the Minister of Finance, and on the second question, of course we have always been supportive of the programme for school lunches, but we have to evaluate—which that Government sought a report on—to see whether it was money being well spent, and in July of 2023, they received a very damning report from Treasury saying the converse.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which best sums up his Government’s priorities: tax breaks for landlords at the expense of kids’ school lunches, attacking beneficiary entitlements whilst claiming a $1,000-a-week housing allowance he doesn’t need, or abolishing an initiative to improve Māori health outcomes in the same week his Government passed a law change that will increase smoking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, I’ll deal with the last one. The last statement is demonstrably untrue. The law written in—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, here comes the tobacco lobby talking points.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, not at all—here comes the truth. The law was fixed up in 2018-19, which led to the biggest fall in cigarette smoking in this country’s history. We are now a world leader, and that’s because the law—that they didn’t write; we wrote it. In fact, when they were doing their amendments in 2022, people like Chlöe Swarbrick were saying that it was bound to fail because it was never focused on actual circumstances. Now, let’s deal with that one there. On the second issue of calling the Prime Minister of this country squanderous, the Prime Minister on that score would be an amateur compared with what he inherited: hundreds of billions of dollars unaccounted for, over and over again.

Hon Grant Robertson: What—“hundreds of billions”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Going forward, we’ll be paying for that, Mr Robertson. We’ll be paying for that over the next 10 years—a cost occasioned by that Minister, who threw money around like an eight-armed octopus.

SPEAKER: I’d just make the point that that last question was seeking an answer on opinions, which is—you know, you got away with it, but it’s not to be a habit. Question No. 2, in the name of Dr Vanessa Weenink.

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

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Are you suggesting that the member’s right to ask a question is now being narrowed that we can no longer ask Ministers for opinions?

SPEAKER: No. The point, which I should have made more clear, was that the question itself was asking Ministers to comment on what, essentially, are other people’s opinions. Now, that might be useful in most circumstances, but I thought it was just a little bit—given that you outlined some stark choices, it might be going just a bit too far.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Referencing the ruling that you made at the beginning of question time, can you clarify which rule or which Standing Order you believe I breached in my question?

SPEAKER: I think it’s 371, and you’ll find it’s either (a), (b), or (c). It’s the—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Actually, I’ll look it up.

SPEAKER: There’s three parts to it. [Interruption] Well, I think—can we come back to that, because it’s a fair point. But we’ll move on to question No. 2.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Crown accounts?

Well, this morning, Treasury released the Government’s financial statements for the seven months ending 31 January 2024. These show that core Crown tax revenue was $800 million below what was forecast in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) in December. Core Crown expenses were also lower than forecast in the HYEFU by a billion dollars. The OBEGAL deficit—the operating balance before gains and losses—was $400 million higher than forecast.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why did tax revenue come in below forecast?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Lower than expected tax revenue is consistent with the economy being weaker than forecast in the half-year update. Since the half-year update, GDP results indicate that New Zealand’s economic slow-down occurred earlier and more deeply than previously thought. As a result, the economy will almost certainly be in a weaker position this year than was anticipated before Christmas, and this has a direct flow-on to tax revenue.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What explains the lower OBEGAL result?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The fact that the OBEGAL deficit was $400 million worse than forecast was driven by two factors: one is the core Crown results I’ve just mentioned, and the other is due to State-owned enterprises (SOE) which are outside the core Crown. The SOE results include a write-down of the Cook Strait ferry project. This follows the Government’s decision to decline KiwiRail’s request for significant additional funding to address cost escalations in that blow-out project.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How has core Crown expenditure changed over time?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Core Crown expenditure is forecast to be $140 billion over this financial year. That’s a lot of money, so I went back and I looked at what Government spending was in previous years, and to my horror I found that since 2018 Government spending has increased by a total of 73 percent. That is a 73 percent increase over only six years. Once again, this shows the financial mismanagement of the previous Government.

SPEAKER: I’ll just come back to the member the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: it’s Standing Order 390(1) or (2) that I’d be relying on. I was thinking of the Standing Orders from 2017. I’m just perhaps a little behind the times from the latest publication but, none the less, the point was right.

