Oral Questions

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

Yes, and particularly this Government’s plan to back our police to crack down on the gangs that peddle meth and misery within our communities. We promised New Zealanders that we would address the rampant lawlessness driven by the previous Labour Government’s soft-on-crime approach, and our plan to reduce gangs’ ability to intimidate and to terrorise our communities is just one part of that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his promise on bringing back semi-automatic firearms, “That is not going to happen. Not going to happen.”; if so, why has Radio New Zealand reported that “Everything is on the table” when it comes to changing the current firearms licensing regime?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No papers have been received or decisions made in our Cabinet, but what I can say is that our Government is going to balance safety and compliance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his Government will not bring back military-style semi-automatic weapons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We will not be introducing any firearm types into this country beyond those that are currently available to licensed owners under current laws and regulation.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the case that the Government has no plan to bring back semi-automatic firearms because there are already approximately 6,000 New Zealanders with a licence to have one and it’s logically very difficult to bring back something that’s already there?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is correct.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government intending to make any changes to the number of people who can access military-style semi-automatic weapons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As that member knows, our coalition agreement states that we will rewrite the Arms Act to provide for greater protection for public safety—greater protection for public safety—and we’re going to simplify the regulatory requirements and ensure very good, smart compliance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t he rule out liberalising access to military-style semi-automatic weapons when the police have made it very clear to the Government, both present and former, that doing so would result in more of those weapons getting into the hands of gang members and others who intend to break the law?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because no papers have been received, no discussion has been had, and no decisions have been made in Cabinet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he intending to visit the Linwood mosque on 15 March; if so, will he tell the victims of that massacre that he is intending to change the law to make legal the purchase of those types of firearms again, given that the firearm used in that terrorist attack was legally purchased?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No disrespect, but I won’t take any lectures from that member about that event. I was an employer of someone who lost an employee in that event, and I take that very seriously.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I asked him a series of questions about whether he was going to visit the mosque and whether he was going to tell the victims of that event that the Government was considering bringing back the very firearms that were used in that particular atrocity.

SPEAKER: Well, the problem with the question—particularly the second part of the question—is that it’s relying on an assumption that the member is making when, in fact, the House has just been told there are no proposals before the Government at the present time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why will he not rule out liberalising access to military-style semi-automatic weapons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve said to the member there are no papers that have been received, there’s been no discussion that’s taken place, there have been no decisions that have been made in Cabinet. The second thing I’ve said is that we are a Government that’s going to balance safe—[Interruption] Would you like to listen to the answer? We’re going to balance safety, we’re going to balance compliance, and we’re going to make sure we have a good decision in Cabinet, and that’s yet to happen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister intend to ban coming to this House promising a bazooka but turning up with a pop gun?

SPEAKER: Look, I’m sorry. I know that was that was by way of a question, but it wasn’t a question that the Prime Minister can offer a view on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, he can.

SPEAKER: Well, really? I mean, it’s a very serious issue, and there was kind of a trivial aspect to the question. So I think I’m going to rule it out.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the year to December 2023, gang members carried out an average of 2.83 firearm offences per day, and does the Government have policies to deal to the illegal use of firearms that has mushroomed over the last few years under current laws?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I agree. That’s what we won’t be doing: we won’t be making illegal guns available to criminals to actually drive violent crime in this country, because we’re going to get tough on illegal guns—period. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: All good, calm down. Thank you very much for your offering, front-bench members from the Opposition.

Question No. 2—Justice (Firearms)

2. to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): What law changes is the Government proposing in relation to firearms?

This Government is committed to rewriting the Arms Act 1983. Rushed law changes by the previous Government have failed to make New Zealanders safer from firearms violence and have unfairly punished law-abiding licensed firearm owners. This Government is committed to creating an enduring Arms Act which increases public safety, simplifies regulatory requirements, and improves compliance. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. The noise is too much. It’s a very serious topic, and it should not be a topic that ends up with a Minister shouted down. Questions can be asked in silence—that’s the respect that the House shows to the questioner—but there should be a little bit more attention paid by way of simply listening to the answers being given by Ministers.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order. Thank you. I’ve got two points of order, then, Mr Speaker. The first one was just around rulings about patsy questions being used to attack the Opposition, which was contained in the answer that the Minister gave in her primary response, and I just wanted to get your view on that. And the second one was just to kind of clarify what happens when a Government Minister is making policy statements on behalf of the Government when the Prime Minister has just said that there have been no papers received or discussions had.

SPEAKER: Well, on the first point, I couldn’t hear what was being said because of the noise to my left. On the second point, a Minister’s answers are for the House to make a determination about, not for the Speaker.

