Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on New Zealand’s fiscal position?

I received Treasury’s briefing to the incoming Minister (BIM), which was publicly released a week and a half ago. The BIM told me that between 2019 and 2023, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has calculated, according to their own cross-country measure, that net debt in New Zealand increased by 18 percent of GDP—18 percent of GDP.

Suze Redmayne: Is that increase in debt greater or less than in other comparable countries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said, the increase in New Zealand’s net debt over the period 2019-23 was 18 percent of GDP on the IMF’s measure. Treasury’s BIM tells me that Australia’s net debt over this period rose by only 2 percent, Denmark’s and Ireland’s net debt reduced, and the average increase across 32 advanced economies was only 4 percent.

Suze Redmayne: Was that 18 percent increase in net debt due to COVID?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In part, it will have been. But I am reliably informed that all countries in the world suffered from COVID, so COVID is no excuse for New Zealand to have such a large increase in its debt.

Hon David Seymour: Did the previous Government use this extraordinary 18 percent of GDP expansion in public debt to build valuable infrastructure or leave some other legacy that would assist future New Zealanders in paying that debt off?

SPEAKER: It’s very borderline, that question. But a reasonable answer might be forthcoming.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The question New Zealanders often ask me is: “Has there ever been a Government that has spent so much but delivered so little”—

SPEAKER: OK, that’s enough of that.

Suze Redmayne: How high is New Zealand’s net debt compared to previous years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Historical comparisons are made a little difficult by the fact that, in 2022, the previous finance Minister changed the definition of net debt in a way that instantly lowered it by about 20 percentage points of GDP. However, if you use the old, established measure of net debt, it is evident that New Zealand’s net debt this year is forecast to be 44 percent of GDP, compared to 22 percent when National left office in 2017. Furthermore, net debt of 44 percent is the highest it has been in New Zealand in 30 years.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that two paragraphs below the one she quoted in her primary answer, the Treasury told her in their BIM that “Nevertheless, New Zealand’s debt remains low relative to other advanced economies. The average Government debt among advanced economies in 2023 was 47 percent of GDP, compared with 24 percent for New Zealand.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Treasury’s BIM also said, “As a small open economy vulnerable to external shocks and natural disasters New Zealand needs to retain a large buffer for emergencies.” What the member should understand is that New Zealand should always have relatively low debt compared to most other advanced economies, and it is silly to compare New Zealand’s debt with countries like the United States and Japan. That Minister eroded New Zealand’s buffer, thanks to the big spending of the previous Labour Government.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question asking about a very specific paragraph in the BIM that the member’s primary answer was about, and I didn’t receive an answer to that question.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think you could say it wasn’t addressed, and I think that’s one of the problems, isn’t it—that often questions are asked that don’t elicit the answer that members wanting—

Hon Member: It was very specific, though.

SPEAKER: It wasn’t that fine.

Hon Grant Robertson: What’s that?

SPEAKER: It wasn’t all of that fine a question—the BIM is quite a lengthy document.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to keep reading from the BIM to inform the Minister about how this debt came to be and the structural deficit that he left New Zealand in, if he’d like.

SPEAKER: Sorry, that’s not a particularly helpful point of order.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the paragraph after the paragraph that I just quoted in my question says, in part, “the Crown balance sheet continues to have significant resilience and flexibility to respond to future events.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member should read the full quote, which also says, “Current spending exceeds current revenues. The Treasury estimates much of this gap is structural, reflecting a mix of short- and long-term drivers. A substantial fiscal consolidation is required”—and that is what this responsible Government is doing.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and in particular I stand by this Government’s recent actions to begin restoring law and order and cracking down on crime by removing taxpayer funding for section 27 reports to further discount sentences and by chucking out Labour’s prison reduction target. New Zealanders voted for a Government that’s going to restore law and order, deal with victims over criminals, and that’s what we’re going to get on and do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who’s correct when it comes to the proposed Government legislation on Treaty principles: the Prime Minister, when he said, “Well, we’ve never been open-minded, we’ve always said there’s no intention, no commitment, no support for it beyond first reading”, or David Seymour, who said, “But ultimately the bit I don’t believe is he won’t change his mind”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have a coalition agreement that says we’re going to support a bill through to first reading, and that’s no commitment beyond that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is David Seymour correct that he’s lost his nerve on the Treaty principles bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the member’s assertion, but what I’d say is that member should be the one that is nervous, because when Kieran McAnulty starts shaving off that beard, he needs to be ready to go, and, as I would have said, as we observed over summer, who was the de facto leader of the Labour Party? Michael Wood.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it acceptable for one of his Ministers to tell the media that the Prime Minister has lost his nerve and he doesn’t believe the Prime Minister is being truthful with the public?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject that member’s assertion in that question. What I’d say to you is that we are a coalition Government. We are a coalition Government, we have different views and different perspectives, and we are aligned on the things that matter, which is getting things done, cleaning up after your Government’s mess. So that’s what we’re going to get on and do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Newshub incorrect when they quoted David Seymour as saying, “ultimately the bit I don’t believe is he won’t change his mind if the public really wants it,”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you David Seymour is doing a great job. He’s going to make sure that we get our kids back in school. He’s got special delegation getting kids back into school, which is something that this Government and you as education Minister didn’t care about.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that my questions are relatively political in nature, but the Prime Minister hasn’t addressed any of them.