Question No. 3—Transport

3. to the Minister of Transport: How does the Government intend to fully fund the more than $20 billion of proposed National Land Transport Fund spending across the next three years as outlined in the draft Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024-34?

The member has answered his own question in his primary, but to help the member, page 29 of the draft Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport 2024 to 2034 outlines the answer to his question.

Tangi Utikere: Will all projects in the Government policy statement on land transport be fully funded for the entirety of the project, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The GPS which was released yesterday outlines the projects that we are prioritising as a Government, including the roads of national significance and major public transport projects. We’ve also outlined a range of funding and financing tools to be able to deliver this infrastructure, and we expect that those new tools will be used.

Tangi Utikere: Why is he and his Government determined to make it more difficult for hard-working Kiwis by introducing a new drivers’ tax by increasing motor vehicle licensing fees by an extra $50, when he and his Government promised no new taxes?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We said we were not going to increase the fuel excise duty (FED) and road-user charge (RUC), and that is what we have delivered in this GPS. We have not increased FED and RUC during this term of Government, but the reality is—the reality is—that we need to ensure that we set out the funding parameters to be able to deliver the infrastructure New Zealanders need, and that is why we have outlined FED and RUC increases from 2027.

Tangi Utikere: Does the Minister stand by his statement that registration fees are just a “one off fee that people pay”, and, if so, does he expect people to only register their car once in the vehicle’s lifetime, or would he like them to pay the additional $50 drivers’ tax every 12 months?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, people register their vehicle once every 12 months, and as part of that they pay a contribution. It’s a payment they make once a year, and, as part of that, there is a contribution to the National Land Transport Fund, and, on this side of the House, this Government will ensure that that money is going to building and maintaining the roading network, not cycle bridges across the Auckland harbour. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait—[Interruption] Just wait. All right.

Tangi Utikere: Is the Minister actually committed to addressing the cost of living pressures when he cancelled the proposed 12c increase to fuel excise duties, only to nearly double it with a 22c increase?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we are committed to the cost of living by making sure that we axe the Auckland regional fuel tax, by making sure we have no fuel excise and road-user charges in 2024, 2025, or 2026, but we are outlining how we will sustainably fund transport investment going into the future. That’s what this GPS is all about.

Tangi Utikere: How will an 18 percent decrease in funding to council subsidies to public transport services, a 34 percent decrease in funding for public transport infrastructure, and a 49 percent decrease in funding for walking and cycling improvements have a positive impact on meeting New Zealand’s climate change commitments?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on this side of the House, we are focusing the National Land Transport Fund on its core purpose, which is to build and maintain the roading network, and people who fill up their cars with petrol, who pay road-user charges, want to ensure that the money they’re paying is going back into building and maintaining the roading network, less potholes, and making sure we have the roads for the future to unlock economic growth and productivity across New Zealand.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements about educational achievement in schools?

Yes, in the context in which they were delivered.

Hon Marama Davidson: Has he seen evidence from the recent Programme for International Student Assessment study which shows dropping achievement can be explained by the number of students coming to school hungry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most certainly we’re aware of that report. It is a misnomer. The reasons why there is so much massive failure at school is to do with truancy and a whole lot of other reasons—for an education system that began, in 1877, making school attendance compulsory. If you start there, you might start getting the education system fixed up.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response to findings that achievement for students in food poverty is up to four years behind their peers who never miss a meal?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, the report that that member would have been aware of, commissioned by that former Government and reported on in 2023, under sections 24 and 25, does not find any such outcome in the way that member mistakenly is implying.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept findings in the recent independent evaluation of the school lunches programme that it contributes to happier and healthier students, which is likely to result in better school outcomes?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It was a report that also said that there was “improving [nutrition] intake, particularly for those 7.3 percent of ākonga with least access to sufficient food at home”. It went on to say, “However, the evaluations have found no impact on attendance”, and with respect to Māori, “who make up around 48 percent of students receiving the programme, [they] have not benefited on most metrics, such as school functioning (e.g., paying attention in class), health, and mental wellbeing (with mental wellbeing worse off for those in the programme).” Now, those are the screaming facts that Māori want to know about.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to improving student wellbeing and school achievement by keeping the healthy school lunches programme beyond 2025 and expanding it in the future to more learners struggling with food poverty?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that member will be aware that the very programme itself had a finality about it, and that’s the issue we’re talking about right now that Mr Seymour is addressing. Mr Seymour is addressing whether we’re getting value for money or, as we’re told by so many teachers at our schools, there is such massive waste. And our job is to ensure that when we make available programmes like that, they do work. So a very sensible, rational evaluation needs to be done now rather than a screaming reaction that says that every cent spent is spent well. And it’s not the case at all. Go and ask the teachers, go and ask real Māori, who know down in the schools what’s going on. Ask somebody who’s been in a classroom, not somebody who’s forgotten what it’s like.