Mark Cameron: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Cameron Luxton.

Mark Cameron: Mark Cameron—but thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Mark Cameron.

Mark Cameron: Easy mistake to make!

SPEAKER: My sincere apologies, Mark Cameron.

Mark Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What immediate changes is the Government proposing?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The previous Government’s over-regulation on clubs and ranges have forced several to shut down. It is imperative for New Zealanders to have access to secure venues for firearms usage. The absence of such facilities poses additional risks to the community. Therefore, we are dedicated to overturning these unnecessary regulations to ensure the safety and the availability of these important spaces.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has she received or requested any advice on increasing access to military-style semi-automatic weapons?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: No.

Mark Cameron: Which firearm laws is the Government going to review?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The Government will review the effectiveness of the firearms registry in enhancing public safety. Concerns raised by licensed firearm owners regarding privacy breaches and unjustifiable costs warrant a thorough evaluation. The review will commence no later than June 2024.

Mark Cameron: What steps is the Government taking to target gang members holding firearms illegally?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government is committed to giving police greater powers to search gang members for illegally held firearms. This legislation will be introduced to Parliament within the first 100 days of Government, as outlined in the National-ACT coalition agreement.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order. Just in relation to that answer and the one to the question before that, that does appear to contradict what the Prime Minister just said about no decisions having been made or any papers or discussions being read. And I just wondered if the Prime Minister might need to correct his answer to the earlier question.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, that is not a point of order. That is a point that you are making. You’ve made the point. There’s nothing further to be done about it.

Mark Cameron: Will her Government allow competitive shooters to use semi-automatics for sporting purposes?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The coalition Government has yet to decide on this issue, but, currently, over 6,600 New Zealanders are licensed to possess semi-automatic firearms, and this occurred under Labour’s regime. They were never banned under the previous Government. This Government is the adult in the room, and we are committed to finding a solution to this issue for the benefit of public safety and practical regulation.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and in the context they were given.

Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that “our focus is on making sure … we honour the Treaty.”, and, if so, will he ensure that the new fast-track consenting legislation will uphold the Treaty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I will.

Hon James Shaw: Has he been briefed on feedback from mana whenua, as Treaty partners, on the proposed policy settings for the fast-track legislation, and, if so, what was the feedback?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I understand that the Ministers have. If he would like to direct any questions to the relevant Minister, he’s more than welcome to do so.

Hon James Shaw: Will the fast-track process give effect to the rights of iwi and hapū over natural resources, as recognised in Treaty settlements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Hon James Shaw: Will the fast-track framework protect matters of national importance under the Resource Management Act by ensuring that projects will be declined if they undermine the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we haven’t yet had a Cabinet paper or discussion about that in Cabinet yet, but we will shortly.

Hon James Shaw: Will he rule out the proposal by Trans-Tasman Resources for seabed mining off the coast of Taranaki from the list of projects in the bill, in light of the Supreme Court ruling that this application needed to be reconsidered to take account of tikanga Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, there has been no paper presented to Cabinet, there has been no discussion at Cabinet, and there’s been no decisions made at Cabinet. That is yet to come.

Question No. 4—Finance

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

Yesterday, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) issued its latest quarterly predictions. The report says that recent developments have been mixed, but generally point to further easing of inflation pressures in the New Zealand economy. The easing in capacity pressures has been a key driver behind this drop in inflation pressures in the New Zealand economy; in particular, firms report a further easing in labour shortages and are now finding it easier to find both skilled and unskilled labour.

Rima Nakhle: What does this outlook mean for monetary policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The NZIER report goes on to say that the key question for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) is whether it is comfortable that this easing in inflation is occurring at a fast enough pace to get annual Consumers Price Index inflation back to within its 1 to 3 percent inflation target band. The RBNZ’s monetary policy statement came out at 2 p.m. and I’ve been advised that the official cash rate has been held steady. This indicates that the bank does think inflation is reducing at a fast enough pace.

Rima Nakhle: What does the NZIER say about the outlook for economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s better now that Grant’s gone.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That’s right. The Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point. Like other forecasters, the NZIER is expecting near-term weakness in the economy but recovery over the longer term. The NZIER also highlights an increase in business confidence. It says that despite signs of weaker demand as the impact of higher interest rates left over from the last lot continues to gain traction, businesses are feeling less pessimistic about the general economic outlook.

Rima Nakhle: When will the next Treasury forecast be released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The next complete set of Treasury economic and fiscal forecasts will be released with the Budget on 30 May. Data revisions and recent out-turns since the half-year update in December indicate that the economy is likely to be in a weaker position this year than was anticipated before Christmas. That will flow through to forecasts for tax revenue, so I expect the Crown to be collecting less revenue over the next few years than was previously expected.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: What advice from Treasury, if any, has she seen on the amount of revenue that will be gained by the Government from the enactment of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill?

