Oral Questions

1. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What progress, if any, has been made on policy decisions for the proposed fast-track consenting reforms?

A lot.

Hon James Shaw: Very good. Has the list of projects that will be contained in the bill that will be first to be approved been decided upon by Ministers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.

Hon James Shaw: Were any of the projects that are on the proposed list proposed to him by the Minister for resources and regional development?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are a range of proposals that are being proposed. Cabinet will be deciding on the listed projects in the bill in due course, and when the bill is ready to go, that member will be one of the first to know.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why don’t you answer the question?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I did. I just did.

Hon James Shaw: Does the proposed list of listed projects in the bill include any coal mines?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I say, there are a range of projects that have been proposed and are being proposed, but we are going through a process around the development of the bill now. What I’ve outlined to the environmental movement, what I’ve outlined to local government, and what I’ve outlined to a range of stakeholders is the broad, high-level framework of what Cabinet has agreed, and the finer details of the bill are being worked through as we speak. As the member knows, it’s a part of the Government’s 100-day programme of action, so in due course—not too many sleeps to go—he will find out what the fast-track consenting bill looks like.

Hon James Shaw: Well, as part of the process that he’s just outlined, has a climate—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. Don’t talk when someone is asking a question.

Hon James Shaw: As part of the process that he’s just outlined to the House, do the projects that are being included in the bill—has there been a climate impact assessment done for those projects?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’re not at the point where that would take place yet, and Ministers will be taking advice about the appropriateness of that in due course.

Hon James Shaw: Has he sought assurances that the projects that are being considered for inclusion in the bill are not connected to any people or companies that have made substantial donations to any of the coalition parties?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, but that member will know from his time as a Minister in the previous Government that all Ministers are subject to Cabinet Act processes around things like he is describing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. There is a trend in that sort of question to make an allegation without one skerrick of evidence and think you can get away with it in this House. If that’s what that member wants, then he’s come to the right place, because you’re not going to put up with those lies anymore.

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

SPEAKER: No, no—I’m not taking any more on that. It was an interesting point of order, pointing out there were veiled threats from one side only for the point of order itself to contain a less than veiled threat, so we’ll move on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Moving on. Question No. 2.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A new point of order?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Completely different point of order?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Well, relating to—

SPEAKER: It’s not a day to come close. Is it new?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, point of order. There has been a lot made in this House over the last few months about the use of the term “lying”, and in that statement just then from the incoming Deputy Prime Minister, the statement “lie” was used in relation to the Hon James Shaw.

SPEAKER: I’ll review it and consider it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I speak to the point of order? It is simple: there is a requisite under the electoral law of this country for declarations to be made. Those declarations have been made. The Electoral Commission has not challenged it, nor has anybody else. So what’s happening in this House? It has to be that or plain ignorance. Take their choice.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry; this is not going anywhere. James Shaw, do you have another supplementary?

Ricardo Menéndez March: I have a new point of order—it’s unrelated.

SPEAKER: OK. Try hard and try to be different.

Ricardo Menéndez March: No, but I did want to raise the point that particularly around Speaker’s ruling 24/2 regarding constantly raising trifling points of orders, it’s itself disorderly, and the Acting Prime Minister has, in my view—and I’m just asking the Speaker to reflect on the fact that throughout the passage of this Parliament, I think there have been constant points of order that have been raised that I would say are within the nature of that. I’m concerned about what that sets in terms of precedent of trying to raise points of order in a way that is constructive.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that.

Question No. 2—Finance

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I wish you a happy Valentine’s Day. I’m sure you were hoping to hear that from me.

SPEAKER: We’ll move now to question No. 3!

TIM COSTLEY: Like so many women in my past.

2. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on Government spending?

As I said yesterday, I received Treasury’s briefing to the incoming Minister (BIM) and it made for sober reading. It told me that core Crown expenses have increased markedly since 2017, peaking at 35 percent of GDP in the 2021-22 fiscal year, which is the highest rate in New Zealand in decades.

Tim Costley: What has been the change in core Crown revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Treasury’s BIM told me that in 2021-22, core Crown tax revenue was also the highest as a percentage of GDP for many years—not surprising, as personal income tax rates and thresholds have not been adjusted for 14 long years.

Tim Costley: What have these changes meant for the operating balance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government operating balance is the difference between what the Government receives each year and what it spends. Core Crown expenses are higher than core Crown revenue and have been rising faster, meaning that the Government is in deficit. In fact, the Government has been in deficit since 2019.

Tim Costley: Is the Government deficit due to COVID?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A good question. While temporary factors such as COVID and the North Island weather events have certainly contributed to the weak fiscal position, much of the operating deficit is structural, which means the Government would still be in deficit even if the economy was operating at its potential. In fact, Treasury’s BIM tells me that after stripping out large one-off expenditures like COVID and after adjusting for the economic cycle, the Government is currently running a structural deficit of around 2 percent of GDP, largely because of growth in Government spending. That is the mess Labour has left us in.