Question No. 5—Children

5. to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements, if any, has she made regarding the Government’s commitment to crack down on serious youth offending?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning I announced that we intend to have a pilot for a military-style academy for youth offenders operating from the middle of this year. The approach to serious and persistent youth offending over the past six years has clearly not been working, and something needs to change in how we respond to this group of young people to help them turn their lives around and break the cycle of offending. That is why I’m proud to work with this Government in delivering on its promise to create youth offender military academies.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will these academies differ from previous approaches to address youth offending?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The Military-style Activity Camp Programme, or the MAC Programme, was run between 2010 and 2016 in partnership between Child, Youth and Family Service and the New Zealand Defence Force. An evaluation of this programme showed positive results, with improvements in the attitude and motivation of the young people to address their offending. However, it also found that a lack of robust support once each young person left the programme meant improved outcomes were not realised to the extent they might have been. That is why this pilot is going to have a focus on rehabilitation and take a trauma-informed approach alongside the military-style component to ensure these young people receive the full wraparound support they need to turn their lives around and reduce the risk of reoffending.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the military-style academies operate in practice?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki will lead and deliver the programme, working alongside other Government departments to ensure a multi-agency approach and a well-rounded programme that is not just focused on discipline and structure but works to address the underlying cause of offending. We will also work with community providers where they have the expertise and experience in working with young people who often have multiple and complex needs. While on the programme, young people will receive the counselling, drug and alcohol treatment, mentoring, and cultural support that they require.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other actions is the Government taking to address serious and persistent youth offending?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Alongside this pilot programme, the Government is looking at legislative changes to enable stronger consequences for young people who are committing crimes. These changes include looking at establishing the military academy programme as a stand-alone sentencing option for judges, and a new young serious offender category to enable stronger sentencing powers and monitoring requirements. As I’ve said before, we cannot continue with the previous approach. We owe it to these young people to do everything that we can to help them. This is not just about having consequences for their actions but actually showing them that they have it within themselves to turn their lives around and giving them the tools that they need to encourage them.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Minister of Transport: Will his draft Government Policy Statement on land transport contribute to emissions reduction targets and reduce transport costs for people; if so, how?