SPEAKER: Well, I think you’ve answered your own question, or assertion. They’re political in nature. But if the Prime Minister would like to make a further comment on that previous question? No, he’s all good.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If any Minister other than David Seymour was to claim publicly that the Prime Minister had lost his nerve and wasn’t being truthful with the public, would they still be a Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I support all of my Ministers. They’re doing a fantastic job—they’re doing a fantastic job. The only member in this whole House who should be nervous is the person answering the questions.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If David Seymour doesn’t believe the public should be able to trust the word of the Prime Minister, why should the public?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have a coalition agreement; it’s crystal clear. We’re going to support a bill to first reading, and there is no commitment beyond that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree, then, with the Rt Hon Winston Peters about David Seymour: “Well, it’s disgraceful that somebody is so desperate.” and “This petty, childish schoolboy behaviour just won’t do.”?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a matter of chronology. That questioner did not say when that statement was made, and therefore the Prime Minister could not be responsible for that—get a life and learn how this process works.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s immaterial when Winston Peters said that. I didn’t ask him whether he agreed with the Deputy Prime Minister; I asked him whether he agreed with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who I still believe is Winston Peters, even if he has a different job.

SPEAKER: Well, you’d better ask the question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Happily, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: But I’ll tell you what, try and keep it contemporary, because going back in history is not good for us.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Rt Hon—well, it might not be good for the Government, Mr Speaker. Does he agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters about David Seymour: “Well, it’s disgraceful that somebody is so desperate.”; “This petty, childish schoolboy behaviour just won’t do.”?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is responsible for those obligations and duties that he has undertaken from the day he first took the job on and not a day earlier, and in this case this question should be ruled out.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Unless the Speaker was to rule out that any statements made by anyone other than a Minister were not the Prime Minister’s responsibility, we couldn’t ask him whether he agreed with anything, and, actually, nor could many of the Government’s patsy questions be allowed by that criteria, either.

SPEAKER: We’ve just had a ruling that makes it very clear that the Prime Minister is responsible for things that relate to his Government or her Government, and there is a point that if the statement relates to a time when the current Prime Minister was not Prime Minister, then that might be the case. But I actually think—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point—

SPEAKER: Hold on, hang on, wait on—I don’t want to have to stand up on you. I think this is a question that the Prime Minister is probably capable of answering.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly, Ministers can be asked about whether or not they agree with statements made by other members, or indeed any members of the public, but it’s useful for the House to know exactly what time period the member is being asked to reflect upon. It may well be that Mr Peters’ comment was talking about the childish behaviour of the Labour Party, for example, but we don’t know because the Leader of the Opposition hasn’t given a time period.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d ask you to reflect on the ruling that you have just indicated, and consider that in light of question No. 1, which was a Government question to the Minister of Finance that was all about a period in which she was not a Minister, and yet she was quoting liberally from a document about something that she did not have responsibility for at the time. If you are ruling that the only thing Ministers can be asked about is stuff that has happened since the election, then the entirety of question No. 1 was out of order.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need further on this.

Hon Chris Bishop: It was about the BIM.

SPEAKER: I’ll come to you if I need to, believe me. Firstly, on question No. 1, that question related entirely to reports that the Minister has seen. That’s perfectly legitimate, and then, if you look at all of the supps that came—and I listened to them carefully, and you’ll recall that I did cut one of them off—they were all about the answers given by the Minister, and they related to current figures. So that’s that dealt with. I better hear from Mr Bishop—

Hon Chris Bishop: No, no.