Question No. 3—Child Poverty Reduction

3. to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: What advice has she received on the likely impact on child poverty of the Government’s policies?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government receives a wide range of advice on the impact on child poverty of policies it implements across the board.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many children will be lifted out of poverty due to the Government’s changes to the indexation of benefits?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There’s not one policy that will have a single impact on child poverty. Our Government is directly focused, as the previous Government was, on lifting the number of children out of poverty.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The supplementary question that the member asked was very specific and the primary also was on notice. I don’t believe the Minister addressed the specific question that the member asked.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, the Opposition might not like the answer, but the Minister did address it. She talked about how there is not one way of lifting children out of poverty, which directly addresses the question from the member.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to that, the point is that the member asked a question about a specific legislative amendment that the Government is making. There is some obligation, surely, on the Minister to answer about that. You know, we’ve been urged consistently by previous Speakers on both sides of the House to ask specific questions—ones that are not political in nature. That was what my colleague did, and the answer she got was a generic response that did not, in my opinion, address that question.

SPEAKER: That might be your opinion, but if you think about it, the question was about the specific policy; the answer was—perhaps the Minister could’ve put the words in “that’s a wrong assumption” or some other such, but it was about the fact that in the Minister’s view, just like the questioner has a view, there isn’t one policy that answers it.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Sorry, Mr Speaker, to belabour the point, but that wasn’t the question. The question wasn’t “Is there one policy?”; it was “What does this particular policy contribute?” Those are actually materially two different questions, and the question that the member asked has not been answered.

SPEAKER: OK, good—would the Minister like to answer in a different way?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The member asks a question about child poverty, and there will be a number of policies, including indexation, that our Government will put in place to reduce child poverty.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did she receive the preliminary modelling showing that indexing main benefits to inflation leads to an estimated increase in the number of children in poverty over the forecast period?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There will be a number of forecasts that we look at around policies in a range of portfolios across the Government that we are absolutely focused on in reducing child poverty, including reducing the cost of living, growing the economy, improving attendance at school, and preventing preventable hospitalisations for children.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the bill I’m referring to is currently going through the House in urgency and the preliminary modelling is attached to that bill in the supplementary analysis, I expect a straight answer, and I do not feel like that Minister has responded adequately to the question.

SPEAKER: Yes, well, the difference between your expectations and what you feel about an answer doesn’t necessarily mean that the answer hasn’t been given. The question has been certainly addressed.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The difficulty with that approach is that there is not an unlimited pool of supplementary questions. In the House, we’re allocated a certain number of supplementary questions and therefore we have to use them in a way to extract the information. When a member asks a question “Did a Minister receive a particular piece of advice?”, that is an attempt to ask a specific enough question that it will get a specific enough answer. If we had an unlimited number of supplementaries, we could go down the path we’re going—

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what, I fully understand your point of order. I’m not saying I’d be the original author of it, but it’s certainly been used in this House before. To move us on, would the Minister like to answer the question in another way, again.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The one individual piece of legislation that is before the Parliament at the moment—the figure is 7,000. Our Government is absolutely focused on reducing the number of children living in poverty, and one of the areas we’ll focus on is reducing the number of children in benefit-dependant homes that blew out under that Government—

SPEAKER: Yes, before we go any further, the question was about receiving some advice. Did you receive some advice?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, and I told her the figure.

SPEAKER: OK.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received on her Government’s broader policies’ ability to mitigate the forecasted risk of an estimated increase of 7,000 children under the AHC 50 poverty measure, and an estimated increase of 7,000 children under the BHC 50 poverty measure due to the change in indexation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m trying to make it simple to get an answer. So, one piece of legislation, one policy of multiple that this side of the House will be focused on in terms of improving child poverty reduction—and this is one measure that has an impact of a suite of policies around the cost of living crisis that we are focusing on. So this is one of many.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received about her Government’s intention to set targets for the number of beneficiaries with respect to perverse intentions that may be created in the system and the possible impact on child poverty?

SPEAKER: I think we might have that question again, a little more slowly.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Maybe I’ll cut it back. What advice has she received about her Government’s intention to set targets for the number of beneficiaries and the possible impact on child poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve been clear about my priority about reducing the number of children in benefit-dependant homes, and there will be a range of advice that’s coming to support that end.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is her Government committed to the child poverty reduction targets enshrined in legislation, and if yes, is she expecting to meet the targets?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Just to put on record, the previous Government was not on track to meet the targets. We supported the legislation when it was introduced, we’re not making changes to the legislation, and our Government will work incredibly hard to lift children out of poverty.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order. I didn’t ask about the Government’s track record; it was a very straight question about commitment to the enshrined targets in legislation and whether she expects to meet them—that her Government expects to meet them.

SPEAKER: Well, look, that explanation probably explains what the question was about but I asked you to repeat it because I couldn’t quite follow what you were asking either. So I think we’ll move on; if you’ve got another supplementary, try that. Well, I’ll give you an extra one so you feel better.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: An extra question?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the member Paulo Garcia that there is dignity in poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This side of the House is very clear that we need to lift children out of benefit-dependant homes, to give them the shot at a great future that they deserve in New Zealand. Currently, 60 percent of the children in material hardship are in benefit-dependant homes. There is no dignity in them having poor or worse outcomes because of the family circumstances they were born in.