Yes. As the member knows, the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the Government’s key tool to reduce emissions. As the member well knows, the transport sector is covered by the ETS and the ETS caps emissions. The Government policy statement (GPS) 2024 is about delivering transport infrastructure so Kiwis can get where they need to go quickly and safely without being stuck in congestion. This Government has delivered on its commitment to not raise fuel excise duties (FED) or road-user charges (RUC) in this term.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can people choose to avoid paying ETS prices and higher prices to use cars when his draft GPS cuts funding to public transport services, public transport infrastructure, walking, and cycling—basically every alternative to using a car?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there’s significant investment in public transport in this GPS. There’s over $4.4 billion going into public transport services and public transport infrastructure. We’ve got a range of major public transport projects that we’re going to invest in: completing the City Rail Link, for instance: a project started under the last National Government—we’re going to complete it during this term of Government; the Eastern Busway, which we’re going to ensure the regional fuel tax money continues to invest in; we electrified the Auckland rail network. This is a Government which backs public transport, and this GPS continues to support public transport in New Zealand.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does his draft GPS provide lower or higher targets for funding for public transport services and infrastructure than the previous Government’s draft GPS?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: In terms of the draft GPS, if we’re comparing it to the last Government’s draft GPS in 2023, this is a much better document because what it will do is it will focus on value for money from our public transport sector. Now, the actual targets are slightly lower but we will get better outcomes because we’ll be focusing on making sure our public transport services are operating reliably.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Under this draft GPS, can local councils put in bus lanes on local roads as part of an upgrade or regular maintenance and renewal of a local road?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member will know as a former Associate Minister of Transport, following the draft GPS, councils will be putting forward their regional land transport programmes. That will then feed into the national land transport programme (NLTP), which will be outlined later this year, which will clarify those issues. I encourage the councils around the country to read the document and put forward their regional land transport plans, which feed into the NLTP.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he denying that, in the draft GPS, there is a specific provision that says local road funding, maintenance, and renewal cannot be used for multimodal improvements, and that includes bus lanes?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, when it comes to maintenance and renewal funding, we are focusing that on exactly what it says it will do: about fixing potholes and renewing our roads. That’s why we are ring-fencing the pothole prevention funds to make sure we are actually achieving the long-term rates of renewal needed on our roads. The last Government left the current state of our roads in a declining state. This GPS is about actually improving the quality of our roads so people can get around where they need to go, quickly and safely. In relation to the member’s specific question, the local roading improvement activity class is an activity class available to councils to invest in their local roading infrastructure.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can people in New Zealand expect to have frequent, reliable bus and train services to give them an alternative to driving a car when he is cutting funding for public transport and making it harder for local councils to make public transport reliable and on time?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that side of the House thinks throwing more money is the solution to every single problem. Well, they had six years and they spent $228 million on “Auckland Light Fail”. Aucklanders didn’t get anything, but taxpayers spent hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Point of order.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On this side of the House, we’re about delivery and delivering the infrastructure, public transport infrastructure, and services needed.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Mr Speaker, I just ask you to reflect on the Minister’s answers because I have asked quite specific questions and each time—

SPEAKER: Yeah. This is the sort of thing that is—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: —this is deflected by attacking the previous Government, which I was not part of.

SPEAKER: Yeah, this is the sort of point of order that’s winding people up a bit. The Minister had not finished an answer, and I think, while you may not be satisfied with the direction of his answer, I would like to hear it before any judgment is made.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, Mr Speaker, on this side of the House, it’s not just about how much money is thrown at a problem; it’s actually about making sure we get the outcomes that New Zealanders expect. And that’s why we’re proud of the record: when we started the City Rail Link, we’re going to complete it. That side of the House spent hundreds of millions of dollars on “Auckland Light Fail” and didn’t actually get anything started—not 1 metre of track delivered. We’re focused on getting the outcomes New Zealanders need.

Helen White: Point of order. The Minister has now had a long period of time where he has not addressed the question, and in fact it is quite obvious that he is attacking the previous Government and not answering the question. If it is possible for him to simply sandwich his answer with one end of it—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: When a point of order is being taken, regardless of what the rest of the House might think of it, I want to hear it in silence. Start again, and make it a point of order.

Helen White: Mr Speaker, my concern is that the question is not actually being answered and there is a long period of time where the answer is irrelevant and is out of order, where the Speaker is not intervening. So, in fact, crime is paying, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, those are your opinions; they are not mine. He very clearly said that this Government sees outcomes as more important than money spent. In other words, getting value for the dollar. It’s not for me to explain that. That’s how I heard it; that’s how I judge it.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can I just ask for some clarification?

SPEAKER: Clarification? It had better be a clarification, because that was not—with all due respect—a point of order.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: The Minister has repeatedly referred, using a pejorative term, to the previous Labour Government’s project and I just wonder if the Speaker could reflect on whether that is part of answering the question in good faith, to refer to a project in a pejorative way without—he’s calling it “Auckland Light Fail”, so it just doesn’t even seem like that’s a good-faith answer from a Minister, to be honest.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I think the member should really stop there. The member was asking about why funding had been cut. What the Minister suggested is that past funding perhaps hadn’t been as well used as it could be. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

Hon Chris Bishop: What reports has the Minister seen, if any, in relation to advocacy by the former member of Parliament for Mt Albert—and, indeed, the current member of Parliament for Mt Albert—about Auckland light rail, and how did that project stack up against that advocacy?

SPEAKER: Simeon Brown—as long as he can do it within the bounds of ministerial responsibility.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I have seen reports of a former member for Mt Albert advocating for the Auckland light rail project prior to the 2017 election, saying it would be completed by 2021. Despite six years in Government, nothing happened.