SPEAKER: Oh, you’re over it? OK. That’s—

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, the Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, or what?

Hon David Seymour: I think I might be able to assist with it, yes.

SPEAKER: No, well, I don’t want your assistance. You’re either taking a new point of order or not.

Hon David Seymour: Oh, look, your loss, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’ve got a very long memory. So could we have the question one more time, and I think it would be useful to put context around that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters about David Seymour: “Well, it’s disgraceful that somebody is so desperate.”; “This petty, childish schoolboy behaviour just won’t do”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m going to say to you is that this is a coalition Government of three parties. We have different views from time to time, and that’s actually quite OK. It’s quite healthy and it’s quite constructive, and, unlike that previous Government that was all about control and spin and management, I have not heard—in the whole time since he’s become Leader of the Opposition, we haven’t had one question on the economy, not one on health, not one on education, not one on housing, not one on infrastructure.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and particularly in the context they’re made, and particularly about our efforts to try and improve Māori health and education outcomes for young Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa, the New Zealand Law Society, and the New Zealand Bar Association that scrapping funding for section 27 reports will disproportionately impact Māori, undermine rehabilitation, and lead to higher rates of offending, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I don’t. The reality is that Māori are higher victims of crime than anybody in this country, and we’re making sure that Māori feel safe in their own businesses, their homes, and their communities.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he accept that his policy will create a double standard in sentencing: for the wealthy, who can afford to privately fund their own section 27 reports, and for those who cannot?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I don’t. The intention of section 27 reports was that someone could bring a friend or a family member to speak to their past. That was what was intended to happen. Instead, what’s happened is that there has been a cottage industry of reports, often prepared by people who don’t even know the offender. So the reality is that we’re putting it back to its original purpose. That option still exists and will continue to exist.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What work is this Government doing to ensure that Māori and those on lower incomes will not be unfairly sentenced as a result of this policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we are making sure that we actually have a fair system. That is fair and stands up for the victims of crime; it doesn’t stand up for the offenders.

Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: Ah—

Rawiri Waititi: You’ve forgotten me so early, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: —Rawiri Waititi.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he find it acceptable that Māori women make up 64 percent of the female prison population while Māori men make up 50 percent of the male prison population, and, if not, what are his Government’s solutions to reduce that number and ensure it doesn’t increase as a result of this policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I don’t find it acceptable, and that’s why we’re working so hard on lowering crime.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t think he answered that question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know, but that’s not the test. What is the point?

Rawiri Waititi: The point of order?

SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Rawiri Waititi: The point of order was that he didn’t answer the question around whether he finds it acceptable and what is his Government going to do about it.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he did. The Hansard will show that there was an answer to that. It might not be the answer you want, but please carry on. OK, question No. 4 in the name of Ryan Hamilton.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Minister made to increase the number of New Zealand - trained doctors?

Just two hours ago, the Government completed another key commitment from our 100-day plan, the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for a third medical school. This is the first step in a process to help increase the number of New Zealand - trained doctors.

Ryan Hamilton: What are the next steps following today’s signing of the MOU?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The signing of the MOU enables the Ministry of Health and the University of Waikato to progress with establishing a business case and carrying out a cost-benefit analysis, as described in the National-ACT coalition agreement. This is an important step as our country faces a dire shortage of Kiwi doctors, with many planning to retire over the next 10 years.

Tim van de Molen: What is the significance of the MOU for our provincial and rural communities?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Many provincial and rural communities are already experiencing large shortages of doctors, and with many GPs planning to retire over the next 10 years, this issue will only get worse. A medical school which further considers the needs of rural areas will help ease the pressure felt on rural healthcare.

Tim van de Molen: How will this impact New Zealand’s ongoing workforce shortage?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: New Zealanders have been facing longer and longer delays in accessing healthcare. Tackling the workforce crisis is key to solving this issue. With this initiative we aim to retain more New Zealanders in our domestic medical school programmes, given more than 300 New Zealand students each year have been training in Australian medical schools. We will train more home-grown, culturally competent New Zealand doctors.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will the full cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Waikato medical school committed to in the National-ACT coalition agreement include comparisons with the costs and benefits of training additional medical students at New Zealand’s existing medical schools?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Ministry of Health is currently scoping out what the cost-benefit analysis in the business case will look like, and we’ll be happy to keep the member informed as that progresses.

