Oral Questions

1. to the Associate Minister of Health: What updates can she provide, if any, on the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act 2023?

The Government has committed to begin work to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act 2023 within its first hundred days. I will be taking a paper to Cabinet next week seeking approval to progress this work.

Jamie Arbuckle: Why does the Minister want to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Therapeutic Products Act was not fit for purpose. Appropriate regulation of medicines and medical devices is vital to ensure that these products do what they claim, are high quality, and that product approval pathways do not make them inaccessible or unaffordable. We also know that the current fragmented and outdated approach to the regulation of natural health products means that New Zealand is missing out on a significant proportion of opportunity to grow jobs and the economy. We need to develop a fit for purpose regulatory system for both.

Jamie Arbuckle: Will repealing the Therapeutic Products Act adversely impact medical safety or health outcomes of New Zealanders?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Act has a commencement date of 1 September 2026, so no changes are required from the health sector or industry. I have received advice that implementing the changes required to meet the commencement date would’ve been extremely challenging. This poses the real possibility of poor outcomes for New Zealanders.

Jamie Arbuckle: How does the Minister intend to progress work on replacing the Therapeutic Products Act?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Government has an opportunity to replace the Therapeutic Products Act with legislation that protects consumers without creating unnecessary red tape on industry. We know that communities, the health sector, and industry have concerns, and we intend to listen to those concerns as we develop new proposals.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So will big pharma, that’s tried to control this part of the market in New Zealand for the last 2½ decades, be finally, again, put back in its place?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We are confident we will have effective legislation that will deliver good outcomes.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do. In particular, I stand by the Government’s action to conduct a ministerial inquiry into problems within the school property system—problems driven by a culture of mismanagement under the previous Government’s Ministers of Education, which have resulted in hundreds of projects facing huge escalations in both cost and scope. I also appreciate the member’s most recent supportive remarks correcting earlier comments from Jan Tinetti denying there was even a problem. This Government stands by all of its actions to address the shocking educational outcomes delivered by that member’s Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it correct that school property capital expenditure for the Botany electorate increased from $3.7 million in 2017 to $11.9 million in 2022; if so, which of those projects does he believe were of low value?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: If the member would like to ask a specific question, I’m sure I can give him a proper answer for that. But what I would say to you is: 350 schools were misled by the previous Government: “We’re going to rescope your school; we’re going to redesign it.” Twenty before Christmas; 250, now 350; billions of dollars, lots of promises, no delivery, underfunded—a pattern of behaviour we’ve seen many, many times.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon on the smoke-free law changes made by the previous Government: “We’ve been really supportive. Anything to remove, you know, smoking harm I think is a good thing.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he stated, “We believe … we can lower smoking rates with the legislation that exists today.”, had he seen the Treasury advice that repealing the smoke-free environments Act changes will net the Government $500 million a year in extra revenue with more people smoking for longer?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I have seen is the results from the last year, which has seen daily smokers go from 8.6 percent to 6.8 percent just in the last 12 months, with the legislation that we’re going to readopt.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Associate Minister of Health advise Cabinet that the Ministry of Health estimated rolling back smoke-free law changes would cost the health system an estimated $5 billion and that smoking currently contributes to an average of 12 deaths per day in New Zealand; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Associate Health Minister is very committed to lowering smoking rates. The smoking legislation that we’ve seen over the last decade has actually halved daily smoking in this country. We are very confident that this will continue to lower smoking rates across this country.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the advice that Cabinet received from the Associate Minister of Health. The Prime Minister didn’t address that.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure that he will if he’s asked again. You can ask him again with no penalty to you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Associate Minister of Health advise Cabinet that the Ministry of Health estimates that rolling back smoke-free law changes will cost the health system an estimated $5 billion and that smoking currently contributes to an average of 12 deaths per day in New Zealand; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our decision is very clear: we’re going to adopt the existing legislation—that previously existed just a month before the election—that has driven smoking rates down. Smoking rates are going to continue to fall under the existing legislation that we’re going to readopt.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It wasn’t a difficult question; it asked what the Associate Minister of Health had advised Cabinet with regard to the cost and the number of people who die per day from smoking, and the Prime Minister hasn’t addressed either of those issues.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think so. I assumed that that was part of the advice that he had got that lead to the answer. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister—[Addressing the Rt Hon Winston Peters] that’s not you—answer that one more time. Sorry, my apologies. I apologise to the member because I realise he’s only at the mid-point in his career, so it could happen. Anyway—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Unlike the previous Government, we don’t discuss stuff that happens in Cabinet—unlike Stuart Nash.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Prime Ministers have regularly in this House been asked what advice Ministers have provided to Cabinet and have given answers on that.

