Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Conservation: How will his decision to allow commercial ring-netting inside the Hauraki Gulf’s high protection areas while banning recreational fishing affect those who simply want to go out on the boat and catch a feed for the whānau?

The decision that this House—with the support of the member’s party—has made to approve the Hauraki Gulf marine protection legislation, for the most part, will not affect those who want to go out and get a kai in Tangaroa and Hinemoana, out there in the beautiful Tīkapa Moana—te pātaka kai. They can still fish [gestures to map] over here in the gulf, over here in the gulf, over here in the gulf—actually, in over 80 percent of the gulf, you can go and get a kai out there.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he stand by his statement, “We have allowed the continuance of a small amount of commercial fishing that provides people in the South Auckland community with a source of affordable fish.”; and, if so, is he embarrassed that his successor as Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki te kaiurungi said: “To claim that this decision has been made in response to the impact of cost-of-living increases for Māori and Pacific whānau, and then specifically for South Auckland, as a justification for allowing commercial enterprise in this area, it’s weak.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am happy to stand by all the statements that I have made in relation to the protection of Te Moananui o Toi te Huatahi, and also acknowledge some of the concerns expressed by the tumu kaimahi, or chief executive officer, of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, who recently hosted me, along with a range of other iwi leaders, a range of stakeholders, a range of recreational fishers, down on Beach Road in Ōrākei, just off Hobson Bay, to celebrate the tripling of marine protection in the gulf—albeit it may not be perfect for every member in this House.

Teanau Tuiono: Is it fair to provide exemptions for commercial operators to fish in the gulf’s new protection areas, or should companies fishing for profit be subject to the same rules as everyday anglers?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I repeat that I’m very proud that the parties that were represented in the House the night that the legislation was passed—including the member’s party—all agreed that that legislation move forward, notwithstanding there were some reservations by some members in the House that evening. But the legislation has been supported; we have reached a compromise over many, many years, and I’m very proud of tripling the protection in the Hauraki Gulf.

Teanau Tuiono: What does he think hundreds of recreational fishers are coming together for to protest on Saturday in Tāmaki to say no to commercial fishing in the gulf’s high protection areas (HPAs)?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I acknowledge that there continue to be concerns around a range of mechanics that have been implemented through the Hauraki Gulf legislation, but what I say to those fishers is: please, take your lifejackets, play it safe, and enjoy your day out on Tangaroa and Hinemoana and, if possible, get rid of some of those kina barrens while you’re out there.

Teanau Tuiono: Whose advice did the Minister take in his decision to provide carve-outs for commercial operators in the gulf: the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, who had these amendments proposed to him by the seafood industry, or his department, who warned that the changes would be—and I quote—“incompatible with the purpose of an HPA and would undermine biodiversity outcomes”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It certainly wasn’t taking the advice of the Green Party in progressing the solution that all of the members of this House approved.

SPEAKER: Sorry, leave reference to the Opposition party out and answer the question straight, or say you can’t.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, can I ask the member to repeat his question?

Teanau Tuiono: Certainly. What advice did the Minister take in making his decision to provide carve-outs for commercial operators in the gulf: the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, who had these amendments proposed to him by the seafood industry, or his department, who warned that the changes would be—and I quote—“incompatible with the purpose of an HPA and would undermine biodiversity outcomes”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In my role as the Minister of Conservation, I take advice from a range of different sources, but ultimately, I am very, very comforted that Cabinet and this Parliament have made a decision to progress a tripling of the marine protection in Tīkapa Moana.

Teanau Tuiono: What does he say to the recreational fishers who agree that the carve-outs defeat the purposes of a high protection area and are frustrated that there are no opportunities for public consultation on the changes?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Parliament has spoken. There will be a review period in three years, and, in the meantime, let’s go out and enjoy the bounty of Tangaroa and Hinemoana.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister confirm that the various segments of the moana that have been reserved have the highest level of protection and that the small concessions to help working-class struggling families in South Auckland during winter is an overdue concession?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we are aware, there are a number of compromises that have been reached over decades to build the relevant legislation. The very narrow exception for ring-net fishers is narrowed to a certain type of species at a certain type of year for a certain size of boat, and we are very comfortable—we are very comfortable—with where this has landed.