Question No. 5—Local Government

5. to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by his statement that he is confident repealing the Affordable Water Reforms will be “cheaper”?

I am confident that the Local Water Done Well will be implemented cheaper than the previous Government’s three waters reform that cost the taxpayers over $1.2 billion with very little to show for it. My focus is on ensuring this Government delivers what the vast majority of councils have consistently asked for, which is local water done well. It means local assets in local council control, with the flexibility to structure their delivery of services in a way that works best for them and their communities.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: When the Minister uses the term “cheaper”, does he mean cheaper for ratepayers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Ultimately, councils set rates for their local communities, and this is about ensuring that councils can access the long-term funding and financing tools that they need so they can deliver the infrastructure. This will be far cheaper than what that Government was proposing—over a billion dollars spent with nothing getting delivered.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why won’t the Minister guarantee that his repeal and replacement will be cheaper for ratepayers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, it will be cheaper for ratepayers, because we won’t be spending a billion dollars—like the last Government did—with nothing to show for it. The last Government thought there was a magic money tree, where they could throw it around and apparently solve problems, but, actually, they didn’t, after six years, even solve this problem for local councils.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is he aware of advice from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), currently still available on the DIA website, that states what he is proposing as a replacement to the affordable water reforms won’t work and will lead to higher rates for ratepayers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there’s a range of advice out there in terms of what the member may be pointing to. But what I would say is that this is going to give councils what they asked for, which is ensuring they can deliver and have the long-term funding and financing tools that they need. Mayors across this country opposed that Government’s plan. They opposed the mega entities and the forced mandated bureaucracies on local communities. We believe in local councils choosing and delivering for their local communities.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Isn’t it actually the case that the Minister is setting things up so that when rates inevitably rise—unaffordably, for some—he can blame councils instead of taking responsibility himself?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the last Government said that most of these entities weren’t going to come into force until 2026, so the rates that were being proposed over the next couple of years were actually going to be proposed, regardless of that Government’s reforms. Now, councils are ultimately responsible. We’re giving the long-term funding and financing tools that councils need so they can invest sustainably, in a fiscally responsible manner, in water infrastructure for their local communities.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Will indexing benefit levels to inflation rather than wages result in lower increases to benefits?

That will depend on the actual increase in inflation and increase in wages in the given year, and, of course, how you measure inflation and wages. For the last 31 of 35 years, main benefits have been indexed to the Consumers Price Index (CPI) as a measure of inflation to ensure they increase with the cost of living. We think it is fair to protect the real purchasing power of those on main benefits, and this is the approach our Government is taking.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is it the case, then, that projections given to me via parliamentary written answers show that people will see lower increases to benefits?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The difference this year will be approximately $2, and our Government is absolutely focused on, first of all, reducing the number of people on jobseeker benefit, because we’ve seen a blowout in dependency under the last Government, and also we are focused on reducing the cost of living and the pressures that households—those receiving benefits and on low incomes—are facing.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that because a person on the jobseeker is likely to be up to $50 worse off by the end of the decade, demand for hardship grants and advances will increase under her Government?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So the member is talking about projections 10 years out. If we look at it in the one year, it’s $2—$2 a week. This Government is relentlessly focused on getting the economy back to where it was so there are more opportunities, higher incomes, and the cost of living is not presenting the same level of pressure and hardship that Kiwi families are facing today. That is affecting those on benefit as well as those on low incomes, and there is a need to balance the two.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why won’t she index benefits to wages or inflation, whichever is higher, to ensure everyone is supported in good and bad times?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This Government has made the decision to be consistent, to follow what has been done in 31 of the last 35 years, which is to increase it based on the CPI. What we won’t do is allow a young person who goes on to the jobseeker benefit under the age of 20 to have a forecast of 24 years on welfare—we won’t be doing that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she confident that disabled people are treated with respect and dignity when they are forced to continuously prove lifelong medical conditions to remain on the supported living payment as opposed to going on to the jobseeker benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m not sure it’s related to the primary, but I’ll answer it anyway. We have a range of policies in place in New Zealand for the welfare system that do two things, and a check-in with front-line staff also ensures that somebody’s needs for support are being met. I think it is fair to working New Zealanders, who fund the welfare system, that we ensure that those who are receiving support have regular check-ins, and in some cases that means reapplying for benefits to make sure that the setting is right.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why would those regular check-ins include having to continuously prove lifelong medical conditions?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That’s the way it’s been for many years, and I don’t forecast it’s going to change.

