Oral Questions

We come now to oral questions, the first in the name of—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not too certain whether we’ve got an organisational or structural problem or some teething problems in your office, but having checked the questions of the House today, I thought there’s something drastically wrong, because there are no questions to the Prime Minister.

Well, that’s a very interesting point of order. I’m not sure how we remedy it here. We’ll have the first question of the day, in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

Question No. 1—Child Poverty Reduction

1. to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: How many more children are forecast to be in poverty as a result of her Government’s decision to change the indexing of benefits from wage growth to inflation?

on behalf of the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: The analysis, which is publicly available and has been tabled in this House, states that preliminary modelling shows indexing main benefits to inflation in isolation as a policy may increase the number of children captured by the after-housing-costs fixed line and before-housing-costs moving line measures of child poverty by 7,000, plus or minus, by the year 2028, in the absence of other Government policies and intervention. The Government is, however, making policy changes before 2028, such as tackling the cost of living, delivering tax relief through Back Pocket Boost, and stopping petrol tax hikes, which will significantly help New Zealand families with children in modest- to low-income households. It is also our intention to break vicious cycles of welfare dependency, which substantially increased under the previous Government, that trap children in poverty.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received on how many of the forecast 7,000 extra children in poverty are likely to have a disability or live in a household with a person who has a disability?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m not aware of having received that advice.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Given that the supplementary analysis report of the indexation bill clearly states the risk of disabled people and people with health conditions being disadvantaged by the change in indexation, does she expect more children and households with disabled parents to have increased poverty?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, as I said in answer to the primary question, the modelling that the member refers to is in the absence of any other Government policies and interventions. Our Government fully intends to take other policies and interventions, such that we can have confidence that we will be doing more to help children in poverty than that Minister ever managed to achieve.

SPEAKER: Just to remind members that when asking supplementary questions, they need to begin with a question word.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will the number of children forecast to be in poverty because of her Government’s change to indexation increase or decrease as a result of wage-growth figures outstripping inflation in time for this year’s 1 April general adjustments to benefits?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think what the member is referring to is the fact that, unfortunately, under the last Government, we had a situation where inflation was outstripping wage growth. What that meant was it not only eroded the purchasing power of New Zealand workers and their families; it also meant that the previous administration’s wrong-headed changes to the indexing of benefits would have, effectively, meant, actually, that benefits would have reduced by less than they will actually under this Government this year.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the supplementary analysis report that $670 million in savings the Government will make from changes to benefit indexation will be available to be used for tax cuts, and is this fair on the poorest New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, that money will actually go into the consolidated account, where it will help pay for schools, where it will help pay for nurses, where it will help ensure we have police on our streets, where it will help ensure we lock up the offenders that they wanted running free. We will ensure that that money—we treat it with much better care than that Government ever did.

SPEAKER: Just wait—wait for silence. There was talking during your last question from your own side, which is not very respectful.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I think it was in support, but thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with the Children’s Commissioner that indexing benefits to wage growth was the single biggest step to stop children remaining in poverty; and, if so, why is she reversing these changes?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, I disagree because, actually, the single biggest thing we can do is reduce the number of children growing up in benefit-dependent households. And then the second biggest thing we can do is provide those children a decent education by ensuring they’re turning up to school and we’re teaching them how to read, write, and do maths. These are tasks that the previous Government ignored. They were prepared to see children trapped in cycles of poverty, and this Government is not.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she accept the statement in the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation 2024 report that says that “in 2023 for households relying on welfare benefits, income levels continue to fall significantly short of what is needed for some level of participation in society”?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The answer is no; however, I do agree with the statement in the Salvation Army report that says, “We have a new government that cannot take credit for the positive developments outlined in this report or be blamed for the disturbing developments that have taken place over the last one to three years.”

Hon Marama Davidson: How can the Government justify generating savings by reducing benefit increases for people already living below the poverty line to pay for tax cuts for the rich?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member may be concerned that she was aligned with a Government that was responsible for delivering some of these outcomes that are also reported in the Salvation Army report: the proportion of children reporting some level of food insecurity rose sharply in 2023, including 40 percent of Pacific households with children, and the number of children in benefit-dependent households increased during 2023, meaning more children are at risk of poverty.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Before addressing that question, that answer clearly came with a political attack in relation to the member’s alignment with the previous Government, and you had just ruled about the need to start the answers by addressing the questions rather than with political attacks.

