Oral Questions

1. on behalf of to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he agree with Associate Professor of Law Treasa Dunworth, who said about the International Court of Justice ruling in the case against Israel under the Genocide Convention that New Zealand “has a legal obligation to do what it can to ensure that Israel complies with the court’s orders”; if so, what action is the Government taking to fulfil its legal obligation?

It’s important to make clear that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has not made any determination of genocide in this case and, indeed, has not released any final ruling on the matter. What has happened so far is that the ICJ has released a provisional ruling and has taken the substantive issues under advisement. That said, of course, all countries have a general obligation to prevent and punish genocide. New Zealand has consistently called on Israel to comply with the binding interim measures—that is, take all reasonable steps not to commit genocide—as issued by the International Court on 26 January 2024.

Hon James Shaw: Will he unequivocally condemn Israel’s use of—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to Standing Order 394(2), which says that a member may ask a question on behalf of another member who is absent. But the member in whose name the question is has just emerged and is now present in the Chamber, and I just wonder if it’s possible for another member to keep asking the question when that member is here?

SPEAKER: That’s a very good point, absolutely right. The member, in whose name the question was, was not present when the question was called. We’re now into supplementary questions and, as the member knows, any member from the House can ask supplementary questions. So the point is right; circumstances have changed.

Hon David Seymour: What about the first supplementary; shouldn’t that go to the member?

SPEAKER: No, no, are you calling that, or—I can’t hear you from here.

Hon James Shaw: Will he unequivocally condemn Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 10 children, so far, by starvation?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: New Zealand is meeting its obligations under the genocide convention, including by clearly and consistently stating its position publicly. Since the start of the conflict, New Zealand has consistently called on all parties to comply with international law in national statements and in statements alongside Australia. Since the ICJ provisional ruling, I have engaged with representatives of around 50 countries, and developments in Gaza have been a regular topic of discussion and none of those 50 countries are left in any doubt as to what New Zealand’s position is. For the member’s benefit, New Zealand has been clear from the outset that the protection of civilians is paramount. The price of defeating Hamas cannot be continued at the suffering of Palestinian people.

Hon James Shaw: Will the Government intervene as a third party in the case against Israel under the genocide convention, now that Israel has failed to comply with the court orders including by obstructing basic aid into Gaza and deliberately opening fire on civilians who are seeking aid?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is what happens when one goes to academia for an expert opinion, and academia has never been in a court of law. That is not what the ICJ ruled, and that’s still in abeyance in terms of the final decision, as we speak.

Teanau Tuiono: Will he guarantee the continuation of New Zealand’s annual funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) as the main provider of humanitarian aid in Gaza?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to thank that member for that question. The reality is that, as the previous Government had said, the next tranche is not due until the middle of this year, which gives us time to observe the full-scale inquiry be conducted by the United Nations at this point in time. But that said, we have gone and supported other agencies doing the same kind of work, bearing in mind that the UNRWA is a serious component, and to operate it properly is essential because there’s no other possible replacement right here right now for that organisation.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he think it is appropriate for the Government to continue diplomatic relations with Israel, including hosting the Israeli ambassador, while Israel fails to abide by its obligations under the ICJ decision and international humanitarian law?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, when the ICJ brings out a ruling, I suggest people read it carefully and maybe take legal advice as to what it means. Because the inference in that question is that the findings were not as the international community has recognised them where Israel is concerned.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he consider introducing an Israel sanctions bill to Parliament to send a clear message that Aotearoa will not tolerate war crimes and genocide, just as we did in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect to that question, a previous Labour Government looked at that as an overall political change in our law and decided against it; and all of a sudden, that has changed now. Those matters are under consideration, but, at this point in time, this Government has made no such decision.

Question No. 2—Climate Change

2. to the Minister of Climate Change: Has he sought or received advice on the transport-related emission reduction impacts of the draft Government Policy Statement on land transport; if not, why not?

Matters relating to climate change and emissions reduction issues are being worked through and addressed during the development of the second emissions reduction plan (ERP). This will include deciding the cross-sector policy mix to ensure emissions budgets are met. As such, while I have received advice, I haven’t received specific advice on transport-related emissions reduction impacts of that draft Government policy statement (GPS), as this will be part of preparing ERP 2.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will the cutting of funding for measures in his Government’s draft GPS that were recommended by the climate commission as being required to meet the first emissions reduction target, such as substantially increasing the share of central government funding dedicated to active and public transport infrastructure and reducing public transport fares to encourage greater use of public transport, put meeting—