SPEAKER: That’s interesting but not particularly helpful to the order of the House.

Question No. 7—Agriculture

7. to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What update, if any, can he provide on the coalition Government’s commitment to wool?

Let me be very clear: this Government is committed to bringing back New Zealand wool. New Zealand was quite literally built off the sheep’s back. New Zealand is still a world leader in quality wool. We’re the largest exporter of strong wool, accounting for 20 percent of strong wool traded globally. However, the value of New Zealand wool exports has shrunk from $750 million in 2004 to an estimated $390 million in 2024—a dire situation where it literally costs more to shear a sheep than the income received. We acknowledge the need for revival for both the prosperity of our rural communities and our farmers and to achieve the wider Government objective of doubling the value of our exports.

Jamie Arbuckle: What policies has the Government committed to?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: As part of the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, we have committed that we will back our farmers, our primary sector, and regional New Zealand. We will direct Government agencies to preference the use of woollen fibres over artificial fibres in Government buildings. Where practical and appropriate, we’ll back the sustainable, natural product. No longer will rural schools be forced against their will to put in synthetic carpets. This initiative has garnered widespread support, notably Greg Smith, CEO of Bremworth carpets, who says—and I quote—“This has the potential to be one of the most significant changes in the wool industry since synthetic fibres were introduced two decades ago.”

Jamie Arbuckle: What other incentives can the wool industry look forward to?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Other initiatives that the wool industry can look forward to is that we are absolutely committed to working with farmers at the farm gate in their rural communities, not, like the last Government, from Wellington ivory towers—

SPEAKER: No, that’s not—no, no, talk about your Government and your programme.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Not from Wellington ivory towers. The Minister of Agriculture has announced a woolshed tour, commencing in April, where we’ll be engaging with farmers from Northland to Southland to outline the opportunities and to seek their feedback. I’ve been travelling across New Zealand engaging with industry, and I’m incredibly excited at some of the innovation that’s going on within the manufacturing sector. I’m aware that, to date, farmers have not been well informed. Since the disestablishment of the Wool Board, the sector has lacked cohesive leadership. A national roadshow will be occurring across the next three months that will help to shape our thinking of how we revitalise this critical rural industry.

Question No. 8—Media and Communications

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

Yes.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why does she refuse to back the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, a bill that is supported by the whole broadcasting industry?

Hon MELISSA LEE: The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is currently being considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I said in Parliament last week I’m waiting for the select committee to report back. The Government will consider these latest developments in terms of the wider media landscape. It is inappropriate for the Minister to intervene or interfere.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why does the Minister refuse to take a position when the advice from her own officials suggests that the media is under pressure, revenue is declining, and, without intervention, the Government will be under pressure to fund public news content?

Hon MELISSA LEE: I could ask that member the same question. In relation to the Warner Bros. Discovery announcement last week that came as a bit of a shock, the industry is actually facing difficult issues. However, I am very passionate about supporting a thriving media sector in New Zealand, and I have been talking to my Cabinet

colleagues and I will be taking a paper to Cabinet in coming weeks. The honourable member’s Government had six years to solve these problems—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. No—that’s fine.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, that’s good that the Minister is—

SPEAKER: The Hon Willie Jackson will start again—without the extra comment.

Hon Willie Jackson: Apologies. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister, given—

SPEAKER: No—“given” is not a word. Try a question word.

Hon Willie Jackson: Yep. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That’s all right. We’ll get there in the end.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you—thanks very much. Can I ask the Minister: what are her proposals to support the media sector, to support Newshub; is there a strategy, is there anything, given every proposal the previous Government put up, she opposed, including the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill?

SPEAKER: Well, how on earth can that question be answered without some political content? I just warn you that your question creates a degree of lenience on my listening to the answer.

