Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economic outlook?

Yesterday, the Reserve Bank released its February Monetary Policy Statement. The bank’s monetary policy committee, which makes its decisions about interest rates independent of the Government, left the official cash rate unchanged at 5.5 percent. The bank clearly considers that inflation is coming down at an appropriate pace. Inflation has declined from a peak of 7.3 percent in mid-2022 to 4.7 percent in the December quarter, and the bank’s forecasts show it falling towards the 2 percent mid-point of the target band.

Tim van de Molen: What did the Reserve Bank say about the state of the New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank noted that capacity pressures have eased significantly over the past year, largely as a result of restrictive monetary policy. Aggregate demand is now better matched with the supply capacity of the economy. These are positive developments, but the Government is also conscious that New Zealanders with a mortgage or a business loan are feeling the effects of high interest rates. When inflation is under control and interest rates start to come down, people can spend more of their money on things that make a difference to them and their families.

Tim van de Molen: What did the Reserve Bank say about the state of the global economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank says that global economic growth remains below its trend. That has affected demand for New Zealand’s exports, but it also means that inflation in many of our trading partners has declined more quickly than expected, reducing the global prices for imports to New Zealand. The bank highlights the fact that geopolitical and climate conditions remain a risk for inflation and mentions the recent conflict in the Red Sea and the drought affecting the Panama Canal as contributing to delays and increased global shipping costs.

Tim van de Molen: How should monetary and fiscal policy interact?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That is a very good question from the member. Fiscal policy, which the Government determines, should not trample across monetary policy, which is set by the Reserve Bank. Unfortunately, in recent years, that is precisely what happened: the Reserve Bank was trying to fight inflation while the Government was busy fuelling it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker. The Minister of Finance knows that questions from the Government side should not be used to make an accusation towards a previous Government. It would be regrettable, I think, if she were to be trying it on because you happen to be in the Chair today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I will uphold the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s point of order. That is correct that there will be no—we’ll make it clear to all Ministers who are answering questions this afternoon that it is not an opportunity to attack the Opposition.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could—

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this speaking to the point of order?

Hon David Seymour: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because the Hon Nicola Willis was on her feet first.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking to the point of order. The member asked a very good supplementary question about how monetary and fiscal policy should interact—a very fair question for a member of the House to ask. I talked about the interaction between fiscal policy and monetary policy and, in order to explain that fact, pointed to contemporary events.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. So let me just say it wasn’t a serious breach of the Standing Order, but we’ll give a general direction to the House for this afternoon and we will carry on with the—

Hon David Seymour: Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

Hon David Seymour: Well, I would like to speak to it, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’d like you not to speak to it, thank you.

Hon David Seymour: Well, actually—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Seymour, I’ve said it wasn’t a serious breach of the Standing Order. We’re just making it very clear for today, and I’ve made a ruling. Thank you.

Hon David Seymour: It’s a fresh point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s a fresh point of order?

Hon David Seymour: Yes. Madam Speaker, there is a distinction between the question being asked and the answer given. The ruling actually applies to the question; it does not apply to the answer being given, because otherwise it means that a Minister, in theory, can never actually criticise the Opposition, and that seems incredibly unfair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think there’s a difference between criticising policy and actually attacking the Opposition, and we haven’t gone over the line, so we’re not going to do it now. So I’ll ask the Minister to—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Madam Speaker, the reality is that this is an environment which is a raging battle for political power, and it’s been that way for decades and decades in great democracies, including New Zealand. I’m hearing—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What’s the point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Excuse me, will you hear me in silence? That’s what the first rule is. So keep quiet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member carry on with his point of order, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You know so little about this business, for a start.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Madam Speaker, but she was interjecting in a point of order, and your job is to stop her.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I know that. We’ll have silence during points of order. Please state your point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much. My point of order is that I believe your ruling is palpably and demonstrably wrong. You’re saying that the challenge is not being taken up in terms of the point of order made; however, you’re saying nobody on this side of the House can attack the other side of the House today. That, Madam Speaker, is not going to be accepted whether it’s your ruling or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve actually made it very clear to the House that there is nothing wrong with answers to questions criticising policy of previous Governments, but not doing the attack on the Opposition. So that is my ruling for today. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Can I complete my answer?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Thank you.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What’s the question? I can’t remember the question.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The question was relating to how monetary and fiscal policy interact, Mr Goldsmith. Fiscal policy, which the Government determines, should not trample across monetary policy, which is set by the Reserve Bank. Unfortunately, by way of example, in recent years, that is precisely what happened. The Reserve Bank was trying to fight inflation with higher interest rates while the Government was busy fuelling it with its high spending and ever-growing debt. By way of metaphor, there’s no point in the Reserve Bank being asked to put its hand on the brake if the Government’s hitting the accelerator at the same time.