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what we’re going to do—sorry to interrupt the member, but questions are heard in silence. If people want to have conversations, go out to the lobbies. Please start the question again.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you. Will the cutting of funding for measures in his Government’s draft GPS that were recommended by the climate commission as being required to meet the first emissions reduction target, such as substantially increasing the share of central government funding dedicated to active and public transport infrastructure and reducing public transport fares to encourage greater use of public transport, put meeting emissions budget 1 in jeopardy?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Look, I have advice that the estimated impact of removing some of the initiatives which this coalition Government have signalled will have an inconsequential impact in regards to the impacts around those budgets.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What advice has he received on the impacts of the measures in the GPS, given the answer to that supplementary question?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As I’ve advised to the Minister, there is a range of advice that I have received, but I have not received specific advice in regards to the emissions reduction impacts in that draft GPS. That will be part of the emissions reduction 2 process, of which I will welcome the Minister’s input into that process, and we start consultation in May.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does the Minister of Climate Change think he should have asked for advice on what the impacts are of removing measures that were recommended by the climate commission for meeting emissions budget 1? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute, we’ve got to get this right. When people are asking a question, if you don’t like the question, just suck it up and listen. Please ask the question again.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you. Does the Minister of Climate Change think he should have asked for advice on what the specific impacts of cuts through the GPS on transport would be, and their potential of not meeting emissions budget 1?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I appreciate that the former Minister may not have been particularly listening to my answer to the question, but, as I have stated—and I will state again for the purposes of repetition—that aspect of that process will form part of the ERP 2 process. While I have received advice, I haven’t received specific advice that the Minister had asked in her primary question.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question of the member about whether or not he thought he should have asked for that specific advice. He has told us in several of his answers that he hasn’t received specific advice, but I asked him if he thought he should.

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, lots of these points of order relating to that sort of thing in recent days—I’ve done quite a bit of reading to find out what other Speakers have said in the past. The question was addressed, and I think we will now move on.

Hon Chris Bishop: Has the Minister received advice on the $30 billion Lake Onslow scheme and how much money was spent by the previous Government developing the scheme?

SPEAKER: The primary question relates to transport-related emission reduction. Lake Onslow, as you know, is a proposed electricity scheme.

Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Minister received any advice on the doomed light rail project and how much was wasted on that before it was cancelled?

SPEAKER: If we’re going to go down this track, we’re going to get into a pretty murky place. The primary—

Hon Member: It’s transport.

SPEAKER: Well, OK, I’ll get called on that; it is a transport-related question. It’s very thin. It’s quite—

Hon SIMON WATTS: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I didn’t hear that question. Could the Minister repeat that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply refer you to the Standing Order that you quoted to me yesterday. The question that Nicola Willis asked falls foul of that Standing Order and, therefore, must be ruled out of order on the same basis that you pulled me up yesterday.

SPEAKER: Well, I pulled you up yesterday on the basis—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, can I help out here?

SPEAKER: No. No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can really help out here.

SPEAKER: Well, it had better be helpful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a matter of chronology. This issue was decided when this Government came into office. Therefore, it’s in our bailiwick.

Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That is a fair point. I’ll just make the point that I pulled you up yesterday—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Hang on. I pulled you up yesterday on the skilfully put question that, essentially, asked for an opinion on your opinion, and that is the subtle difference that we’ve got here. This is on a specific matter.

Hon James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think part of the issue here, actually, is that the Minister of Climate Change is not responsible for the Auckland light rail project or for the financial matters relating to that. The primary question was around emissions budgets, not fiscal budgets, and so, therefore, the supplementary question about the fiscal cost of the light rail project is not relevant to the primary question.

SPEAKER: That is a reasonable point. I’ll accept that. Are you speaking to this point of order?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s a further point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, hang on. Let me deal with this one. Is that all right?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: All right, then. Fair enough.

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in response to the former climate Minister’s—

SPEAKER: No, it’s not your job to respond to him. If you’ve got something new to add, tell me.

Simon Court: Well, it’s quite clear that Auckland light rail was proposed to reduce emissions but not to reach net zero until 2060.

SPEAKER: With all due respect, the only one who’s going to judge about the suitability of a question here today is me, so I’m ruling it out, and we’ll move on from here.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Order that I was referring to was 390(1)(b), which you quoted yesterday in suggesting that my question was out of order. In fact, Nicola Willis’ question falls foul of the same rule.

SPEAKER: Well, OK, but my point yesterday was that 390(1)(b) does not allow opinion, and that’s the difference.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: And her question did?

SPEAKER: No, her question was specific, but that question’s now ruled out, so it’s no longer a problem for you.

Dan Bidois: Can the Minister confirm that electric vehicles need roads to drive on?

SPEAKER: No. No. No. Don’t do that sort of thing. That’s not going to help.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: When we’re all quiet—when we’re all quiet.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How much more will Kiwis be paying per litre at the pump as a consequence of his Government’s policy of relying almost solely on the emissions trading scheme (ETS) pricing scheme to achieve transport emissions reductions to align with the Climate Commission’s projections that economic modelling has shown needs a carbon price of $235 per tonne by 2030?

SPEAKER: The problem is here, if I let that question through, I’d be disagreeing with the position taken by the Hon James Shaw, which I did agree with. So it’s either a question about emissions or it is a fiscal question. That was a fiscal question.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Climate Change has ministerial responsibility for the ETS, and that was a question about the emissions trading scheme and what the price would need to be.