I am advised that regardless of the enactment of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill, excise revenue is predicted to continue to gradually decline as smoking rates continue to decrease. In preparing the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update last year, Treasury did a rough estimate of tobacco excise revenue assuming the continuation of the current smoke-free regime that has existed and been successful for many years. Their estimate was that maintaining the current smoke-free regime involving regular increases in tobacco excise and which has seen smoking rates fall dramatically, would result in additional revenue of around $1.5 billion in total across the four-year forecast period compared to the changes due to be implemented from later this year. I’d say two things to the member: first, those numbers are very rough, and better forecasts will be included in the Government’s books as part of the Budget update; and, second, that revenue, whatever it turns out to be, will go into the consolidated account and be used for spending on hip operations, teachers’ pay, and Working for Families, just as that revenue was used by the previous Labour Government.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the statement made by Nicola Willis, “we have to remember that the changes to the smoke-free legislation had a significant impact on the Government books,” in response to questions on how she will pay for tax cuts in the absence of the foreign buyers ban; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I tend to agree with myself, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she aware that the Ministry of Health modelling shows that an estimated $5.25 billion can be saved in health spending, and, if so, how can she justify her support for rolling back world-leading smoke-free legislation when a simple cost-benefit analysis shows the cost to the health system outweighs the benefits of the revenue gained?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is sticking with legislation and initiatives that, with bipartisan support, have seen smoking rates drop by 60 percent in the past 11 years, and we are advised those settings will continue to drive smoking rates down.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she reconcile the Government saying, on one hand, “It is our intention to bring smoking rates down.”, but, on the other hand, she needs smoking rates to stay the same or increase to bring in $500 million in tobacco excise per year to help pay for tax cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because the member has got it completely wrong. We are expecting that excise—[Interruption] Well, the member either wants an answer or she doesn’t. We are expecting that excise revenue will continue to gradually decline as smoking rates decrease. And I have been specifically advised that there will still be a declining trend, and with the assumed decline in tobacco consumption more than offsetting the continued increases in excise revenue that we do on 1 January each year.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is the priority for this Government: tax cuts funded by more New Zealanders smoking for longer or the health and lives of everyday New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The priority for this Government—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. That question is not in order. I’m not going to rule it out; the Minister can answer, but you need to think about how much assumption is put into questions that Ministers are required to respond to.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, I’m very happy to talk about the Government’s priorities, which are to strengthen the economy so that we can address the cost of living, which has been at a crisis for the past two years; increase the jobs and incomes available to New Zealanders; ensure they can keep more of their own money; deliver better front-line services in health and education, where attendance rates have plummeted; and increase law and order by delivering more police.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister of Finance aware of reports attributed to Victorian police in Melbourne that last year 27 convenience stores were attacked with firebombings as part of stand-over tactics believed to be connected with the illicit tobacco trade, and if she has considered the impacts of illicit tobacco on both health and the Government’s books, does she believe that it’s actually time to bring a bit of reality into this debate?

SPEAKER: That was also another interesting question that goes well beyond the responsibilities of the Minister. I know you couch it with “has she considered” and, therefore, it can go ahead, but I think you’ve got to be careful about how much assumption we put into questions.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Point of order. I seek leave to table a Treasury Official Information Act request that documents the forecasting in relation to tobacco excise due to the changes in legislation.

SPEAKER: Are you tabling a request or a response?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: I’m tabling the response.

SPEAKER: Is it publicly available?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Not that I’m aware of.

SPEAKER: Well, OK. Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon Member: Is it publicly available?

SPEAKER: Well, is it? I’m asking the question. [Interruption] Hang on, I’ll deal with this. I’m asking the member: is it a publicly available document?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Not that I’m aware of.

SPEAKER: I’ll put the leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether or not it’s a fact that the success of the present Government’s plan is in the forecasts of the tax for tobacco and cigarettes being hundreds of millions of dollars less than Grant Robertson was forecasting in 2020?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, look, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a good point, as did David Seymour before him, so I’m going to address both questions in one. I think that’s a good way to do things. We do have to be very conscious of the black market, because what the regulatory impact statement—

Hon James Shaw: Point of order. I just wanted to refer back to earlier Speakers’ rulings around the use of patsy questions to attack the Opposition.

SPEAKER: With regards to what?

Hon James Shaw: The question that the Deputy Prime Minister asked then was—

SPEAKER: No, sorry; it can’t be a patsy if he’s referring to Budget numbers. That’s not an unreasonable question.