Question No. 2—Resources

2. to the Minister for Resources: What advice, if any, has he sought or received on the implications of bonds for oil and gas companies and/or changes to oil and gas decommissioning legislation that he has indicated he is considering?

on behalf of the Minister for Resources: I’ve heard, time and time again, from ministry that sovereign risk is a major barrier to investment in oil and gas in New Zealand. This sovereign risk is a result of the economic vandalism threatened by some, and their woke fellow travellers, who have no comprehension at all of international business and investment. I have therefore sought advice on how to improve investor confidence, including the best way to reduce the sovereign risk and ensure that changes to the cumbersome decommissioning regime balances regulatory burden and Crown risk. I’m advised that under a former administration, gas supply could run out within the next five years. It’s not because of a shortage of gas but a shortage of investment and political wisdom.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What people, organisations, groups, or lobbyists has he discussed the potential for compensation bonds for multinational oil and gas companies and/or changes to oil and gas decommissioning that puts the New Zealand taxpayer in the liable seat?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Quite extraordinary. This is a case where I’m assumed to have been here for a long time and learnt nothing. I’ve heard from ministry that the decommissioning provisions introduced by the previous Government are onerous. They are discouraging investment, and the long-term security of our gas supply is now in question. And if I was responsible for the closure of Marsden Point, thereby imperilling our very critical supply in a time of a supply emergency, I’d be keeping my mouth shut. I have asked officials to look into any changes that will encourage operators to continue to invest in New Zealand’s energy security while continuing to protect taxpayers. The number of people are all those who are interested in making an investment in New Zealand but are too threatened by the regime that the previous Government left here.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a very specific question that asked the Minister what people, organisations, groups, or lobbyists this idea had been discussed with. It was a very full answer, but it in no way addressed that very specific question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, if that member wanted that answer, then an Official Information Act (OIA) request would’ve satisfied them. But if someone turned up here as a Minister and said, “I’ve got five pages I want to read out.”, madam, you’d be stopping me.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What was the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of having to clean up the mess of Tamarind when the company left New Zealand because we had lax decommissioning laws that that Minister is now looking to bring back?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect, I am not going to answer a question which was in the purview of the previous administration and Minister. It has got nothing to do with this Government whatsoever. And it’s unbelievable that we have Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, and some people have been here for all those years and seemingly have learnt nothing.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice as to whether the issuing of compensation bonds to multinational oil and gas companies would be in contravention of our international commitments to abolish fossil fuel subsidies?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I make it very clear that New Zealand is dedicated to a clean energy transition and meeting our emissions targets. This Government is committed to deliver net zero by 2050, including by doubling New Zealand’s renewable electricity and removing consenting barriers. On the question of the cost of bonds being somehow illegal, again, if that was the allegation by way of question, why wasn’t it supported here by some evidentiary fact rather than just a suspicion? This is not complex. Other countries have done that already, which is the reason why those countries have investment and we have lost all of it.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice on whether compensation bonds to multinational oil and gas companies would contravene New Zealand’s free-trade agreement with the EU?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question is that the Minister has made it clear—this person I’m standing in for today—that he’s merely written to these people for their views and their ideas. This should not be constructed as a decision which some in the press gallery are loathe to do. Any statement of open consultation these days is construed as a final outcome. No, it’s not—it’s called a new administration that has come to this position in Government where we think that consultation and listening is very important.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Which people has he written to?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, if that member wanted that, then they should’ve put in a request under the Official Information Act. If I’d come down here with five pages of names and addresses of those people we’ve written to, I’d be stopped in the House for wasting the House’s time. Now, please, catch up. I know it’s early 2024, but this is serious, and there could be many decades waiting around to be a good Opposition.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m just seeking some guidance from you. This is parliamentary oral question time, where it is the role of Parliament to hold Ministers to account by way of questions, both on notice and supplementary. Am I correct in understanding the Minister answering on behalf of the Minister for Resources is saying they will no longer be doing that; instead, only the Official Information Act will be the way in which Parliament can hold the executive to account?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, so the OIA doesn’t replace oral questions; members are entitled to seek information through questions. But what I will note in this situation is that the Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister, and it would be appropriate if the Minister doesn’t have the answer to that question—it would be best to say so.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: How is it fair to New Zealand taxpayers to ask them to underwrite multibillion multinational oil and gas companies’ return to New Zealand and then shoulder the clean-up and decommissioning costs when they leave without paying their bills?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is that this country’s supply of gas is imperilled for the next five years now, and no planning forward has been admitted—worse still, it’s been stopped. And we have, at the same time, Marsden Point, which right now has been allowed to close down in supply when, in a critical phrase of non-supply to this country by tankers, we could’ve supplied 50 percent of the country’s critical needs. So here’s a country in desperate need of a forward plan, and what we’ve got here is someone trying to say, “The poor taxpayer’s going to pay.” I tell you what the taxpayer’s going to be paying for: they’ll be paying for a shutdown economy brought about by people who came to Parliament with no idea how business works.