SPEAKER: Well, I heard from my left that it wasn’t a political question. I think, essentially, it was. All questions, by their nature, are political, but the question is: what is the intention of it? I didn’t think that the response from the Hon Nicola Willis was particularly pernicious. It was a question about reflection.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she stand by her statement that “It’s challenging to live on a benefit at any rate”, and, if so, why did she decide to deliberately make it more challenging by lowering increases to benefits?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I stand by my statements.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I’m seeking some clarification from your ruling just now in that all questions, by nature, are political. Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that it makes the distinction between a general question and one that is political in nature, and if a member asks a question that’s political in nature, they can expect a political answer. The converse of that is if they ask a straight question, they should expect a straight answer. I’m concerned that your response goes counter to that, so could you please clarify.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think it does. I think it just in many ways clarifies the degree of thinking insomuch as we’re all elected because of the political system, then anything we do in here has a political nature. But, look, I’ll take it under advisement, as I have done on other occasions, and reflect further on your submission.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with the statement from the Minister of Finance that “What I’m conscious of and what I want New Zealanders to appreciate is that when our economy is deteriorating, in the way that it has been, that comes with pretty profound human impacts in terms of unemployment.”, and, if so, why is she choosing to punish people experiencing unemployment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think the Minister of Finance put that very well, and that is actually why this Government is so determined that for those who can work, we want to support them into work, because that is what lifts their incomes in the long term. We think it is shameful that under a time of declining employment, 69,000 more people went on to the jobseeker benefit under Labour, with 50,000 more children living in benefit-dependent households. That is no way out of poverty.

Kahurangi Carter: Supplementary.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: She beat you by some seconds—I know that’s unusual. It’s not something I could do.

Kahurangi Carter: Thank you. Is she concerned by advice from officials that indexing benefits to inflation rather than wage growth will result in bigger reductions to increases of the supported living payment than to the jobseeker benefit?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, what I am pleased to see is that we have a Government that is taking action to support incomes and address the cost of living across the board. That includes policies such as the Family Boost policy to provide childcare rebates to families with children in childcare, and policies to remove the Auckland regional fuel tax, to stop petrol tax increases, and to ensure the economy is better managed so that there are more opportunities for New Zealanders in all circumstances.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order. I know that we are straying into territory that we’ve visited in the not too distant past, but the question was quite specific around advice that the Minister had received from officials in relation to a specific Government policy. Now, the Minister referred to a number of other policies, but not to the one that was asked. I know that we’ve had a conversation, saying, you know, that the question was addressed. But, in the past, such as under Speaker Carter, if a question was narrow, then it was fair to expect a response that was relating specifically to the question that was asked. If a question was broader and more political, you could expect a broader and more political response. But if we find ourselves in a situation where members are trying to ask specific questions that are quite narrow in nature in order to elicit a response, and all we get is a general answer that talks about the topic that the question happens to be related to, it somewhat obviates the need for question time at all.

SPEAKER: That’s very reasonably put. Would the Minister like to expand on the answer given previously.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, I am simply not aware of the detail of the advice to which the member refers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether she is concerned, with respect to the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report and its concerns about poverty, outlined in that report, at how it was the fact that 128,000 immigrants came to New Zealand in the year ended October last year, exacerbating all the conditions that this Government now has to deal with?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point. I recently sat down with the Minister of Immigration and looked at what has happened with immigration in recent years, and what we saw was that despite the rhetoric about highly skilled migrants being targeted, what instead we saw under the last Government’s immigration settings was a significant spike in lowly skilled workers at the expense of highly skilled workers.

Kahurangi Carter: How does this change support her focus on “getting people who can work into work”, when officials have advised that “Beneficiaries that are not able to work will also be impacted by this change but will have no ability to enter work to change their situation.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member is correct that different groups of beneficiaries are affected in different ways, and some beneficiaries have more options to seek employment than others. It is important that we take steps across all of our policy settings to support New Zealanders, including, for example, ensuring that when they need to access the health system they can do so, ensuring that their children attend schools where they get taught the basics of reading, writing, and maths, and ensuring they live in safer communities and aren’t victimised by violent crime at the rates they were under the last Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the finance Minister received any reports requested by the last Government, and members of that Government, into the effects of 128,000 people coming here in one year flat and what it would mean for housing, health, access to infrastructure, and, dare I say it, law and order in this country? Has she received any reports of their requests back then, rather than the faux concern they’re showing now?