SPEAKER: Yes, previously. He just said they don’t do it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that the legislation that’s seen the most dramatic change in the decrease in smoking levels in this country—that law was written by New Zealand First, and not these people over here that are screaming about it right here, right now—

SPEAKER: Yeah—first part of the question’s good.

Hon David Parker: Point of order. In respect of your most recent ruling, sir, there’s a difference between advice that a Government—

SPEAKER: Could you speak more into your microphone, if you wouldn’t mind.

Hon David Parker: I think the microphone might be off.

SPEAKER: I don’t think it is; it just needs to be up a bit. But carry on.

Hon David Parker: As to your point of order, sir, there is a difference between advice that is provided to Cabinet and Cabinet discussions on what is before it. There is no obligation on the Government to disclose the discussions in a Cabinet made by different Cabinet Ministers, but Ministers can be asked what information was provided to Cabinet.

SPEAKER: They can, and, in due course, they’re likely to release it. They don’t have to release it here in the House. And further to that point, it wasn’t my point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Your intervention there may well have been an acceptable answer for the Prime Minister to give; it’s not exactly a ruling, though. The Prime Minister is, effectively, refusing to answer the question.

SPEAKER: Well, to the part of your point of order, you’re quite right—I’m an unrecognised talent. You’ve got another supp?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Associate Minister reject proposals to stop tobacco being sold near schools?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because, as I heard Ayesha Verrall—Ministers take a range of advice on a range of topics, and she’s free to do that. We have a clear programme forward: we want to lower smoking rates across this country and we’re going to do it with the existing legislation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Associate Minister of Health reject proposals to raise the purchase age of tobacco to 25, given the advice from the Ministry of Health: “there is strong evidence that starting smoking after 25 is uncommon.”

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ministers take a range of advice on a range of topics.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the cost of living?

Kiwis are continuing to be hit by high inflation and high interest rates. According to Statistics New Zealand, inflation in New Zealand was higher last year than in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, and the European Union, which would suggest that claims made by previous Governments that this was all an international problem are not borne out by the data. Inflation is a big challenge. That’s why we are taking urgent steps through our 100-day plan to beat inflation and rebuild New Zealand’s economy.

Dan Bidois: What impact has this inflation had on low-income people?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, inflation is a thief in everyone’s pocket but has hit our lowest-earning New Zealanders particularly hard. According to Stats NZ, living costs for low-income households, as measured by the household living-costs price indexes, rose by 20 percent in just the three years between the end of 2020 and the end of 2023. That compared to growth of just 18 percent over the whole nine years that National was in Government. So it’s no surprise, then, that last week we learnt that more children were growing up in material deprivation and poverty thanks to the last Government’s disastrous economic mismanagement. That’s the price of Labour: more tax, more spending, and more families struggling with the cost of living.

SPEAKER: Just remember that there is a rule that says you don’t use Government supplementaries to attack the previous Government, and I will be very vigilant on that from this point on.

Dan Bidois: What recent trends has she seen on inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In good news for Kiwis at the checkout, food price data released earlier this month showed food prices are increasing at their slowest annual rate since 2021, at 4 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: All our own work.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Compared to this time last year, there have been big drops in the price of tomatoes, Mr Hipkins, down 52 percent; and cheese, down 27 percent. But it’s very early days. We know beating inflation won’t be an easy fight, and that’s why we’re working hard in our 100-day plan to bring down costs on business, clear out the wasteful spending, and unblock the regulatory bottlenecks that are suffocating economic growth and putting more pressure on the price of everything. And we’re not stopping after 100 days; there’ll be plenty more coming after that.

Dan Bidois: What actions is the Government taking to support Kiwis with the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, just this week, the Government is legislating to end the Auckland regional fuel tax, delivering Aucklanders relief at the pump from the start of July after years of being fleeced to pay for projects they don’t want, like cycleways and speed bumps. And there will be more to say later this year on our plans to deliver tax relief for New Zealanders. But this is a fantastic early announcement to support Aucklanders with the cost of living and let them keep and spend more of their own money.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, has she received on the proportion of the Budget operating allowance that will be required to meet cost pressures in Budget 2024?