Question No. 2—Auckland

2. to the Minister for Auckland: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why is he leading a plan to push rough sleepers out of the CBD and on to the doorsteps and dairies of suburbs like Pakuranga without giving those communities additional resources or support?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there’s a range of things in that question which are completely untrue. The reality is that we are funding additional Housing First places in Auckland. The Minister of Housing and the Minister of social housing have been putting funding into that so that we can find places for people who are homeless to be able to be housed. That is the priority that we have in Auckland, and our expectation is very clear that those Housing First providers who have been funded work hard to make sure they get those people housed.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can he expect those suburbs, where households are already facing job losses and a shrinking economy, to manage the influx of rough sleepers that will result from his policy?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, again, the premise of that question—I mean, the reality is she’s reading out the second question on her sheet which she pre-prepared earlier, rather than actually responding to what I actually—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —said in my prior answer.

SPEAKER: Just stick to the answer, not commentary on how you’re seeing it being presented.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, well, the answer is—as I said in the prior answer—that we are focused on increasing the number of Housing First places in Auckland so that we can find housing for these people, and I’d just remind the member of the previous Government’s record when it came to housing, where they promised 100,000 houses and didn’t even get anywhere close.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s enough.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement that “this government is very focused on Auckland and it’s on a positive turning point”, when 63,800 Aucklanders—up 42,000 in just two years—are now out of work?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The member forgets that when she was in Government, they drove up expenditure, which drove up interest rates, and when interest rates go up, the economy goes backwards. That is what we are fixing, and that’s why our Minister of Finance is so focused on getting spending under control and getting interest rates down so that we can get our economy moving again for all New Zealanders, including Aucklanders, which is exactly what we’re focused on achieving.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is Auckland still on a “positive turning point”, as he’s claimed, when the number of people on jobseeker work-ready in Auckland is up by almost 10,000 in just two years?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Look, things are very positive in Auckland, and they’re getting better because, actually, we’re focused on our biggest city and focused on the needs of our biggest city. We’ve got the City Rail Link opening next year—a project started by National, and it will be completed by National. The New Zealand International Convention Centre is creating a buzz in our CBD. We’ve funded the removal of the level crossings. We’re promoting more concerts at Eden Park. We’ve got fast-track legislation in place, which has meant that we’ve consented the Ports of Auckland extension in record time. We are focused on growing our economy in Auckland and on growing jobs and opportunities in Auckland, and that’s the focus that we’ve got across all our portfolios.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement, “We have a deliverable plan to unlock Auckland’s potential and get our city back on track”, and, if so, why is Auckland’s unemployment rate up 2.1 percent since he became Minister?

Well, as I said earlier, when interest rates go up because Government expenditure is out of control, the result of that is that unemployment also increases. That is what this Government has inherited—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, stop. A barrage, as I’ve said over and over, is not acceptable, and constantly, effectively, using a raised voice to interrupt the answer to a question is not an interjection; it is a barrage.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I was saying, when interest rates increase because Government expenditure is out of control, the unfortunate reality is that unemployment increases. That is what this Government is fixing. That is what we’re addressing. That’s why we’ve got Government expenditure under control. We’re seeing interest rates drop, which is improving confidence, and that is going to lead to lower unemployment across New Zealand and also in Auckland.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When he said that the “Coalition Government’s plan will deliver for Aucklanders”, did he mean he would deliver 10.5 percent empty storefronts across Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: What I was referring to was the work this Government is doing to unlock our biggest city to make sure we’re growing our economy. That’s why we’re so focused on things such as fast-track legislation, which is actually meaning that projects are able to be consented in very fast time, which means that people can then be employed. If you go down to the Ports of Auckland—that Opposition party opposed fast-track legislation—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We supported it and there are people being employed.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When he said that the “Coalition Government’s plan will deliver for Aucklanders”, did he mean he would deliver more unemployment, more people on the jobseeker benefit, more empty shopfronts, more people homeless, and a shrinking economy?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if the Opposition was interested in growing the economy, they would have supported fast-track legislation, because fast-track legislation has meant the Ports of Auckland extension has now started construction, which is growing jobs in our biggest city. They oppose those jobs, they oppose the extension of the Ports of Auckland, and they oppose growing our economy, but on this side of the House, we’re saying yes to growth in Auckland, yes to jobs in Auckland, and yes to opportunities for our biggest city and for New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister remember when Treasury, in the last months of the last Government’s term, predicted all those figures and worse this time in 2025; did the questioner demur and complain and come clean in being transparent or what?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I do remember Treasury’s reports that they provided, and, ultimately, that’s why this Government’s been so focused on getting Government expenditure under control so that interest rates can go down and so that we can grow our economy and grow jobs and opportunities. We are fixing up the mess left behind by the previous Government.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about banking?