Question No. 4—Justice (Treaty Principles Bill)

4. to the Associate Minister of Justice (Treaty Principles Bill): Why is the Government introducing a Treaty Principles Bill?

Next year, it will be half a decade since this House passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act, saying that there was such a thing as the principles of the Treaty. Since that time, Parliament has been silent about their definition while the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Public Service, and many others have had their say. This Government is introducing a Treaty principles bill to democratise that process of defining the Treaty principles because, for the first time through this representative House of Parliament, all New Zealanders will have a say about what our founding document and our constitutional future means.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the Treaty principles bill honour the Treaty?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Treaty of Waitangi, or Te Tiriti of Waitangi, as our founding document, is enormously important to our past but also to our future and our conception of ourselves as a country. The fact that it has been interpreted through a lens of principles upon which most New Zealanders have had not a chance to have any influence or say, I believe, has diminished its mana and made it a source of division when it should be a source of unity. The Treaty principles bill and the debate surrounding it is designed to enhance the mana of Te Tiriti and ensure that all New Zealanders believe they are invested in its principles.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will the Treaty principles bill abolish or rewrite the Treaty, like some people have claimed?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Absolutely not, and as some people who, I believe, have been mischievous—

Hon Willie Jackson: Who?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —misinforming the public, and I heard Willie Jackson, as if on cue, say “Who?”. I think he could answer that question for himself. Some mischievous people have made false claims. It is impossible to abolish the Treaty. What we are doing is democratising the process of defining its principles, which has been going on for the last 50 years, almost, but without the vast majority of New Zealanders having any kind of input or say into it. This will enhance the Treaty. It certainly will not rewrite the Treaty itself, let alone get rid of it; it will simply democratise the definition of its principles.

Hon Willie Jackson: Who is right: the Prime Minister, who has said that the Treaty principles bill is divisive and unhelpful, or the ACT Party, who think it’s all about freedom at the expense of Māori?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the Treaty principles bill does have the potential to be divisive, particularly when certain leaders in Māoridom who should know better threaten violence and uprisings, instead of actually engaging in a democratic debate. So in that sense, the Prime Minister is absolutely right, and when it comes to the characterisation of my statements, I don’t believe that this debate does come at the expense of Māori. So I actually can’t agree with my own statement because that member has completely mischaracterised it, and misrepresenting other people’s views is a major problem in any public debate. I hope that member will stop doing it.

Hon Willie Jackson: Which iwi are supporting the bill—is it Ngāti Whātua, Tainui, or his own tribe, Ngāti Rēhia—and what feedback has he got in terms of support for the bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I’ve heard there is support for the bill from people up and down this country, and those people are Māori, they’re non-Māori, they’re old, they’re young, they’re from north, they’re from south, they’re from down, they’re from town, and they’re from country. There is widespread support for the idea. In fact, the member may have seen opinion polling by Curia which found that 60 percent of New Zealanders support the principles in the bill and 18 percent oppose it, and maybe it’s time for the member to get on board.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What does he say to people who claim the Treaty principles bill is an attack on Māori?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, that’s an excellent and well-timed question because there are clearly people who would like to make the Treaty principles bill a debate between races. People that say that have bought in to the fetish of racial identity that it is our race; it is our ethnicity; it is our background and ancestry that defines us more than anything else. But the truth is that there are Māori who agree with this particular kaupapa; there are Māori who disagree.

Rawiri Waititi: Who?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There are non-Māori who agree; there are non-Māori who agree. I think we just saw an example of that right now because people won’t be able to see, but off screen Rawiri Waititi is saying, “Who?” Who are these Māori who agree? Nicole McKee’s sitting beside him and she said, “Me”. I think that sums up this debate perfectly well and I think Rawiri Waititi: my message for you is keep heckling, brother, because you help more than you realise.

Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Supplementary?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, it’s a point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, I just want to seek confirmation from you, based on some comments that various Ministers have made outside of the House, that the Standing Orders and the conventions of this House continue to apply, that an answer that a Minister gives in the House to a question from any member is an answer on behalf of the entirety of the Government, not just that member’s party.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m going to go back and have a look at what the arrangements were between 2002 and 2005, where there were different arrangements for Ministers inside one Government, and I’ll come back to you on that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It has always been the case, under every confidence and supply or coalition agreement, that where a Minister is speaking as a Minister in the House—clearly at question time they are answering questions as a Minister—they speak on behalf of the entire Government and are therefore bound by Cabinet collective responsibility, which therefore means they speak on behalf of the whole Government. Now, we’ve had some suggestion from Ministers that that is not what is happening. That would be a departure from all of the rules, practices, protocols, and conventions of this House that no previous Government has made. When David Seymour delivers those answers, I want to be clear from you that he is delivering them in accordance with every convention of this House on behalf of the whole of the Government.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, you’re not going to get that now because between also 1999 and 2002—where there was a significant meltdown in Government arrangements at that time—there were various conventions put in place for the answering of questions by people who were Ministers inside a Government but representing a multitude of parties outside it. I want to go back and have a look at that and see where exactly we’re at.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you indicating that there has been a breakdown of the Government?