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Several points, but the biggest is that the question is not to the Minister of Finance.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Grant Robertson: It’s not to the Minister of Finance. The question is out of order. Those were the very first words that the questioner said: “To the Minister of Finance”.

SPEAKER: Well, because I’m very fair, would the Rt Hon Winston Peters like to address the first part of his question to the appropriate Minister?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received any reports of requests by the previous Government of their officials as to the unheralded impact of 128,000, a record number, coming to New Zealand in just one year, and its impact on housing availability, educational facility availability, infrastructure, and health? Were there any reports requested back then by these people now today showing faux concern in the House?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. The issues the Hon Winston Peters raised are not related to any responsibilities that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has.

SPEAKER: When he opens the questions with “Has she seen any reports of”, it’s in order. Any further questions on this? OK, then we move now to question No. 3, in the name of Nancy Lu.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

This morning, Treasury released the Government’s financial statement for the six months ending 31 December 2023. These show that most of the key fiscal indicators are slightly stronger than expected in the Treasury’s half-year forecasts before Christmas. However, saying they are slightly stronger than expected is damning with faint praise. It does not disguise the fact, for example, that the accounts show an increase in core Crown expenses of around 10 percent since the same statement a year ago.

Nancy Lu: Do these results change the outlook for the next six months?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Unfortunately, I don’t think they will make the outlook any rosier. Data revisions in recent outturns since the half-year update indicate that the economy is likely to be in a weaker position than understood before Christmas. For example, GDP growth was weaker than expected in the September quarter of last year, contracting 0.3 percent, and growth in the preceding two quarters was revised down. Looking ahead, while business confidence has picked up, a prolonged period of pressure on household budgets means growth is expected to remain weak, and high migration means GDP per capita is expected to continue to decline. Inflation, however, is expected to continue falling, reducing cost of living pressures for New Zealand households.

Nancy Lu: What will this outlook mean for the Government’s fiscal position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We won’t know for sure until the Budget update on 30 May. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecasts before Christmas were for three more years of operating deficits followed by a wafer-thin surplus of $100 million in the 2026-27 financial year. However, a combination of slower-than-forecast growth and lower-than-forecast inflation may result in weaker tax revenue, placing further pressure on the pace of fiscal recovery. Put it this way: I think it is highly unlikely that the full set of forecasts in May will deliver any upside surprises.

Nancy Lu: When will the Government set out its fiscal objectives?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is required to set out its long-term objectives for fiscal policy in the annual Budget Policy Statement (BPS). The Budget Policy Statement will also set out the Government’s priorities for this year’s Budget. The BPS will be released on 27 March.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: My question—I’ll just give the member a breather for a moment—to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by the commitment in the coalition agreement with ACT to “restore mortgage interest deductibility for rental properties with a 60 percent deduction in 2023/24, 80 percent in 2024/25, and 100 percent in 2025/26”; if so, what is the estimated cost to the Crown of this commitment?

To the first part of the question, I can confirm to the member that that is indeed the wording in the coalition agreement, and that the Government intends to keep its coalition commitments. To the second part, Cabinet has yet to consider the details of this policy and its implementation, so the member will have to wait until it is announced.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can she confirm that she has had advice that the cost of adding retrospectivity to the change to interest deductibility is close to $1 billion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can confirm that I have had advice on this issue, and I can confirm that discussions have not yet been had by Cabinet, and I will not be getting ahead of those discussions.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm to the House that adding retrospectivity to the interest deductibility changes will increase the costs to the Crown?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can see that the member is getting excited because taxpayers might be getting something back from the Government! He should really wait and see when the policy is announced.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is she concerned about the precedent that would be set by giving retrospective tax cuts that have been described by tax experts as “highly unorthodox” and “really very unusual”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, let me tell you about the precedent I’m excited about. I’m excited about the precedent of tax reduction, for the first time in 14 years. The member opposite had six opportunities to do it, and he couldn’t bring himself to let New Zealanders keep more of their own money—and this Government will.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, then, Mr Speaker. So I understand that the word “precedent” was in the question, but it was the precedent of retrospective tax cuts. The member didn’t even go close to addressing that.