Can I first congratulate the honourable member on her appointment as Opposition finance spokesperson. I look forward to our exchanges in this House. I know that the member opposite has had enough experience in the Beehive to know that the calls on the Budget operating allowance are both Budget-sensitive but also subject to change on a weekly, if not daily, basis. However, I am able to be helpful in saying to the member that I received Treasury’s briefing to the incoming Minister in November, which has been released, as has the accompanying slide pack. That slide pack contained a paragraph which stated: “Current budget allowances are expected to be sufficient to fund critical cost pressures only, with limited room for new spending in the absence of reprioritisation and savings”. What’s clear is that future Budgets are under significant pressure because of the previous Government’s woeful fiscal and economic mismanagement. Fortunately, this Government is committed to reprioritisation and saving.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it correct that 79 percent of the new operating allowance in Budget 2023 was for cost pressures, and does she expect Budget 2024 will require a similar percentage to meet cost pressures?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the definition of “cost pressure” depends a little on who’s doing the defining. Say, Mr Robertson would probably define the urgent need for more back-office bureaucrats as a cost pressure. I wouldn’t see it the same way, so I’d be reluctant to endorse the figure that the member has used. However, what I would share with her is that what we know is that even before this Government formed, the previous Government had pre-committed 68 percent of this year’s operating allowance, and we know that the sum of the fiscal cliffs they’d left behind, at $7.2 billion, would more than have evaporated the entire operating allowance before we funded another single cost pressure.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: So therefore does she regret calling the money that has been set aside for cost pressures a “buffer” that could be used to pay for tax cuts if she cannot find other sources of revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am both confident and happy about the fact that we have elected a coalition Government that is doing the hard and essential work of reprioritising low-value spending across Government. Members opposite may have been happy that on their watch the amount spent on consultants and contractors boomed, the number of people hired in back-office roles boomed, and there were low-value programmes, but our Government makes no apologies for being on a drive to ensure that dollars spent go to front-line services, go to delivering on our commitments such as more police, and go to ensuring New Zealanders can have more income in their back pockets.

Hon David Seymour: Would the Minister’s definition of “cost pressures”, then, include discovering the books were nearly $2 billion short of funding the pharmaceuticals New Zealanders have been led to expect?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member makes a very good point, because we had a Government that was prepared to short fund funding for essential pharmaceuticals, leaving a fiscal cliff that we, as a responsible Government, are committed to filling. They managed to hide the commitment to the Crown in the books by doing that kind of time limited funding, and that is a practice that we won’t be continuing.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: In light of that answer, is she committed to meeting the cost pressures required to deliver core public services such as health and education?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, because our Government is committed to front-line services, and not backroom bureaucracy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, therefore, is she prioritising tax cuts over providing Kiwi kids with healthy classrooms they can learn in; properly paid teachers, nurses, and police; and the indexation of benefits to wage growth that would support our most vulnerable New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member is going to have to keep up with the changing position of her leader, because this morning, as he detailed, he acknowledged that if he had been faced with the property situation inherited by our Minister of Education, then he too would have said, “Actually, that’s not affordable. We’re going to have to reassess it.”, because that actually—as the member should know—is a responsible way to approach things. What I can say about this Government is that we want to ensure that we are delivering the classrooms needed for roll growth and the schools needed for roll growth and that we’re ensuring that the school property programme is well funded, that it delivers good value for money, that it’s fair, and that it’s proportionate. We’re going to be doing that while at the same time ensuring there is funding for schools and for hospitals, and—by eliminating waste—tax reduction for working Kiwis.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not the $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund, started in December 2020 and still existing now, is a cost pressure, and are there many other programmes far more worthy than this woke stupidity? [Interruption]

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy—

SPEAKER: Just a moment.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy Prime Minister raises—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. The questions are being asked in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll ask it again.

SPEAKER: Yes, you can ask it again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—you’re getting better at the job every day. Could I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not the Public Interest Journalism Fund, started in December 2020 and still going now—costing a colossal $55 million—is a cost pressure that could have been far more worthily spent on schools and hospitals, and not some woke programme supported by the other side?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister raises a very good point, which is that the outgoing Government was extremely creative in their definition of cost pressures and essential spending. I well recall the COVID money that was used to fund consultants delivering a three waters plan, and the COVID money used to rent offices to include those three waters consultants in. So, on the other side of the House, we have people who claim that everything is essential. Well, on this side of the House, we know the value of New Zealanders’ money and we’re going to ensure they get to keep a bit more of it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thanks, Mr Speaker. The concern I have here is that already you have pulled the Minister up for using patsy questions to attack the Government. In that instance, you waited until the end of the question, which is fine—fair enough. But it was very clear very early on that that was the intent of that answer, and she wasn’t pulled up.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I apologise for being a bit slow. Another point of order over here?