Hon MELISSA LEE: As the member knows and I have just answered, I am passionate about supporting a thriving media sector. The honourable member, actually, and his Government had six years to solve the problem, including passing the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill that the member says the whole of media supports. He could have passed it. He failed to do it. It is still at select committee. I will have to wait for that to come back. Having said that, the previous Government wasted $20 million on the failed merger of TVNZ and RNZ, which achieved fat zero.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why, at some of the darkest times in New Zealand media history, has this Minister disappeared from the media, refusing to be interviewed by National Radio, refusing to be interviewed by the Television New Zealand Breakfast show, refusing to be interviewed by the AM Show—why has this Minister disappeared from the national media? Why hasn’t she—

SPEAKER: Good—that was a question. That was a question.

Hon MELISSA LEE: Obviously, that honourable member isn’t reading the news or watching the news or reading The Spinoff. I have been available, doing interviews, and I have made public comments and answered questions when I head through the House before question time and also on the way to caucus, like every other Minister is available for media. However, I have also received questions or requests for interviews in relation to the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, and I felt that it was inappropriate for me to intervene, and I will wait until that is reported back to the House from the select committee.

Question No. 9—Transport

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

Yesterday the Prime Minister and I released the draft Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport, announcing that we’re delivering on our campaign and coalition commitments to reintroduce the successful roads of national significance programme with 15 projects across the country to enable people and freight to move around quickly and safely.

Grant McCallum: What does the Government policy statement mean for Northlanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The draft GPS brings great news for the people of Northland, who have been faced with cancelled projects and a growing infrastructure deficit. Our coalition Government prioritises a range of priority roads of national significance, including an alternative to the Brynderwyns as part of our coalition agreement with New Zealand First, the Whangārei to Port Marsden Highway, and Warkworth to Wellsford.

Tom Rutherford: What does the Government policy statement mean for the people of the Bay of Plenty?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The roads of national significance are some of New Zealand’s most essential State highway corridors. They boost productivity and improve safety. We’ve listed two significant priorities in the Bay of Plenty, including Tauriko West State Highway 29 and Takitimu Northern Link stage 2, which was scaled back and delayed by the prior Government.

Katie Nimon: What does the Government policy statement mean for the people of Napier?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government has also listed the Hawke’s Bay Expressway as another road of national significance, increasing resilience in the Hawke’s Bay. This critical priority was especially highlighted during the recent cyclone, where the two-lane road was one of the only roads available for people to use. Four-laning it will make a huge difference for the people of the Hawke’s Bay.

Hon Chris Bishop: What does this announcement mean for the good people of Wellington and the Hutt Valley?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Great news for the good people of Wellington and the Hutt Valley. After years of delay, we are prioritising the second Mount Vic tunnel, and, as the member will be very pleased, Pētone to Grenada is on track.

James Meager: What does the Government policy statement mean for Cantabrians?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Great news for Cantabrians: we’ve listed the Woodend bypass. I acknowledge Mr Doocey, the local member of Parliament, who’s advocated for that road, targeting one of the most dangerous stretches of road in New Zealand. We’ve also prioritised the second Ashburton bridge as a road of regional significance. While the previous Government talked a big game about transport, we’re actually going to get on and deliver.

Question No. 10—RMA Reform

10. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the statement made by the President of the Resource Management Law Association, who said about the Government’s proposed approach to fast-track consenting that “There are likely to be high risks of judicial review if a decision-making process lacks transparency and results in poor environmental outcomes”; if not, why not?

Broadly, yes. But the statement presupposes that the decision-making process will lack transparency, when our intention is that it be very transparent, and also presupposes that it will result in poor environmental outcomes, when our intention is that it result in good environmental outcomes.

Hon James Shaw: What advice has he requested or received on any potential litigation risk from the proposed settings, including judicial review risk in Waitangi Tribunal claims?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, legal advice that Ministers receive is, as the member knows, privileged.

Hon James Shaw: How does he justify the proposal to have ministerial decision-making over complex environmental matters rather than having final decisions sitting with independent hearing panels who are able to robustly consider all the evidence?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The bill hasn’t been presented to Parliament yet. As the member will well know, it’s part of the Government’s 100-day plan of action, and I think we’re up to day 97, so the member does not have long to wait.

Hon James Shaw: Did that address the question?

SPEAKER: Well, I think in so much as it can. He said the bill is not introduced to Parliament yet.