SPEAKER: Well, OK. Let’s do it again.

Hon Grant Robertson: The whole thing?

SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think what the member is inquiring about is the precedent that would be set by a form of tax reduction. I would refer that—

Hon Members: Answer the question!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Can I just advise members opposite: if they want an answer, I’m very prepared to speak if they’re prepared to listen. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I answered in answer to the primary question, the details of the application of this policy are yet to be considered by Cabinet. When it comes to precedent on tax policy matters, we are a Government that will be very happy to be setting a precedent of letting New Zealanders keep more of their own money.

Hon Grant Robertson: Why is it a priority to give tax cuts to landlords, at a time when there is legislation going through the House today that will cut the incomes of the poorest New Zealanders and push thousands of children into poverty?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I find it interesting that the member opposite wishes to demonise landlords. If there were no landlords in New Zealand, there would be no tenants. No one would be able to rent a home. Under that Government, I would note, rents went up considerably. Well, we want to be a Government that delivers more housing, that actually achieves more affordable housing, unlike that Government, which colossally failed. Remember the 100,000 KiwiBuild houses?

Question No. 5—Local Government

5. to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by his statement, “The Government will restore council ownership and control of water assets”; if so, what actions has he taken to fulfil this commitment?

Yes. Yesterday, the coalition Government delivered on its promise to repeal the divisive three waters programme that would’ve taken local decisions away from communities. The vast majority of councils were opposed to Labour’s three waters. This Government is delivering on our commitment to restore local council ownership and control of water assets.

David MacLeod: Why was it necessary for the Government to repeal the Water Services Entities Act 2022?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, communities throughout the country made it clear that the previous Government’s plans to mandate 10 mega-bureaucracies, taking local control of water assets and prescribing co-governance, was hugely unpopular. We’re asking councils to lead the way in developing local solutions to our water services challenges. This includes requiring them to provide water service delivery plans that outline how they will deliver on outcomes for water quality, infrastructure investment, and financial sustainability.

David MacLeod: Why is it important for councils and communities to have local ownership and control of water assets?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Because councils know what is needed for their communities when it comes to water infrastructure in their communities, unlike the previous Government, which wanted to mandate—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough—that’s enough.

David MacLeod: What are the next steps in making sure that local water is done well?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Government will be implementing Local Water Done Well through two further bills. The next bill will be passed by the middle of 2024, setting out provisions relating to council service delivery plans and transitional economic regulations. A next bill to provide for the long-term replacement scheme will be introduced in December 2024.

Question No. 6—Transport

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

Yes. Particularly when I said that this Government will not tax Aucklanders an additional 11.5c per litre on fuel to fund more cycle lanes, red light cameras, speed bumps, and lowering speed limits across the city.

Tangi Utikere: Has he already determined that the Eastern Busway and the Glenvar Road - East Coast Road adjustment projects “will be prioritised for the remaining funds” of the regional fuel tax, and will he simply continue to just tell Auckland Council which projects it will now fund?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the mayor and myself have sat down with each other and discussed what the priority projects should be from the remaining funds. The Eastern Busway, City Rail Link trains and stabling, and local roading improvements—that’s what we’re going to make sure those remaining funds are spent on.

Tangi Utikere: What other local projects are on his list to tell Auckland Council what they will be funding as a priority, and has he told Auckland Council of this yet?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We sat down and had a conversation around what the priority projects are. Eastern Busway, City Rail Link trains and stabling, and local roading improvements—that’s what we’re going to require those remaining funds to be spent on. What we’re not going to be charging Aucklanders 11.5c per litre more on is to build speed bumps. If that’s what that member wants to do, you go tell Aucklanders to go and ask them for more money to build speed bumps.

Tangi Utikere: Does he agree with the Prime Minister: “Our fundamental belief is localism and devolution. We do not believe in centralisation and control through Wellington.”; and if so, why is he dictating to Auckland Council what they will and won’t build?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I always agree with the Prime Minister, and we will be making sure that the remaining funds go on the priority projects which Auckland Council and the mayor have identified around what are the priority projects for the remaining funds, which is the Eastern Busway, City Rail Link, and local roading projects. But if the Labour Party wants to go to Auckland and tell Aucklanders they need to pay more money for speed bumps, I wish you luck.

