Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the cost of living?

Last week, Stats New Zealand released the Consumers Price Index for the final quarter of last year. This showed that inflation was 4.7 percent in the year to December. While that is an improvement on the 5.6 percent inflation in September, it is still far too high. What is really striking is when one looks over a longer time frame: the Stats NZ figures show, for example, that over the last three years, prices have risen a total of 19 percent. That 19 percent in only three years represents a cost of living crisis that has eroded the real value of people’s incomes and savings and has made their lives much more expensive.

Dan Bidois: Is New Zealand’s inflation rate being driven by overseas factors?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To some extent, yes—

Hon Grant Robertson: Judith Collins just said yes.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —but to a greater extent, no.

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, you’d better tell Judith.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Robertson should listen because I think he’ll learn something. Inflation is influenced by global disruptions that raise the price of imports. Right now, for example, supply chains are under considerable strain from the Red Sea attacks and the Panama drought. But global factors are not the main contributors to inflation. The Stats NZ figures from last week show that tradables inflation, covering goods and services that are imported or that compete with foreign goods, has dropped significantly. On the other hand, non-tradables inflation has stayed stubbornly high. So domestic factors, rather than global factors, are playing the greatest role in driving inflation right now.

Dan Bidois: What has the Government been doing to help bring down inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Last year, the Government introduced legislation which this House passed to bring back a single mandate for monetary policy—that mandate is price stability. Having a single price stability mandate has served New Zealand well since its introduction more than 30 years ago, and the experiment of the last five years of having a dual mandate failed spectacularly. This Government went back to a single mandate to ensure that monetary policy decision makers and those observing them have no doubt that busting inflation is our goal and that they are to have an unerring focus on achieving price stability.

Dan Bidois: What else is the Government doing to help with the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government’s 100-day plan contains a number of measures to help New Zealanders hit by large increases in the cost of living. Nothing—

Hon Grant Robertson: Nothing—that’s right!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, nothing can instantly make up for a 19 percent increase in costs, but New Zealanders will welcome measures such as cancelling fuel tax increases for the remainder of this term and removing the Auckland regional fuel tax. They will also appreciate the steps our Government is taking to ensure maximum value for every taxpayer dollar spent. Later this year, Kiwis can also look forward to a personal income tax reduction that will put more money in their back pocket.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do, and particularly our Government’s statements on education—of course, that member was the Minister of Education for 5½ years. The Government is particularly concerned about the state of kids’ school attendance—we have 55 percent of our kids not going to school regularly. So I am very proud of our Government’s statements and actions around education, particularly banning mobile phones; making sure we have one hour of maths, reading, and writing every day at primary and intermediate schools; and, importantly, reviewing the curriculum. We care about our kids. We want them to get well educated so they can have a great future.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon on recent changes to smoke-free legislation: “We’ve been really supportive. Anything to remove, you know, smoking harm I think is a good thing.”; if so, what’s changed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re very pleased to see that the current legislation which we’re reverting to has actually driven daily smoking down by two points, back to 6.8, and we’re on track to deliver Smokefree 2025.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will projected Government revenue from tobacco sales increase or decrease as a result of his Government’s decision to wind back changes to smoke-free legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This Government’s very committed to continuing to lower smoking. We don’t believe that that Government’s legislation was actually the right way forward. We believe that we can achieve lower smoking rates with the legislation that exists today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That may well be the Prime Minister’s opinion; it didn’t relate to the question that I asked him.

SPEAKER: Well, in the end, all ministerial answers are opinions of the Minister. You can ask the question again and we’ll see what happens.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will projected Government revenue from tobacco sales increase or decrease as a result of his Government’s decision to wind back changes to smoke-free legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Revenue forecasts are Budget-sensitive, but we want lower smoking rates across this country—that’s what we’re going to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: I’ll go there—sorry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He’s had three.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Wait on—wait on. Yes, I know he’s had three, but I’m the one who calls. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Nicola Willis—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Let’s get things started right in 2024.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s what I’m trying to do, and, believe me, I’m going to be the one who wins here.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not if you’re going on principle. Principles should win, not personalities. Can I just say this: he’s had three questions already and the next time he’s interrupted, this should have been given to the other side of the House, surely.