SPEAKER: All right. Fair enough. I’m sure he can answer it.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As Minister of Climate Change, I don’t comment on the price of the ETS, nor in regards to what it does, but what I can say to the former Minister is that the way in which this Government will take actions around the reduction of emissions will be different from the prior Government, and we’ll be working through the emissions reduction plan 2, of which I welcome the former Minister’s input into in order to make sure we’ve got a credible plan to deliver those targets.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he think it is fair that Kiwis will be hit with a petrol price hike of between 40c and 50c a litre, based on that carbon price of $235 a tonne, because of his Government’s plan of cutting transport projects and programmes that will reduce emissions?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can say is unfair to New Zealanders is the fact that this coalition Government has inherited a situation where there isn’t a clear pathway in order to meet some of our reductions, because of the inaction by the prior Government and that former Minister. We are going to address that issue through the progress we do around the emissions reduction 2 programme, and I look forward to being able to tell you more about that in due course.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: How much will the Government spend this year on financing its debt?

In the current financial year, Treasury is forecasting that the cost of financing Government debt—which is almost entirely interest payments—will be $8.8 billion, and according to forecasts in the half-year update, which assume the previous Government policies are continued, this is expected to rise to $9.7 billion in the next financial year, and $10.4 billion in the year after that.

Suze Redmayne: How have the Government’s finance costs changed over time?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Finance costs are expected to be $8.8 billion this year. By comparison, finance costs in 2017-18 were $3.5 billion, so they have more than doubled, or grown more than 150 percent, since that time. In fact, yes—

Hon Grant Robertson: Was the interest rate the same?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member opposite is concerned that interest rates are very high after six years of his economic mismanagement. Now, finance costs were relatively moderate even two years ago, but have skyrocketed since then because of higher interest rates and greater debt issuance.

Hon David Seymour: So can the Minister of Finance confirm that—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t a question word that he started with.

SPEAKER: Well, I know that you’re a Doctor of Law; I didn’t know grammar was one of your strong points. However, I’m sure he’ll have another go.

Hon David Seymour: Maybe they should have a “Grammar” in Christchurch. To the Minister—

SPEAKER: No, no. Hang on—I did pick up people yesterday. No comments before you ask a question. Just ask the question.

Hon David Seymour: Oh, fair enough. Can she confirm what she is saying is that pretty soon, on the fiscal track we’ve inherited, the Government will be paying $10 billion a year, $200-plus per citizen, or $1,000 a year for a family of five just on the interest on the debt these guys left?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Minister makes real an issue that the last Government left to us, and to further his analysis, I would put it this way: the finance costs alone of meeting our debt this year will equate to $1,666 for every person in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Giving it a geographic inflection, does that mean, for example, that Otago University will be paying $10 million a year just to pay off the interest on their debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I don’t take responsibility—

SPEAKER: No.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —for the finances of—

SPEAKER: And no further comment. If you’ve got a—[Interruption] Look, sometimes those questions might appear to be fun, but they’re not helpful and they’re not in order.

Suze Redmayne: How do finance costs compare with other areas of Government spending?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: At $8.8 billion, finance costs are forecast to be higher this year than spending on primary and secondary schools combined, or, putting it another way, finance costs are forecast to be higher this year than Government spending on the Defence Force, the Police, Corrections, and Customs combined. In fact, they are around $1 billion higher than that—$1 billion higher than spending on the Defence Force, the Police, Corrections, and Customs combined.

Suze Redmayne: How much are the Government’s finance costs per New Zealander?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Finance costs of $8.8 billion this year equate to $1,666 for every person in New Zealand. Government debt in New Zealand is too high, thanks to the financial mismanagement of the previous Government.

Hon Grant Robertson: What percentage of GDP is the cost of borrowing at the moment, and how does this compare with the past?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The cost of borrowing at the moment relates to the official cash rate as it sits very high, at 5.5 percent, and the cost of servicing our debt as a proportion of GDP has risen to 43 percent by the old measure we used to measure debt before that member changed the measure to make it look lower.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to give the member the benefit of the doubt. That wasn’t the question I asked. The question I asked was what the cost of borrowing, the subject of this question—what that is as a percentage of GDP, and not New Zealand’s overall debt, which is what she answered about. So I’ll offer her the chance to answer now, rather than have to come back and correct.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Mr Speaker, is that a supplementary question or is it a point of order, or something in between?

SPEAKER: No, it was—you started speaking before I got a chance to comment, but it is a reasonable clarification of the answer. I just want to make it very clear that points of order are not methods to be able to ask the question again, but there was a seeking of clarification, and I accept that the answer probably missed the percentage of GDP point.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as a proportion of GDP, those finance costs are high.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes, I stand by all my statements and actions, particularly when I said that investments in the draft Government policy statement (GPS) 2024 will ensure key connections are provided so that Kiwis can get to where they need to go quickly and safely. These investments will also reduce congestion on our roads, provide low-emission transport options in our main cities, and create a more productive and resilient transport network, driving economic growth and unlocking land for thousands of new houses.

Tangi Utikere: When he said yesterday, “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”, how can New Zealanders have any confidence that he won’t be introducing other taxes, fees, or levies to cover the fiscal holes that his transport plan clearly has?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Because the reality is—the reality is—that the GPS outlines exactly how we’re going to fund—I think it’s on page 27, for the member’s benefit, or 29; I can’t quite remember right now—the projects and the outcomes in our draft GPS document.

Tangi Utikere: Who is correct, National MP—

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on. Just wait. Your own colleagues are sort of a bit animated at the moment.