Hon James Shaw: Well, I’ll withdraw the use of the word “patsy”. Nevertheless, the supplementary question that the Deputy Prime Minister asked was clearly an attack on the Opposition.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry; I didn’t see it that way. So we’ll finish that answer and then I’ll have to go back to David Seymour because I managed to cut him off getting an answer. So he’ll probably have to ask his question again, in a better way, I hope. [Interruption] No, no—hang on. We’re not finished here.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, perhaps I can help the House by addressing two questions in one. Minister Seymour’s question was about the black market, and this is a very real concern because the regulatory impact statement for the previous Government’s legislation warned specifically that—quote—“The illicit market has been increasing, and recommended policy changes are likely to exacerbate this.” I would point out that the only people that benefit from a flourishing black market are criminals and gangs. In answer to the Deputy Prime Minister’s supplementary question, he makes a good point, which is that the revenue that the coalition Government is likely to receive from tobacco revenue in the forecast future years will be considerably less than was received by the previous Labour administration in 2020, where they earned $2.2 billion in tobacco excise revenue, which they happily invested in roads, hospitals, schools, and the like.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I’m sure that satisfies you, Hon Seymour; it certainly satisfies me, which is all that matters. Can we now move to question No. 6—the Hon—sorry, Miles Anderson.

Question No. 6—Housing

6. to the Minister of Housing: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the elevation in position. What announcements has he made about the Government’s work programme in housing?

Yesterday, I laid out the Government’s work programme to fix New Zealand’s housing crisis. Five interlocking actions: firstly, going for housing growth, to smash urban limits holding our cities back, fix infrastructure funding and financing, and introduce incentives to encourage cities and regions to go for growth; secondly, improvements to the rental market to make it easier to be a landlord and easier to be a tenant; thirdly, building and construction changes to improve competition, lower building costs; better social housing to look after those who most need support; and, fifthly, reform of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Miles Anderson: How will this agenda to fix the housing crisis improve the lives of New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the housing crisis that New Zealand has inherited from the last Government affects almost every aspect of New Zealand society. Young people don’t have the opportunities to own their own homes in the way that generations before them have had, and, of course, the housing market consigns thousands of our fellow New Zealanders to live in motels for months at a time. Our agenda charts a realistic and achievable path out of this mess, and tackling our housing crisis once and for all.

Miles Anderson: How will this agenda to fix the housing crisis improve the New Zealand economy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the best things we can do to improve the New Zealand economy is to fix our housing crisis. For years, New Zealand has suffered from a productivity disease. In the 1950s, our GDP per capita was 125 percent of the OECD average, and it is now below the OECD average. Fixing this can be done through effective and efficient urban development, because cities are engines of productivity, and when we stop people building houses, we lock people out of cities, and that makes us all poorer. So we are going to allow our cities to grow up and out, and we’re going to let people build more houses.

Miles Anderson: What do his announcements yesterday mean for the local councils and the medium-density residential standards (MDRS)?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The first element of our package will require councils to zone enough land for 30 years of housing growth. We also heard the message from many New Zealanders and many communities that the MDRS standards were too blunt and one-size-fits-all, so as part of that, we are going to give communities and councils flexibility to opt out of the MDRS, striking the right balance between zoning for growth and the flexibility to decide where that growth happens. I also announced yesterday that in my role as Minister responsible for RMA Reform, I will be the decision maker on relevant district plan changes relating to housing, where the councils and the independent hearing panels do not agree, for example, in Wellington.

Question No. 7—Housing

7. to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “The evidence is as plain as day: cities that make it difficult to build more housing have housing affordability problems”; if so, what advice, if any, has he seen on the impact on affordability of allowing councils to opt out of medium-density residential standards?