Question No. 3—Police

3. to the Minister of Police: What reports has he seen recently on the policing of gangs?

Recently, as reported, I was present as six gold-plated Harley-Davidson motorcycles, formerly the prized possessions of the Comancheros, were shredded into scrap metal. This is consistent with this Government’s approach to the gangs and their ill-gotten gains. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Silence while questions are being asked, please.

James Meager: What message does it send to the gangs when police crush six of their gold-plated Harley-Davidsons?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: It sends the message that police will keep crushing pressure on gangs; their illegal, nefarious, and violent activities; and assets.

James Meager: Have there been any gang convoys recently, and, if so, did police’s response meet his expectations?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. The policing of gang convoys is much tougher now, with police controlling the convoys and protecting the rights of law-abiding Kiwis over and above those of criminal gangs.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can the Minister please outline what legislation was used for both the confiscation of the vehicles mentioned and also for the policing of the convoys that the Minister has mentioned?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I think it was probably legislation that Stuart Nash brought in, because, actually, he was a very good police Minister, unlike the three that followed him.

James Meager: Are there any recent Government announcements that will help police ramp up their crackdown on gangs?

Hon Member: Informative, good question.

Hon Member: Great questions from James.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Too good. Yes. On Sunday, Minister Goldsmith, Minister McKee, and I announced part of the coalition Government’s proposed crackdown on gangs, including banning gang patches and insignia in public, dispersal notices, non-consorting orders, and making gang membership an aggravating factor at sentencing. Gangs destroy lives and communities, and the free ride is over under this coalition Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If 12 front-line police officers have gone public to say that this gang patch ban is unworkable and that they are not resourced to enforce it, how does he justify to the New Zealand public introducing this legislation?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I can justify it because, unlike the Labour Party who are gang apologists, we have a deeply capable New Zealand police force that is motivated and wants to go out there and protect the communities that they serve and clamp down on gangs.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his statements on social housing?

Yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with National MP Tama Potaka, who said on 9 September 2023 that “National will increase the number of social housing places funded by Government”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many social housing places will the Government fund on top of that already funded by the previous Government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member will have to wait until the Budget.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he commit to providing for new public housing places of at least the same level of funding that currently exists beyond 2025?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member will have to wait till the Budget, but what I would say is that this is yet another fiscal cliff left to us by the—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d like to be able to hear the answer, please. Interjections are fine, but it’s a little loud.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the member who’s yelling out, who’s a former Minister of Housing, will recall that the funding for social housing places ceases after June 2025, so that is indeed a fiscal cliff. The reality is the last Government didn’t fund places beyond 2025, into 2026 or 2027, because they wanted to create the illusion of a surplus later on.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will the Minister permit Kāinga Ora officials to meet with me to provide a briefing in person on the current state of social housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member’s written to me, so I’m not quite sure why he needs to ask an oral question about it. I’m happy for the member to meet with Kāinga Ora, as I am indeed happy for all members of Parliament to meet with Kāinga Ora to get a briefing on what they’re up to in their particular local areas, or indeed the Opposition spokesperson. I would also say the member should wait for the independent review chaired by Sir Bill English that’s coming back. I suspect he will be interested in the answers to the review questions.

Question No. 5—Small Business and Manufacturing

5. to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: What recent announcements has he made relating to small businesses?

Last week, I announced that the Government will repeal the Business Payment Practices Act 2023. This piece of legislation was an ineffective, costly solution to the problem of large market players paying invoices late, and evidence from abroad supports the repeal of the Act. To address the issues of paying small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) quicker, this Government has announced a range of measures to focus on ensuring Government agencies and large firms pay on time and encourage a much wider uptake of e-invoicing. These alternatives will effectively support small businesses and unlock productivity benefits for the New Zealand economy.

Suze Redmayne: What reports or evidence has he seen that supports the repeal of the Act?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Back in 2020, Australia implemented a very similar scheme named the Payment Times Reporting Act. A recent independent review of the scheme’s effectiveness found that despite imposing significant IT compliance costs on businesses, overall payment times had not reduced.

Suze Redmayne: How will he ensure that Government departments and Crown entities pay small businesses in a timely manner?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I’m working with the Minister of Finance to ensure Government departments—and, in time, some Crown entities—meet the 10-day payment time target. Furthermore, we will incentivise SMEs to adopt e-invoicing by reducing Government entity payment times to an expected target of five working days, thereby significantly improving their cash flow. We will also proactively publish payment times on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website.