Question No. 7—Local Government

7. to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made about water infrastructure?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the member for that question. The coalition Government is restoring council ownership and control of water assets by replacing Labour’s three waters legislation. Three waters was divisive and hugely unpopular, and all it would have delivered was a mega - co-governed bureaucracy. We heard the concerns that many New Zealanders had with the proposals, which is why we’re committed to repealing three waters and replacing it with Local Water Done Well.

Katie Nimon: Why is the Government repealing the Water Services Entities Act 2022?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, the last Government’s proposals would simply have created mega - co-governed bureaucracies and failed to actually address the infrastructure challenges that New Zealand councils are facing. Later today, I will be starting the process to repeal three waters. This was part of the Government’s 100-day plan, and I want to acknowledge our partners, ACT and New Zealand First, for their support in this.

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

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, good question. There will be two further bills progressing through Parliament to transition to Local Water Done Well. The first bill will provide streamlined requirements for establishing council-controlled organisations, enabling councils to start shifting the delivery of water services, and a second bill, to provide for a long-term replacement regime, will be introduced in December this year. This will set out the long-term requirements for financial sustainability and provide for a complete economic regulation regime and a new range of structural and financial tools.

Katie Nimon: How will Local Water Done Well help councils prepare for future water infrastructure?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: New Zealand’s water infrastructure is facing significant challenges, and Local Water Done Well will enable councils to have the tools that they need to access long-term funding and financing. Local Water Done Well recognises the importance of local decision-making and flexibility for communities and councils to determine how their water services should be delivered in the future, rather than the Government coming over top, like the former Government.

Question No. 8—Education

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

Yes—in particular, the actions that I took earlier this year to support the roll-out of NCEA level 1. On becoming the Minister of Education, it was very concerning to find that the implementation of NCEA level 1 standards had been rushed without providing key components to teachers, like subject learning outcomes or external assessment exemplars. After being contacted by subject associations and teachers who raised their serious concerns, this Government took immediate actions to produce subject learning outcomes for all level 1 subjects, and we managed to get this work done with the help of those subject associations so they were delivered to teachers at the start of term 1. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) exemplars were not going to be released until May this year, when much of the teaching would have already taken place. On becoming the Minister, I instructed NZQA to urgently expedite the availability of all level 1 exemplars, and exemplars for science standards were available before the start of term 1, while other subjects will become available through February and March—much earlier than the May deadline. This Government wants students to succeed, and we have stepped in to ensure teachers have the tools they need for NCEA level 1, which the previous Government failed to do in their rush to implement.

SPEAKER: I’ll just say to the Minister that that was an exceptionally long answer, and I appreciate it comes, probably, from the ministry and that it’s not unusual for them to write long documents like that—but the Hon Jan Tinetti.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How many schools are currently facing cuts to building projects?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m pleased the Minister—oh, the ex-Minister asked that question. On becoming the Minister, it was very concerning to find that there was an enormous pipeline of school build projects that were not able to be delivered on. Schools had had their expectations raised, buildings costs had skyrocketed, there were properties that were being designed with bespoke arrangements and architecturally designed buildings, schools had had their expectations raised, and there was poor communication. I’d like to just point out that the Minister herself said in a recent article: “You’ve got schools that have been really suffering, and suffering for quite some time”—that is the point. This has been ongoing and left to us by the previous Government, and now we’re having to come to a point where this Government are having to tidy up a list of schools that I am still coming to grips with the total number.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she stand by her statement: “You know, it is, and it’s part of, that is, the increasing costs of building, but part of it is because we are building these extremely bespoke classrooms, rather than just going ‘Look, here is option A, option B, and option C.’ ”, and, if so, is she aware that the Ministry of Education currently has a modular-building programme and off-site classroom construction options with a suite of standard designs introduced in 2018, helpfully available on the ministry’s website for her reference?

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, that’s one all, on the question and answer, isn’t it—so the Hon Erica Stanford.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased that the member asked that question. The point is that the ministry are only just at this point in time starting to roll that out. The pipeline that we are dealing with—that runs into the billions of dollars—includes architecturally designed classrooms that teachers have spent many hours outside the classroom dealing with, and many, many classrooms in that pipeline are in exactly that position. I have now directed the ministry to make sure that we have repeatable modular designs that we can save on these costs, rather than these architecturally designed classrooms that blow out budgets.

