Oral Questions

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, most definitely, in the time and in the context that they were given. An example of that I’m sure we’ll always stand for is this Government’s commitment in the Speech from the Throne to establish a Ministry of Regulation and pass the Regulatory Standards Bill. For too long, Governments have neglected the impact of red tape and regulation on the Kiwi can-do attitude and people that want to get on with building a wealthier country. Well, now we’ve got a Government that’s going to do something about it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his answers to oral questions yesterday, “What I think is fantastic is we have an Associate Minister with delegation for reducing smoking. She’s incredibly focused on that goal, and she’s asked her officials for a range of advice to actually lower smoking in New Zealand.”; if so, why?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, we do, because, actually, it is fantastic to have an Associate Minister committed to reducing smoking rates. It’s fantastic to have a Minister who asked for a range of advice. I can’t imagine the psychology of someone who doesn’t want a Minister who is (a) committed to reducing smoking and (b) interested in listening to advice.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can he assure this House that no person affiliated with the tobacco industry was involved in developing or writing the documents Casey Costello passed on to her officials?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’ve had assurances from all coalition partners in this Government that they have had no funding from the tobacco industry, and I am confident that there has been no undue influence on the policies of this Government by the tobacco industry.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. The answer was an interesting one, but the question was not about money or influence; it was about the documents that Casey Costello gave, and the Minister did not answer that question.

SPEAKER: OK, we’ll have the question again and see how we go.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can he assure this House that no person affiliated with the tobacco industry was involved in developing or writing the documents Casey Costello passed on to her officials?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am confident that there has been no undue influence on the policy formation of this Government.

Hon Grant Robertson: No, that is not answering the question, David; that’s avoiding it.

SPEAKER: No, with respect, the preparation of a party document does not become the problem of the Prime Minister. If it’s included in a coalition agreement, then it is accepted at that point.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Mr Speaker, yesterday when this exact issue was raised, you took the position that once the Associate Minister handed that material on to officials, it became the responsibility of both the Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister. That was the ruling you gave yesterday; that is the document that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s talking about.

SPEAKER: That is true—for the handling of it, that is true, but I think it would be quite unreasonable for anyone in a coalition situation to say, “Where did you get that paper from, who provided it, and if I don’t like who gave you advice, then we’re having nothing to do with it.” That’s not how it works.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I’d ask you to think very carefully about what you’ve just said, because once a Minister—I mean, a Minister only acts in giving things to officials as a Minister; they can’t do it in any other guise. Therefore, the material at that point becomes official material, and the matter of who prepared it becomes a matter for the Minister and the Prime Minister. I understand the point you’re making about individual party documents, and that’s longstanding, but the moment a Minister does something with them, it enters the realm of their responsibilities, in particular to this House.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, I think this is a—I understand where the shadow Leader of the House, or acting shadow Leader of the House, is coming from. It’s a finely balanced issue. The problem is this: Ministers are clearly responsible for things they give to their officials—no one’s disputing that. The issue is: are they responsible for the generation of that material? I would argue they cannot be, in the same way that if, for example, a Labour Party Minister gave a document to the education ministry—that was the New Zealand Educational Institute or the Post Primary Teachers’ Association or the Council of Trade Unions (CTU), for example—they cannot be questioned about the CTU in Parliament. They can be questioned about the handling of that document and what’s in the document, but the generation of that document I think would fall outside the scope of ministerial responsibility.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to that point of order, I think if one took that to its logical conclusion, that would be a very difficult thing to sustain. I’m pretty sure, in the time that I’ve been in the House, Ministers have been questioned about materials that they have worked with others on. The bottom line here is this exact document yesterday was the subject of questioning, and I don’t believe that the Minister, acting as the Prime Minister, has addressed that question. I think it would set a very unfortunate precedent if the House was not able to ask a Minister, or the Prime Minister, about a document that they handed to officials and how it was generated.

Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point order—thank you, Mr Speaker—the response from the acting Prime Minister was about undue influence, and that is not the question. There is a question of transparency, however. So it is, obviously, quite common for organisations to work with political parties to develop policy documents and then, when those political parties are in a position of Government, for them to provide those to officials. There’s, kind of, technically nothing wrong with that—I mean, that’s sort of been going on for donkey’s years. It does become a problem if that is not transparent—you know, who those organisations are and what is being provided to officials in an official capacity, in a ministerial capacity. That is what the question is about: was the tobacco industry involved in developing a document that the Minister then gave to officials, at which point it became official material? That’s just a matter of transparency; it’s not a matter of undue influence; it’s not a funding question or anything like that. But it is a matter of transparency about who is writing policy documents that are becoming part of the system of Government in this country.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Why not? It’s Thursday and we’ve got a long weekend ahead of us.

Hon Chris Bishop: It may be true in relation to other Ministers, but the Prime Minister cannot be responsible for where every piece of paper handled by a Minister came from. That just cannot be the case—from a knowledge point of view and from a prime ministerial accountability point of view.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to that. Since we’re on this, the statement just made then by the Leader of the House can’t possibly be true. In the 15 years that I have been in the House, Prime Ministers are asked about the actions—every action—of a Minister. It is, of course, perfectly possible for the Prime Minister to say that they don’t know, because, I agree with Leader of the House, they may well not know all of the details of documents. But that is not the same as simply not answering or avoiding the question.

Hon Marama Davidson: Speaking to that very point that Mr Bishop raised. To quote from that very side when they were in Opposition, “The clue is in the name”: Prime Minister. That’s where the responsibility has always lain.

SPEAKER: Thank you to members who contributed to this. I’m going to reflect on this over the next recess week and I’ll come back with a ruling. Do you have another supp? You can have an additional one as well, just to make sure that we’re all being nice and fair.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has the Prime Minister asked Minister Costello whether or not the tobacco industry informed the policy document or wrote the policy document she gave to health officials?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I can’t answer in respect to that conversation, at this time.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he confident that all of his Ministers have declared all conflicts, or potential conflicts, of interest?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes. And that question was about as effective as a Marama Davidson etymology lesson.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with David Seymour, “We can’t sit around the table everyday with somebody that, in the past, at least, has had secret foundations where all of the donations go, doesn’t declare them like any other political party would, and, of course, we don’t know why that money was paid, by whom, for what purpose”; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I’m a great admirer of the wisdom that David Seymour brings to many matters. The other thing I would note is that, in spite of his prognostication, this coalition Government is far more united and effective than the Opposition’s worst nightmare—in fact, we’re your nightmare dressed up as a daydream.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his comment that “Well, I’m responsible for all Ministers, irrespective of which party they come from”, and, if so, when will he dismiss Casey Costello?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, you know, the member has been in Cabinet, so she’ll be aware that the Prime Minister is responsible for all Ministers. In respect of Casey Costello, I have full confidence in her, and I’m sure that, in time, that member will too.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Has she seen any recent reports on income growth in New Zealand?

I’ve seen a report showing that the median wage in 2010 was $40,000, and that now it has risen to $65,000. This means that someone earning the median wage back in 2010 was firmly in the 17.5 percent personal income tax bracket, and now they are firmly in the 30 percent tax bracket. Through neglect, the personal income tax scale has failed to keep up with growth in incomes.

Catherine Wedd: What tax bracket are minimum wage earners in?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That depends on how many hours they work, of course, but let me give you an example. A person working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage in 2010 was earning $27,000. After the increase in the minimum wage, a person working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage will now be earning more than $48,000, and therefore—like median income earners—will be in the 30 percent tax bracket. Again, through neglect, the personal income tax scale has failed to keep up with the growth in incomes.

Catherine Wedd: When was the last time New Zealanders saw any reduction in the personal income taxes they pay?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, sadly, you have to go all the way back to 1 October 2010, when the National Government reduced personal income taxes after Budget 2010. That is 14 years ago. To be fair, personal income tax reductions were legislated for in 2017. However, the incoming Labour Government cancelled them, and then introduced a new top tax rate of 39 percent. So, apart from the new top rate, personal income tax rates and thresholds have remained exactly as they are since October 2010.