Tangi Utikere: It’s great support. Who is correct, National MP Simeon Brown, who said, “National’s fully-costed transport plan will deliver 13 new Roads of National Significance and four major public transport projects – and does not require increases to petrol tax.”, or the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), who estimate that there is a fiscal hole in his transport plan of up to $24.4 billion, or 110 percent more than he had originally estimated?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, Simeon Brown is correct, because this GPS is not increasing fuel excise duty and road-user charges in the three years of this Government’s term.

Tangi Utikere: How can the Government deliver reliable, effective, and efficient public transport as a priority for Kiwi households when it intends to scrap free and half-price fares for under-25s, and when its draft GPS takes over $1.5 billion from public transport, which also cuts the ability of local councils to provide additional transport fare subsidies?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if the member read the draft GPS document, it outlines the fact that under the last Government, farebox recovery fell from 40 percent of running public transport services to 13 percent, and so the reality is that we need to ensure that people who use public transport are helping support it. But I’d also point out to the members opposite, they had six years in Government, they spent $228 million on “Auckland Light Fail” and failed to deliver it. We started the City Rail Link and we’re going to complete it. We have a proud track record on public transport.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No one believes that.

Tangi Utikere: What is the total value—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Even an affirmation of someone’s question is a breach of the convention that the question gets asked with the House listening in silence.

Tangi Utikere: What is the total value of the proposed roads of national significance in the South Island compared with the overall value of all 15 roads of national significance, and what does that level of investment say to mainlanders about the importance this Government places on South Island projects?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there’s a range of estimates around the projects. But what I’d point out is there are a number of key projects in the South Island that we’ll be prioritising: the Woodend Bypass—advocated by the member Matt Doocey—the Ashburton bridge, the Hope Bypass, and better road maintenance. That last Government cancelled, cancelled, cancelled, cancelled. We’re going to deliver.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that question was very specific. It—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence, so don’t interfere or don’t make a noise when people are making them.

Tangi Utikere: Mr Speaker, that question was very specific about the value rather than the numbers, and I suggest to you that the Minister has not addressed the specific point in the question.

SPEAKER: I think the Minister more than addressed the question. He talked about the proposals. If the Minister wants to add a link he can, but I think the question was addressed.

Hon Scott Simpson: What feedback has he received on the draft Government policy statement on land transport?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’ve received a range of correspondence over the past few days since we released the draft GPS. Let me read two of them: “Dear Simeon, congratulations on your excellent draft GPS.” And another one: “Well done. New Zealand needs these 15 roads of national significance ASAP.” [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. Are we ready?

Tangi Utikere: What advice has he received regarding plans to scrap up to $20 million of funding for coastal shipping, and what impact would this have on New Zealand’s resilience against major events such as the Kaikōura earthquake?

Hon Chris Bishop: Nothing; it’s the land transport fund.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop says, it is the National Land Transport Fund. Last time I saw, our ships run on water, and cars and trucks run on the land. This is about the land, not the sea. We’re not continuing the coastal fund under the last Government. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on. OK.

Rachel Boyack: Can the Minister confirm that constituents in my electorate of Nelson will be paying more with a 22c fuel tax hike and a $50 jump in vehicle registration fees but getting less after the Nelson Mail reported this morning that he’s dropped one of our two major transport projects from the Government policy statement on transport?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the good news for the good people of Nelson and Tasman is that they will be getting the Hope Bypass under this GPS. I encourage the regional land transport plan to put forward its proposals, and the national land transport programme will be developed by the NZTA over the coming six months.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think that the confusion behind that penultimate question relates to the fact that Waka Kotahi is actually a boat on the road, and while the potholes were building up in their tens of thousands of kilometres, they went ahead with that sort of behaviour?

SPEAKER: That’s a—no. We’ll move now to question No. 5.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

Yes, within the context in which they were delivered, and, unlike some, we won’t be double-crossing that bridge when we come to it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How is it appropriate for this Government to put a Minister in charge of the Ka Ora, Ka Ako free school lunch programme who described it as “wasteful”, “unaffordable”, and a “marketing stunt” while in Opposition, without any evidence?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the reality is that what was said in Opposition is not accountable in this Parliament for the Government. But it’s understandable when you see the Treasury commissioned a report when they were in Government—they made a report in July of last year, talking about how the whole thing was a massive failure, and, worse than that, massive losses were occasioned by wasted food or food being sent home. It was meant to be food in schools, not food in homes. This was careless spending which was never budgeted to go forward into the year we’re talking about, and that’s why Mr Seymour’s having to handle this problem.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How many schools and tamariki would be impacted by a 30 percent to 50 percent cut to the free school lunches?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At the moment, the Minister is doing work on that, going through school after school. But the reality is that there are some very, very disturbing reports about the amount of waste. There is surely no one who believes in this programme, which was supported across this Parliament, who thinks that that sort of waste should remain unaccountable. I know some people in this country, because they know nothing about poverty, think that sort of waste is good. But out there in the real Māori world and Polynesian world, they want the food delivered to schools to be used by those children, and not by everybody else who’s not entitled to it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which schools or kura have been consulted regarding potential cuts to the free lunches programme?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the reality is that the Government has put its programme out there, it’s gone public on it, and it’s working its way through it. But it is a result of a July 2023 evaluation that came from Treasury to that Government about which they did precisely nothing.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that hunger impacts a child’s ability to learn, and, if so, will he commit to preserving the school lunch programme, given that poverty is not a choice for tamariki?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that if some people have a memory, they’ll realise that for decades and decades and decades, free lunches have been available at school, made by the local community, and I’m not being chauvinist here but usually made by the senior girls, because they could be trusted. Many of us remember it.