Helen White: What does the Minister say to my constituent who worked as a sole trader for one of our biggest companies and had his payments consistently and mindfully delayed by three months; is that fair and reasonable practice?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you for the question. No, it’s not fair. But we will be working with an industry code, which I’m just about to talk about, with Business New Zealand to make sure that large businesses do meet their requirements. That’s the biggest focus. And also, we think it’s important that the Government takes a lead in terms of showing good payment-time practices, and that’s why our reforms are focused on that in the first instance.

Suze Redmayne: What measures will he take to ensure large firms are promptly paying small businesses?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: As I’ve just noted, I’m working with Business New Zealand to establish an industry-wide, voluntary code similar to the Business Council of Australia’s supplier payment code. I intend for this to be part of a broader commitment by large firms to adopt payment practices that benefit smaller firms, and particularly to encourage e-invoicing, because we want to see greater digitisation of small businesses.

Question No. 6—Education

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

on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes, and I’m particularly pleased by this Government’s rapid response to the state of school property by the announcement of a ministerial inquiry. I was dismayed to hear of the mould situation of Sommerville School and of projects up and down the country that have not been delivered in a timely manner for schools. I read recently in media that Macleans College in Auckland had funded and built five new classrooms in nine months after being advised by the Ministry of Education that it would take three years to deliver the same learning spaces. They did it for $2.5 million, and the ministry then commented they were surprised it could be done so cost-effectively, thinking it should have cost over twice that. This Government is committed to improving the delivery of school property for the benefit of teachers and learners up and down the country, and an inquiry into how it went so wrong is the first step in that.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she stand by her guarantee of 27 February that there will be no cuts to school property capital expenditure; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister, yes, absolutely she stands by that statement. I think the Opposition is going to have a real problem here in that they have confused spending money with delivering results, because if spending $100 billion of borrowed money on every problem actually worked, this country wouldn’t have any problems after the last Government. That’s why this Government is conducting a review: not to ensure that we spend a huge amount of money, but to ensure that the kids and the teachers get the classrooms they need to do the learning this country needs.

Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Minister heard an interview between one Mike Hosking and the outgoing Minister of Education, Jan Tinetti, in which she claimed that if more funding was needed for education, you simply appropriated it, because—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, that’s out of order. The question is out of order. The Minister has no responsibility.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does her guarantee include the Ministry of Education’s school property team, given that the Secretary for Education has said that we wouldn’t have built the thousands of classrooms that we have if we didn’t have it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister, I’m in possession of correspondence from well-respected Auckland property engineering firms who say that you could easily get rid of 75 percent of the Auckland Ministry of Education staff and be better off. However, this Government takes a much more benign view of the role of public servants, and we will be ensuring that those people who are productive and useful for delivering outcomes for the teachers, the kids, and the parents are well employed and properly guided to do the job properly, which may initially be a surprise to them after the last six years of Chris Hipkins and Jan Tinetti, but I think they’re up for it.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Will she guarantee that the requested 7.5 percent cuts to the education budget will have no impact on kids and their learning, and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, absolutely, and it might be worth putting a little bit of historical context here. Madam Speaker, I’m mindful of your ruling that questions cannot be used to attack the Opposition, but what do you do when the Opposition asks a question that invites an attack on the Opposition? Because we have seen the number of bureaucrats employed at the Ministry of Education increase in the past six years from 2,500 to 4,400, and yet fewer kids are going to school, fewer—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have a point of order from the Hon Kieran McAnulty. I’m going to anticipate, but I’m going to let you ask the question—[Interruption] Silence! Points of order will be taken in silence.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I mean, the clue was in “I’m mindful of your ruling … but”, and everything after that was in direct contradiction to the ruling you gave the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, look, I get that, but there’s also—at times some of the questions actually are encouraging of a bit of feedback as well. So I ask the Minister, was the Minister—have you completed your answer?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Not even close, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, keep it short, but complete what you need to say.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the question is a good one: will the fiscal pressure this Government finds itself under with its fiscal inheritance affect teaching and learning for students? And the answer, I can unequivocally say, is absolutely not. The reason that’s possible is that there has been so much waste in the past six years that you can reduce expenditure by 6.5 percent very easily—hell, some of our coalition partners in this Government would go a lot further.

Hon Nicola Willis: In taking this course of action, in which the Government works to drive more value from every dollar it invests in the education system so as to improve achievement, has he considered an alternative approach in which the Government simply appropriates money from the magic money tree at the end of the garden?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I would rarely rise to my feet, but that’s the second occasion that that member has flaunted the rules of this House, and it’s grossly disorderly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. I’m just going to ask for a piece of advice on that question, please. Yeah, the question is not in order, and we’ll move on to the next question.

Ingrid Leary: How is it value for taxpayers’ money for Andersons Bay School in Dunedin to sink five years and $750,000 into plans for four new classrooms, only to have the Minister suddenly cut that to two new classrooms—in other words, cut in half?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I hope that the students at Andersons Bay primary go on to learn economics better than that member has. You see, there’s a thing called the sunk cost fallacy, and just because money has been spent on something in the past does not mean that continuing to waste money is a good idea. Andersons Bay primary will have its property needs catered to by this Government, and it will be done in a much more responsible and prudent way than they might have expected over the last six years.