SPEAKER: The last part of that question was just unnecessarily provocative on what is otherwise quite a productive House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Sir, you might talk about an unproductive House, but the reality is, if over there they don’t like the answer, then not just one or two people were heckling, which was understood to be the precedence in this House, but about seven, eight, or 10 are shouting at the same time. That represents disorder extremely, and they should be told to behave themselves.

SPEAKER: Thanks very much.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, don’t need any help on that one—I don’t need any further guidance on that one. Tangi Utikere.

Tangi Utikere: Another supplementary?

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Tangi Utikere: Extra supplementary?

SPEAKER: Oh, no. Well, I didn’t know, but thanks for self-reporting! Question No. 6—

Tangi Utikere: No, no, I have one, I have one. Well, then, does he agree with Wayne Brown: “A negotiation isn’t telling me what happens. I’m not a supine thing you walk over”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government has made it clear we will be ensuring the funds that are remaining will go to the priority projects which the mayor and I have discussed, which is the Eastern Busway, the City Rail Link trains and stabling, and local road improvements. As I said, if the Labour Party wants to ask Aucklanders for more money to build speed bumps, get on your bike and enjoy yourselves.

SPEAKER: And that’s why the House gets a bit rowdy at times.

Question No. 7—Children

7. to the Minister for Children: What are her priorities for the Children’s portfolio?

My goal is to ensure that Oranga Tamariki is truly a child-centric care and protection agency, where the safety and wellbeing and the best interests of children are at the forefront of social work practice and decision making. One way I intend to do this is by repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. This section places duties on the chief executive that are at odds with the agency’s primary purpose, which is to support the wellbeing of our most vulnerable at-risk children. Where Oranga Tamariki has entered into strategic partnerships under section 7AA, I have directed them to continue with these where they are delivering positive results.

Laura Trask: What other priorities does the Minister have?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I want to see real change in how caregivers are treated and supported. In Opposition, I heard many stories about how caregivers couldn’t make everyday decisions about the children in their care, like sending them to a school camp or even enrolling them in school or with a GP. In one case, a caregiver had paid for counselling that was desperately needed for a child—they paid for it themselves so they didn’t have to wait months and months—only to be told that this would have to stop as it had not been approved by Oranga Tamariki. I am also focused on cracking down on serious youth offending and on deterring young people from a life of crime and equipping them with the tools they need to turn their lives around.

Laura Trask: What feedback has the Minister received from the sector about these priorities?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have been travelling all around the country visiting Oranga Tamariki site offices and residences and meeting with strategic partners, including Auckland, Lower Hutt, Hawke’s Bay, Christchurch, Whangārei, Kaitāia, and Palmerston North. The feedback I have received about my vision and priorities for Oranga Tamariki has been overwhelmingly positive. When people have heard about this Government’s plans beyond what they may get from the media or from some members on the other side of the House, people appreciate and understand that Oranga Tamariki needs to get back to its core purpose of keeping young people safe and making sure they are cared and loved for. Iwi and Māori strategic partners have also responded positively when I have met with them and talked about continuing to work in partnership with Oranga Tamariki. This matches with my vision to devolve decision making and accountability back to the communities who are best placed to know what their young people need to live a safe, fulfilling life.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Given the views of the Minister that young people—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s the phone for?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —need to be “cared and loved for”—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can’t write your own questions?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —and the six recommendations—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can’t think of your own questions?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —of the Auditor-General in respect of Oranga Tamariki in respect of mental health—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Good God! Look at this.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what, we’re going to stop, sorry—quite apart from the chipping—and start with a question word.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough—that’s enough.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How do the Minister’s priorities meet the needs of young people for a caring and loving environment, given the six recommendations of the Auditor-General in respect of Oranga Tamariki and the lack of evidence that boot camps have any assistance in that regard, whatsoever?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I will never apologise for adding more tools and skills to our young people so that they can cope when they come out of these facilities and have a better chance at life.

Laura Trask: What feedback has the Minister received from children about her priorities?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Just last week, I visited a youth justice residence. I had received feedback about a young person there who had heard about our plans to establish military academies. He was very excited about this and said he would be very excited to take part in something like this. This is just one example of the positive feedback I’ve received, not just from social workers and iwi and Māori partners but also from children and young people. They are the ultimate reason I am here, in this privileged position: to be able to make their lives better so they can not just survive but thrive.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: What reports has she seen about the introduction of the policy to remove the distraction of cellphones from school?