SPEAKER: One of the things that became a convention in the last Parliament was that where the primary questioner continues to ask for supplementaries until their allocation runs out, they’re able to do that. If they sit down and hold one back, that’s fine, but the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins wants to get his all out at one go, and I think that’s reasonable, given the way that we’ve operated over the previous three years.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he, therefore, agree with Nicola Willis, who said, “Coming back to those extra sources of revenue and other savings areas that will help us to fund tax reduction, we have to remember that the changes to smoke-free legislation had a significant impact on the Government books - with about $1 billion there.”; if so, why does he think that more people smoking or smoking more is an acceptable way of funding tax cuts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. The legislation that we are reverting to is the same legislation that has seen a consistent decrease in daily smoking. If you just look at the last year, it’s gone from 8.6 percent in 2022 down to 6.8 percent in 2023. The legislation was working. It was driving smoking rates down, and that’s what we’ll continue to do in Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not it’s axiomatic that if there is a dramatic decline, which is now the world’s leading decline in tobacco smoking, then it’s quite possible that the instance of tax will go down as well; and, second, that the legislation about which the Leader of the Opposition is talking was not constructed by him but by New Zealand First, which led to the dramatic fall in tobacco smoking in the first place? And that’s a fact.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree that the legislation we are wanting to put in place has actually driven smoking rates down and will continue to do so going forward.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Government requested any advice on freezing tobacco excise; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Not that I’m aware of.

Hon David Seymour: How much revenue would the Government get from illegally smuggled and sold counterfeit cigarettes that are now dominating the Australian market, with organised crime taking over and the situation getting out of control?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the member raises a very good question, which was the problem with the previous Government’s proposed changes to legislation—that it would encourage a black market and would actually lead to increasing levels of crime and ram raids.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If any Minister or Ministers in his Government have received donations from anyone associated with the tobacco lobby, would he regard that as a conflict of interest and exclude them from decision making on any future changes to smoke-free legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not aware of that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask him whether he was aware; I asked him whether he would regard it as a conflict of interest they received—

SPEAKER: It’s a fair question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah. I would expect that all Ministers would comply with their reporting obligations.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Cabinet Manual makes it very clear that the Prime Minister determines whether or not they have a conflict of interest. I’ve asked him whether he would regard that as a conflict of interest or not, and he still hasn’t answered it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I expect all Ministers to comply with the Cabinet Manual and to declare conflicts of interest.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do, in the context they were given.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question—sorry, having to go to my sheet. My deep apologies—I’m sorry about this. Sorry, I’m lost here; someone’s going to have to help me here. My apologies.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Hana-Rawhiti.

SPEAKER: Hana, my sincere apologies. I do apologise. Please ask your question.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he agree with the Ministry of Justice that his Government’s Treaty principles bill to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi goes against the spirit of the Treaty, or the text of the Treaty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Government hasn’t received any Cabinet paper or any draft Treaty principles bill legislation.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: If he has no intention of supporting the Treaty principles bill beyond the select committee stage, why has he appointed a new Associate Minister with specific responsibility for the bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: So that the programme can be progressed.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: By delegating ministerial responsibility for the Treaty principles bill to an ACT Party Minister, is he attempting to distance himself from division that this attempt to erase Te Tiriti o Waitangi has caused, while at the same time leveraging off it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the question. We’re not changing the Treaty of Waitangi, nor Treaty settlements. What we have is a coalition agreement which we are actioning. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no comments; just a question.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: If he believes the Treaty principles bill is unhelpful and divisive, will he commit to voting against it after the select committee stage?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As has been well canvassed, there is no commitment to support the bill after first reading.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. to the Minister of Housing: What recent concerns has he raised with Kāinga Ora regarding vacant homes?