SPEAKER: No, I’m not. That is not a helpful comment and I would ask the very experienced member of Parliament not to trifle with the Chair.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I may be able to assist. Every—

SPEAKER: Well, you know, you do these things at your peril, but away you go.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I may be able to help the member. Every answer I have given is as the Minister responsible around the intentions behind the kaupapa that I’m bringing on behalf of the Government. I have not portrayed myself—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No, one second. I have not portrayed myself as representing any Cabinet decision.

SPEAKER: That’s enough. The honourable—sorry—Rawiri Waititi—

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you.

SPEAKER: The honourable member.

Rawiri Waititi: I like your matakitetanga [prediction], Mr Speaker. Given the Associate Minister of Justice has become an expert in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, can he tell me how many Māori chiefs signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, first of all, it’s approximately 500, but learning is a journey and I expect to learn more. Perhaps the member would like to come on this kaupapa with me.

Rawiri Waititi: Has he spoken to both sides of the Treaty in regards to this bill—that’s te Iwi Māori and also King Charles?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, as we know, our King is laid up with a few medical challenges at the moment. Thankfully, there are many people, the Māori people of New Zealand, who are in very good health and I’d be very happy to speak to them every day.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. to the Prime Minister: Ka pūmau ia ki tāna kōrero, “our focus is on making sure that we honour the Treaty”; mēnā āe, ka pēhea tā tōna Kāwanatanga whakahōnore i te Tiriti?

[Does he stand by his statement that “our focus is on making sure that we honour the Treaty”; if so, how will his Government honour the Treaty?]

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. Our unrelenting focus is on raising achievement and opportunity for Māori and non-Māori alike, after both have gone backwards during the disastrous past three years of non-achievement from the Government the member’s party was nominally a part of. And if those members there looked around their own people, they’d know exactly and precisely what I’m talking about.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: It’s all right. I know where you’re coming from. That was a great answer up until the point where there was the attack on the previous Government.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, they chipped at me—they started chipping at me.

SPEAKER: Well, you can assert that anywhere you like but you can’t assert it during question time.

Hon Marama Davidson: Kei te whakaae ia ka whakahanga i ngā mea nei, a Te Aka Whaiora, Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, me te Tekiona 7A o te Ture Oranga Tamariki ki te whakahōnore i te Tiriti; waihoki ka whakatikahia ngā Tiriti takahitanga e te Karauna; mēnā kao, he aha ai?

[Does he agree that these structures—i.e., Te Aka Whaiora, the Waitangi Tribunal, and section 7A of the Children’s Act—allow for the honouring of the Treaty; further, that Treaty breaches will be corrected by the Crown; if not, why?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say to that rather confusing question, there is no statement from this Government or any member of it of getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi. Anybody else that says otherwise is spreading malice of forethought and we’re not going to tolerate it. Secondly, we’re going to stand behind the Treaty and we always have. But what we won’t do is have this unmandated, unelected judicial woke concoction that that member seeks to subscribe to, which wasn’t supported by the greatest scholar ever to come to this House on this matter, Sir Āpirana Ngata—he’s our authority. What’s yours?

Hon Marama Davidson: He matatika ki a ia ki te whakamatetia, tapahia te pūtea, me whakakoretia i aua kaupapa e hanga ana ki te whakahōnore i te Tiriti, ā, ka auaha i ngā putanga pai mā Ngāi Māori?

[Is it ethical to him, the annihilation, funding cuts, and cancellation of initiatives that are created to honour the Treaty and create positive outcomes for Māori people?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, our response to that is an extraordinary, confusing allegation is being made, talking about a multitude of projects, none of which help ordinary Māori. They’re based on the elite Māori in this country who would never consult with their own people. And out there in New Zealand, the mass majority of Māori have proven that by not even being on the Māori roll subscribed to by that member.

Hon Marama Davidson: Ki tōna whakaaro, ka whai te whakareretanga a ngā kāwanatanga National kua pahure, kua whakahāngai i ngā mea nei a Kōhanga Reo, te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, ngā whakataunga Tiriti, me te Ture mō te Reo Māori; mēnā āe, ka pēhea?

[In his opinion, does this align with the legacy of previous National Governments that implemented such things as Kōhanga Reo, the Waitangi Tribunal, Treaty settlements, and the Māori Language Act; if so, how?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, this is misinformation of the worst sort concocted by way of a question. The reality is Kōhanga Reo was started by the National Party. Does that member not know it? No. What was going on here is the allegation that we’re going to stop it; that’s false. And as for all the Treaty settlements, this Government is going to go on honouring—Mr Prime Minister and every member has said so. But what we’re not going to do is see unmandated and unelected, and therefore unauthorised by the New Zealand people—this woke concoction that the Green Party and this party over there subscribe to.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to repeat the question again and slowly for the member’s benefit, because he is accusing my question—

SPEAKER: No, sorry, that’s not going to happen. Do you have another supplementary?