Catherine Wedd: Has she seen any reports relating to personal income tax reductions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I have seen a report on reductions in personal income tax. This came from Australia, where the Labor Government has just announced the third in a series of personal income tax reductions. I thought this was highly relevant for New Zealand as it shows that such reductions are commonplace and can be adopted by Governments of all political stripes.

Camilla Belich: How does the Minister justify the decision to raise the minimum wage today by less than the rate of inflation—effectively, cutting the wages of thousands of low-paid workers in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’d point out to the member that there are a number of projections for what inflation will be in the year ahead—and that in the last quarter, at 0.5 percent and an annualised rate of 2 percent.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a general opinion on inflation, but it didn’t touch at all on any of the justification for the minimum wage.

SPEAKER: But the point is that the question relied on an opinion about the inflation rate. Do you have another supplementary? Question—

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—the Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that wage growth comes from investments and entrepreneurship and productivity growth allowing employers to pay their workers more, and that legislating up the wage from Wellington is not the only or the best way for Kiwis to get ahead—in fact, for the 97.1 percent of workers who are not on the minimum wage, that’s the only way for them to get ahead?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I am delighted to be in a coalition Government that is committed to growing this economy so that we can have higher incomes and higher living standards for all New Zealanders.

Hon Grant Robertson: What measure of inflation was used in the advice given to the Government when setting the minimum wage?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We received a number of pieces of advice in relation to the minimum wage, and that advice included different measures for inflation, depending on the time periods that were being looked at. Of course, the Consumers Price Index is viewed as the standard measure of inflation, but the period which you look at to determine the inflation rate is something that there can be a number of perspectives on.

Question No. 3—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

3. to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he stand by his statement that “My focus in government is upon fixing the bad outcomes of colonisation and building on the good ones”?

on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Yes, and I note my wider quote where I said, “People can argue about history and that’s appropriate, everybody will have a different point of view, I certainly have no doubt that there were many bad things that have happened as a result of colonisation and what I’m focused on is ... improving them and restoring them and that’s the focus of our government.”

Hon Marama Davidson: What specifically are the “good” outcomes of colonisation that he is planning to build on?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Unlike that member, I don’t view history in a binary way. History is complicated. Colonisation brought to New Zealand things like Westminster democracy, the rule of law, economic development.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Mansplaining!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: How can it be mansplaining to answer a question from a woman in Parliament? Seriously, like—ridiculous. On the other hand, colonisation brought immense suffering for many people. It brought the loss of land for tangata whenua, it brought disease, and it brought illness. And, of course, we are all engaged in a national effort to remedy and right the wrongs of the past and that’s what this Government is committed to.

Hon Marama Davidson: How does cutting the budget of the Waitangi Tribunal, which has exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, contribute to “fixing the bad outcomes of colonisation”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, all Government agencies are being asked to make savings. The member will be aware of the coalition Government commitment around looking at the scope, purpose, and the nature of the inquiries of the Waitangi Tribunal. That work has yet to begin, but it will begin in due course.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that cutting the funding of the Waitangi Tribunal to pay for tax cuts will affect its ability to scrutinise the Government’s proposed Treaty principles bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, and I reject the characterisation of the member’s explanation.

Fa’anānā Efeso Collins: Does he think the Treaty principles of partnership and participation, as developed by the courts, remain relevant to “fixing the bad outcomes” for Māori in areas such as justice, health, and education?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes.

Fa’anānā Efeso Collins: Has he met with representatives from iwi and hapū since becoming Minister, and, if so, have they raised with him any concerns about the Government’s approach to Te Tiriti?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not able to comment on that because I don’t have visibility over the Minister’s diary and what happened in those meetings, I’m sorry.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by the statement in the National Party and ACT Party coalition agreement, “The concepts of ACT’s income tax policy are considered as a pathway to delivering National’s promised tax relief, subject to no earner being worse off than they would be under National’s plan”?