Mr Speaker, thank you. Earlier this month, I announced that I had written to the board of Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities to make it clear that the number of social houses sitting vacant across New Zealand is completely unacceptable. As of late last year, the total number of vacant social homes in New Zealand was 3,906—5 percent of New Zealand’s total public housing stock. Twenty percent of new public homes delivered by Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities between June 2022 and October 2023 were still sitting vacant in October last year. Kāinga Ora has been planning and building these new homes for years. They were not a surprise. My expectation is that months out from a new home’s completion, they should be getting organised with new tenants who need these homes, and I’m sure they’d much rather be moving into a brand-new home rather than sitting in an emergency housing motel room.

Rima Nakhle: What else was in the letter to Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The letter outlined my disappointment with the numbers, and it made clear my expectation that with over 25,000 families on the social housing wait-list—20,000 more than six years ago—social housing homes should not be left empty for a day longer than absolutely necessary.

Rima Nakhle: What does this announcement mean for New Zealanders on our social housing wait-list?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities’ performance impacts every New Zealander—none more so than the thousands on the wait-list living in motel rooms, or sometimes even worse. My letter and the announcement earlier this month instruct Kāinga Ora to focus on efficiently placing tenants into social housing across New Zealand and to work with greater urgency to do so. We are committed to getting Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities working well so that it can serve those in the greatest need.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can the Minister please tell me why he is unable to answer how many people in Lower Hutt are presently on the social housing waiting list?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that number is publicly available. From memory, without checking my information, as of 30 September 2023—again, from memory—the number in Lower Hutt City of people on the wait-list was 623, and I would note that that is a fivefold increase compared to October 2017.

Rima Nakhle: What other plans does the Government have for Kāinga Ora?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I’ve mentioned previously in this House, the Government has commissioned an independent review into Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities, which is currently under way. We’re looking at financial situation, procurement, and asset management, and I’m looking forward to receiving the report in March. As I say, it is critical to the Government that Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities operates efficiently and effectively and delivers taxpayers value for money.

Hon Ginny Andersen: It’s a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have in response to written question No. 30561 that the Minister stated he advised he was unable to provide the information on the Lower Hutt waiting list. So it is news to us now that he suddenly has that—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Speaking to the point of order, I know the precise question the member is referring to. The issue is that the member asked for the number as of a certain week, Mr Speaker. The numbers, as the former Ministers in the Opposition know so well, are not broken down on the social housing wait-list by week; they are broken down as at the end of a month or at the end of a quarter. The information is published monthly and quarterly. If the member is specific about exactly what she is asking, she will get that information. And the other point I would note is that the information is publicly available every quarter. The member just needs to learn a little website: www.google.com.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Is the reported statement from Treasury correct that the 6.5 percent or 7.5 percent savings that are being sought from Public Service agencies include both departmental and non-departmental spending; if so, has she set any criteria beyond that for what spending is included or not included in the savings?

Agencies have been asked to make savings from an eligible baseline which includes departmental and non-departmental spending with some adjustments and a range of exclusions. For example, in the case of Health and Education, those agencies have had non-departmental spending excluded from their baseline. In looking for savings, agencies have been asked to focus on low-value programmes, programmes that don’t align with Government priorities, and non-essential back-office functions, including contractor and consultant spend. The member should note that not all proposals put forward by agencies will necessarily be progressed by Ministers. Ministers will exercise their judgment to ensure that we deliver on our goal to deliver better front-line services for New Zealanders.

Hon Grant Robertson: Why has she chosen to include the Defence Force in the Public Service cuts after originally not doing so?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have chosen a broad range of agencies to take part in the exercise on the basis that we think everyone should be looking to see whether there are areas where they can do things more efficiently and better. In the case of Defence, I would note that we have recognised they face critical cost pressures and, as such, they have been invited to bid for more funding in this Budget round.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can she guarantee that the cuts to the Defence Force will not affect the wages of Defence Force staff?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Hon Grant Robertson: Well, we’re on a roll, then. Will she rule out cutting non-departmental funding allocated to Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can assure the member that non-departmental spending has been excluded from the baseline for that agency.