Hon Marama Davidson: I do.

SPEAKER: Please carry on with that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Sorry, can I get an answer—point of order. The member seemed to completely misunderstand my question.

SPEAKER: No. That’s not a question. That’s not reasonable.

Hon Marama Davidson: He aha ia i moumou wā ai, moumou moni ai ki te Treaty principles bill mēnā e mea ana ia, “dead duck walking”?

[Why did he waste time and money on the Treaty Principles Bill if he says it is a “dead duck walking”?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At no point in time have I ever said that it’s a dead duck walking. Mind you, I’ve seen something that looks similar. But the point of the matter is, the ACT Party had negotiations with the National Party. Their subscribers and supporters are entitled for them to honour their campaign promises, and that’s why Mr Seymour can come to this House with an agreed statement on behalf of everybody on this side of the House and it’s in the coalition agreement. But the statement that we’re getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi is categorically false.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I seek clarity on whether the Minister is speaking as the Prime Minister or as himself? The quote was to the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: I don’t think that matters. His answer was as the Prime Minister.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the predicted and actual amount of time people spend in receipt of benefit payments?

The social outcomes modelling commissioned by the Ministry of Social Development shows the amount of time New Zealanders are predicted to spend on benefits throughout their lifetime has substantially increased. Recipients of the jobseeker work-ready benefit are now expected to spend, on average, 13 years of the future on a benefit—an increase of almost four years compared to 2017. The modelling estimated that 626,000 New Zealanders who received a benefit in the last year would collectively require another 6.43 million years of income support.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice from a member of the Minister’s own party. It’s quite clear that the question asks “predicted and actual”, and yet all of the answer detailed the results of modelling and expectations, and not figures that relate to the real-world experience.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I disagree.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What does the modelling show about the length of time young people are predicted to spend on benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In 2017, the modelling showed that teenagers who went on to the youth payment or young parent payment were expected to spend 15.2 future years reliant on a benefit in their lifetime. By 2022, teenagers who go on to welfare were expected to spend, on average, 24 years relying on a benefit—a staggering nine extra years of their lives on welfare. That didn’t seem to ring any bells of alarm for the previous Government, but the increase in benefit dependency that occurred under the watch of the previous Labour Government is of real concern to us.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What did the modelling-associated report say about the impact of people being reliant on benefit for longer?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: While the report said one consequence would be additional cost to the taxpayer of expenditure on benefit payments, I was most concerned that those trapped on welfare for longer would face profound impacts on their future earnings and life satisfaction and have more contact with police and mental health services than they otherwise would.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Is this Government comfortable with the trend of people spending longer periods of time on welfare, as identified by the social outcomes modelling?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, absolutely not. With the report showing worse life outcomes for those trapped on welfare long term, it is cruel to stand by and allow these people’s potential to be wasted. We believe that New Zealanders deserve the opportunities and choices that come from employment. That starts with a Government that understands, as this Government does, the importance of breaking vicious cycles of dependency.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. to the Minister of Finance: What is the complete list of adjustments and exclusions that have been made to the eligible baseline of expenditure that is subject to the 6.5 percent or 7.5 percent savings that have been sought from Public Service agencies?

The much-needed savings programme under way as part of Budget 2024 requires agencies to put forward options for 6.5 percent or 7.5 percent savings from an eligible baseline calculated by Treasury. As I have previously explained to the House, the eligible baseline had some exclusions when it was calculated, including the non-departmental spending of Health, Education, and Ministry of Disabled People - Whaikaha. I have also previously confirmed to the member that benefits are not included in the eligible baseline. There is a very long list of exclusions to the eligible baseline, and many of them are exactly the same as the member’s own savings exercise from last year. The list is much too long for me to read out in full, but I am happy to table it if the House permits. Before I do so, I would note for the member that the eligible baseline does not necessarily indicate where savings proposals will come from.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Are you going to seek leave to table it or not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I seek leave to table the document.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

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

Hon Grant Robertson: Has spending on the Defence estate been excluded from the eligible baseline of expenditure?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There have been a number of exclusions made from the eligible baseline, some of which are agency specific.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member just said that she was tabling a list. She was asked if something was on the list. She hasn’t even got anywhere near to addressing it.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, I’m very happy to help out Mr Hipkins. The list which I am tabling, and which perhaps members would like to read, specifically notes other agency-specific exclusions.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is the Defence estate one of those agency-specific exclusions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am releasing a full list of the general exclusions that apply in the majority of cases, and I am noting that there are also other agency-specific exclusions. Now, the member clearly is very interested in this savings exercise, and what I would remind that member is that he too initiated a savings exercise in August last year.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve now had two very specific questions that the Minister’s refused to answer. Having refused to answer them, to then go on and attack the person who’s asking the question steps well outside of all of the rules of this House.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’d just ask the Minister to address the question that was asked, which is: is the Defence estate expenditure part of the other agency exclusions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said to the member in answer to my primary question, baselines have been calculated in order to create a quantum of saving target. That does not indicate where savings will come from. There is a long list of generic exemptions, and, in addition, there have been agency-specific exclusions.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can she guarantee that work on the Defence estate will not be subject to a 6.5 or 7.5 percent cut?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Defence have been asked to put forward proposals to achieve a baseline reduction. Our guidance to Defence has been that we recognise they face significant cost pressures and, as such, we do expect them to—we have, in fact, invited them to submit what costs that they may need met in this Budget. In addition, just like with all other agencies, we have asked them to focus on low-value programmes, programmes that don’t align with the new coalition Government’s priorities, and non-essential back-office functions, including contractor and consultant spend. I would note to the member, as I have many, many times now, that proposals are yet to be considered by Ministers, and all decisions will be made by Ministers.