I can confirm to the member that that is indeed the wording in the coalition agreement, and the Government is delivering on that commitment.

Hon Grant Robertson: Will the Minister rule out cutting the top income tax rate from 39c to 33c in this term of Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’ve already done so.

Hon Grant Robertson: How, then, can the ACT Party system of taxation be being considered by the Minister when a core plank of it she has just ruled out?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there are many aspects to the proposals that Mr Seymour and I are discussing along with other Ministers in the Cabinet. I have to say that I am delighted to see the new-found interest from the Opposition member in the necessity to reduce taxation. If only he’d taken one of the six opportunities he had to do so.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about improving the safety and security of our health workforce?

Our health workforce is the backbone of our health system and we will support them. That is why we increased the number of security staff in emergency departments (EDs) by an additional 200 staff across 32 EDs over the Christmas and new year period.

Sam Uffindell: What feedback has he received about this important uplift in security?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have visited a number of hospitals across the country and have heard firsthand from staff and patients how beneficial this programme has been. I am told that there has been a noticeable reduction in the number of people who have been abusive towards staff. This has improved due to the increased presence of security in our EDs and has ensured people feel safer when they access care in their times of need.

Sam Uffindell: Why was this such a priority for the Government?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Just last week, guards that were provided through our ED security boost helped to swiftly remedy a fight in Christchurch Hospital’s emergency department between gang members. That is why this programme was such a priority for the Government. The safety of our health workforce and patients is and always will be a top priority. We must say no to violence in our EDs.

Sam Uffindell: What are the next steps for security in emergency departments?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This programme addressed an urgent, immediate need over the busy summer period. We’ll be assessing the impact that this has had and will look for ways to improve safety long term. Ideally, we would not and should not require security in our EDs. This Government is committed to law and order and making our streets safer for everyone, including our EDs.

Question No. 6—Children

6. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all of her statements and policies?

Yes.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: What is she doing to ensure the safety of tamariki in State care in response to the report by Oranga Tamariki which has shown that more children than ever are being harmed under her watch?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I acknowledge that the reports do not reflect well on Oranga Tamariki or the previous Minister for Children. But while there have been some improvements, there are many areas that have been highlighted that are an issue. I am dedicated to making real change in this area, and some of that space is around making sure caregivers have the right support wrapped around them to take care of our most vulnerable and making sure that we are making sure that the best interests of our young people are the first and foremost in decision making when it comes to our young people.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How can she justify cutting 600 staff at Oranga Tamaki when understaffing is a major factor in the increased rates of harm we are seeing under her watch?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No commitments have been made on what’s going to happen in staffing levels. Those decisions are still ongoing and those discussions are still ongoing.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How can she justify removing section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act when rates of abuse for tamariki Māori in the Crown’s care have almost doubled in the last five years?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Repealing section 7AA is something that I have campaigned on for the last three years. We need to make sure that the best interests are first and foremost in every decision we are making around our children, and those reports are showing that a lot of that harm is when children are being placed back into family care. We need to make sure that we are creating the best wraparound services possible so that these young people have a chance in life to not just survive but thrive.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Will the Minister accept responsibility for any further increases in rates of abuse of tamariki Māori in State care as a result of her policies, including removing section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I take this role very seriously, and every report of harm of a child is disappointing. My focus is to make sure that every child—Māori or non-Māori—is safe, loved, and cared for.