To the first part of the question, yes; to the second part of the question, I’ve seen a range of advice on our Going for Housing Growth policy, which, as I’ve just mentioned, includes making the medium density-residential standards (MDRS) optional, while also requiring them to zone for 30 years of housing growth. Our position is that the current rules are too blunt, too one-size-fits-all. We’ve heard the concerns from communities up and down the country, and we believe that our new approach strikes the right balance between zoning for lots of growth and flexibility. I’m still in the process of receiving advice on the design of how we make the MDRS optional; it is legally complex, as there are various councils in different stages of their plan changes. I haven’t received specific advice on affordability to deal with her specific question, but I’ve been clear that councils won’t be able to opt out of the MDRS rules until we’re satisfied they are releasing sufficient alternative development capacity to improve affordability.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he seen—and if he has seen it, does he accept—the Sense Partners analysis of the medium-density residential standards that showed the infrastructure costs of a house in a new greenfields area on the fringe of the city is nearly double that of an additional home within the existing urban area?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve read the report. Yes, I accept that advice. That is why, as a part of our reforms, we are saying that greenfields growth will have to be paid for by that growth. So the infrastructure cost for that growth will have to be paid for as part of that growth.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So does he acknowledge, in light of that answer, that making medium-density residential standards optional, all else being equal, will lead to less potential housing in the existing urban area, precisely where it is most needed and where infrastructure costs are lower?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That would be true if all else was being equal. The point is: it’s not. We’re making the MDRS optional at the same time as requiring councils to zone it for enough development capacity. The member needs to look at the policy in the round, not a particular one element or component of it.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How does he reconcile his plan to “legalise housing” while removing the very mechanism that was cutting council red tape and making it easier to build more housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because we’re being much more ambitious than the MDRS. In fact, if I could point to one example put forward by New Zealand First as a part of the coalition agreement, which makes its way in, which is to make it essentially legal, without a building consent or a resource consent, for granny flats of up to 60 square metres on a property, which I think will have a massive impact. We’re also proposing strengthening the National Policy Statement on Urban Development so that mixed-use zoning is much more encouraged in our cities, and, of course, the much more ambitious target of smashing urban limits, which, as the member’s former colleague in the transport space the Hon Phil Twyford once said back in 2017 and early 2018—which the last Labour Government was going to do in relation to Auckland—there’d be no metropolitan urban limit under the Jacinda Ardern Labour - led Government. Six years on, we’re still waiting for it; the National-led coalition will deliver that.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept the evidence that people who live on the fringe of urban areas have much higher transport costs, and, accepting that, will he include transport and affordability costs as a percentage of income as a measure and a target for affordability?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it depends on the transport choices that people make. But I’m not sure what the member is so worked up about, because the front page of The Post this morning I was very intrigued to see. Here’s what it says: “Labour, Green councillors pleased that Chris Bishop will decide on housing plan”. So I’m not sure what the members of the Opposition are so worked up about, because it sounds like the Green councillors from Wellington are pretty happy that I’m in charge now.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. I really appreciated that—[Interruption]—and you know, I think it’s great that the Minister—

SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry—start that again.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Yeah, I appreciate the answer. However, I did ask a very specific, technical question, and I would love it if the Minister would address that part of the question, because the question was very specific about whether a measure of a housing affordability would include transport costs.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m happy to answer it.

SPEAKER: Yes, well, I’m pleased you’re happy to answer; it’s your job. Carry on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Indeed. I mean, I broadly accept that analysis, except it depends on the choices that people make. Yes, of course—[Interruption] You guys all right? I’m just waiting for you to—

SPEAKER: Hey, that is enough—that is enough. I know this is the problem with having a third week of a four-week session in urgency; enormous pent-up excitement. Let’s just hear—[Interruption] Sorry, we’re going to hear—Ms Genter, we’re going to hear the answer in silence.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m happy to answer; I was just waiting for a bit of quiet. I broadly accept that. Of course it is true that people who live an hour outside the CBD probably, depending on the choices they make, pay more for transport, but the point is, over on this side of the House we believe in choice. Some people will choose to live in the suburbs, some people will choose to live in a granny flat, some people will choose to live in an apartment. Actually, what we need is housing choice, and, more importantly, we need urban land settings that facilitate those choices.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to get this straight from the Minister, is he saying that under this new change, a 60 square metre flat or building can be erected with just an engineer’s report—or, in other words, a koro’s flat for Willie?

SPEAKER: No, don’t answer that question. We’ve got to stop this sort of clever technique of asking these questions that clearly indicate a very generous attitude towards the person you were talking about, but that’s a private arrangement you can make with him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Mr Speaker, point of order. What’s gone wrong with this place? All I’m trying to illustrate is that some people in this House might be seriously keen to hear that answer, some with greater acuity than others. I was being kind when I said that, and now you’re turning it into some sort of dig that I meant to be offensive.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but when I’ve ruled on something, you can’t have a point of order on a ruling. You know the rules of the House; you’ve been here so long you wrote half of them.

Question No. 8—Health

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

Yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was she being truthful when she said, “I haven’t looked at a freeze on excise at all.” in an interview with Guyon Espiner?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In the context of the interview that was conducted, the answer I gave to the question that was put within the 25-minute interview was accurate in the response and framework that question was put.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has she solved the mystery of who wrote the document that contained proposals to freeze tobacco excise tax in the three weeks since she told Mike Hosking that she was not sure who put it on her desk?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: It’s not a mystery. That same document also referred to a key bullet point, which was how to destroy the tobacco industry, which was one of the many discussion points that was collated from a range of campaign positioning and statements.