Question No. 7—Police

7. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement, “we’re going to make sure that the front line are resourced properly”; if so, do Police have adequate staffing to enforce the banning of gang patches?

Yes and yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he expect the gang patch ban will be enforced in Wairoa, Ōpōtiki, and Te Kaha?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I do.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Given that Ōpōtiki has only two full-time front-line officers and also covers Te Kaha, how will they remove the jackets of the approximate 1,400 gang members who live in the area?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the Police have got the capability and the will to enforce a gang ban that this Government is passing. The Opposition and Harry Tam may not like it, but that is what is happening.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It wasn’t related to the question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Madam Speaker, I don’t think that was even addressing the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do think that the first part of the question actually did address the answer. As I had previously called out to the member, the last part of the question went a bit too far. Thank you.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Given the concerns that have been publicly outlined by front-line officers on enforcing the gang patch ban, how does he explain to the New Zealand public a 6.5 percent cut to the Police budget?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the Government’s going through a cost-saving exercise because of the vandalism, the economic vandalism, of the previous Government, and I’ve got full confidence in our New Zealand police and their capability. On this side of the House, we back them to go out and do the job, and the police officers that I talk to—and there’s a lot of them—they’re very keen to get out there and use these new tools.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Given the Western Australian gang patch ban simply displaced gangs over the state border, does he consider that this law change will simply displace gang members—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hey, quiet—quiet during questions please. Would the member please start that question again.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Given the Western Australian gang patch ban simply displaced gangs over the state border, does he consider that this law change will simply displace gang members to parts of New Zealand where police are not resourced to enforce the law?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think—

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Madam Speaker, you ruled when the member rose to ask her question that the question needed to be done in silence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Grant Robertson: Immediately afterwards, the Deputy Prime Minister began interjecting on the question. I would ask that he be called to account for that and asked to withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I actually think that it wasn’t only the Deputy Prime Minister. There were more people over that side of the room that actually didn’t follow that instruction. So thank you for the point of order. I’m going to be watching very carefully from here on in.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

Tim van de Molen: Yes, it is. Yeah, it’s in relation to a series of questions we’ve seen asked now where they’re not actually starting as a question. They start with a statement, which is clearly out of line with Speakers’ rulings. “Given” is the example—“Given this”, etc. So, unsurprisingly, that’s elicited a response, which I accept is outside of the Standing Orders in terms of speaking during questions, but it’s because the question itself was out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right. Look—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, I appreciate Mr van de Molen accepting that they were speaking during the question. Could we have an extra supplementary for the Hon Ginny Andersen, please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but I will invite the Hon Ginny Andersen to ask that question again—not start with the word “given”—and that members on this side will be quiet and then the Minister might be able to answer the question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister consider that the gang patch ban will simply displace gang members to parts of New Zealand where police are not resourced to enforce the new law?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, but I hope that the example she gave, with Western Australia, shows that the gang patch ban was working because they wanted to leave. And I hope that our gang patch ban forces them over the border as well!

Question No. 8—Biosecurity

8. to the Minister for Biosecurity: What announcements has he made recently that demonstrate the Government’s commitment to biosecurity?

On Friday, I announced a $5 million boost to the upper North Island community’s fight against the invasive seaweed Caulerpa. This exotic pest arrived in 2021 and has now been found in five locations across Northland and Greater Auckland. This thing spreads fast, forming thick meadows on the seabed, potentially impacting native species and changing the marine ecosystem. It is affecting some unique and important areas of New Zealand. That’s why we are committed to action.

Cameron Luxton: How will this additional funding support the fight against Caulerpa?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: It will support a range of new and scaled-up actions. In particular, it will be used to develop suction dredge technology, currently being tested in Northland. Innovative people are trialling some gear that suctions up the seaweed off the floor with a barge, avoiding the need to put divers in the water. My parliamentary colleagues Mark Cameron and Grant McCallum, and I, got the chance to go out on the barge and look at the equipment. Results so far are promising and indicate that with some technical tweaks, it would work at large scale. This will allow us to further test local elimination in areas such as Omakiwi Cove.

Cameron Luxton: What are the next steps in the fight against Caulerpa?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Full eradication of a marine pest like Caulerpa, that takes hold in the seafloor and spreads so fast, is difficult. Technical advice so far has been that fully eradicating it from New Zealand will be extremely challenging and unlikely with current technology. But this investment will still make a difference for the environment and for the people affected. I equate it to controlling Californian thistles on farms. You may not get to a point where you completely eradicate them, but you can get to a point where you’ve minimised the impact on the farm.