Question No. 7—Health

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

Yes, in particular what I said in answering the member’s question in the House yesterday, when I said, “When I received this delegation, I provided a range of information to officials, including things like Hansard … and previous policy proposals around smoke-free and vaping to help guide conversations. The health paper came back setting out a number of areas … [to provide] advice [on] … and I marked that I wanted advice on [each] of them”. That health briefing refers to proposals and notes. I want to be clear they were not my proposals or notes. They were not things I had written. This was general information I had provided officials, and I’m sure they can verify this.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did she tell Radio New Zealand, “I haven’t looked at a freeze on the excise duty at all” when the notes she gave to officials said, “Freeze the excise rates on smoked tobacco for three years starting 31 December 2023”?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: It is unfortunate the actions have been distorted by a media article. The fact is I was asked a question about whether I had sought specific advice. I had not sought specific advice, which is the question I answered, and I referred to a range of advice I had sought from officials.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How does she explain her statement to RNZ that “I had not sought that advice at all.” when she had requested it through the documents she provided to the Ministry of Health?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I said, I stated I had not sought specific advice on the excise tax.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who wrote or collated the notes that said, “Freeze the excise rate on smoked tobacco” that she gave to health officials?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The documentation is a range of historical policy positions and notes that were held in New Zealand First policy positions. Some of it relates to things that were passed in the legislation when New Zealand First was in Government. This is a range of points and positions and it’s about five pages long.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. That was a very specific question about a very particular document, and it wasn’t answered, because it was asked what the authorship of that document was. To say that there’s a series of documents from the New Zealand First policy library doesn’t come close to an answer.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, the Minister answered it in extensive detail. She said it’s about a five-page-long document based on historical New Zealand First Party positions from a range of different sources, including the past. The Minister actually gave far more information, frankly, than I think she is required to as a Minister, in the interests of illuminating the public debate on this issue.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: The question cannot have been credibly answered, because how could a historical document contain a policy proposal for December 2023?

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, that wasn’t necessarily the case in the answer that was given. But I will ask the Minister to have another crack at answering it, if that’s OK.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The pages of notes that were provided to the officials were a compilation of information that was extracted; the authors, I’m not sure of. They were historical policy positions.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who wrote the note that said, “Freeze the excise tax on smoked tobacco in 2023” that she gave to officials?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I couldn’t tell you the author of that document. It’s in the document archives.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Do things in her office just appear out of thin air?

SPEAKER: That’s not a reasonable question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can the public trust her to take action on youth vaping when she is secretly sending notes to officials that nicotine isn’t harmful?

SPEAKER: No, hang on. No, that’s not an acceptable question either.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why not?

SPEAKER: Because you cannot make an allegation that notes that were sent to officials—that the member asking the question knows about—were secret. Quite ridiculous.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can the public trust her to take action on youth vaping when she is sending notes to officials saying that nicotine isn’t harmful?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I’ve stated in the policy positions that we have taken, I’m seeking a broad range of advice, including how we deter youth from vaping and taking up, and also how we give the tools to those who are addicted to nicotine to quit smoking.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did she deny seeking advice on a tobacco excise tax freeze when asked by Radio New Zealand, despite having actually sought that advice, because she did not want to be questioned on her plans to give tax breaks to the tobacco industry?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No.

Question No. 8—Emergency Management and Recovery

8. to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery: What recent announcements has he made on flood resilience?

Firstly, can I acknowledge the recent one-year anniversary of the Auckland floods on Auckland Anniversary weekend, as well as the lives lost during that significant weather event—those included two of our firefighters. I am pleased to share with the House that I’ve recently announced $26.8 million of funding for flood resilience projects across the country, of which $12.3 million has been for flood risk mitigation across 13 projects, and $14.5 million for Future of Severely Affected Land Category 2 support across four projects. This funding has gone to projects in Northland, Waikato, Manawatū-Whanganui, Wairarapa, Bay of Plenty, and the Coromandel. The Government remains focused on delivering high-quality investment for flood resilience to better protect communities.

Mike Butterick: What projects has he announced funding for in the Wairarapa?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Good news for the member’s electorate. The Government has funded the Flat Point Flood resilience project, early flood warning systems in the eastern Wairarapa, sewer resilience and flood relocation support in Masterton, and water protection in Riversdale. These projects will ensure that his electorate has a greater resilience to flooding in prone areas, ensuring that homes in Flat Point enjoy greater protection from flood events, communities receive better warning of flooding, sewers in Masterton are protected from inflows during heavy rainfall events, and homes in Riversdale are provided greater protection from erosion.