Hon James Shaw: Oh, it’s the same one, Mr Speaker—just sort of noting that the Deputy Prime Minister appears to have a standing exemption from the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. The first member that raised that point of order talked about “patsy questions to attack the Government”. Now, surely he got that wrong, so therefore the second point of order must fail as well.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m not quite sure I follow that. But I take your point, Mr Shaw.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, follow the Hansard.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Follow the Hansard.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I will. I’ll have a wee look.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good—thank you.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do, in the context they were given.

Hon James Shaw: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said to the Bluegreens conference in 2023 that “National in Government will use the best scientific, financial, and environmental information available to us to chart a responsible, fair and sustainable way forward on environmental matters.”, and, if so, how is this consistent with proposals for the new fast-track consenting process for permits to be approved by Ministers rather than expert panels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I do. I do stand by those statements I made earlier.

Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that “This is a Government that’s going to be focused on lowering emissions and making sure that we meet our climate change commitments”, and, if so, can he rule out supporting any new fossil fuel projects, such as the Te Kuha coalmine in the proposed fast-track legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re going to be a Government that’s going to deliver on our emissions commitments and also grow our economy. We’re not going to turn off growth opportunities in sectors across this country when we’ve had three of the last four quarters left to us in decline by the previous Government.

Hon James Shaw: Can he rule out supporting any new fossil fuel projects, such as Te Kuha coalmine, in the proposed fast-track legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have been on the record to say that we actually want to overturn the oil and gas ban, because we need gas as a transitory energy source as we make the transition to clean, green energy going forward.

Hon James Shaw: Can he rule out supporting any new fossil fuel projects, such as Te Kuha coalmine, in the proposed fast-track legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to you: no projects have been brought forward to Cabinet yet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question—supplementary question.

Hon James Shaw: How—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: I’ll let him finish his run.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. With respect, I mean, that questioner has had his primary question with three following questions, and somebody rises to their feet to try and make this thing more factual and doesn’t get a chance to get his point away before the next question is given to that side.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but I can’t know that because I haven’t heard your question, but I’m hearing his first.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but you heard my request for the next question.

SPEAKER: I have, yes.

Hon James Shaw: How will he, as the Prime Minister, ensure that any potential conflicts of interest for the listed projects that are proposed to be approved by Ministers are raised and discussed to meet expectations in the Cabinet Manual?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we have not had fast-track consenting legislation come before the Cabinet and it has not yet been discussed. What we have is a very good process to make sure we’re managing potential conflicts of interest, real or perceived. We have clear processes around that that make sure that we’re compliant with the Cabinet Manual.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister and his Government considered the fact that there is a preference in using New Zealand coal rather than to be importing inferior Indonesian coal, which was the practice of the former Government? [Interruption]

Question No. 6.

Question No. 6—Health

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

Yes, in particular my statements that I’m absolutely committed to the Smokefree 2025 targets, and to providing practical, targeted help so that smokers who are addicted to nicotine can stop.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was she advised by officials that repealing the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act would mean that the smoke-free goal would not be met until 2061?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I received a range of advice from officials, and we’re continuing to develop good legislation and programmes to achieve the Smokefree 2025 targets.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very simple question. Was she advised: yes or no?

SPEAKER: You can’t ask for a yes or no answer.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: She could address it.

SPEAKER: Well, I think it was addressed, by saying that a range of advice was sought.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: I don’t think it was.

SPEAKER: I know you don’t think that, but I’m here and you’re not, so—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was the Minister advised by officials that repealing the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act would mean that the goal was not reached until 2061?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I said, I’ve received a range of advice. Some of that advice was based on statistical data that was not current. In the last three years, we have seen 219,000 people have stopped smoking, with vaping playing a key role. Importantly, 79,000 of those who stopped smoking—36 percent of those who quit—were Māori. We are now receiving statistics where we have a smoking rate of 6.8 percent of New Zealanders daily smoking, which is down from the 8.6 percent, which was one of the statistics that that data was based upon.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How does she justify repealing the 2022 amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act when she was advised that that bill would substantially close the difference in life expectancy between Māori and non-Māori?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We were absolutely committed to achieving the smoke-free targets, and we are going to implement systems that target addicted smokers, and not generalist, virtue-signalling approaches that are unproven.