Hon Shane Jones: Māori Women’s Welfare League.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Māori Women’s Welfare League—all involved. But we will ensure that every cent we spend for the purpose gets to the purpose and does not amount to waste.

Rawiri Waititi: What evidence has he seen that military boot camps will work to reduce youth crime?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The evidence is to be found in a very insightful piece of work that began in 2017 with the Limited Service Volunteers, which was so successful under Ron Mark, an enlightened Minister of Defence at the time, that they decided to enlarge it. The evidence is all there. Ask people like punanga, ask people who actually were the head of the military of this country of their understanding. It has transformed Māori lives, in particular.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he be confident that these boot camps will work when the last time a National Government introduced them in 2008, 85 to 87 percent of those in the programme went on to reoffend within two years?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, obviously, the present Government has learnt from the past experience, learnt from the mistakes, has got the record of the Limited Service Volunteers success story, and, more importantly, in the Māori world, where so many people are so disconnected, this is one utility that will connect them to the rest of the country and make their lives real. We believe, as punanga and all those great Māori leaders believe, that the military can transform and change people’s lives and make them law abiding at the same time.

Question No. 6—Resources

6. to the Minister for Resources: What announcements has he made regarding petroleum exploration?

Today, I’ve announced one petroleum exploration permit has been granted to Greymouth Gas Turangi Ltd. I have also announced that I’ll be introducing a bill later this year that will overturn the previous regime’s ban on new permits for petroleum exploration beyond the onshore Taranaki region. Important steps in the journey of New Zealand’s resilience.

Tanya Unkovich: Why do we need oil and gas?

Hon SHANE JONES: The former ban, soon to disappear, created inordinate sovereign risk for investment in New Zealand. Advice and modelling show that the supply of gas is uncertain and may not match future demand. We need gas to keep the lights on in the electricity system, and, as the responsible Minister, on a cold and chilly night, I don’t want to see the men and women of New Zealand reduced to jiggling to keep warm.

Tanya Unkovich: What else is he working on?

Hon SHANE JONES: I will be introducing, as I said, a bill to overturn the crippling and ghastly announcement that led to a cessation of new permits for petroleum exploration. As an act of penance, I am going to visit investors overseas, talk to New Zealand current investors, and convince them that was a minor negative blip in the recent trajectory of New Zealand history.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Further to the answer on his behalf in the House on 29 February, when it was stated that he had written to those people for their views and ideas in regard to the taxpayer-funded underwrite for the oil and gas industry, who were those people?

Hon SHANE JONES: I have spoken to lobbyists, representatives of all of the members of the peak body. I have shared what I heard from them publicly, and I bet the majority of the English-speaking world have heard my views.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance because I was asking in regard to an answer that had been given on behalf of the Minister in this House: that he had written to those people for their views and ideas. It was an answer in the House—

SPEAKER: Yeah, yeah—get to the point.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: —and the Minister did not tell us who he had written to. He was very specific: he said he had spoken. I asked who he had written to.

SPEAKER: OK. Well, we can get pedantic if we like, but he just has to address your question. He did, and he said that he had spoken to all members of the peak body that represents the extractive industries. Now, interpretation of that is not for me; it’s for the House.

Steve Abel: What is the Minister’s response to the International Energy Agency executive director, Fatih Birol, who said three years ago in 2021, “If Governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas, and coal, from now—from this year [2021].”?

Hon SHANE JONES: I am aware of those remarks. I am also aware of the feelings and the concerns amongst the New Zealand voting public who want the lights on. Gas exploration, gas development, gas delivery will be an integral feature of our ongoing electricity system until such time the clean, green dream comes true.

Tanya Unkovich: What does the lack of interest from industry in Block Offer 2020 mean for the new Government’s plans for reinstating offshore petroleum exploration?

Hon SHANE JONES: Our Government is committed to rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand as an attractive and secure destination. They have raised the question: what about if the Government changes? To wit my response has been: wait 12 years.

Question No. 7—Public Service

7. to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she stand by her answer, “I make that promise”, said in response to the question, “Will you promise no cuts to any front-line services”; if so, why has Fire and Emergency New Zealand been told their front-line services are “not necessarily immune” from Public Service cuts?