Miles Anderson: My colleague the member for Northland is interested to know: what projects has he announced funding for in Northland?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: More great news: flood relief in Morningside, Whangārei; the clearing of the Awakino river mouth; installation of a boxed culvert to increase the size of Beach Road culvert in Whangārei, and the upgrade of the Murphy Bower stopbank on the Wairoa River to protect the Ruawai community. The member can be assured that his community has received relief to address an urgent need to make the smaller rural communities he knows well across the electorate more resilient and better prepared for weather events.

Sam Uffindell: What announcements has he made around Future of Severely Affected Land Category 2 support for Tauranga?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, more great news for the member: as the member will be familiar, two landslips took place during the Auckland Anniversary flooding, on Egret Ave and Te Mutu Crescent in Tauranga. I’m pleased to have announced $7.3 million to provide a long-term, permanent remediation solution for his community.

Tim van de Molen: What announcements has he made for the Waikato?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’ve announced funding for several projects in the Waikato: funding for the Waihou Rivers Network Recovery to remove storm-affected vegetation and the planting of new willow and poplar poles, alongside erosion protection works to stabilise riverbanks; removal of waterway obstructions and the construction of at least 85 in-stream erosion control structures to mitigate future flood risk in vulnerable areas of the Waikato, Waipā, and West Coast catchments; resilience work for the Lake Hakanoa channel to prevent floodwater entering homes in Huntly—vital to maintaining water levels and prevent further environmental degradation; and storm-damaged tree removal in the Coromandel. In addition, I have announced $1.3 million for slip stabilisation in Thornton Bay on the west coast of the Coromandel and $1.1 million for support for homeowners across the Waikato to mitigate risks associated with future landslides.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: Is it the Government’s policy to train “no fewer than 500 new frontline police within the first two years”, as per the National and New Zealand First coalition agreement?

Yes; the Government will deliver 500 net more police on the beat in two years.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Given the Minister’s renewed commitment to the National and New Zealand First coalition agreement of 500 new police within two years, when did he first become aware that Police’s current recruitment practices would not enable police to achieve any desired growth without other interventions?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, as I’ve said many times in this House, I became aware as the incoming Minister that Police faced major challenges around recruiting due to the fact that the Australians are here recruiting our police officers, they were finding it difficult to fill recruit wings, and we’ve got many police officers that are fast approaching retirement age.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When did he first inform the Prime Minister’s office that Police’s current recruitment practices would not enable Police to achieve any desired growth without other interventions?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I had several conversations when I became aware of the situation around recruiting, with several of my colleagues.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What specific interventions is he considering in order to meet his renewed commitment to the 500 new police in two years, and will he rule out lowering current recruitment standards as one of them?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I was recently at the Gisborne Police Station and there was a young constable there that had been put in charge of mentoring and identifying young people in the community that may be interested in a career in Police. He has been very successful. In the latest recruit wing, I think there were four that had been recruited through that process and were proudly graduating. So I think we’re just going to have to look at many different options in terms of how we meet our target of 500 over two years.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question that asked whether he was going to lower the standards, and he gave me a story about a visit in Gisborne.

SPEAKER: Have another go at asking.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the 500 new police all be constabulary or does it include authorised officers?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No. Unlike the previous Government, who deceived New Zealand by saying they had recruited 1,800 front-line police officers when in fact they hadn’t—it was 1,500—we will be recruiting, training, and deploying 500 sworn police officers. In relation to standards, no we will not be dropping standards.

SPEAKER: I just remind the Minister answering the question that the choice of language was not appropriate there. All political positions will be put from a position considered honest by the person putting it. How someone else sees it is a different matter, but it’s not for this House.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: Does he consider the proposed road user charges for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids fair, compared with road user charges and fuel excise duty for similarly sized vehicles; if so, why?