Andy Foster: Has she received reports on the tobacco black market?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: There has already been a substantial black market for cigarettes and crime attached to tobacco retailing, and Customs are seeing a high volume of seizures of tobacco, both large and small, and through multiple channels, and an increase in large seizures. It is noted that the previous Government invested $10 million in the 2022 Budget for a dedicated tobacco enforcement team in Customs, and we will continue with Labour’s unworkable, woke, virtue-signalling plans. This experimental prohibition regime will make this problem even worse.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why does she refuse to be interviewed on why she is repealing a law that would save $5 billion in health costs, and don’t New Zealanders deserve to know the answer to that?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have been interviewed on numerous occasions on this issue, and I am looking forward to having media interviews on the effective legislation and regulations that we will introduce to ensure that people who are addicted to nicotine smoking will have the tools to quit, and that youth vaping will decline.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context they were given.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he justify introducing legislation to abolish Te Aka Whai Ora two days before the Waitangi Tribunal’s urgent hearing into Te Aka Whai Ora, when his Government has known since 19 January that an inquiry was set to take place?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we opposed it from its very conception, we spoke about it extensively in Opposition and opposed it in Opposition, we campaigned on it in the election campaign, and we put it into our 100-day plan as part of forming a new Government. It’s been very well signalled that we do not believe that bureaucracy is the way in which we drive better health outcomes for Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that by ignoring the tribunal’s request to introduce legislation to abolish Te Aka Whai Ora after the inquiry has been completed, his Government is bypassing judicial process and oversight?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, the tribunal will again have the jurisdiction to consider a claim after the legislation comes into effect. But we have been very, very clear in our opposition to the Māori Health Authority. We do not believe it’s the way in which we deliver better health outcomes for Māori—period.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he justify dismantling the Māori Health Authority in the same week as repealing smoke-free legislation, when Māori die seven years earlier, on average, than non-Māori and smoking is our leading cause of premature death?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have seen tremendous halving of smoking rates amongst Māori—from memory, something like 37 percent down to 16 percent in the space of a decade—under the legislation that we’re supporting putting back into law. So we’re going to continue to drive smoking rates down for Māori and for non-Māori, and we’re going to continue to get better health outcomes for Māori by using local iwi providers—localism and devolution, not centralisation and control—and I thought that member would appreciate that.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister trying to say that New Zealand is not actually governed by the Waitangi Tribunal but instead by a Government elected by the people at democratic elections?

SPEAKER: Well, that was a really interesting statement. We’ll move on to another supplementary.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he consider a Government’s use of urgency to progress a political agenda without public scrutiny to be an abuse of the democratic process?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In Opposition, we opposed the Māori Health Authority from its very conception—we have opposed it in Opposition. We went to the election campaign and said we would dismantle it. We formed a Government; within a matter of days, we had a hundred-day plan to dismantle it—49 actions in 100 days. That’s what we’re doing.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Look, I—

SPEAKER: We’ll just wait for a bit of silence.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe, te Pīka. The question was the use of urgency—

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Oh, sorry—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She’s raising a point of order.

SPEAKER: Oh, were you raising a point of order?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Point of order.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: My question was addressing the use of urgency, not the campaigning spiel. It was to address: “Was the promise in the 100-day to utilise the use of urgency?” That’s the question that was asked.

SPEAKER: Well, OK, the Prime Minister doesn’t have direct responsibility for the use of urgency. The Government may move it, but the House decides. So the Prime Minister may want to make a comment, but the question is not quite in line with the primary.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said before, it’s entirely—well, it’s been incredibly well signalled by our Government that we want to dismantle the Māori Health Authority. Why? Because we believe in actually delivering better health outcomes for Māori. We’re going to do it in a different way.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to check with you whether the rules around talking on cellphones in the debating chamber have changed, or whether, in fact, the tobacco lobby should wait until after question time to contact the Deputy Prime Minister with their feedback.