Hon Grant Robertson: How can she reconcile the inclusion of Corrections in the departments to be cut with the commitment in the coalition agreement with ACT to increase its funding, or is this going to be another example of David Seymour’s political impotence?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Both can be true—and they are. And this actually goes to the fundamental issue, which is that we are asking the Department of Corrections to look at what resources may have become tied up in the back office so that we can move them into the front line in our prisons. It is the case that, in fact, we can both make savings in one area and increase funding in another. And I’d also point this out to the member, and it’s something I would urge members opposite to reflect on: you shouldn’t simply conflate spending more money with getting results for the people we serve. This Government will not fall for that mistake.

Stuart Smith: Why is the Minister embarking on the savings programme across the Public Service?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The core Public Service headcount has grown by almost 30 percent since 2018, and Government spending is also expected to have increased by around 80 percent between 2017 and 2024. We have far too few results for New Zealanders to show for that huge increase, and our Government is determined to restore respect for taxpayer money by stopping wasteful spending, improving value for money, and driving resources out of the back office and into front-line public services. Our savings programme in Budget 2024 is designed to find around $1.5 billion in savings per year, which we’ll use to deliver on our policy commitments and fund critical cost pressures.

Hon David Seymour: Minister, how did the Government manage to spend so much more money and yet get so much worse results, and is that an example of the previous finance Minister’s fiscal incontinence? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on. No need to go further. That last comment was greatly out of order, as was the question.

Hon Grant Robertson: Has the Minister spoken to the Hon Judith Collins in wake of her comments that she is “going to need money for Defence”, and what specifically in the Defence Force is she aiming to cut?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’ve had many conversations with the Minister of Defence, who shares with me how ignored the Defence Force felt by the last Government. And I can assure New Zealanders that in Minister Collins, the Defence Force has a very good advocate indeed.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “The Government has no plan, and never has had plans, to amend or revise the Treaty, or the Treaty settlements we have all worked so very hard together to achieve”; and if so, why is he proposing to introduce a Treaty principles bill that officials say “is not supported by the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty”, and for which there has been a lack of consultation with the public?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, the Government has no plan to change the Treaty or Treaty settlements, and in answer to the second part, it’s part of our coalition agreement.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the ability of his Associate Minister of Justice David Seymour to engage with iwi and hapū on matters relating to the Treaty principles bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we are yet to see a draft Treaty principles bill.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it’s acceptable that the Minister leading this bill who has called for a discussion on Te Tiriti, didn’t even show up to Tūrangawaewae and didn’t show up to Rātana where Tiriti kōrero was actually happening?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I note that the Minister will be at Waitangi this weekend.

Hon Marama Davidson: What will he say to iwi and hapū leaders on Waitangi Day next week about his plans to introduce a bill that removes tino rangatiratanga rights under Te Tiriti?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we will be talking about is actually how we improve outcomes for Māori. To have two-thirds of Māori kids not in school regularly, to see Māori disadvantaged economically, to see poor housing stats, with Māori making up half of people on the social register, those are the conversations that we’re actually having with iwi leaders and with Māori across the country. That’s what they care about.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned by the assessment of Tiriti expert Dayle Takitimu, who said the Treaty principles bill is “creating unrest, uncertainty, it’s creating a whole lot of misinformation amongst the general population that is problematic.” and if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we haven’t seen a draft Treaty principles bill, but what I can tell you is people should be concerned about improving outcomes for Māori and that’s what this Government is single-mindedly focused on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not he knows of anyone who has said seriously in this Parliament that they’re getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi, and, second, as to whether or not there was a thing called “consultation”, it happened on 14 October last year, called the election.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer the first part of the question, no.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with former National Prime Minister Jim Bolger that a referendum on the Treaty principles is a “bloody stupid” idea, and, if so, why is he introducing a bill to enable this in the first place?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Part of our coalition agreement, which we’ve talked about before, is that this Government is going to support the Treaty principles bill through to first reading.

Question No. 7—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

7. to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: What plans, if any, does the Government have to discuss its policies at Waitangi next week?