Well, yes, I do. With respect to the second part of the question about Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), the member is referring to an email written by somebody at FENZ, an extract of which I’ve seen for the first time today. I am not responsible for that email, although I can’t see why the member is so offended by an email that says “front-line services are to be protected” and “unless clearly obvious that efficiencies can be gained without affecting services”. Perhaps if members opposite had had a thought about efficiency over the past six years, we wouldn’t have 80 percent increases in spending without better public services delivered.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Weren’t New Zealanders entitled to know before the election that cuts to the 111 emergency call centre and vital supports for firefighters were part of her plan, and that her promise of no front-line cuts was worthless?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member opposite has made a series of factually wrong assertions, which I was always advised as an upcoming member that you should be very careful in your questions to ensure that any statements you made were correct and defendable. The statements that member has made are incorrect and indefensible.

SPEAKER: That would also be a reasonable answer to what was a borderline question. So perhaps if the Minister would like to address those same points as an answer to that question.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, how wrong she is—let me count the ways. Fire and Emergency New Zealand has not been set a savings target. As a Crown entity, it has been asked by its monitoring agency, the Department of Internal Affairs, to look for savings and to operate efficiently. I would also note for the member that the vast majority of the funding that Fire and Emergency New Zealand receives is received by way of levy, not by Crown funding. So the question from the member is confused. It is wrong. Firefighters can be assured, under this coalition Government, they can get on and fight fire.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by the Government’s commitment to 6.5 percent savings in Police, when they have advised their Minister that the cuts they would need to make would undermine their ability to recruit an additional 500 front-line police officers?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have said on a number of occasions, our Government will ensure that front-line services are protected in the Budget 2024 savings exercise. We have asked agencies to put forward their proposals for delivering more efficiency; for eliminating back-room waste; for ensuring that they’re not spending too much on consultants and contractors, low-value programmes, and ineffective programmes. Agencies have been asked to put forward proposals. We will then, as Ministers, evaluate those proposals before making any decisions.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: So, in that case, can she guarantee that the 6.5 percent savings she has asked for from Police will be reinvested in the Police budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did she conduct her line-by-line analysis of wasteful spending in a way that puts public servants out of work but didn’t manage to uncover that the Prime Minister was claiming an accommodation allowance for a mortgage-free home he owns while being able to stay at Premier House?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it may be the view of that member that every single extra public servant her Government employed was the best use of a Government dollar. But, on this side of the House, we know that the needs in our schools, the needs in our hospitals, and the need to fight law and order are such that we must ensure that every dollar of taxpayer money goes to its best use in our front-line services, and we make no apologies for driving more value from the enormous amount of Government spending that goes on.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can she justify the Government prioritising an unnecessary sixth investigation into the benefits of giving poor kids lunch, when the Prime Minister’s claiming of an accommodation allowance for a mortgage-free home went unnoticed?

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Have a go at bringing that question into line. There was a use of a term in there that’s not appropriate.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can she justify the Government’s prioritisation of a sixth investigation into the benefits of giving poor kids lunch, when the Prime Minister’s claiming of an accommodation allowance for a mortgage-free home went unnoticed?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as the member should know, the outgoing Government left an enormous fiscal cliff for the school lunch programme. What that meant was there wasn’t funding provided for that programme into the future. Now, our good, responsible Government has decided that we will safeguard funding so that programme can continue. And in doing so, in line with our values, we will ensure that we’re delivering it in a cost-effective, high-value manner, because unlike that member, we don’t think it’s a good use of taxpayers’ funds to have uneaten lunches stacked a tower high. That’s wasteful, and we’re going to make sure the programme’s more efficient.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made on the Government’s housing priorities?

This afternoon, alongside the Minister for Social Development and Employment and the Associate Minister of Housing, I announced a series of first steps the Government has taken to end the large-scale use of emergency housing. It will be fair to say this is one of the biggest public policy failures in New Zealand history. Under the last Government’s watch, thousands of children were just consigned to growing up in motels. As part of our 100-day plan, we established a Priority One category for families with children in emergency housing, helping them move into social housing faster. One of this Government’s priorities is to end the large-scale use of emergency housing motels. This is no solution to our housing crisis.

Nancy Lu: What actions is the Government taking to implement this new Priority One category?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Between now and August, we’ll be working to strengthen emergency housing verification processes, review eligibility settings, limit discretion, and clarify an applicant’s responsibilities while in emergency housing. This will help make sure that it is only accessed where absolutely necessary, and, in the meantime, Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff will be assessing anyone applying for emergency housing to increase their scrutiny of whether or not they’ve unreasonably contributed to their immediate housing needs, whether they’ve taken reasonable efforts to access other housing options, and whether they’ve previously paid their emergency housing contribution.

Nancy Lu: What are the next steps the Government will be taking when it comes to ending the large-scale use of motels for emergency housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This Government is committed to ending the large-scale use of emergency housing motels and returning them to a rarely and briefly needed last resort. I want to be clear with the House that solving emergency housing will not be easy and it will not happen immediately. I also want to be clear that we are considering bold and radical steps. We’ll be exploring a range of options, including better support to prevent the need for emergency housing in the first place, as well as for those who exit, and we’ll be applying a social investment lens to this problem, targeting support where people need it and looking at innovative options like social bonds.