Yes. The Government has announced that electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids will contribute towards the maintenance of our roads, as other vehicles do. The changes proposed for electric vehicles will ensure that they pay the same amount as a road-user charge as those other light vehicles which pay a road-user charge. There are variances throughout the system, and that is why the coalition agreement with ACT commits this Government to progress a fleet-wide transition to road-user charges that will result in a much fairer charging system based on how much people travel the roads and the weight of their vehicle.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How is it fair that the average electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid owner would pay more than double the tax of a similarly sized petrol vehicle for a return trip from Wellington to Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There are variances throughout the system, as I acknowledged. That is why the coalition Government has agreed to progress a fleet-wide transition to road-user charges that will result in a much fairer charging system. This was an issue that was not addressed under the last Government, and this is the first step towards ensuring that all vehicles who use the road pay towards contributing towards maintaining it.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Therefore, I can confirm that the Minister acknowledges that an electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid, as shown here, would pay more than twice as much in road tax under his proposal on a trip from Wellington to Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There’s a range of variables around how much based on the fuel usage. The problem with the current system is that it charges people based on how many litres of fuel they put into their car rather than how much they use the road. We want to move to a system which charges based on how many kilometres and the weight of that vehicle, rather than what type of fuel motors that vehicle. That is the reform that we are progressing.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So his Government is happy to financially disincentivise electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles relative to polluting fossil fuel vehicles in the interim while we wait for his alternative road-user charges proposal?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No. This Government has confirmed that the exemption, which would run out on 1 April this year—which was, actually, by the way, put in place by the last National Government to help incentivise electric vehicle uptake—will end now that 2 percent of the fleet is electric. What we’re saying is all users of our road should pay and contribute towards maintaining it.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he concerned about the combined disincentive effect of charging electric vehicles more tax, given the Ministry of Transport’s advice that scrapping the Clean Car Discount means transport may fail to meet its third emissions budget?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No. The issue that the member continues to raise is she’s just simply looking at how much tax is paid based on the number of litres or the type of fuel used. We want to move it to being a distance and weight change, and that member’s graph that she continues to raise doesn’t take into account the full running costs of those vehicles. As everyone knows, electric vehicles are far cheaper to use and drive, as many members of this House know, but that graph that she uses misinforms the House.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. The Minister just made a comment regarding my colleague misinforming the House, effectively accusing her of lying.

SPEAKER: No, he said—[Interruption] Firstly, if a point of order is being taken, the House is silent and listens to it. What he said is that the graphic misinformed the House—quite a different matter.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister aware that the running charges for efficient petrol vehicles would also be lower, therefore their contribution to tax is lower than less efficient vehicles, and, therefore, what is the logical connection between cars having lower running costs and contributing less to the roads on a per-kilometre basis?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I really enjoyed the co-leadership bid from the member opposite, and if she would like to table a copy of that document, I’d be very happy to have a read.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. It would be great if the Minister would attempt to address the question.

SPEAKER: It would also be great if questions were asked. With all due respect, if you have a look at your Hansard, several of your questions have started as a statement. So I think the interchange here has been one-on-one. Feel free to ask your question again.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister aware that vehicles that run on petrol that have lower running costs would also contribute less to the roads on a per-kilometre basis, and, therefore, on what basis is he saying that electric vehicles have lower running costs and therefore should pay more to run on the roads, when that’s not the case for petrol vehicles?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I’ve said to the House a number of times, there are variances throughout the system and that is why we have started work to move all vehicles to the road-user charges system so people pay based on distance travelled and vehicle weight rather than the type of fuel that is used. We think that is a far fairer way to charge, and that is where we are heading.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order—yeah, just at the earliest opportunity that I was able to bring it up, but my understanding with Speaker’s ruling 205/5(1) is that “Ministers should not commence an answer to a question with a political attack on the person asking the question.”, and there were incidents where that was the case. So I’m just asking the Speaker to just reflect on the fact that we’ve got Ministers starting those answers with political attacks, not addressing the question.

SPEAKER: I didn’t pick it up that way; if that’s the way the member’s party has seen it, I’ll take a look at that and come back to you.