He pātai wero hinengaro, he whakaharahara hoki tērā. Kāore e kore ka nui hoki ngā kōrero mō ngā kaupapa here a tēnei Kāwanatanga haumi me ngā mahuetanga pōuri a te Kāwanatanga tawhito, ki te ātea, ki te kāuta, ki te pae kōrero, ki te pari kārangaranga ka rangona e aku taringa, kitea e aku karu rongo.

[That is a mind-bending question, and a somewhat terrible one too. Without doubt there will be a lot of discussion about the policies of this coalition Government and the sad leavings of the old Government, on the marae, in the kitchen, on the orators’ benches, and echoing off the cliffs that will be heard by my ears, and seen by my eyes.]

Hon Willie Jackson: Rawe ki te whakarongo ki tō tātou reo. Mihi ana ki te Minita kei te tautoko i tō tātou reo mā te kōrero i te reo. E mihi ana ki a koe e hoa, engari ka kōrero Pākehā ahau kia mōhio ai te Whare katoa.

[It’s awesome to listen to our language. I acknowledge the Minister that is supporting our language by speaking our language. I thank you my friend, but I will speak English so that the entire House understands.]

I’m just mihi-ing to our Minister—

SPEAKER: Yes, I know you have and it’s outside the rules.

Hon Willie Jackson: —because it’s wonderful that he’s speaking our language.

SPEAKER: Just stick to the question, Willie.

Hon Willie Jackson: I’m just saying I want to speak English so everybody understands, and ask him this: who should New Zealanders believe: Minister David Seymour, who says there is no partnership with Māori; or the Prime Minister, who confirmed today that he views the Treaty of Waitangi as akin to a partnership between the Crown and Māori, which has been the position of every Prime Minister since 1984, and will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Māori Development reiterate that at Waitangi?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt, but I don’t believe I’ve ever said there’s no partnership with Māori; I have said that the Treaty is not a partnership between races and shouldn’t be characterised that way.

SPEAKER: That’s a fair defence of a position that was put. Put the question again, without that in it.

Hon Willie Jackson: From the beginning: who should New Zealanders believe, the Hon David Seymour, who rejects that there is a partnership with Māori; or the Prime Minister, who confirmed today that he views the Treaty of Waitangi as akin to a partnership between the Crown and Māori, which has been the position of every Prime Minister—National and Labour—since 1984, and will the Prime Minister reiterate that at Waitangi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: New Zealanders should take the time to learn about Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—and come to their own views.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe the Minister went anywhere near the question or the answer—there was nothing.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, you asked him to venture an opinion on two particular positions; he then answered you by saying that all New Zealanders should come to their own position on those, and I think that’s not unreasonable.

Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah, thanks for that, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: If you want further clarification, see me later.

Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah, kia ora, kia ora, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with the very respectable and well-supported National Party members Dame Jenny Shipley, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, and Chris Finlayson, who all support the partnership principle and are adamant that we should get rid of the Treaty principles bill, and is he planning on discussing that at Waitangi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As the Prime Minister has reminded us today, we have not yet seen a Treaty principles bill being brought in front of the members.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether this is the problem about trying to establish what the relationship means, or is it a fact that on 5 February 1840, no one in the British Empire, from which the sun never set, including the people living next to Queen Victoria in Buckingham Palace, was in partnership with the Queen, how could the Māori be two days later? So it’s a relationship we’re working on now; not the fiction of some people in this Parliament.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: My response to that reflection and question by the Deputy Prime Minister is: we reiterate that Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, is an absolute sacrosanct document fundamental to this country’s past, present, and future, and it will help us get the country back on track after what we’ve ended up with in the last three years.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister’s iwi support the Treaty principles bill, and will he be discussing that with his iwi at Waitangi?