SPEAKER: Now, I just think—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. Mr Speaker. That’s a disgraceful insinuation, especially when somebody’s going to be out of this House within a few weeks. But the real point is: no, I was pursuing a lawyer that acted illegally, and I’m going to make sure I win against him. That’s what the phone call was about.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t use cellphones now.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the deputy chief executive of MSD, who told the Social Services and Community Committee, “They do not get punished, that’s unfair—they do not get sanctions. They do not get sanctioned, they do not get sanctions for not coming to our work seminars”; if so, will she commit to ensuring people do not face sanctions for not attending work seminars?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I thank the member for his question, and on behalf of the Minister and in answer to the first question: yes, because the discussion at select committee on this topic was incomplete as the committee abruptly adjourned and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) made clear in a later answer to the committee that those who failed to turn up to work seminars can be sanctioned. I understand that MSD thought the member’s question at select committee referred to job expos and work seminars. To clarify, job expos do not automatically result in a sanction for non-attendance. For the vast majority of job seekers, attendance is encouraged and voluntary. In some circumstances, MSD will require attendance at expos, which can result in a sanction. To answer the member’s second question: no. This Government has reset the welfare system’s expectations, including applying sanctions where job seekers refuse to comply with their obligations. We expect job seekers to attend work seminars as part of the reasonable steps they must take to become work-ready and find work.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is she able to quantify how many people get sanctioned for missing work obligations, such as failing to attend work seminars, but she can’t quantify how many people enter employment as a direct result of engaging with work obligations?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The information is collated on an individual basis, so those that attend work seminars will then have noted in their files whether they got employment from it or not. But MSD doesn’t collate all that information up and have one source of information about how many got into employment from attending job seminars.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How then can she be confident that the work obligations she wants to impose on people will help them get into jobs when she can’t show any evidence of these work seminars meaningfully supporting people into stable, secure employment?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There are 190,000 people on jobseeker benefits. That’s a 70,000 increase under Labour. So, clearly, nothing was working previously and it behoves us to ensure that we try a variety of means to assist people into employment, including work seminars, including job expos, and, as I explained in my previous answer, that information about whether attending a work seminar got someone into employment is kept for that individual; it’s just not collated up across the country.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she be confident that work seminars support people into employment when the people in charge of running them could not be up front with select committee members about the consequences of not attending these seminars and she is refusing to present evidence on whether they support people into employment?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I don’t believe that the people were refusing or misleading in any way. They made it very clear that they had misunderstood the question at select committee, that they thought it was both job expos and work seminars. We know that the job seminars do assist people in getting into employment. We know that it helps with getting their CVs together; it helps with learning interview techniques; and we know that, for example, at a recent seminar in the top of the South Island, 82 Kiwi job seekers turned up and 64 received interviews from that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she commit to reporting outcomes of these work seminars, and, if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I explained, those outcomes are reported and are recorded on an individual basis; they are just not collated right across the country. So, on an individual basis, someone turning up to a work seminar, it will be recorded whether it was successful in supporting them into employment or not.

Ricardo Menéndez March: If these outcomes are not collected nationally, how does she know that forcing people to attend work seminars to avoid facing sanctions is supporting people into meaningful, secure employment?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We know that there’s a range of things that have to be done to assist the 190,000 people to have a really good chance to get into employment. Obviously, things like getting help in putting CVs together, getting help in interview techniques, getting help with getting their driver’s licence—all those things assist towards it. We know that the fact that an extra 70,000 going on to the jobseeker benefit since the previous Government was in power has meant that it hasn’t worked. So we should be trying every single thing we can to assist people into employment.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has the Government made about restoring law and order?

On Sunday, the Government announced a raft of measures aimed at addressing harm caused by gangs. Gangs’ insignia will be banned from public display, gang gatherings will be disrupted by police-issued dispersal notices, gang associates separated by court-issued non-consorting orders, and, finally, we’re giving greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor at sentencing. This Government is serious about restoring law and order.

Paulo Garcia: Why is addressing the harm caused by gangs important?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because gangs cause serious harm. They spread violence, deal in drugs, and create intergenerational drama. For too long, they’ve been allowed to behave as if they’re above the law—they are not.

Paulo Garcia: What statistics has he seen on law and order in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In the past five years, gangs have recruited more than 3,000 new members and there has been significant escalation in gang-related violence, public intimidation, and shootings. Violent crime has increased by 33 percent; gangs play a significant part in this.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What is the purpose of his non-consorting orders when sections 112 to 123 of the Sentencing Act already have a comprehensive framework for non-association orders?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the purpose of the non-consorting legislation is to stop serious gang offenders meeting with particular other serious gang offenders to create crimes. That is a piece of legislation that we’ve learnt from some of the Australian states, and it’s making a real impact on disrupting the gang activity. So the real purpose is to make it more difficult for the gangs to operate effectively in this country.