Hon Jan Tinetti: What does she say—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute—hang on a minute. The rules are no talking while a question is asked—some of your colleagues were speaking then.

Hon Jan Tinetti: What does she say to James Hargest College principal and Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand executive member Mike Newell, who, when asked about the property cuts, said that “no one seemed to know what the priorities were or [had] been able to sit down with the new minister. ‘So that’s really frustrating that we have a new education minister in there, and we’re unsure of what [her] priorities are.’ ”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have sat down and had multiple meetings with the property team to try and get to the bottom of how it can be that we have such an enormous pipeline of raised expectations that this previous Government was unable to deliver on. I can assure that Minister that I am across the detail and getting to the bottom of this enormous, enormous mess that they have left that we are about to clean up.

Question No. 9—Internal Affairs

9. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made regarding the royal commission of inquiry into COVID19 lessons?

On 2 February, I announced that the Government is delivering on its commitment to enable public input into expanding the scope of the royal commission of inquiry into COVID19 lessons. Both the ACT-National and the New Zealand First - National coalition agreements recognise expanding this scope as a priority. A royal commission is independent, but the Government sets the terms of reference. The current terms of reference of this inquiry were decided by the same Government responsible for the COVID19 response. That’s why this Government is open to expanding the scope of the inquiry.

Laura Trask: Why is the Minister consulting the public on broadening the terms of reference for the royal commission’s inquiry?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: All Kiwis were impacted in some way by the previous Government’s policies. There were social and economic impacts of COVID19 widely felt throughout the community. For example, in education, I’ve already heard from principals who say they’ve seen the effect of kids not being able to attend school, a lack of attendance, and the ability for kids not to have peer groups that they’ve socialised with. Businesses were having a lack of certainty, stress, and also not being deemed essential businesses. There were Aucklanders who had plunged into extended lockdowns, and people unable to access non-urgent healthcare, like breast cancer screenings that were put on hold. We want to hear from New Zealanders, and it’s essential for New Zealand to know what to do right in the future that we’re asking the right questions now.

Laura Trask: How can the public have their say on the terms of reference for the royal commission’s inquiry?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The public can submit through the royal commission’s COVID inquiry website: covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz. The public submissions are open until 24 March 2024, and I would encourage all New Zealanders to have their say. The Government will be considering the public’s feedback before making any final decisions on the scope of the inquiry.

Tanya Unkovich: Can the inquiry’s terms of reference be expanded further than what’s been suggested, based on public submissions?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yes, there were nine bullet points put forward by the coalition Government after consultation in Cabinet. The Government will take public submissions into consideration before finalising new terms of reference.

Tanya Unkovich: Can she provide an update on what the next steps are for the positions and vacancies of the COVID19 inquiry commissioners?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There are currently two commissioners for the COVID19 inquiry. The third member of the commission, Hekia Parata, resigned prior to the election. My first steps have been to open up the scope of inquiry by inviting public submissions, but now I’m turning my mind to the membership of the royal commission. I’ve asked for advice on appointments, and I will be consulting with my coalition partners throughout this process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of Hekia Parata having resigned, has she found out that, first of all, she was offering her resignation but then the Prime Minister, Mr Hipkins, persuaded her not to proceed with her resignation, but it came too late because the Minister in charge had accepted her resignation and, therefore, there was a fait accompli by mistake? [Interruption] That’s true, and you know—you’re the Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, who’s answering the question here?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, I could do both—but just say yes. [Points to the Minister of Internal Affairs]

SPEAKER: Thank you, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. That’s very helpful. We’ll leave it at that, thank you, and go on to question No. 10.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: How does he expect Auckland Council to meet the $1.2 billion funding hole over the next four years to meet the costs of transport projects that the regional fuel tax was to fund as priority projects for Auckland?

I disagree with the member’s assertion. Removing the Auckland regional fuel tax will save Aucklanders at the pump $150 million per year, or $600 million over the next four years, not the $1.2 billion mentioned. Around $341 million of regional fuel tax revenue remains unspent, and the Government will ring-fence these funds to deliver the priority projects such as the Eastern Busway, City Rail Link trains, and local roads. If Auckland Council wants to continue to fund cycle lanes, red-light cameras, $500,000 speed bumps, and blanket speed limit reductions, they are welcome to put that proposal forward to Aucklanders.