SPEAKER: No, no, sorry; that question’s out of order. He’s only got responsibility for his ministerial position. The member can ask another question inside his allocation of supplementaries.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Are the Minister and the Prime Minister planning to attend and participate in any of the forum tents at Waitangi; if so, which one, and, if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It is scheduled that I will be participating in the forum tent at Waitangi, and I look forward to the humble hospitality of manaakitanga that Te Tai Tokerau is renowned for. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, can the Minister confirm, during the Waitangi period of time, the Government will be focused on concrete, measurable, key performance indicator - orientated results for our rangatahi, housing, and health rather than transcendental notions contained in the He Puapua United Nations report?

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s clearly out of line, isn’t it? He can’t answer that. It’s such a stupid question.

SPEAKER: No, no, the problem the member’s got is that the Minister is the Minister for Crown-Māori relations; therefore he must have some responsibility for the Government’s view on the document cited by the Hon Shane Jones. Therefore, the question stands.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In my Wanganui dialect, ana. Yes, we will be absolutely committed to ruthlessly focusing on the outcomes of education, housing, health, and many other things that have been left behind for our various Māori communities throughout the motu. Tēnā tātou.

Question No. 8—Local Government

8. to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made about the voting age for local government?

On 26 January, I announced that this Government will not proceed with the previous Government’s plans to lower the voting age to allow 16- to 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. Changing the voting age for local government is not a priority for this Government. We want to see councils focused on efficient delivery of local infrastructure and services for their communities.

James Meager: What actions has he taken to give action to the Government’s intentions on this bill?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have written to the chairperson of the Justice Committee to inform him that the coalition Government does not intend to support the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill through further parliamentary stages and request that the committee ends consideration of this bill. We intend to focus local government on providing good-quality local infrastructure delivering public services at the least possible cost to their communities and businesses.

James Meager: Why is lowering the voting age not a priority for this Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this would be a distraction for local government when they should be focused on making sure that they are efficiently delivering local infrastructure and services for their communities. Lowering the voting age is not a priority for this Government.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Who is correct: the Minister when he said it’d be a waste of Parliament’s time to be progressing a bill and hearing select committee submissions on a bill that we are not going to be supporting or the Prime Minister when he said, “we will pursue a Treaty principles bill to select committee, and that’s as far as it will go.”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Lowering the voting age is not a priority for this Government, but we have made coalition commitments around the Treaty principles bill, which we will progress.

James Meager: Does the Minister think that the voting age for central and local government should be the same?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, it is important that there is a clear and constant age for voting in a democracy. A split age would create an imbalance in terms of the voting ages between central and local government. That is not a priority for this Government. Furthermore, the last Government could not conjure up one single reason why lowering the voting age was a good idea.

Question No. 9—Health

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

Yes—in particular, those that relate to my absolute commitment to the Smokefree 2025 target and to providing practical, targeted help so that smokers who are addicted can quit.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that she indicated she wanted advice from the Ministry of Health on a tobacco excise tax freeze in a document she annotated and signed on 20 December?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, in relation to a range of advice, there was a component that asked for the implications relating to the excise tax freeze.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: In that case, why did she deny requesting specific advice on an excise tax freeze for cigarettes in an interview with Guyon Espiner?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I did not state that I had not requested specific advice. I had sought advice on a range of issues which included that one.

Jamie Arbuckle: What do the latest statistics say about the smoking numbers?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m pleased to announce that the latest New Zealand Health Survey figures released in December show that the daily smoking rates among adults have more than halved in the last decade, from 573,000 in 2011-12, to 284,000 last year. Smoking rates have reduced significantly in the last two years; another 55,000 people stopped smoking in the last year alone. This drop in daily smokers is reflected across all ethnic groups, but, significantly, drops have been seen in Māori and Pacific peoples, where we have seen drops from 37.7 percent to 17.1 percent and 22.6 percent to 16.4 percent respectively between 2011-12 and 2022-23. This supports the reasons for continuing on the trajectory that we’re on.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she seriously saying that she requested advice on the tobacco excise tax freeze but because the document canvassed other matters, she was being truthful when she denied having sought the advice to the media?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I was being truthful at the time, in relation to that statement. Being offered something and asking for something are two separate matters.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was the Prime Minister wrong when he said in statements to Radio New Zealand this morning that she made a mistake?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I would never say that the Prime Minister was wrong.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier on in question time today, I asked the Prime Minister whether the Government had sought any advice on freezing excise on tobacco, and the Prime Minister indicated that he was not aware of that. We’ve now had it confirmed by the Minister that in fact she did ask for that advice, and there are media reports where the Prime Minister has been publicly discussing it. The Standing Orders make it clear that if a Minister makes a mistake in their answers, they have to come back to the House and correct that at the earliest available opportunity. Fortunately, the Prime Minister is still in the House and therefore should be able to correct it now, at the earliest available opportunity.

SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the answer was that there was a range of advice in the paper concerned, so I think the pedantics of how it was answered are a different matter. I’ll hear from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, you’ve had two questions, and one of them a point of order, that don’t seem to be listening to what was said. If you request advice and get other than that advice—extra advice—it does not mean that you requested the second lot of advice that you didn’t seek in the first place. It’s not complicated, and words do matters in this Parliament. And surely they do matter to the media, who’ve so badly reported this matter in the first place.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Speaking to the point of order, no, I believe the issue under discussion here is whether a Minister made a decision in writing to seek advice on a particular matter. It is not a matter of receiving, as the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested, unsolicited advice.

SPEAKER: I make the suggestion that people consider the Hansard of all of this, and then take any position they want to take to the Speaker in the usual manner.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: What is the Government focusing on for the start of the school year?

As schools start back for 2024, there will be a relentless focus on lifting student achievement. This Government’s ambitious target of getting 80 percent of our tamariki to curriculum by the time they finish intermediate by 2030 is our North Star. Recent release of provisional NCEA data showed, for the third year, rates of achievement have declined, and we are going to turn this around. As we begin the school year, I am focused on strengthening our curriculum to be knowledge-rich and underpinned by the science of learning, ensuring we spend enough time on the basics, and that we are removing distractions in the classroom so we set our kids up for success at school.

Paulo Garcia: What can parents expect will be in place for students this term?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, around New Zealand, students are returning or starting school this week to find new timetables in place that mean that no matter where they go to school or who their teacher is, they have consistent delivery of at least an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths. I’m already starting to hear stories from teachers with their new timetables promoting literacy and numeracy. New regulations are in place around the use of cellphones at school, requiring them to be off and away all day. School policies must be in place for the start of term 2, but it is my expectation that many of these plans will be implemented by the start of term 1 so that students can focus on their learning and interact with their friends.

Paulo Garcia: What progress has been made by the ministerial advisory group reviewing the curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The ministerial advisory group had their first full-day meeting over the Christmas break. This group brings together curriculum and subject-matter experts who will ensure that our curriculum is knowledge-rich, detailed, grounded in the science of learning, and internationally comparable. Their work programme is well under way and on track to be tested with the sector later this year so that we can remain on track with the scheduled curriculum roll-out dates.

Paulo Garcia: What feedback has the Minister received about the changes in the 100-day plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve received lots of positive feedback about our plans, but, in particular, an Auckland high school principal wrote to me saying that he is excited about our plans; that the cellphone ban will “remove a major distraction to learning, reduce cyberbullying, and promote social interaction between students”; and that a timetable focused on the basic subjects will ultimately lift educational achievement for all students. Furthermore, Newshub reported the Cashmere High School principal saying, and I quote, “It’s not healthy for students to come to school and … sit … and be glued to [their] digital device”.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his guarantee that there’ll be no cuts or reprioritisations to the Police budget in order to deliver 500 extra police; if so, what advice has he received, if any, on the impact the proposed 6.5 percent to 7.5 percent cut to the Police budget would have on public safety?