Paulo Garcia: What impact will the ban on gang insignia in public places have on freedom of expression?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it will have an impact on gangs’ freedom to intimidate and create fear. Gang members want all the rights of being a New Zealander but none of the responsibility that comes with it. Expressing fear and intimidation is not a form of expression that this Government supports.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What is the purpose of his reforms around the sentencing of gang members when section 9 of the Sentencing Act already makes it clear that being a gang member is an aggravating factor?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the purpose of this legislative change is to also remove the need for a connection between being a gang member and that specific crime that has been caused. We want to make the broader point that gang membership has an impact on the overall wellbeing of this country in terms of law and order. The other point of it is this very simple idea that a political party would campaign in Opposition to do something and, when elected, they do it. That’s what we’re doing in this legislation.

Paulo Garcia: How are the commitments to restore law and order progressing as outlined in the Government’s 100-day plan?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, well, thank you—this Government is making excellent progress. We’ve abolished the prison target reduction, we’re stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 reports, we’ll soon introduce legislation to implement our package to tackle gangs, and my colleague Minister McKee will have further announcements to make on restoring law and order very soon.

Hon Nicole McKee: How would incorporating gang affiliation as an aggravating factor during sentencing enhance the safety of our communities throughout New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, by giving greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor in sentencing, courts will be able to impose more serious punishments on to an individual who has an association with gangs. We’re restoring serious consequences for crime and delivering on our commitments as set out in the coalition agreement between both ACT and New Zealand First and the National Party.

Question No. 10—Health

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

Yes, in the context they were given.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he stand by this answer regarding the repeal of the Māori Health Authority: “we’ll take on board all discussions and all dialogue from all parties.”, and, if so, why did his Government bring forward the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, bypassing the urgent inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We’ll always remain open to any dialogue from any parties and from any citizens, from Māori, from anyone who wants to help us advance the cause of Māori health outcomes.

Hon Peeni Henare: Why, then, could the Minister’s bill not wait two more days for the urgent claim to be heard by the Waitangi Tribunal, or is it this Government’s intention to avoid the Waitangi Tribunal on all matters?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Waitangi Tribunal will still be able to critique the legislation after enablement, so we’re very comfortable with the position that we’ve taken. What we’ve also wanted to do is give some surety to staff with the Māori Health Authority so that they can see a vision and a pathway forward.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does the Minister accept that this Government’s breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi will lead to further claims before the Tribunal and further court litigation, or will he just simply do the right thing and remove his bill?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is that we will involve Māori in the monitoring and the delivery of health services to improve Māori health outcomes.

SPEAKER: Question No. 11—a point of order?

Hon Chris Bishop: A question.

SPEAKER: Oh, OK. Away you go.

Hon Chris Bishop: Does the Minister accept that given the Māori Health Authority did not exist until two years ago, the abolition of it cannot possibly be a breach of the Treaty?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is, as the member says, that the Māori Health Authority has been challenged, and we seek to do a better job with Māori health outcomes.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I should have been a bit quicker there. That question did seek an opinion that’s outside of the Minister’s scope of responsibility.

Hon Chris Bishop: It followed on from the primary.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Chris Bishop: It followed from the primary.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about school property?

Yesterday, I announced a ministerial inquiry into the Ministry of Education’s school property function. This review will address the challenges the Ministry of Education face in not being able to deliver the current pipeline of school infrastructure projects—in particular, the failure to sufficiently implement a value-for-money approach, schools having expectations beyond what could be delivered on, and significant cost escalations. It is important to understand why these challenges have emerged in recent years to ensure we can deliver the school property our children deserve. I want to ensure that the school property portfolio is meeting the core infrastructure needs of schools.

Katie Nimon: Why is this inquiry needed?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The coalition Government has inherited a pipeline of projects that were unable to be delivered on. In September 2023, the Ministry of Education began a review of property projects. In January, I was informed that up to 350 projects needed to be reviewed for cost-effectiveness. By their own admission, the ministry have advised me that these challenges are due to building-cost increases but also due to scope creep and over-reliance on bespoke designs and over-engineering add-ons, like extensive landscaping and infrastructure. A ministerial inquiry will consider how we can best achieve a portfolio that is managed efficiently and effectively and delivers cost-effective learning spaces that are functional, warm, dry, and fit for purpose.