Question No. 9—Foreign Affairs

9. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has he agreed to find savings of 6.5 percent in the spending within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT)?

As that member will well know, all conversations with all colleagues—including the Prime Minister and, most importantly, the Minister of Finance—are confidential. However, we are pressing on to ensure that on Budget day that member will know, and so that then the only uncertainty at that point in time will be whether or not he is rightfully the leader of the Labour Party.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That last but was a bit unnecessary.

Hon David Parker: There’s no risk of that.

Hon Members: Aw!

Hon David Parker: Did the request—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. We’re having a question in silence, please. I know that was called for, but we’ll have silence. Thank you.

Hon David Parker: Did the request for savings encompass expenditure by MFAT on overseas development assistance (ODA)?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As that member will know by past experience, over the years it’s been enormously difficult for this country to replicate what happened under Norman Kirk where that was most properly addressed but still less than 0.7 percent. Now, my point here, right now, is that in past times, enormous struggles, but twice—and he was here at the time—we did successfully get the turnaround of respect as a consequence. And focusing offshore and knowing that our very recoveries depend upon our success as an export nation, and that such expenditure, of course, is anti-inflationary, we look forward with confidence to a very positive outcome.

Hon David Parker: It sounds like the Minister is aware that during the period when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs under the prime ministership of Helen Clark from 2005 to 2008, and again from 2017 to 2020, those Governments lifted ODA as a percentage of gross national income (GNI); is he also aware that during the intervening period it dropped, and, if so, what will he do to resist efforts to drop ODA as a percentage of GNI during this Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am very pleased that member’s raised that issue because when he said “the intervening period”, he means 2020 to 2023.

Hon Grant Robertson: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, it started to go to 0.23 now. We left it at 0.34 when we left.

Hon Grant Robertson: No, you didn’t.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, we did. Oh, yes, we did. And I can say, under Helen Clark it wasn’t so difficult—she understood foreign policy. But in 2017—and Mr Parker knows that—it was desperately difficult to try and extract out of people what was critically needed for this country’s long-term image offshore and to gain the respect we possibly need.

Hon David Parker: Has he seen reports this week that the Governments of the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands have written to the USA Government about the destabilising effect of uncertainty with USA ODA, saying this plays into the hands of other actors in the Pacific?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you to the member for that, and he’s quite right. Yes, I have. But on two counts—first of all, I’ve also contacted the United States myself with respect to those three beautiful countries; and the second thing is I’m in discussions with this Government to ensure that when it comes to our turn, first known in Budget 2024, we are doing the right thing.

Hon David Parker: So, then, can he confirm that given the crucial importance of New Zealand’s ODA into the Pacific, both to unlock the potential of our Pacific neighbours and to guard against other influences, it is crucial that New Zealand’s aid as a percentage of GNI does not drop?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I thank that member for that very insightful question as well, because it has dropped. It is targeted to go to 0.23. This is shocking. And in 2017, we were facing it going to 0.21. Now, I shouldn’t have to come back time after time and try and save an industry, but we are. That member knows more about it than anybody else because he was the Minister for Trade at the time. Unfortunately, the COVID circumstances stopped us making any progress in India. But we’re back doing all the same things this time, though. With the assistance of this budgetary money, it is our intention to get a result in India as fast as we possibly can.

Question No. 10—Courts

10. to the Minister for Courts: Is she concerned that the impact of Government policy combined with the 6.5 percent reduction in funding will exacerbate the pressure on the courts?

No. But what I am concerned about is resolving the growing court backlog that was allowed to persist under his party’s watch since 2017.

Greg O’Connor: How does the Minister intend to reduce the backlog of court cases while also delivering 6.5 percent cuts in funding?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government has inherited backlogs caused by more recent, unpredictable events such as Cyclone Gabrielle and the flooding in Auckland, which caused some of our busiest courthouses to close. We are actively working on developing law which will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of court services and address the backlog that the Labour Party left behind.

No, the last bit of that answer we would probably be better without.

Greg O’Connor: What initiatives has the Minister introduced to reduce the backlog in court cases since 24 November 2023?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government is actively considering policy and legislation to reduce the court backlogs that Labour failed to clear. In the year since January 2023 alone, there’s been a 3 percent increase in the District Court criminal backlog, rising to a total backlog of 37 percent of active cases. Our 100-day plan includes commitments to increase the efficiency of court proceedings and clean up the mess left behind. The member can expect an announcement on this soon.

Greg O’Connor: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was quite clear—what initiatives? She’s outlined the problem. What initiatives has she introduced?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the member did talk about initiatives in the 100-day plan. Does the member have a further supplementary question?