Andy Foster: Has she received reports on the number of people who have stopped smoking?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, I have received a range of reports, specifically at the current level of smokers being at 6.8 percent. Importantly, that data also noted that the smoke-free legislation that the previous Government based their positioning on was 2019-2020 data, and since that data on which they based their legislation, 305,000 people have quit smoking, and youth smoking fell from 10.3 percent to 3 percent, proving the existing legislation was highly effective.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why has she refused requests to release the document under the Official Information Act if it is merely, as she has said in this House, a range of historical policy positions and notes?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The documentation is part of the discussion documents relating to this legislation being developed, and therefore it is under that position that it’s being withheld.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: With respect to the mystery of who wrote the document that appeared on her desk, has she considered calling in a former detective to investigate?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No.

Andy Foster: Can she tell the House what practical tools and approaches have worked to date?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Vaping as a cessation tool has worked successfully, and I would like to recognise that the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill 2020, introduced by New Zealand First, which regulated vaping, has been a monumental factor in the smoking reduction rates we are seeing today.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she still actively considering freezes to tobacco excise tax, and, if so, has she been honest in all her statements to the Prime Minister?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have been very clear on the fact that I am not currently considering an increase in excise tax. The first thing I did as a Minister was raise the excise tax in a Cabinet paper that I submitted in November 2023 and came into effect on 1 January 2024.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order. The member answered with respect to an—that she said she is not considering an increase in excise tax. The question was about a freeze to excise tax, which is what the member proposed to officials in the document she sent.

SPEAKER: Well, I mean, she also said that the first action she took as a Minister was to increase tax, which doesn’t exactly imply a freeze.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. In an earlier answer from the Minister, she quoted from the document by saying there was a section headed “destroying the tobacco industry”. That’s a direct quote and I would request that the Minister table the document.

SPEAKER: Was that a direct quote? Is it a document that you have in the House with you at the moment?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No, it’s not a direct quote, and it’s not with me in the House.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies?

Yes, in the context in which they were made, particularly my statement on Sunday that for too long, gangs have been allowed to behave as if they are above the law. They are not, and this Government is determined to restore law and order.

Rawiri Waititi: What evidence and research does the Minister have that shows banning gang patches will reduce crime in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, look, the evidence that I’m most interested in is the 50 percent increase in gang membership in the last five years under the previous Government, which has led to a sense of disorder on our streets. That’s the evidence I’m most interested in.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was clear: what evidence and research does the Minister have that shows banning gang patches will reduce crime in our communities? He didn’t address it, nor did he answer it.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think you could probably have another crack at that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the evidence I see and that we’ve received is the intimidation that people have seen right across the country, and we’ve also seen the progress that similar gang patch bans have had in Western Australia and in other countries.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, he has evaded answering the question. The question is simple: what evidence and research does the Minister have that shows banning gang patches will reduce crime in our communities? He hasn’t addressed it, nor answered it.

SPEAKER: He actually did answer, because he also referred to evidence he had from Western Australia. Now, he doesn’t have to expand on what that is, but that’s what he said in his answer. He also—[Interruption] Well, you can all wobble your heads as much as you like. This is how I heard it and this is how I’m ruling it.

Tākuta Ferris: Look, given this Government seems fixated on gangs with high Māori membership, will his proposed legislation to ban gang members from gathering mean their whānau who have multiple members accused of being in a gang will not be able to meet or even talk to each other for up to three years?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There will be an exclusion for family members.

Tākuta Ferris: How can he justify targeting gang members when the tribunal has found that 80 to 90 percent of Mongrel Mob and Black Power members have come from State wards, and, therefore, both gangs are largely a creation of the State?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We absolutely agree that the background of offenders is relevant to sentencing. But also we are a party that believes in personal responsibility, and I should note that the Long-term Insights Briefing on imprisonment states that “Most people serving sentences in prison [in New Zealand] have been convicted of serious sexual or violent offending.”, and no society can function if people are not held personally responsible for their actions.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he deem it appropriate for a Minister of Justice to say he does not care about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I never made such a statement.

Tākuta Ferris: Are you sure? Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. Was that a question or was that—

Tākuta Ferris: Nah, nah, nah; I just said something out loud.

SPEAKER: Yeah. Well, don’t make those comments. Leave those to Rawiri!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that member in his question made an allegation of a statement made by the Minister. The Minister said that statement’s not true. That requires that member who made the allegation by way of the question to apologise for it. You can’t just fly by like that in this House, Mr Speaker. That’s a fact.

SPEAKER: It is a fact that your comment did question the answer of a Minister, which is not appropriate. So I suggest you withdraw and apologise for that and then ask your supplementary.