Hon James Shaw: Will the proposed new legislation override the environmental protections contained in many of New Zealand’s key pieces of environmental legislation, including the Conservation Act, the Wildlife Act, the Reserves Act, and the exclusive economic zone Act?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The fast-tracked consenting regime will allow Ministers to refer projects to panels to make conditions upon which those projects will take place, in accordance with the variety of statutes that the member has mentioned.

Hon James Shaw: Will the approximately 100 projects included in the listed pathway include projects for which consents have previously been declined or referred for reconsideration due to environmental risk, including the Te Kūhā coal mine and the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, maybe. The member will just have to wait until he sees the bill.

Question No. 11—Corrections

11. to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has he made about access to rehabilitation programmes?

On Sunday, I announced that the coalition Government has taken the first steps to ensure prisoners on remand can access the rehabilitation and reintegration support they need to turn their lives around. As part of the 100-day plan, we’re taking steps to make it explicit in the Corrections Act 2004 that prisoners who are on remand and convicted of a crime will be provided with the rehabilitation that helps address the causes of their offending.

Mike Butterick: How many more people are there on remand now than there were 10 years ago?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The number of people on remand has increased by 146 percent over the last 10 years, and remand now represents almost 45 percent of the entire prison population. This announcement will ensure that these people are receiving access to vital rehabilitation.

Mike Butterick: Who will benefit from these changes and how many prisoners are likely to benefit?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Remand-convicted prisoners will benefit from the provision of offence-based rehabilitation, including rehabilitation related to violent and sexual offending. The advice that I’ve received indicates that at any one time, nearly 1,400 prisoners may benefit from this rehabilitation. The biggest benefit, though, will be for the public in that more violent offenders will be receiving rehabilitation while inside, with an aim to improve public safety.

Mike Butterick: What other changes will the Government make to strengthen rehab access?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: As part of the Amendment Paper which I’ve sent to the Justice Committee for consideration alongside the Corrections Amendment Bill, the proposed amendment sets out a clear expectation that remand-accused prisoners will be provided with reintegration and other non - offence-focused support while in prison. This includes alcohol and drug treatment, as well as educational or behavioural skills programmes.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Is the Minister confident that Corrections is currently resourced to meet its existing obligations to provide rehabilitative services, as set out in the sentenced prisoners management plan, as provided in section 51 of the Corrections Act?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: It’s well known that Corrections, for the last six years, has suffered with a lack of front-line corrections officers, who, by the way, do an outstanding job in keeping the public safe. But the good news is that Corrections has received 2,108 applications since the new recruitment ad started on 4 February 2024 to 21 February 2024. This is a huge increase—almost four times—compared with the 550 applications when the previous Government campaigned in February 2023. Two weeks ago, 156 new staff began their training as corrections officers—I believe the largest cohort that has been seen in recent years.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was all very interesting, but the question clearly said about funding—is he confident that it is funded to provide all of these services? It’s not about personnel.

SPEAKER: I think you’ll find it started with the word “yes”. Is that correct? Well, I misunderstood. Do you want to add more?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes.

Question No. 12—Education (Partnership Schools)

12. to the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools): Does he stand by his statement that the previous Government had committed to the school lunches spending programme “without commissioning any robust empirical study to evaluate its effectiveness”; if so, how does he reconcile this with the New Zealand Healthy School Lunches pilot/Ka Ora, Ka Ako interim evaluation on the Ministry of Education website?