Greg O’Connor: Well, I’m keen to know what those initiatives are.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member like to expand on those—

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Was that another question, Madam Speaker? Was that another supplementary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s a point of order.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, you already said that I addressed the question, so if he wants to ask another supplementary, I’m quite happy to answer that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—I actually said that you’d addressed the 100-day plan. The member now raised a point of order. Did you want to extend on that or not? The choice is yours.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I believe I answered the first part of his question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Greg O’Connor: What initiatives has the Minister introduced to reduce the backlog in court cases since 24 November 2023?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I’m so happy to let that member on that side know that this Government is going to be releasing—as part of our 100-day plan—early next week, our initiatives to address the mess that was left behind for us to fix.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When can we expect her to announce new policy which will provide effective solutions for reducing court backlogs?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you, honourable Minister of Justice. I am pleased to inform you that we can expect this announcement outlining how this Government plans to address the court backlogs left behind by the Labour Party very early next week.

Greg O’Connor: Can I thank that member for saving me a supplementary question—what is the projected increase in the number of court cases as a result of the Government’s proposed legislation banning gang patches?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Legislative changes to crack down on the gangs are the responsibility of my colleague the honourable Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith. We work closely to ensure that the system-level implications of such policies are well understood and accounted for in our decision making.

Question No. 11—Media and Communications

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

Yes, including the clarification I made yesterday.

Reuben Davidson: Does she stand by her statement that New Zealanders can just watch Sky News, and is she aware of who produces Sky News’ New Zealand content?

Hon MELISSA LEE: Plurality is really important to me—that people actually have choices. Despite the Warner Bros. Discovery announcement, I’m confident that New Zealand news media continues to have a diverse range of voices and perspectives available on multiple platforms. We know audience behaviour is changing. New Zealanders now access media in a variety of ways, including on their phones. All media outlets are facing similar changes, and that is why my focus is on wider broadcasting reforms to modernise our media systems and streamline the regulatory environment. I’ll be closely monitoring the impact of the Newshub proposal over the coming months. As I said yesterday, even with, potentially, the diverse range, we do need to look after to make sure that New Zealand news is fair and New Zealanders actually have New Zealand news online as well as broadcast.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I think I’m picking up on the point of order. I’d just like to ask the member to repeat—there was a clear question. Is that the member’s point of order, about—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Do you know what, I couldn’t have said that better myself, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. Could you just repeat the—there was a specific question in your question about—

Hon Member: Sky.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, Sky.

Reuben Davidson: I’ll repeat the question in full: does she stand by her statement that New Zealanders can just watch Sky News, and is she aware of who produces Sky News or Sky News’ New Zealand content?

Hon MELISSA LEE: As I said, I have actually clarified my comments as well. When I said that—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, for the member, if it’s helpful, it was really just about the production of Sky—that was the piece of the question that the member was looking for.

Hon MELISSA LEE: Sky News, that I was referring to, actually is produced by Newshub.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member have another question?

Reuben Davidson: Who does she support: some of the most powerful and profitable companies that have ever existed, or the local producers of online news, such as the Gisborne Herald and the Ashburton Guardian, and what, if any, plans do the Government have to support local media?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. Madam Speaker, the Minister has no responsibility, whether she likes it or not, for the Gisborne Herald.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, as has always been the case, members are able to ask supplementaries that directly relate to an answer provided by a Minister. Now, in the answer given by the Minister, she talked about her support for the New Zealand media. It’s entirely appropriate for the member to seek some clarification on what she meant by that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, and look, there is an answer—if the Minister has no responsibility, that’s an answer as well. So I would encourage—because if the Minister has no responsibility, it’s quite OK for the Minister to actually stand up and say that. That’s fine.

Hon MELISSA LEE: I have no responsibility for the production of the news, but I can actually say, as a former journalist, I am very supportive of New Zealand’s production of news.

Reuben Davidson: What commitment, if any, can the media industry expect from the Government, given that there were no commitments to media in the National Party manifesto or the 100-day plan?

Hon MELISSA LEE: Thank you very much for that question. Considering the fact that when the Warner Bros. Discovery came for help to the previous Government’s Minister of broadcasting and they said no, I can say that that is a very rich question coming from the member. Perhaps that is actually new. Everyone actually understands that the media sector is struggling. This is a world-wide issue, and there is no silver bullet that can solve this problem. However, this Government is committed to working with the sector on ways to ensure sector sustainability while still preserving the independence of the fourth estate. There is a range of work under way that aims to ensure the media can continue to function in the current changing landscape.