Katie Nimon: What has she heard from principals since she announced the inquiry?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have been talking with principals about their property concerns since the day I became the Minister. Since this announcement, I have already received reports that principals are welcoming this inquiry. On RNZ this morning, Vaughan Couillault of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand—SPANZ—said that principals are really pleased that the Minister has listened to the sector. I also received communication from a school board member saying, “I would like to applaud the Minister for undertaking the Ministry of Education property review. It is badly needed and overdue.”

Hon Jan Tinetti: Will the inquiry into school property she announced yesterday look at the cuts the previous National Government made into school property and the subsequent impact on school property assets; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I think it’s brave of that member to ask a question, given that this morning on air she said that all of the properties in her portfolio, when she was the Minister, were funded and factored into the Budget. Just mere hours later, her leader had to correct her and say that he would not guarantee absolutely every single one of them. He would probably have also asked his officials to rescope the work.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we waited till the end in the hope that there would be any attempt to address the question. That was certainly responded to but not addressed.

SPEAKER: Well, you’ve also got to accept that that was a politically motivated question—and somewhat loaded—and, therefore, there’s a high degree of leniency in the way it’s answered.

Katie Nimon: What can schools expect while the inquiry is under way?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I received an email from a principal today whose build was supposed to start in July last year and has been delayed. She stated, “All we want in this community is good, clear communication and a pathway forward.” I have made it clear to the Ministry of Education my expectation for schools is to receive timely and accurate information about their projects in the coming weeks. While the inquiry is under way, I will be working with the ministry to find solutions for schools facing critical pressures in roll growth, condition, and compliance. I want to be clear that school property is a priority for this Government, and our inquiry will ensure that we deliver cost-effective, warm, dry classrooms to as many schools as possible.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Will she guarantee no cuts to school property capital expenditure?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes.

Question No. 12—Environment

12. to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has she made regarding the clean-up of old landfill sites?

On Saturday, I had the pleasure of announcing that the Government is granting $6.6 million to clean up four historic New Zealand landfill and dump sites which are vulnerable to extreme weather events and coastal erosion. The Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund grants will go towards fixing former landfills and dump sites.

Grant McCallum: Why is it important that these sites are remediated?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: These sites are in low-lying coastal areas and near river margins, leaving them at risk of being compromised by storm surges, rainfall events, high river levels, and flooding. This funding will address the risk of the sites being breached by a natural event, exposing waste materials and contaminating the surrounding land and waterways. Historic landfills can become a threat to communities and the environment through the effects of extreme weather events. The Government supports local government to deal with the legacy of land contaminated by past practices, directing funds each year to sites considered regional priorities. This funding will help restore these contaminated sites so they no longer pose a risk to communities and the environment.

Grant McCallum: What specific projects have been funded as a result of the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Starting in Southland, the Bluecliffs land site is situated on a former gravel pit located within Te Waewae Bay. Coastal tides and the Waiau River mouth flooding have eroded parts of the site and surrounding areas. That council has been granted $1.35 million for its remediation. The St Andrews Beach landfill project will focus on developing a remediation plan led by Environment Canterbury. They have been granted $135,000 towards this planning project. Nelson City Council is leading a remediation project after sawdust contaminated with arsenic and other chemicals was exposed by erosion in a car park at Tāhunanui Beach in June 2023. That council has been granted $134,000 towards the planning of this project. And, finally, Gisborne District Council is receiving $4.98 million to develop a remediation plan and carry out remediation works at the former Tokomaru Bay landfill. The retired land site area is susceptible to flooding—

SPEAKER: Good—this is really good. What about you table it?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Recent—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just, that’s it.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Enough?

SPEAKER: Yeah, well and truly.

Grant McCallum: What else is the Ministry for the Environment doing to help local communities with historic landfills?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The ministry is now working with regional councils to refine the assessment tool and use it to evaluate landfills that have not yet been assessed. These assessments will help councils make decisions on how to manage the risk associated with the vulnerable landfills and contaminated sites, such as reducing the level of contamination, better containing the sites, or removing the contents of landfills. I wish to thank the ministry and councils up and down the country for their continued work in this space.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Will the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund be spared the 6.5 to 7.5 percent funding cuts?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The remedial contamination fund will be used in the way that it’s going to be best used to help the environmental and community outcomes of this country. The 6.5 to 7.5 is being concentrated, as we have been asked to, on the backroom functions, not on the funding that we get out to the grassroots where the work is being done.