Yes, and none.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is it the Government’s policy to deliver 500 extra police within two years as per the coalition agreement with New Zealand First?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Government’s policy is to deliver 500 additional police officers over the term of this Government, which is three years, and we’ve been very clear that we understand the challenges around that, because, as the incoming Government, we discovered that it was difficult to fill existing recruit wings, that the Australians are here recruiting our police officers, and that we’ve got lots of senior police officers that are coming up to retirement.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can the Minister be clear that he is walking back on the coalition agreement that is undertaken to New Zealanders that he will deliver 500 additional police within two years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I’m saying that we have, as the incoming Government, committed to 500 additional police officers over the term of this Government, which, yes, is three years, and that—

Hon Grant Robertson: No, you haven’t. Mark, it’s right here. Two years.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, if the Minister had listened in the House last year, you would have heard me talking to this issue. The fact is that, as the incoming Government and with the advice that we got, it became immediately apparent that there were big issues around recruiting. They can’t fill current recruit wings, the Australians are here recruiting our police officers, and we’ve got senior police officers that are getting ready to retire.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is this yet another example of broken promises, and will the 6.5 percent cut to the Police budget affect front-line services like it did last time National was in Government and see front-line officers pulled off the street to do non-sworn duties?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I think that, as the incoming Government again, it became very apparent that the Police are under severe financial pressure because of the actions of the previous Government. We’ve been very clear that we’re going to deliver world-class front-line services, and the Police, like every other agency, is asked to look at their corporate services and their back-office services to see whether or not cuts can be achieved.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he commit that any cost savings found in the Police budget will remain with Police as stated in National’s Back Pocket Boost policy documents?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I can confirm for the member that we’re going to make sure that the front line are resourced properly and are actually delivering the service that this country deserves. We’ve got a big job to do, and the Police have got a big job to do, in reducing what has been a massive increase in violent crime in this country over the last six years, and we’re committed to doing that.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Yes, in the context they were given. But can I also just extend congratulations to that member for a fantastic career in Parliament here over the last nine years; he announced, obviously, his retirement today. I want to say I hope you know you’re leaving here with some pretty lasting legislation in place with the net-zero legislation. You should be very, very proud about it. That’s going to be enduring. It’s going to last long after you’re gone. I just acknowledge, also, it’s a very sad day for the Green Party, actually, having lost their last true environmentalist.

Hon James Shaw: In response, can I just thank the Prime Minister—

SPEAKER: The Hon James Shaw may of course make a short response to that—but perhaps not focused on the last bit.

Hon James Shaw: No—thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just thank the Prime Minister for his kind words, and say in response, “Good luck.” Is his Government reversing New Zealand’s commitment, which it pushed for and agreed to as last year’s conference of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) to protect 70 percent of high-biodiversity areas, including seamounts, in the South Pacific?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not aware that we’ve made any change to that yet.

Hon James Shaw: Is he concerned about New Zealand’s international reputation, when organisations like the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition have said that “The New Zealand government may now be the main obstacle to a proposed conservation measure that its own scientists spent the past year developing”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with that characterisation. This is a Government that’s going to be focused on lowering emissions and making sure we meet our climate change commitments.

Hon James Shaw: Does he agree with the previous National Government’s Minister for fisheries, who said that when the SPRFMO convention was ratified under the John Key National Government that “We need to protect these important fisheries for future generations. Ratification shows our strong commitment to sustainable management and ensures [that] we have an important influence on the work of the SPRFMO.”, and, if so, is he concerned that New Zealand is the only country still bottom trawling in the Pacific?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is going to be a Government that will balance sustainable fishing along with good economic opportunity.

Hon James Shaw: How can he justify the proposal by New Zealand to allow bottom trawling in the South Pacific to catch up to three years’ worth of total allowable catch in a single season, up to 200 percent above annual catch limits, when this is far more than the 10 percent annual carry-over allowed under New Zealand’s domestic law?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as I said before, this will be a Government that will balance environmental goals with making sure we maximise commercial opportunities.

Hon James Shaw: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Oceans and Fisheries’ ability to represent New Zealand’s long-term bipartisan positions, including those advanced by previous National-led Governments, on international fisheries management, when the World Wide Fund for Nature have said that “There is a lot of concern about New Zealand resigning from the [international] rules-based order. Historically New Zealand has been seen as a good-faith operator, and [then] for a country to turn away from a decision taken by consensus, is quite significant”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.