Stuart Smith: What is the purpose of the savings exercise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: “The Government is requiring public agencies to find permanent savings including through cutting back on contractors. … trimming back some programmes, and taking back underspends. … It is clear given the economic conditions that we need this work to happen more than ever.” Members opposite who cry out at this may wish to know that I’ve just quoted from the honourable member’s own press statement of 28 August 2023, in which he announced his own—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the Minister persistently refuses to answer the questions being asked by the Opposition, for her then to have a Government patsy question which she then uses to attack the Opposition means that she’s repeatedly falling foul of all of the rules of this House. I wonder if you would consider, given that this is a relatively consistent pattern from the Minister of Finance, whether in fact there should be some sanction applied to that. For example, the number of supplementary questions that have been, effectively, wasted to not get an answer should be credited back to the Opposition on a future day.

SPEAKER: Well, there’s a couple of points I’d make. First thing is, while members will ask questions and may not like the answers that are coming, I think, in the end, the explanation given by the Minister of Finance was quite reasonable; I took it as being so. With regards to the question that was set up, I have made it clear that questions should not be used to attack the Government. I’m not sure how quoting a previous Minister is an attack on the Opposition, but I will have another look at this, obviously, as we progress through the day.

Hon Grant Robertson: Supplementary.

Stuart Smith: Supplementary.

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, he can have another go.

SPEAKER: Are you yielding?

Hon Grant Robertson: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Supplementary, the Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is the Minister aware that even if she sacked every person who does work on policy, communications, and cancelled all the publicity work of the Department of Conservation, she would be tens of millions of dollars short of the target for cuts that she has set for that agency?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have said many times to the member, we have asked agencies to look for savings across a number of categories—including programmes that are not delivering maximum value, including programmes that aren’t delivering results. Those proposals will be considered by Ministers in full. One of the great things about our savings exercise is that we’re actually going to complete it, unlike the former Minister.

Stuart Smith: What does the list—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on—noise on both sides; Mr Bishop.

Stuart Smith: What does the list that the Minister has just tabled show about where the savings will come from?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member asks a very good question. The list of exclusions I have tabled does not indicate where savings will come from, because agencies can put forward savings options from wherever they wish to. We’ve asked chief executives to exercise good judgment in putting savings options up to Ministers, and we’ve also asked that staff are able to put forward ideas. It is Ministers who will make the final decisions on whether savings options progress as part of Budget 2024. We will have a firm focus on shifting resource from the back office to front-line services, in line with our commitment to New Zealanders to stop wasteful spending, improve value for money, and drive resources into the front line.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can she guarantee that no front-line services provided by the Department of Conservation will be cut as a result of the savings exercise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m yet to even see the proposals from the Department of Conservation.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were made and taken, and whilst evidence supporting those actions and statements remains the same.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition’s actions to restore law and order and personal responsibility?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, where do we start? We’re doing so many good things that it’s hard to keep track. We are committed to training an extra 500 front-line police in the next two years.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In two years or three?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We’re going to address youth offending by increasing—beg your pardon?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In two years or three?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, well, catch up and be at Parliament—that was decided about two weeks ago. Try and catch up.

Hon Member: Two weeks ago!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, two weeks ago. You know, it’s not too difficult. Nothing else to do, sitting in the Opposition! No record of having done anything in her whole career, and she wants to know—will somebody tell her?—and she’s on the front bench! Now, we’re going to address youth offending by increasing the number of youth aid officers over the term. We’ll adequately resource community policing—including Māori and Pasifika wardens, community patrols, and Neighbourhood Watch—and we’ll protect first responders and prison officers by introducing legislation with specific offences for assaults on our police, firefighters, prison officers, and ambulance officers, and a whole lot more desperately needed out there by New Zealand society.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition’s actions to deliver better public services?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely. The focus has strayed too far towards wokeism and not on better education and health outcomes. We’ve already started doing basics better through emphasising reading, writing, and maths, and banning cellphones in schools. If they doubt that matter about education, a former Labour Minister—none other than Richard Prebble—is pointing out how hopeless their performance was in the last three years, where 55 percent and more of Māori are not even at school. And how can we possibly get our nation ready, let alone those young people ready, for the future with such grave irresponsibility? And since compulsory education has been around since 1877, maybe, again, they should catch up.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition’s actions for an independent COVID inquiry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely. We’re in early days, but we are seeking feedback from the people on explaining the terms of reference on the current royal commission of inquiry. It’s preposterous that the Government that was in charge of the original inquiry went to set out their own terms of reference for an inquiry into their own decisions. In short, setting up an inquiry to cover one’s derrière is not in the public interest, and we’re going to fix it up.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the coalition’s actions to keep the superannuation age of eligibility at 65?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that’s a superb question, and out there there’s about 895,000 people who need to know that—and a whole lot more coming up to 65 years of age. And given the GDP—given the ratio against the GDP—which is way better than most developed nations, yes, we are going to keep it at 65. On that, you’ve had our long, 40-year promise.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to confirm—similar to the previous point of order I raised—that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was speaking there as Prime Minister and, therefore, all of the answers that he delivered were as Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Yep.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was responding to the coalition agreement. We made sure it’s in the coalition agreement. [Interruption] No, that’s the point.