There have now been multiple media reports of the positive changes seen in schools since this policy was introduced. A Wellington student was quoted as saying that by having her phone off and in her bag, she was already paying more attention to school notices and concentrating better in lessons without her phone distracting her. This is exactly why this Government has removed the distraction of phones from schools.

Carl Bates: What feedback has the Minister seen from principals about the policy to remove the distraction of cellphones from schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: An Otago principal said that their teachers support the ban, as the removal of phones helps students engage better with their learning. And a principal from Central Hawke’s Bay also reported that students have responded well to the change in policy and are engaging and interacting more face to face.

Carl Bates: What feedback has the Speaker seen from the—[Interruption] Sorry, what feedback has the Minister seen—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Just a minute. A question is being asked, so you get a little bit of silence. You can start again.

Carl Bates: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What feedback has the Minister seen from the public about the cellphone policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have received multiple correspondence from the public supporting the policy, saying that it’s about time and it’s a no-brainer, and, in an interview with The Northern Advocate, a Kaitāia mother said, “They’re there to learn. As a parent, I think it’s really good. They’ve actually got to interact more.”

Carl Bates: What other feedback has the Minister received about the cellphone policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: A Wellington year 9 dean said she has seen no cellphones in class at all or walking around during school on duty. She noticed students engaging in game playing, like cards, and said that the librarians have been thrilled with the number of books students are taking out and have noticed students are reading in the library much more than last year. We are pleased with the implementation of the Government’s policy, and it’s been warmly welcomed by principals and teachers and is having a positive impact on students.

Hon Member: Leap, leap.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It pays to be athletic! Can I ask the Minister as to whether she’s been told that this ban on phones in schools by school children has been so successful that the Queensland State Labour Party Government in Australia has now adopted it as well?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I am hearing reports about Australian states picking up this policy, like many other countries are around the world, and I look forward to speaking more positively about it in the future as more data and evidence comes to light as to the success of the policy.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, thank you, Mr Speaker. What is the benefit of banning cellphones from classrooms at Wainuiomata High School, now that their rebuild has been cancelled by the Government and there won’t be enough classrooms for the growing number of students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Speaking to the question and, also, as it relates to the primary, the cellphone ban for Wainuiomata will have similar impacts to every other school that I’m hearing from, in that students are interacting more with each other, focusing on their learning, not getting distracted, and, very soon, we are going to have evidence and data to show that this policy is working.

Question No. 9—RMA Reform

9. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he have confidence that the proposed approach to fast-track consenting will protect due process for the consideration of environmental effects?

Yes.

Hon James Shaw: Will he rule out including any projects that have already been considered and declined on environmental grounds, such as the Hananui open ocean salmon farm?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.

Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that when the panel declined the Hananui salmon farm, they found that there was a risk that even a small change in their population could have “irreversible and catastrophic effects” on the survival of critically endangered hoiho / yellow-eyed penguin in the area?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I haven’t read the decision of the panel in relation to that particular project, but what I would say in a more general sense is that it is possible to have environmental conditions proposed on projects that mitigate and remedy the environmental effects of a variety of projects, including, for example, renewable energy projects that will help decarbonise the economy and grow the economy at the same time, and I would have thought the member would be in favour of such projects.

Hon James Shaw: If a project that has been previously declined on environmental grounds by an independent panel is authorised by this legislation and then leads to the functional extinction of a species like the hoiho / yellow-eyed penguin, will that Minister take responsibility?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member is asking hypothetical questions. I just haven’t ruled out the premise of his original question. Decisions around the precise pathway for projects that will be referred are the subject of discussions right now, as we work through the process of getting the bill ready for introduction within the hundred days. And once the bill is ready to go and it’s gone through Cabinet and presented to the House, he’ll have a good chance to have a look at it, as will a select committee.

Hon James Shaw: Can he confirm the Hon Shane Jones’ comments to an energy breakfast this morning that under the new regime, “Permits will be granted by politicians,”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, in the sense that Ministers will be able to refer projects. There will be two pathways. One will be there will be a range of projects listed in the legislation, and then the second pathway will be, upon application to the Government, Ministers will be able to refer projects to an expert consenting panel. This is not new, by the way, because the COVID fast-track legislation also listed projects in the legislation and also set up a process for Ministers to refer projects to an expert consenting panel. So this is not particularly new; this is the existing law. So, in that sense, Ministers will be able to refer projects to panels who will then set the conditions upon which those projects will take place.