Nancy Lu: What actions have been taken to streamline accountability within Government, regarding emergency housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the things that came up a lot in the last term of the Parliament was the confusing lines of accountability in this area, where it was never really clear who was actually responsible for emergency housing. The Prime Minister has agreed that between Ministers Upston, Potaka, and myself, the housing-related functions of MSD, including emergency housing, will sit within the housing portfolio, and that will be delegated to Minister Potaka as Associate Minister of Housing. Without clear lines of responsibility, there can’t be accountability—this Government is not scared of either. Solving emergency housing won’t be easy and it won’t happen immediately. We will take those bold and radical steps to end the scourge and blight on our landscape of thousands of kids growing up in motels.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: Will it be possible for the New Zealand Transport Agency and councils to deliver integrated transport projects that include other improvements, such as busways, bus lanes, public transport stops, and footpaths as part of larger road or highway projects, under his draft Government Policy Statement on transport?

Yes.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he received any advice on whether the statement on page 25 of the Government policy statement (GPS) regarding State highway improvements—and I quote—“The Government expects that funding in this activity class will not be used to make multimodal improvements, i.e., cycleways and busways”—what impact that statement will have on the cost-effectiveness and delivery of integrated transport projects?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there is also another activity class called public transport improvements and if the New Zealand Transport Agency or a council would like to make an investment which includes improvements to the roads, they would apply for funding under the State highway improvements. If they also want to make investments around public transport improvements, they’d apply for funding under the public transport investment activity class.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is it his expectation that the New Zealand Transport Agency will futureproof for public transport and safe walking and cycling access when building the new priority urban highways that his Government has promised?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s my expectation that the New Zealand Transport Agency and road controlling authorities will give effect to the Government policy statement on transport, and that outlines the activity classes, what they will be used to fund, and our expectations around what the priority projects are.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he aware that no previous Government policy statement, including under the last National Government, ever treated transport funding and delivery in this way—there was no comparable statement in previous GPSs that excluded multimodal funding from State highway projects?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this is a very new Government and a very focused Government, and we’re focused on outcomes. So when we say that the State highway improvement activity class should be about focusing on building roads, we don’t expect that that money will be spent on then building a cycleway. The last Government, in their last draft GPS, wanted to use the road maintenance budget to build cycleways. Well, that’s not what this Government’s priorities are. It’s to fix potholes. So we have a very focused draft GPS and I just say to the member: submissions are open until 2 April; I encourage her to make a submission.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does his expectation for the transport agency and road controlling authorities, set out on page 25 and 26 of the GPS, to prioritise reliable travel times and investment decisions, apply to users of public transport or does it only apply to motor vehicles?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, our expectation is that the New Zealand Transport Agency and road controlling authorities would focus on reducing travel times, reliable travel times, so that people can get where they need to go quickly and safely. Under the last Government, there was no consideration for people’s time. We want to make sure the transport system is working to reduce travel times so that people get where they need to go quickly and safely, regardless of what mode they choose to take.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. Mr Speaker, my question was very specific about whether prioritising reliable travel times applied to all users of the transport system or whether it only applies to travel times for motor vehicles, private motor vehicles.

SPEAKER: The answer was pretty clear that the expectation is that people will be able to travel as quickly and speedily as possible. I don’t think you could take anything else out of that answer.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So—

SPEAKER: I’m not arguing with you, and you shouldn’t argue with me. Any further questions? Then we’ll move now to question No. 10 in the name of Tom Rutherford.

Question No. 10—Transport

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

Well, earlier this week, the Prime Minister and I released the draft Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport, announcing that we’re establishing a $500 million pothole prevention fund to tackle the record number of potholes on our roads. There were over 62,000 potholes needing repair on the State highway network last year—a new record made by that last Government—causing damage to vehicles and travel disruptions for Kiwis around the country. We will address it.

Ryan Hamilton: What does the Government policy statement mean for the mighty Waikato?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Great news for the mighty Waikato—great news. We’ve listed State Highway 1 Cambridge to Piarere, which was, in fact, cancelled by the previous Government. It will be a road of national significance.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I doubt I have to say it, but that was a patsy question and a swipe at the previous Government’s policies—entirely inappropriate.

SPEAKER: It’s a fair enough point of order. Supplementary questions cannot be used to mount an attack on a previous Government. That’s always been the case. So I’m going to ask Ryan Hamilton if he’d like to ask a question again. Same question, but we’ll get a different answer, I hope.

Ryan Hamilton: What does the Government policy statement mean for the mighty Waikato?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, great news for the mighty Waikato—great news. We’ve listed State Highway 1 Cambridge to Piarere as a road of national significance, to improve economic growth and boost productivity. Reports show that this project is expected to contribute up to $500 million a year to New Zealand’s GDP, benefiting all New Zealanders.

Suze Redmayne: What does the Government policy statement mean for New Zealand’s rural communities?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, very good news for our rural communities. The draft GPS ensures the maintenance funds are ring-fenced to fix potholes and to prevent potholes by ensuring that State highways, local and rural roads, are maintained to a safe and reliable standard. Our rural communities are fed up with the number of potholes peppering our roads. And unlike the previous Government—oh no, I won’t say that.

Miles Anderson: What does the Government policy statement mean for the South Island?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Very good news—very good news. In addition to the Woodend bypass and second Ashburton bridge, the draft GPS prioritises investment in a number of critically important bridge replacements, which is very important to the South Island. Our $500 million Pothole Prevention Fund will also strengthen the South Island’s roading network. Road maintenance levels are down by 27 percent in the last five years. Our Government is fixing this issue for all New Zealanders, including those in the South Island.