Yes, I certainly stand by that statement, and I can very easily reconcile it with this interim evaluation, which itself says a larger group of schools is needed to assess whether there has been any improvement in attendance patterns over the longer term. So I think, when a study itself says that it couldn’t reach the conclusion asked, that is almost by definition not robust.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he, then, acknowledge the other reports—the many other reports—that have been done on the Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme have increased the numbers of schools, have had the voices of 10,694 secondary learners brought into the research, and the final report—or the most recent report—which shows that, thus, in specific schools and kura, we found the programme contributed to increased attendance?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There have been five studies in total commissioned by the Ministry of Education. None of them has done a robust, statistically significant comparison that has been able to find that the programme has increased attendance at school—those are the basic facts. I know that the former Minister probably thinks that she commissioned reports that are good enough for the taxpayer, but this Government is in favour of actually doing robust analysis when we go out and spend their money. But, unfortunately, I read again from the Treasury: “However, the evaluations have found no impact on attendance, and ākonga Māori, who make up around 48% of students receiving the programme, have not benefited on most metrics, such as school functioning … health, and mental wellbeing”. Unfortunately, the former Minister went out and spent nearly 350 million bucks, and she can’t say whether it worked.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he stand by his statement on Checkpoint: “The Treasury got on to that and also pointed out that they were wasting around 25 percent of the food that they had.”; and is he aware that it was never 25 percent, and that the Ministry of Education told the Education and Workforce Committee that food wastage had halved from 12 percent in the beginning to 6 percent?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Unfortunately, there’s a wide range of ways that the food is being wasted. For example, an email received just today from a high school says, “We have a volunteer group in town who picks up all unopened lunch packs to distribute amongst the elderly and needy in town. The quality of lunches has dropped off to such an extent that the elderly people no longer want them. A lot of food is being wasted—money as well.” Unfortunately, in many places, 25 percent wastage would be an improvement.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he stand by his statement, also on Checkpoint, that “Cuts of 30 to 50 percent are in the ballpark.”; and, if so, what does he say to Christopher Luxon, who said in the election campaign, “We are supporters of the programme and it will continue to improve each and every year under our National Government”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I absolutely stand by my statement and what I’d say to Christopher Luxon—and the Prime Minister, for that matter—is that we are going to keep improving it: first of all, by wasting less money, and, second of all, by making sure that it’s going to the students most in need in a way that we can demonstrate a difference.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You’re cutting it.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And I just heard Megan Woods say, “You’re cutting it.”, and that’s why she didn’t get the finance job, because, you see, when we say we’re cutting it, we mean we’re going to spend less money to get more results. That’s what this Government needs to do—that’s what anyone in finance needs to do—and that’s why Megan Woods didn’t get the job.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why does he think—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait a minute—OK.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why does he think it is appropriate to prioritise tax breaks for landlords and property speculators above providing healthy and nutritious lunches to children in our poorest community?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I actually don’t have responsibility, as Associate Minister of Education, for the Budget process. But I’m a helpful sort of a guy, so let me just lean into this one for the member’s benefit. The Government is not making such a decision—the Government is having to make the most it possibly can in a range of policy areas because, after six years of this lot doing less and less with more and more taxpayers’ money, this Government now has to do more and more with less taxpayers’ money and try and pay down the debt besides. If only that Government had been a bit more fiscally responsible, this Government would be having an easier time. Thankfully, we’re up to it.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the outgoing Government provided precisely zero dollars in funding for the next financial year for the school lunch programme, an enormous fiscal cliff; and can he also advise whether he has considered an approach to that problem, like that suggested by the member Tinetti, that he simply appropriate it because New Zealand doesn’t have a debt problem, as she told Mike Hosking.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I can—[Interruption] Yes, I can confirm—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I can confirm that there is a major fiscal cliff in the funding of pharmaceuticals that this Government must now—oh, wait, sorry, Mr Speaker, that’s my other portfolio. You see, they’re leaving so many fiscal cliffs around that sometimes even I can’t keep up! Back to education: the fiscal cliff around school lunches is such that this Government has to actually find money to continue something that the Opposition said we were trying to cut, and that’s why we’ve got to do it better and smarter in a more targeted way that benefits the kids who really need it, where these guys failed.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 205/4, which says, “Ministers should not bring another political party, which has not been involved in the questioning, into an answer.”, as a longstanding rule that you shouldn’t be using patsy questions to attack the Opposition.

SPEAKER: That is true. But the question from the first question, the primary question, strayed quite a way along the track. As I’ve said before, and other Speakers have said before me, when there is a political aspect to a question, that’s where the answers are likely to go and that’s where there is slightly more lenience. But we are not then using the question time to directly attack a previous Government. The Rt Hon Winston Peters—this will be interesting.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, could he, in the interests of education, find a copy of the Andy Williams song “Lonely Street” and send a copy to that party over there so they can feel a bit more happy about life?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I have no responsibility—that would be my good friend and colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, the Minister of arts and heritage, who, I am sure, can give him a hand. However, what I will say, as Associate Minister of Education, is that our job is an education system where people feel they can go to school and be equipped to make a difference in their own lives—that’s what makes people happier.