Tangi Utikere: What percentage of the Auckland regional fuel tax revenue gathered to date has been used to fund projects such as cycle lanes, red-light cameras, and pedestrian crossings in Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, of the, I think, $700 million that has been raised to date, around $340 million—almost half of it—remains unspent, so that’s a fail on the former Government. The second point is around over $100 million was spent on safety improvement projects, which was basically speed bumps, and then a whole lot of other bus lanes and cycle lanes received funding as well. What we want to focus that money—the remaining funding—on is the priority projects, and not wasting it on low-value priorities.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question that followed the member’s response to the primary. It was the Minister who cited some of the very items that I’d asked him in my first supplementary. It was a percentage—

SPEAKER: OK, ask it again—just move on.

Tangi Utikere: Thank you, sir. What percentage of the Auckland regional fuel tax revenue gathered to date has been used to fund projects such as cycle lanes, red-light cameras, and pedestrian crossings in Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if you look at the amount which is allocated to various elements, over $100 million is allocated to those particular initiatives, but $300 million is unspent, and I would encourage the member to put the formal percentage question to Auckland Council to get the finer detail.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to reiterate the point made by Tangi Utikere, he did ask specifically about the money that has been spent, and that was specific. The Minister did not address the question of what has been spent. He gave an answer about what had been allocated and unspent, and that’s a different question.

SPEAKER: Well, I think if you have a look at the Hansard record, you’ll find he started by saying, on the points that were raised in the question, around $100 million, and I think that’s a reasonable answer.

Tangi Utikere: What commitment, if any, has the Minister given to Auckland Council about his Government’s commitment to Auckland’s transport infrastructure, and what additional funding has he agreed to look into?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, thank you for the question. We are currently working through our Government policy statement on transport, which will include investment in our roads of national significance, which includes projects within Auckland. That Government talked a huge game when it came to Auckland and transport. Remember Auckland light rail—$228 million for consultants; no delivery. We’re going to be a Government that delivers, not just talks.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Apologies, but, again, this is a very specific question to the Minister about commitments that he has given to Auckland Council. Now, his rhetoric might be fine for himself, but he has decided not to specifically address the question.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he addressed it by saying the Government is currently working through the national transport plan.

Tangi Utikere: What does the Minister say in response to Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown’s view: “this is a problem that can’t be solved just by making cuts. Every Aucklander agrees that our transport system is a mess and it’s going to cost a lot of money to fix. That money must come from somewhere. Unfortunately, the Government has just made it a lot harder for us,”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I say to the member that we are not going to be a Government which taxes Aucklanders to fund $500,000 speed bumps—that is not our priority. We want to invest in the infrastructure which actually makes a difference, and that means ring-fencing the remaining funds to the Eastern Busway, the City Rail Link, local roading projects, and we’ll have a range of funding and financing tools which help ensure we have the tools to deliver infrastructure across New Zealand for New Zealanders.

Hon Nicola Willis: How much would an Aucklander driving, for example, a Toyota Hilux or a Toyota Corolla save every time they fill up at the pump, thanks to this Government’s focus on removing the regional fuel tax and helping address the cost of living?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that’s a very good question, and this is all about the cost of living for Aucklanders. If someone’s driving a Hilux, they’ll save around $9 every time they fill up their car; for someone who’s driving a Corolla, around $5, and that’s money that won’t be funding $500,000 speed bumps in Auckland.

Tangi Utikere: Is it, in fact, the case that his attempt to give relief at the pump on the one hand and his desire to take critical transport projects away with the other is because he has hit his own speed bump and wobbles, and, instead, he is quite content on committing Auckland to more gridlock as a result of the Government’s inability to fund our largest city’s proposed transport projects?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the gridlock in Auckland was caused by that Government, who spent six years saying they were going to deliver Auckland light rail—$228 million and nothing to deliver. The City Rail Link started by National will be completed by National. We electrified the Auckland rail network. We completed the motorway network. That Government did nothing for Auckland over six years.

SPEAKER: Before I call the supplementary, at the start of the last question there was talk on both sides of the House, so it would have been difficult to single out anyone. I’m just saying, again, that if people are asking a question, they get to ask it in silence. The honourable, the honourable—oh, forgotten it. The Hon Damien O’Connor.