Question No. 11—Small Business and Manufacturing

11. to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: Does he stand by his statement that “There is a problem with late payments and long payment terms by large market players”?

Yes. However, I went on to say that the Business Payment Practices Act is not an effective solution, and that’s why we’ve proposed a number of initiatives to try and speed up payment times.

Helen White: What, if anything, in his voluntary code would stop a large business taking advantage of a small or medium business or a sole trader by withholding or delaying payments?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: That is the purpose of the code, which is to make sure that there are good measures in place to make sure the large companies in New Zealand—and the proposed code is going to cover the top 180 businesses—do adhere to good policy around payments.

Helen White: Why should a hard-working sole trader have to wait three months or more for payment to come through from a large company after completing the work?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Well, they shouldn’t.

Helen White: Would he be open to considering an alternative to the Business Payment—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on. Wait. Start again.

Helen White: Sorry, sir. Would the Minister be open to considering an alternative to the Business Payment Practices Act 2023 that would make late payers liable for a fair interest rate if they haven’t made their payment within 30 days?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: One of the initiatives that I’ve proposed is to make sure that people are aware of their rights under the Fair Trading Act. That is, obviously, administered by the Commerce Commission, and I think that’s the best place where that issue should be dealt with.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Oh rubbish—what a load of rubbish.

Helen White: Why is he imposing additional costs—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Just wait for your colleague here to finish. [Interruption] Yeah, they’re all getting a go now.

Helen White: Thank you. Why is he imposing additional costs on every small business in New Zealand?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Well, I could ask the member why did the last Government impose $3.2 billion of additional compliance costs on small business—

SPEAKER: Yeah, but you won’t. But hang on, Mr Bayly.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: —but I wouldn’t do that. What I would say is that we are improving payment times, particularly through the initiative around e-invoicing. One of the biggest productivity gains that we can incur in New Zealand is to help small businesses to move to e-invoicing. The way that we’re proposing to incentivise them to do that is to ensure that Government agencies pay in even quicker time. I’m working towards a payment of five working days. That is the best thing we can do for small businesses.

Helen White: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, all done.

Helen White: All done?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. to the Minister of Justice: What progress has the Government made in relation to restoring law and order?

The coalition Government is making excellent progress in fulfilling its hundred-day plan commitments in justice that are the first steps in our plan to rebuild confidence in the justice system and to restore law and order. Just this morning, the Legal Services Amendment Bill passed its third reading; it will stop taxpayer funding for section 27 cultural reports that proliferated out of control under the former regime, consuming more than $7 million out of the legal aid budget. When this Government says it will do something, it does.

Cameron Brewer: What other commitments within the 100-day plan to restore law and order is the Government delivering on?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’ve abolished the previous Government’s prison reduction target that bore no relationship to the level of crime in our community. Tomorrow, we’ll introduce legislation to give police extra powers to deal with gangs. We’re making gang membership an aggravating factor in sentencing, we’re giving police greater powers to search for firearms, and, as you heard from my colleague Minister Chhour yesterday, we’re giving the justice system extra tools to deal with the repeat serious youth offenders.

Cameron Brewer: Why is restoring law and order so important?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, indeed, that’s a good question. New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their communities. Gang membership has increased by 51 percent in the previous six years, violent crime up by 33 percent, ram raids went up by 290 percent, and victims of retail crime by 110 percent. These are not statistics that anyone in this House should be proud of, and that is why we need to act.

Hon Nicole McKee: What changes is this Government making to the firearms prohibition orders regime to better prevent gang members and violent offenders from accessing firearms?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: A very good question. The Associate Minister of Justice has announced new measures to give police greater powers to search gang members for firearms, and for gang members or associates that have been convicted of significant offences to be issued with firearms prohibition orders. These orders will keep firearms out of their hands and help keep the public safe. I thank the Minister for her excellent work.

Hon Nicole McKee: What message does this Government’s inclusion of gang membership as an aggravating factor during sentencing send to the gangs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it’s quite simple. Gangs, for too long, have been allowed to behave as if they are above the law—they are not. The Government is serious about restoring law and order, and if you’re a member or an associate of a gang, expect serious consequences, because the tolerance you once enjoyed has ended.

Cameron Brewer: What feedback, if any, has the Minister received on recent policy announcements relating to restoring law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I do note one commentator, who said, in response to the Government plans to address harm caused by gangs, “If police have probable cause and know someone’s a gang member they should be able to go after them with the full force of the law knowing that Parliament, politicians and the community has their back.” That commentator was one Stuart Nash.

Cameron Brewer: What will the Government do after the 100-day plan commitments are delivered?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, throughout the next three years, this Government will be relentlessly focused on restoring law and order. After the hundred-day plan commitments are delivered, we will progress work including the reinstatement of the three-strikes legislation and limiting excessive sentencing discounts. New Zealanders want to see real consequences for crime.

SPEAKER: Can I ask that when members leave the House, they do so without having conversations all the way out the door.