Last week, I announced the Government’s response to the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s (FEC) inquiry into banking competition. FEC, working with the Primary Production Committee, did a very thorough job considering 148 submissions and hearing from banks, non-bank deposit takers, fintechs, financial regulators, and members of the public over a six-month period. I asked the committees to undertake this inquiry, and I thank them for their work. The Government accepts all 19 of the key recommendations, two of them in part.

Nancy Lu: Why was this inquiry undertaken?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Banking plays an extremely important role in the economy and is highly concentrated. The biggest four banks make up around 90 percent of the market and are very profitable. Competition is a key priority to deliver better outcomes for customers. This inquiry had its genesis in the coalition agreement with New Zealand First. It followed a Commerce Commission market study on competition in personal banking services but had a wider scope, including looking at business and rural banking. Helpfully, FEC’s findings echo many of the Commerce Commission’s findings, for example, to strengthen Kiwibank’s role as a competitor in the banking sector.

Nancy Lu: How is the Government addressing the committee’s recommendations?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In many cases, the committee’s recommendations confirm that what the Government is doing, including the Reserve Bank, is on the right track. For example, in July the Government approved Kiwibank Group Capital to undertake a capital raise of up to $500 million to fund the growth of Kiwibank. The Reserve Bank is reviewing capital settings for banks and other deposit takers, it is reducing the minimum capital requirement for deposit takers from $30 million to $5 million, and it is consulting on the ability for entities to call themselves a bank. A lot of work is already under way in the area of banking.

Nancy Lu: How has the Government communicated its expectations to the Reserve Bank?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank is operationally independent, but the Minister of Finance has influence at a strategic level. Following the Commerce Commission’s study, I wrote to the Reserve Bank outlining my expectations for how it should take competition into account when making prudential decisions. At the same time, I issued a new financial policy remit. This says that the Reserve Bank should ensure that prudential regulation and supervision facilitates the goal of improving competition while remaining consistent with financial stability. By law, the Reserve Bank must have regard to this remit, and it is.

Cameron Brewer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Question No. 4—oh.

Cameron Brewer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh. Cameron Brewer.

Cameron Brewer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In addition to the Government agreeing to all of the banking inquiry—

SPEAKER: No. Start a question with a question word.

Cameron Brewer: Can the Government confirm that agreed—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute, Mr Brewer. There’s no need for the conversation to go on across the other side of the House, or any side of the House.

Cameron Brewer: Can the Government confirm to agreeing to all the banking inquiry recommendations—two of them in part—and can the Minister confirm that 14 out of the 19 key recommendations were unanimously agreed to by the joint cross-party select committee?

SPEAKER: A very short answer to that very long question, I’m sure.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I understand that’s correct. The bipartisan agreement to 14 of the 19 key recommendations is a positive thing, I observe; clearly, a sign of good chairing. It also indicated that committee’s recommendations have widespread acceptance. I was perplexed to hear, however, that some members opposed the idea of beefing up Kiwibank using New Zealand’s savings. These are, presumably, the same members who want New Zealanders to invest more in New Zealand. Well, that’s precisely what the Kiwibank proposal is.

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what. I’m not ignoring all of the commentary coming from my left. So bear that in mind.

Question No. 4—Food Safety

4. to the Minister for Food Safety: What recent announcements has he made about the use of technology in food labelling?