Tākuta Ferris: I withdraw and apologise. Does he agree that banning patches and whānau with alleged gang ties from attending tangihanga is a blatant dismissal of the Māori right to mana motuhake and a gross breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: People will be perfectly entitled to attend a tangi if they’re not wearing a gang patch and they are not subject to a dispersal order. That is ultimately in the police’s discretion. So I don’t agree with his assertion.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Seeking clarity: is the Minister of Justice implying that the police make the rules for marae?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not what he said.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sorry, we just heard that it is up to the police to decide if marae have patched members there. We’re just seeking clarity.

SPEAKER: Sorry, what you heard him say is—

Hon Member: Sit down.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: No, I’m not sitting down. You’re not the Speaker, and you never will be at your age.

SPEAKER: That would apply to everyone in the House, as it happens. What you heard him say is that police have always had that discretion; in relation to what is not a concern for me.

Tākuta Ferris: What risk analysis has he undertaken to ensure that Government polices such as unbanning pseudoephedrine, unbanning semi-automatic weapons, and increasing benefit sanctions will not lead to more crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Again, I would emphasise that there’s all sorts of excuses that can be offered for crime, but people need to be personally responsible for their actions. This Government is determined to restore consequences for crime and to restore law and order in this country.

Tākuta Ferris: Point of order. The question was: what risk analysis has been undertaken? Not merely a point of view.

SPEAKER: I don’t think that’s a reasonable point of order. In actual fact, it’s not a point of order; it is a concern that you’ve got about an answer. That’s quite a different matter. Do you have another supplementary?

Tākuta Ferris: Just speaking to the point of order, then. The question was around the implication—

SPEAKER: No, no. Look, the place functions on some pretty basic rules, and you’re working outside that rule at the present time.

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. I just want to ask a quick question in regards to assertions being put at the front of questions. There were a number of supplementaries just in that question, where there was an assertion being put at the start without a question actually being put first. I just ask your guidance on that issue for the House.

SPEAKER: I have already today said that assumptions are not appropriate and nor are assertions, and nor are they actually permissible under the Standing Orders. But there is also a degree of understanding of how the intent of the question is meant to be taken.

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Minister of Health: What steps has he taken to improve the health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori?

This afternoon, the Government passed the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. This transfers Māori Health Authority staff and functions to Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. This transfer will retain the expertise needed to drive better health outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders, and will be done with respect for fellow health professionals. I look forward to identifying other priorities for the health system.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why did the Government move to disestablish the Māori Health—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—hang on a minute. Ask it again.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why did the Government move to disestablish the Māori Health Authority?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Disestablishment was agreed to by all three governing parties in their coalition agreements and mandated by the results of the 2023 general election, where it was canvassed at length. The disestablishment is a reflection of an approach that struggled to put health needs for all at its forefront and an implementation plan that faced significant challenges from the beginning. This Government remains committed to improving Māori health outcomes.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What challenges have arisen from the health reforms which the Māori Health Authority was part of?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It is not clear to me that the Māori Health Authority was well supported by the previous Government, who, in my view, were distracted by wider structural reforms to other parts of the health system. This distraction is evident from the report today by the independent ministerial advisory committee, which uncovered a significant number of problems which can be associated with a lack of ministerial oversight and political failure. Health reforms should not have been undertaken in the middle of a pandemic.

Hon Peeni Henare: Do the steps taken by the Minister to improve health outcomes include opting out of the international health regulation amendment days after taking office, repealing world-leading smoke-free legislation, and repealing the Māori Health Authority?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The steps towards better health outcomes include some of the outcomes that are present in Pae Tū, some of the outcomes that are present in Whakamaua, and some of the health outcomes that we’ll identify in our Government policy statement.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What is the Government’s vision for Māori health?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government is ambitious for the future of Māori health, and this bill signalled the beginning of a different journey—a journey in which we strive to achieve better health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. This Government will ensure the health system is performing, after six long years of deteriorating health metrics.

Question No. 11—Justice (Firearms)

11. to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): Does she stand by all her statements in respect of firearms reform?