Question No. 11—Education

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

on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes. In fact, how long do you have? A personal favourite is my commitment to reintroducing partnership schools under this Government, a policy that was unceremoniously dumped by the previous Government and yet has the potential to make an enormous difference for disadvantaged students up and down this country.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does the Government’s commitment to restore balance to the Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories curriculum actually mean?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister, this Government is a coalition of three parties and the coalition agreement set out that restoring balance is exactly what the Government is committed to doing with the Aotearoa histories curriculum. The way that that will be done is set to come before Cabinet in the future, and once those policy decisions have been made, I’m sure the member will be the first to know.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does the Minister stand by her statement that the ministerial advisory group reviewing primary school English, maths, and statistics curricula are subject-matter experts who will ensure that our curriculum is knowledge-rich, detailed, grounded in the science of learning, and internationally comparable?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Supplementary. Yes—

Hon Grant Robertson: No. No, no.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, that’s right—

Hon Grant Robertson: I’d like you to ask a supplementary.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That’s right, we won the election! On behalf of the Minister, yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she think ministerial group member Professor Elizabeth Rata’s statement, “Nearly 40 years ago the 1985 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act set in motion a radical constitutional agenda. The aim: to shift the country from democracy to tribalism. In [the same] time, a corporate tribal elite has privatised public resources, acquired political power, and attained governance entitlements.” is knowledge-rich, and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Supplement—oh, sorry. I’ve got to stop doing that. On behalf of the Minister, I’ve appointed Professor Elizabeth Rata because she is a well-recognised and renowned educational expert. Any views that she has expressed in terms of her political views are not relevant to her appointment, which is based on her educational expertise. It would be a strange thing for the Labour Party to reveal that they actually profile people for their political views before appointing them on the basis of their expertise to get the job done and get a better curriculum for New Zealand’s kids.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What proposals has he made to streamline and simplify the conduct requirements for financial institutions in New Zealand?

Yesterday, I announced at the Financial Services Council meeting my intention to simplify regulations, cut red tape, and reduce costs to financial institutions. There were three elements: first of all, the proposal to move from three to two regulators; secondly, to reduce from a maximum of six licences to a single licence; and thirdly, to reform the Conduct of Financial Institutions requirements to make it easier for smaller financial institutions to meet their obligations. We are committed to reducing compliance and regulation, where appropriate, and getting the economy back on track.

Nancy Lu: How will clearly defining the roles of the two regulators assist financial institutions?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Currently, some institutions are accountable to up to three regulators. What I announced yesterday is a move to just two regulators—the first being a prudential regulator, who is, of course, the Reserve Bank, but, more importantly, moving to a single conduct regulator, being the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). By making this change, financial institutions will have clearer lines of responsibility, which means they can focus on running their businesses more effectively.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What initiatives has he announced in respect of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, and how does that differ one little bit from the announcement of the last Minister on 8 August 2023?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I announced yesterday that we are looking into the credit contracts Act because our intent is to improve the regulation, which the previous Government has made an absolute hash of—hash of. What we’re intending to do is to make sure that vulnerable borrowers are still protected, but, just as importantly, making sure that credit is available to those who need it but have been excluded under the current regulations.

Nancy Lu: What are the benefits of moving to a single licensed regime of conduct?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Currently, some institutions have to apply up to or hold five licences with the FMA. With the new Conduct of Financial Institutions—or CoFI—bill, that requires an additional licence. What we’re proposing to do is to move to a single licence issued by the FMA—or Financial Markets Authority—which means less duplication, reduces the operational burden for institutions without compromising conduct requirements.

Nancy Lu: How will this Government make it easier for smaller financial institutions to meet their CoFI obligations?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: As I announced yesterday, I’m requesting that the FMA issue clear guidance on the minimum requirements necessary for smaller institutions to meet their obligations under CoFI regulations and legislation. This will allow the smaller institutions to develop a more tailored approach, ensuring obligations are both proportionate and fit for purpose, while balancing the importance of fair treatment for customers.