Hon James Shaw: Will he now seek assurances that all Ministers are fully meeting their conflict of interest disclosure obligations under the Cabinet Manual, as he described yesterday in relation to decision making on potential projects; and, if so, will he also commit to ensuring that no listed projects are connected to people or companies that have made substantial donations to coalition parties?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, matters for the Cabinet Manual, as the member well knows, are matters for the Prime Minister, but I think I would be right in saying that the Prime Minister expects all Ministers to uphold the principles and the text of the Cabinet Manual.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Speaker. That question might have sounded innocent, but, like the others that that member has asked, insinuating that there should be, and the Minister should be looking out for, a conflict of interest that is outside our electorate laws is, I think, out of order. More importantly, if I hear that one more time, we’re going to talk about people’s qualifications at university.

Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]—speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—whilst methinks that the Acting Prime Minister does protest too much—

SPEAKER: Well, that’s irrelevant. What is your point?

Hon James Shaw: My point is I made no such insinuation. I was merely asking the Minister if he was going to ensure, as part of the process of putting together the bill, that there were steps being taken on due diligence to potential or perceived connections—

SPEAKER: Yep—we heard the question.

Hon James Shaw: —sorry, I haven’t—because of the significant concentration of ministerial power on consenting decisions in this regime. And it is one of the first duties of this House to ensure that the executive is being accountable for their actions, and, in this case, there is extraordinary concentration of ministerial power in this bill. So I think it does warrant the House’s attention on issues like whether the Cabinet Manual is being observed?

SPEAKER: And you’ve got an answer that I think was more than satisfactory from the Minister.

Hon James Shaw: That’s true, but the Deputy Prime Minister raises—

SPEAKER: No, that’s irrelevant. There’s no acceptance, one way or the other.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko tēnei taku tūnga tuatahi i roto i tēnei Whare o tātou, nā reira me mihi atu ki a koe ka tika. Kei te mihi hoki au ki ngā whānau whānui e noho tonu ana i raro i ngā uauatanga o Cyclone Gabrielle kotahi tau ki muri. Ko taku pātai ki te Minita take Māori.

[Thank you to the Speaker. This is my first time standing in this House of ours, so it is appropriate to acknowledge you. I would also like to acknowledge the wider families that continue to live under the difficulties of Cyclone Gabrielle one year ago. My question is to the Minister of Māori affairs.]

Does he stand by his statement, “What we’re really focused on is delivering outcomes and working with communities”—

SPEAKER: I’d just ask the member—you cannot stand up and say anything during question time when you’re asking a question other than what is written on the sheet. So I’d ask the member to start again.

10. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement, “What we’re really focused on is delivering outcomes and working with communities—Iwi communities, Māori communities and others—to make the changes to the inequalities we see on a daily basis”?

Āna, I do stand by my statement, and our Government deeply cares about inequalities of opportunity that many communities in New Zealand are facing, particularly Māori communities, around housing, health, and education. That’s why our view is that the devolution of resources is generally better, to achieve equalities of opportunity such as the recent funding announcement by the superlative Minita Matua tākuta Shane Reti to help with child immunisation rates.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: What is the Minister doing to support whānau and owners of whenua Māori in Tairāwhiti and Kahungunu one year after Cyclone Gabrielle?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Over the last couple of months, Ministers including myself have visited Te Tairāwhiti and throughout Te Matau-a-Māui to understand some of the challenges that those whānau are facing. There’s also some provision of funding, both in mainstream and kaupapa Māori pathway funding, to assist with those communities, and we continue to look at how we can use that.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Was he advised prior to the recent $63 million boost funding for Hawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti announced by Minister Mitchell, and if so, did he relay any concern regarding the lack of any support for Māori and whenua Māori?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ministers including myself are in regular communications with one another about the efforts made to try and help those people who have gone through difficult weather events over the last year or so. As a result, I continue to work with and engage with those Ministers responsible for the kaupapa Māori pathway to support Māori land that has been—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no, you answer the one question that’s asked appropriately.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I continue to work with Ministers in that regard.