Question No. 9—Health

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

Yes, in the context that they were given.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Shane Reti, who said, “In the primary care sector it’s really hard to see a general practitioner any time soon”, and, if so, will he include access to primary care as one of the five major health targets in the coalition agreement?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’m not in a position to discuss Budget-sensitive positions, but I do agree that it is hard to see primary care.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Shane Reti that “this Government will take actions to improve the health outcomes for all New Zealanders”, and, if so, will he make surviving cancer a health target?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: To the first arm of her question, yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he commit to preventing the gaming of targets, such as the practice of admitting emergency department patients to non-existent virtual wards so that the six-hour target can be met?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I commit to keeping a very close eye on the gaming of any targets that we might announce.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If a patient dies three hours after arriving in the emergency department, has the six-hour target been met in their case, and, if so, is this the better health outcome he’s promoting for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We’re still to confirm what our targets will be, including emergency department targets.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all of her statements and policies?

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What evidence does she have that the sanctions on beneficiaries will help get more people into employment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The empirical evidence that says the number on jobseeker benefit has gone up by 76,000 when there’s been a 50 percent reduction in the number of sanctions applied in the last six years.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. The question was not addressed. There was a specific question around empirical evidence and then she talked about the number of people on the benefit. Sorry—the question was relating to evidence on sanctions and she just spoke on something completely unrelated, which is just people on the jobseeker benefit. Those two things are not related to one another.

SPEAKER: Yeah. It’s the same problem that everyone has. When a question is asked, the answer won’t always be satisfactory. However, the question was addressed.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the Government get job seekers into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I thank the member for their question, because I know that many are worried about the number of people who have been on jobseeker benefit and stuck there for years. There’s a range of things that we will do. Our Welfare that Works policy is the first one we will roll out, because of the significant increase in the young people under 25. Individuals will get a needs assessment. There’ll be a job coach. We want to work with community providers, and I’ve already been talking to iwi organisations who may well be interested in providing that service. And there will be a carrot and stick approach to ensure that young people who can work do.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How many tamariki would be impacted by sanctions if the traffic light system were in place today?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you for that question. One of the elements that is a significant change in the traffic light system that’s proposed are non-financial sanctions. I have been concerned, as others have, that there have been financial sanctions where there has been a household with children, so the deliberate design is to come up with non-financial sanctions to prevent that from occurring.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How will the ministry assist children whose parents have had their benefits cut?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my last answer, part of the traffic light system is the introduction of non-financial sanctions. The front-line staff who work at Work and Income work incredibly hard to ensure that people do comply with their obligations, and we’re looking at fairly simple obligations if you’re a job seeker: to have a CV, apply for jobs, turn up to a job interview, and accept a job that is offered. It is really important for the tamariki in those families that they do have a parent in work.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What benefit security is in place for people with disabilities and long-term medical conditions to ensure they can live with dignity without having to continually prove their medical condition to the Government under the threat of being sanctioned?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Much of what I’ve spoken about is in terms of the traffic light system for obligations around job seekers. I appreciate that we must always have a welfare system that supports those who have permanent disabilities—they are on the supported living payment, for example. But I also accept that there will be some who wish to work in some capacity, and we should support them in doing that.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. 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 humps, and lowering speed limits across the city.

Tangi Utikere: Why does he still stand by that Government decision to axe the regional fuel tax; a decision that has required Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown to stop work on multiple projects that are funded by that tax?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that’s a very excellent question, and it’s because, on this side of the House, we’re not going to tax Aucklanders an extra 11.5c per litre to fund wasteful projects like $500,000 speed bumps, lowering speed limits across the city, red light cameras, and cycle lanes. We’re actually going to make sure we get the infrastructure delivered that New Zealanders and Aucklanders need.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. The Minister referenced a $500,000 speed bump, and I would invite the Minister to table any evidence of any speed bump anywhere in the country costing anywhere near $500,000.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Speaking to the point of order. I may have misspoken; it was a $490,000 speed bump, which had $172,000 of traffic management to construct. I’m happy to table the New Zealand Herald article. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK. We’ll all calm down and listen to the question from Tangi Utikere.