Hon Chris Bishop: What reports, if any, has the Minister seen into how much money the previous Government spent on the failed RNZ-TVNZ merger?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. As was covered in great detail yesterday by Speaker Brownlee, such questions—points of order in silence as well, so that’s the second point. The first point is that Speaker Brownlee made it very clear that those sorts of assertions, particularly from Government members asking Ministers, are totally out of order.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. Well, firstly, the question is most definitely in order in the sense that if questions about the Gisborne Herald and the so-called most powerful people in the media—which was Reuben Davidson’s supplementary about three ago—are in order, a question about a policy of just three years ago is most definitely in order. Secondly, it is a matter of fact that the merger failed. It started, then the previous Government decided not to continue with it. That is not an assertion. It’s not political. It is a matter of fact. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition at the time almost described it in those words.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, so having had that discussion and those points of order, I rule that the Minister has no responsibility for the previous Government. Does Reuben Davidson have—

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to that point of order, the question was about reports the Minister had received into that. I would have thought, Madam Speaker, as the new Minister of broadcasting, she may have well received a report.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I’ve ruled. We’re going to move on. Has Reuben Davidson got supplementary questions?

Reuben Davidson: Given the immediate crisis, will she commit today, as Minister of broadcasting, to fast-tracking the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill to ensure our independent media entities can survive?

Hon MELISSA LEE: Thank you for that question. The bill is currently being considered by the select committee, and I don’t want to pre-empt their report. However, the Government’s position on this legislation will obviously take into account these latest developments in terms of wider media landscape. This Government is committed to working with the sector on ways to ensure sector sustainability while still preserving the independence of our fourth estate and avoiding market interference.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

12. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in particular the actions we have taken to fulfil our coalition agreement commitments as a Government of progress—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I please clarify if this is on behalf of the Prime Minister? I’m just asking for an “on behalf of the Prime Minister”, please, thank you—just for the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just to keep the House in order, I want to—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you could have said that, Madam Speaker—“Mr Peters on behalf of the Prime Minister”—but you left it to me. So I’ll say it myself: on behalf of the Prime Minister—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: That’s convention. It has been for the last few decades.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There’s no use trying to get you to catch up now. So on behalf of the Prime Minister—in particular, the actions we’ve taken to fulfil our coalition agreement commitments, as a Government of progress and delivery, to undo the damage caused over the last three years.

Tanya Unkovich: What updates can he provide on the progress of the Government coalition agreements?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In this Government’s very first week, we reserved a decision against the International Health Regulations. We have also stopped all work on the separatist agenda called He Puapua, kept secret by the last Government; repealed the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act; abolished the failing Māori Health Authority to ensure we focus on delivering better healthcare for all of those who need it most, including Māori and non-Māori, based on need, not some woke concept. In addition, we’re focused on the three Rs of reading, writing, and arithmetic, with one hour on each day, subject—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What? Reading, writing, and arithmetic? That’s two Rs.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Did you hear what she said? “That’s two Rs.”. See what the problem is? She doesn’t even get the great theme; all around Western society where they spoke English, it was three Rs, but genius over here knows better.

Tanya Unkovich: What other coalition agreement commitments are still to come?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, already come and coming, but we’ve increased the minimum wage, repealed the—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: By how much?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, we were the ones that put it up in the first place, not Labour. We all know that. They forgot all about it. We had to push it there in the first place. It’s all there, it’s all a fact, and Grant Robertson knows it. So now we’re on the second matter. We could be here all day. We repealed the hopeless Clean Car Discount, repealed fair pay agreements, and expanded 90-day trials to apply to all businesses so that more workers can get a job. And we’ve also gone on to ensure this Government’s 100-day plan. We’re excited about these following commitments, and that is: fast tracking the consent bill which will seriously supercharge development in this country, and, most excitingly, 60-square-metre homes can get, with an engineer’s report, permission to build. This is the kind of stuff that Peter Fraser and the great Labour Party that understood workers would understand, but they have utterly forgotten.

Tanya Unkovich: What update can he provide on the coalition’s commitment to a COVID inquiry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We’re at the stage where we are examining a wider set of terms of reference for the royal commission of inquiry into COVID19. What we know is that the existing terms of reference are currently inadequate and that this Government is seeking public submissions to expand those terms on the basis that we need, at the end of this inquiry, to have public confidence in the process and in the outcomes. So my message to submitters is to visit the website and make a submission. And they have until 24 March before submissions close. And for those who are protesting over there, how on earth did they think they’d ever get a proper inquiry if they didn’t have proper terms of reference? An inquiry designed to cover your derrière is not an inquiry.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: To the Prime Minister: will he commit to finally visiting with the Christchurch Muslim community prior to introducing amendments to the gun legislation?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can tell that member that, better than that, I was down there with—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, no—the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: By gosh! Sorry—yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m glad we clarified that earlier.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was so upset by the allegation, I forgot my—well, can I say that question is better put to someone who can answer it, because, on his behalf, it’s the kind of question I can’t answer, and that member should surely understand that. Of course, if she was in my place, you’d make her answer it anyway, but that’s not the way we roll over here.

Hon Nicole McKee: Is the Prime Minister aware that members of the Muslim community actually sit on the Minister’s Arms Advisory Group and are part of the solution to the Arms Act repeal?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am totally excited to have learnt that great information.