Question No. 11—Building and Construction

11. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he seen on the cost of building in New Zealand?

I thank the member for the question. The latest inflation data from Stats New Zealand shows that the price of building a new house has increased by 41 percent as compared with 2019 prices. This massive increase in the cost of building over the last four years has made housing even more unaffordable for Kiwi families.

Tom Rutherford: Are building costs higher or lower in New Zealand than other countries?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Analysis shows that building costs are generally higher in New Zealand than in comparable overseas jurisdictions. In Australia, for example, the cost of building a stand-alone house is some 50—five-zero—percent higher in New Zealand. Clearly, this is not good enough, and we’re working to resolve that problem.

Tom Rutherford: What impact do high construction costs have on New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Another great question—I couldn’t have written it better myself. Not only do high building costs make it harder for families trying to purchase their first home but they also have far-reaching economic and social consequences, such as higher mortgage repayment costs, higher rents, and increased demand for social housing.

Tom Rutherford: Does the Government have any plans to change this?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Government have any plans?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Yes, we certainly do—we certainly do. I’m pleased to inform all members that we most certainly do have plans in this regard. For example, our coalition agreement with our New Zealand First friends sets out that this Government will amend the Building Act to make it easier to build granny flats—smaller structures, up to 60 square metres—and, in addition, our coalition agreement with the ACT Party also states that the Government will explore allowing builders to opt out of needing a building consent, provided they have long-term insurance for the building work. So, again, we will explore that.

Tom Rutherford: What else is the Government doing?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Another good question. The Government is focused on slowing the rise of construction costs so that we can make it more affordable to build a home. Kiwis pay too much for building materials, for example, and ensuring more high-quality building products are approved for use in building sites across the country will increase competition, lower building material costs, and support our resilience in the event of supply chain disruption.

Question No. 12—Mental Health

12. to the Minister for Mental Health: Does he stand by his statement, “under this Government, mental health will be a priority”; if so, what actions, if any, has he taken to make mental health a priority?

In answer to the first part of the member’s question, yes, in the context of the full quote of establishing a mental health strategy within the Pae Ora legislation for the first time, where I said, “Why not have a strategy on X or Y or Z? Yeah, I agree … it comes down to priorities, and under this Government, mental health will be a priority—that’s why we’re legislating it as one of the strategies under the Pae Ora health reforms.” In answer to the second part: establishing the role of New Zealand’s first mental health Minister, which now includes the responsibility of the almost $2.5 billion of ring-fenced mental health and addiction funding.

Ingrid Leary: Is the Minister’s answer that in 80 days, the only real action he has taken as the Minister for Mental Health is to support his former member’s bill?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’ve enjoyed working with mental health professional bodies to grow the pipeline of mental health professionals, and I look forward to making announcements about this in due course.

Ingrid Leary: Has he set a target to reduce mental health specialist wait times, and can he assure lower South Islanders they won’t have to wait longer for mental health specialist services than those elsewhere?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, I won’t be lectured by that member when, today, we published a report in the House from the Auditor-General that says more young people are waiting longer for specialist services when they came into Government—shame on them.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s good, that’s good, but the question was about now, so could the Minister have another crack at addressing that.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’ve been reviewing the mental health Budget announcements of the last Government to identify underspend so I can get the money out of Wellington to the front line to address waiting times, and I look forward to making announcements about that in due course.

Ingrid Leary: Does he stand by his statement that being Minister for Mental Health is “also a role of advocacy where I can go to those Ministers and say, you know, ‘What are we doing in this space and can we do better?’ ”, and, if so, what projects has he advocated for in the Government’s first hundred days?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’ve been working with other Government departments to develop a cross-Government approach to mental health, and I look forward to making announcements about that cross-Government approach in due course.

Ingrid Leary: What recent reports has he seen on the link between mental health and financial stress, and has he asked the Minister for social development to reverse her decision to index benefits in line with inflation, which will push more New Zealanders into poverty?

SPEAKER: That really wasn’t a question, but anyway.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, yeah, the report I have seen, sadly, is the one published today in the House at 2 o’clock from the Auditor-General, after I wrote to him in April 2022 because of the promised funding the last Government announced yet it made no material difference. The report findings are clear: things have got worse, there’s no workforce plan, and, basically, they failed in mental health.