Today, the Minister for Economic Growth and I announced plans for a trial project that would bring flexibility to New Zealand’s food-labelling rules while protecting food safety. The trial will allow different labels on products but ensure that any additional information required by New Zealand is available through a digital mechanism like a quick response (QR) code or barcode. This exciting innovation will allow us to keep up with technology change happening across the world and respond to feedback heard as a part of the Government’s grocery competition work.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will this trial help keep down food prices?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: In our system, all packaged food must comply with the labelling rules in the Food Standards Code, which are only valid for Australia and New Zealand. We’ve heard from food retailers and importers that having to print specific labels for New Zealand reduces the efficiency and is an additional cost, and that, ultimately, has to be passed on to consumers. We’ve also heard that it’s a barrier to new retailers entering the market and creating more competition, which we know will help keep food prices down. This trial will pave the way for pre-packaged, low-risk food to be imported with a label that complies with other trusted countries’ labelling requirements, like the UK or US. That makes sure New Zealand consumers have access to all the information they would normally require digitally.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How does a move to digital labelling support New Zealand food producers and exporters?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I have met with dozens of food businesses this year, and it’s clear to me that the strict rules we have for physical labels is a barrier for our exporters as well; for example, I smoke with a—don’t smoke, never have! Sorry.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Ha! I spoke with a small winemaker in New Zealand that exported—I didn’t have a wine tasting, though—around the world and had to print eight different labels. This is a future where that company could only have to have one label. They’d only have to have one label on the product, and they’d be able to deal with all of those different countries’ requirements digitally—much cheaper and easier. The world is moving to a greater use of this technology for labelling, and I want us to be ready to take advantage of that when it comes.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What are the details of the trial?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Consultation on the design of this trial starts today and will be open for four weeks. The proposal is for a limited trial, with retailers selected from those that register interest. It would apply to products labelled in English, from a mature regulatory system. The intention is that it will run for a year. It will be closely monitored by New Zealand Food Safety, and the results with inform an ongoing work programme to look at a more permanent arrangement for digital labelling in Australia and New Zealand.

Question No. 5—Police

5. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions related to the police front line?

Yes. Our police front line do an outstanding job every single day. They have been leading the Government’s work to crack down on gangs and organised crime, have exceeded the Government’s violent crime and youth offending reduction targets, removed gang patches from our streets, and got out on the beat 73 percent more in the first nine months of this year than in the same period in 2023. The Government inherited a very weak Police executive, which we now know to have had significant integrity issues. On becoming Minister of Police, I made my concerns about their performance clear publicly and in three separate meetings with the Public Service Commission. Weak leadership from the top of any organisation has a flow-on effect, and we have seen that there have been isolated examples of bad behaviour, which Police are actively addressing. I’m confident that the vast majority of our front line are at the high standard that the public expects and are outstanding New Zealanders who serve their communities with distinction every day.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the Government deliver its coalition promise of 500 additional front-line police officers in two years on 27 November 2025, as originally promised?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: As the incoming Government, had we not immediately recognised that there had to be a new focus on integrity and standards—with an increase of the police training course at the Royal New Zealand Police College from 16 weeks to 20 weeks; with the reintroduction of a swimming standard; with removing the overuse of discretion—then it would have probably been very much simpler for this Government to attain that number. The reality is that we are prioritising standards, and I think that the public expect us to do that, and I think the public will also allow us to take the time to deliver those 500 as long as we remain focused on those standards.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What date will the Government now meet its coalition promise of 500 additional front-line police officers given that he will not deliver on the earlier promise?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: We have delivered 250 new police officers. We have 317 currently in training. We have trained and deployed 1,300 police officers over the last two years. We have a strong pipeline of people wanting to join the Police. We have police officers that have left wanting to rejoin the Police, and we have police officers wanting to come back from Australia to rejoin the New Zealand Police. We’re in a good shape.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why should New Zealanders trust him to deliver 500 more police when he has shifted the delivery date from 27 November 2025 to June 2026, then to August 2026, and now to September 2026?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I hope that New Zealanders can trust me, because on becoming Government, I said that I would resign if we didn’t start to see tangible changes in terms of public safety in this country in the first 12 months. I’m extremely proud of our police. We are meeting our targets. There are over 20,000 less victimisations in this country. We are driving violent youth offending down. We’re now actually policing the gangs. You don’t see gangs taking over provincial towns like they did under the previous Government, so I hope the public do have confidence in this Government, that we are doing great work, that we are making them safer, unlike the previous Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What happened to the perverted catch and release fishing policy posing as a crime policy that we inherited?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Firstly, there are not supposed to be assertions in questions. Secondly, questions are not supposed to be designed for the sole purpose of attacking the Opposition. Thirdly, you’re not supposed to yell out when points of order are on. So there’s a plethora of things you can choose from.