Yes, in the context in which they were given, including my statements confirming the Government’s intention to rewrite the Arms Act to improve public safety, reduce regulatory burden, and improve compliance.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she stand by her statements reported in Radio New Zealand that sports shooters may be permitted to own semi-automatic weapons, or does she agree with the Police, who have said such a change would introduce an unacceptable risk of high-capacity semi-automatic centre-fire firearms again becoming readily available in the black market through theft or provided by non-compliant licence holders?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I did not make the statement as has been referred to by that member. But what I will confirm is that in rewriting the Arms Act and having enduring legislation, this Government will not take six days in which to pass legislation. We will go through a full process that will ensure that the communities of New Zealand are heard and participate in the legislative review. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on, your colleagues aren’t ready yet.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she agree with Nicole McKee when she said of gun reforms at the Justice Committee on 24 June 2021 “And finally, just on the firearms changes in itself, I think it’s really important to remember not only the loss of lives in Christchurch and Aramoana but the quarter of a million people who’ve been affected by rushed legislation changes.”?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Absolutely. I agree with what Nicole McKee said back then—that we need to make sure that everybody is considered when it comes to legislation, including not only those of the mosque shooting but those that have been affected by gun crime that has been allowed to take place under the previous Government’s regime.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Ah—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Kieran.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know. I was trying to work out whether it was “Honourable” or not. The Hon Kieran McAnulty. Sorry.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: In light of the Minister’s desire not to rush legislation, I seek leave of the House to move out of urgency.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she accept that even stringent licensing, like that for handgun licences, will not stop all misuse of weapons such as that of Ian Dallison, who used his licensed pistol to attempt to murder his landlord on 4 August 2022?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I agree that it’s time that we had legislation that actually looks after the security and the safety of New Zealanders, and that’s precisely what this Government will deliver in this term.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does she believe that Christopher Luxon was telling the truth in September last year, when challenged that under his Government people would have more access to semi-automatic firearms, when he said “It’s not going to happen.”?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I’m not going to speak for the Prime Minister, but what I will say is that legitimate use, legitimate ownership—and our coalition agreement agrees to rewrite the Arms Act to make sure that we have a good, safe system for New Zealanders, those legitimate owners and those that have been deemed to be fit and proper by the New Zealand Police.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How would permitting semi-automatic weapons address situations like that of Quinn Patterson, who in July 2017 murdered his property manager and her daughter with a semi-automatic rifle illegally supplied by a licensed firearms holder Michael Hayes?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: What an excellent question, because I’m so glad to be able to speak to the regime that the Arms Act, that is going to be rewritten by the end of this term, is going to present for New Zealanders, which includes ensuring stricter compliance, security, and fit and proper assertations from those that are in possession and use. And I look forward to correcting the mistakes that the previous Government made.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, you’ve used them all up.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: What reports has she seen about her recent announcement on the ministerial inquiry into school property?

There have been many reports on the ministerial inquiry into school property. Schools and principals around the country have been sharing their frustrations with delays and lack of certainty over the last few years. The Secondary Principals Association welcomed the review and the president said that longstanding issues with school property had become “horribly acute”. The Auckland Primary Principals’ Association President said primary schools are facing the same issues with school property and that the costs for bespoke school builds had got out of hand. School property is a priority for this Government. We have a responsibility to invest in property solutions that demonstrate value for money.

Sam Uffindell: What has she heard from schools since she announced the inquiry?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Principals have been in touch with my office sharing stories of their frustrations. One principal wrote to share that after prefab buildings were demolished at their school in early 2023, building that was due to commence in July did not start. Instead, there have been delays, reviews, a business case, a review by an investment board, a detailed design, a consent process, and then a soft hold. Another principal wrote to me today to say “I believe that this is very timely indeed, as many principals and boards have had grave concerns for a number of years.”

Sam Uffindell: What other feedback has she received about the announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: An industry leader in the construction sector wrote to me saying, “A massive thank you for getting on to this total mess. I watch in despair at what our schools are being put through.” Another letter from a senior project architect expressed a concern that Ministry of Education requirements are contributing significant and unnecessary costs to projects. I also heard that “Aspects of the briefs are gold-bricked” and that “A silver standard will more than adequately meet education requirements while at the same time delivering better value for the taxpayer.”

Sam Uffindell: Why is this inquiry needed?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Schools and communities deserve better. As I said in the House yesterday, these challenges are due not only to building cost increases but also, in the ministry’s own words, to scope creep and over-reliance on bespoke designs and over-engineering add-ons, like extensive landscaping and infrastructure. It is imperative that we deliver the core infrastructure needs of schools, and the ministerial inquiry will consider how we best achieve a portfolio that is efficient and effective and delivers learning spaces that are functional, warm, dry, and fit for purpose.

Tākuta Ferris: How much longer will kura kaupapa, wharekura, and kura ā iwi—all Māori immersion schools who have already been waiting for decades for their classroom rebuilds—have to wait for their school rebuild projects to be delivered in order to provide for our tamariki the best possible learning environments; and how long will this Government’s inquiry take, and what is the time line for our kura receiving the school rebuilds that have already been promised to them?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The ministerial inquiry is set down for three months.