Hon Damien O’Connor: That’s all right. I’m just a new member, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just for clarity, I’ve known him since 19-whatever.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Yeah, the 1980s. OK, we can’t go back that far, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, it was actually 1972. Anyway, carry on.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Can the Minister tell us the average price of a litre of 91 fuel in Auckland today, and how that compares to the $2.95 that people are paying in Westport?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, when I drove past the local Z on the way to the airport on Monday, it was around $2.88 or $2.90 a litre for 91.

Question No. 11—Emergency Management and Recovery

11. to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery: What recent announcements has he made regarding cyclone recovery?

Firstly, can I acknowledge that tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of Cyclone Gabrielle, which caused much devastation across the North Island. I’m looking forward to being on the ground in Napier and Hastings tomorrow to be with the communities there and to attend their commemoration event in Hastings. The devastation caused by the cyclone was profound, and I’m proud to be part of a Government that is firmly focused on ways that the response can be accelerated so that people have answers and can move on with their lives. I’m pleased to share in the House that, on Sunday, the Prime Minister and I visited Napier, and, alongside a tour of Bearsley Farms—which was hit particularly hard—and celebrating the hard-working first responders and volunteers across the region, we made a significant announcement of $63 million to support and accelerate the clean-up of silt and debris in both Tairāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay.

Catherine Wedd: Where is the funding going?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The funding will be split across respective councils: $40 million is going to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for urgent work to continue to remove sediment and debris across the region, with $3 million of that ring-fenced for debris removal in Wairoa; the Gisborne District Council will receive $23.6 million to ensure urgent work will continue for the processing and removal of woody debris across the region.

Catherine Wedd: What feedback has he had from locals on the ground?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, Hawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti are two regions that are very well served by their local members of Parliament. They are regularly in touch with me, providing me feedback about the recovery. Additionally, I’ve had lots of positive feedback from communities and people that I’ve met and engaged with in the region, who welcome the funding and have called it a boost for local employment and have said that the clearing of silt and debris is a high priority in terms of restarting the region’s economy and freeing up productive land.

Catherine Wedd: What is the Government’s approach to the recovery?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: We’re firmly focused on delivering a system that delivers better outcomes and gets the recovery happening in a much quicker way. The message to the people affected by Cyclone Gabrielle is that this Government is listening and working as hard as it can to speed up this recovery. We are behind you.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context they were delivered.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said—and I quote—“there’s no point building back houses if we don’t have flood protection in place.”, and, if so, is he concerned that more than 1,400 homes have been consented in Auckland flood plains since the Auckland Anniversary floods?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is exactly what I believe, and what we need to work hard on is making sure that we can move through property categorisation in a much quicker way. I’ve asked for a weekly update on that so that we can make sure that that job’s getting done across the cyclone-affected regions.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, then, did his Government roll back, under urgency, no less, the last Government’s Resource Management Act reforms, which Victoria University economics of disasters and climate change chair Ilan Noy said were “way better” than the status quo he’s returned us to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because it stultified New Zealand and stopped investment in infrastructure happening, and it wouldn’t have helped this problem.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is urban sprawl good or bad for climate mitigation and adaptation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We need both city densification and we need to open up new greenfields and new green spaces, too.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, if I may, point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, are you going to call one?

Chlöe Swarbrick: A point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was relatively straightforward: is urban sprawl good or bad for climate adaptation mitigation? The Prime Minister did not answer that question.

SPEAKER: The member will know that you can’t ask for definitive yes/no or good/bad answers. You can simply get an answer, and the answer was—the way I heard it, they’re both good and bad.

Chlöe Swarbrick: All right, Mr Speaker. It’ll stand on its own, then. Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, no, don’t make those comments; just ask your supplementary.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Government’s policy decisions increase or decrease urban sprawl?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want to make sure that people who can get houses have access to houses. We have a major problem in our housing market here in New Zealand. It’s linked by the fact that if you can’t own a house, you end up having to rent a house; if you can’t rent one, you end up on a social house wait-list; and if you can’t get on a social house wait-list, you end up in emergency housing. We are determined to solve housing in New Zealand; we’re going to do that job.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree with Christopher Luxon, who said that climate adaptation is going to require “bipartisan support”, and, if so, will he commit to restarting cross-party work, as started under the former Government, on climate adaptation within this parliamentary sitting block?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. Our climate change Minister agrees with me that we want to be able to make sure we can work in a bipartisan way to make sure we deal with climate adaptation, which has impacts over multiple generations, with landowners, local government, central government, insurers, and banks involved. So we’re very comfortable moving forward in the same manner as the previous Minister of Climate Change did.