That’s right, so we’ll move on.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can New Zealanders trust anything he says when he can’t even commit to a date for delivering 500 more police?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, it does matter to me what New Zealanders think and say. We’re here to serve them and I hope that they can trust my word. I hope that they do understand that we’ve delivered on everything that we’ve promised to deliver. Yes, the 500—we had challenges set in front of us that we were not aware of. We’ve got a fresh focus on standards. I think that’s what the general public of New Zealand want us to be focused on: standards and integrity. We have committed to 500 new police officers; we will deliver 500 new police officers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister got confidence that the coalition partner that helped deliver 1,000 extra front-line police between 2005 and 2008, and 2,338 between 2017 and 2021 is likely to deliver that? Maybe it’s a bit slower than the extra 500 we’re talking about now.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s a very good question, because the previous Government missed their targets, I think, three or four times, on the numbers that they were meant to deliver. The difference this time round is that we’ve missed a target because we are focused on standards. On coming in as police Minister, I could clearly see that there had been a loss of focus on standards and we have introduced that, with integrity as well—a focus on standards and integrity. I actually think the public want to see that, because I inherited a very weak police executive. I’d be very interested to know if that member ever brought forward the fact that they had appointed a very weak police executive that has created a whole lot of issues that this Government is now cleaning up.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he keep his promise to resign, or will he break that as well, along with his promise to deliver 500—

No, you can’t ask that. Sorry. That’s it. I take it that’s the end of that.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has she seen on cellphones in classrooms?

It’s been 18 months since we banned cellphone use in schools, and today the Education Review Office (ERO) published its report evaluating the effects of this change, and it shows that it’s working. The report found that nearly all schools have implemented the phone ban in classrooms, and the policy is already making a difference. Teachers report that students are showing greater focus, academic performance is increasing, and bullying is decreasing. We are relentlessly focused on lifting achievement, and removing distractions from the classroom is an important part of that.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What does the report say about the effects on students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, by removing the distraction of cellphones from the classroom, ERO reports that the increased ability to focus in class appears to have contributed to learning—61 percent of secondary teachers report student achievement has improved and 69 percent report bullying in their schools has reduced. One student said about the changes, “I think so far [the rules are] positive. There’s no more of me looking at my phone in my pocket … neglecting my learning in the middle of classes”. Students can be confident that their success at school is a top priority for this Government.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What does the report say about the effects on teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Seventy-nine percent of teachers report that removing phones from the classrooms has improved students’ abilities to focus on their work; 77 percent say removing cellphones has improved student behaviour; and one teacher is quoted as saying, “This has been one of the best policies the school could have implemented. The cyber bullying was at an all-time high before the policy was put in place—”

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: They didn’t actually need you to tell them to do it.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This is actually really serious. Cyber bullying is extraordinarily serious, and now she’s saying, “… students talk to each other, and our students play”.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What else does the report say?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the number one recommendation of ERO in their report is to keep the “Phones Away for the Day” policy because it’s making a positive difference to student wellbeing and student learning. In fact, not only does the report recommend we retain the policy, but in fact we maintain the momentum by strengthening it. ERO recommends that we increase consistency of the policy by supporting schools and parents to enforce the ban. I’m now seeking advice on how we can implement these recommendations because, as everybody knows, we are relentlessly focused on raising student achievement.

SPEAKER: Question No. 7, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House—just wait for the House to hear the question in silence.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How does she intend to reduce Māori unemployment following the release of the September quarter Household Labour Force Survey 2025, which identifies Māori unemployment is at 10.5 percent compared to the national average of 5.3 percent?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I thank the member for her question. On behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, our Government is relentlessly focused on growing the economy and getting people back into work. When businesses have the confidence to invest and grow, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of all New Zealanders. The Ministry of Social Development’s community coaching programme and expanded case management service has helped improve employment outcomes for the young, including Māori, and we are confident our approach is working because despite the challenging times, we have seen an increase in the number of Māori exiting the jobseeker benefit into work compared to the same time last year.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Will the Minister commit to introducing targeted initiatives in Te Tai Tokerau to address its 6.3 percent unemployment rate, the highest of any region?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, of course, there are different challenges across the regions, but certainly the overarching direction must be to ensure that we keep inflation down, we keep interest rates down, and we give businesses across the country the confidence to be able to recruit and take on new job seekers. But it’s also important that we are doing the work to prepare those young people for employment.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Will the Minister commit to setting and publicly reporting clear targets for reducing the 14.6 percent Māori underutilisation in Te Tai Tokerau, which is higher than the national average, to ensure w’ānau can make ends meet?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: So, again, across the various regions there are varying amounts of unemployment, but the same basic principle applies that we must keep Government spending down, we must keep inflation down, we must keep interest rates down so that businesses have the confidence to be able to take on additional staff. I am very excited about the fact that we have increased by 12.1 percent the number of Māori job seekers going off benefit and into employment. So it’s working.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can the Minister confirm that she will provide support to expand iwi-led initiatives such as Te Hiku iwi development trust’s Tupu Plumbing programme, creating employment pathways for rangatahi and job seekers in the Far North, given the rate of unemployment in the region; if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We have a range of job programmes and they are geared to do a range of things. We have, for example, Mana in Mahi; we have the mayoral taskforce, we have He Poutama Rangatahi participants, of which most are Māori, but aligned with that we also have ensured that we have additional funding going into ensuring there is access for our young unemployed to get into tertiary training so that they have a pathway to employment. I would say that the Far North have been the greatest benefactors of that.