Tangi Utikere: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who was correct: Simeon Brown, when he said, “The reality is projects can still be funded by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport; they just won’t be receiving a regional fuel tax in order to fund”, or Wayne Brown, when he said, “The government’s announcement therefore creates significant funding uncertainty for a large portion of Auckland Transport’s capital programme”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government will be ensuring that the remaining regional fuel tax revenues—over $300 million, which is two years’ worth of collection of Aucklanders—will go into delivering the priority projects such as the Eastern Busway, City Rail Link electric trains, and local roading projects. But what we won’t be spending money on and won’t be taxing Aucklanders more for is wasteful projects which aren’t priorities of this Government.

Tangi Utikere: How is threatening to legislate any time a mayor makes a decision that the Minister disagrees with in line with allowing councils to make their own decisions in the best interests of their ratepayers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I completely reject the premise around threatening. We’ve sat down and we’ve discussed the priority projects. The legislation we are putting to this Parliament will ensure that the remaining revenues—over two years’ worth of tax revenue taken from Auckland motorists—go towards those priority projects.

Tangi Utikere: What does he say to National MP Simeon Brown, who said that the Eastern Busway was the first thing he thinks of in the morning, the last thing at night, and is in his thoughts probably 100 times a day in between, or to National MP Erica Stanford, who led a petition to secure funding for the Glenvar Road - East Coast Road realignment project, now that the full completion of those projects have been sent to the scrap heap?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, what I’d say to those members is that those projects will be prioritised for the remaining funds—that the revenues which have not been spent but have been collected from Auckland taxpayers will be prioritised to those projects. But I’d also say to the member Simeon Brown that I wish the Eastern Busway a happy Valentine’s Day.

Helen White: How can the Minister justify creating a $1.2 billion shortfall in the plan to decongest Auckland over the next four years, when congestion will cost us about $5 billion in productivity in the same period?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said to the House yesterday, it was the last Government which caused the congestion in Auckland—$228 million on consultancy reports for light rail and didn’t even deliver a business case. The six wasted years in Auckland, failing to deliver the infrastructure that we needed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, as to the so-called $1.2 billion shortfall, how does it compare with the $29 billion that was going to be assigned to light rail in Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that last Government spent hundreds of millions on consultancy reports and business cases but failed to actually deliver and had no plan to deliver their phantom ghost train down Dominion Road.

SPEAKER: Yeah. That’s enough.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know what your point of order is. The question was, though, for a comparison, and you’ve got it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact here is that you have made a ruling, a clarification to the House, at the start of question time today. And pulling up members at the end of their answer, when your ruling was talking about the start of their answer, I don’t think is following what you told us at the start.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I’ll try and follow my own advice from here on.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. to the Minister of Justice: How much Government funding has been devoted to section 27 reports since 2017, and what actions is the Government taking to address it?

I’m advised by officials that since 2017, $26.3 million of taxpayer funding was spent on crafting section 27 reports designed to encourage lighter sentences. Last week the Government announced our plan to end taxpayer funding of those reports and to put an end to a thriving industry that the previous Government left untouched.

Cameron Brewer: Is the Government scrapping cultural reports entirely?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No. Despite the assertions made on the other side of the House, the Government has been very clear that offenders can continue to use section 27 by asking someone to speak in court or by providing a written statement. Section 27 has not been scrapped; taxpayer funding of professional report writing is.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Will the Minister implement the promises set out in the National Party’s Real Consequences For Crime document, which states “Ending taxpayer funding for written cultural reports is expected to save around $20 million over four years. National will direct all of this funding towards victim support services, which represents an increase of 29 percent”; if not, what increases in funding for victims will the Minister commit to?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We are committed to providing more support to the victims of crime in the justice system, and we’re working with officials to assess the best options for supporting victims through the savings generated.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very clear question, which was: will he commit to increasing funding for victims of crime? He didn’t address it.

SPEAKER: Good, we’ll try it again, then.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I addressed that question. Yes, we are committed to providing more support for victims of crime.

Cameron Brewer: Why is it important that taxpayer funding of section 27 reports ends?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because there is a great deal of pressure on the legal aid budget and we need to spend our money wisely.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Will he increase grants for victims of crime to access support services such as mental health assistance, counselling, or help with travel costs to court cases or hearings, as set out in the National Party Real Consequences For Crime document, or is that just another broken promise by National?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: A bit early for that. We will work with officials, as I said, to assess the best option for supporting victims of crime. But one of the best things we can do, of course, is to speed up the processes of the court so they’re not waiting years and years, like they have over the past six years, to get a resolution to the cases that they’re facing, to get on with their lives, and that’s the best thing we can do.

Cameron Brewer: Is the Minister aware of any notable section 27 report authors who have received taxpayer funding?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, members might be interested to know that the cultural report provider Hard 2 Reach, headed by lifetime Mongrel Mob member Harry Tam, boasts on its website that offenders “have received sentence discounts of up to 35 percent because of factors raised in our reports”.

Cameron Brewer: What other changes does the Government intend to make in regard to the Sentencing Act?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government has committed to wider changes to sentencing laws to restore real consequences for crime. That includes capping sentence discounts at 40 percent, and my colleague Minister McKee is leading work to reinstate three strikes legislation.