Question No. 8—Internal Affairs

8. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is she confident that Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s proposal to cut up to $70 million of spending a year will not impact on the safety of New Zealanders or firefighters; if so, why?

Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is not proposing to cut $70 million of spending per year.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will cutting more than 140 jobs keep New Zealanders safe, when these jobs include fire-prevention staff, specialist wildfire roles, and key support staff for firefighters?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The Fire and Emergency proposal to undertake a restructure, I believe, is a valuable exercise. If you look at some of the quotes that have come from the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU), there have been concerns about mismanagement, and I take a direct quote here, and it says, “The failure to focus on the purpose of the organisation—to preserve life and property through prevention and emergency response and instead the focus [on] funds on a bloated management structure focused on corporate culture.” I tend to agree. Where we can find efficiencies, we must find efficiencies for the benefit of all of the people in New Zealand who pay levies that directly fund Fire and Emergency New Zealand. But it is also the case that we have to have more respect than has been in the past for finding these efficiencies.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will cutting the Fire and Emergency New Zealand budget keep firefighters safe, at a time when firefighters are telling her they already don’t have the equipment and support they need?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I am absolutely assured by Fire and Emergency that the safety of personnel is their utmost priority. Our Fire and Emergency service does not work without safe firefighters, professional and volunteer. But I’d also make the point that there are no proposed cuts to front-line firefighters—those are essential to New Zealanders’ safety around the community. But where we can find any bloating in the back-office functions, it is important to respect the money that is directly paid by Kiwis through levies.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Is the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union correct that these roles are critical to ensuring firefighters have access to the training and support they need to respond to emergencies properly to keep New Zealanders safe?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I believe the NZPFU is correct when, once again I quote, they said, “instead the focus [on] funds on a bloated management structure focused on corporate culture.” has been too high. And I am surprised that firefighters would not want to have a more efficient service, I think we would all back that across this country, whether we are in the firefighting service, whether we’re here in Parliament, or whether we are community members wanting to make sure that the trucks come out to keep us safe in our time of need. It’s important that we have a good, efficient service, that is what Fire and Emergency are undertaking. But I’d also just note the restructure is currently a proposal.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Does she agree with David Seymour that the Government listens to and treats firefighters with respect; if so, why have the firefighters had to seek an urgent Employment Relations Authority hearing to make sure their voices are heard?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yes; and nobody has to seek anything, they’re currently going through bargaining, and have been bargaining for the last year.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Does she take any responsibility for the cuts Fire and Emergency New Zealand has been forced to make, given she restricted funding for FENZ and directed budget cuts?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I absolutely take responsibility for the fact that Fire and Emergency need to be more efficient. It should be something that everybody across this House wants to achieve. Where there is any bloating within Fire and Emergency, we should seek to find efficiency. I’m surprised that that member would wish to have bloat.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Minister of Justice: What action has the Government taken to protect New Zealanders from stalking and harassment?

The Hon Paul Goldsmith—sorry, I didn’t recognise you!

Last night, the Government’s legislation to make stalking an illegal and jailable offence for up to five years passed with the full support of the House. This is an important piece of legislation that has been talked about for many years, and this Government has delivered to ensure that the harm victims experience by such unwanted behaviours is recognised and prosecuted effectively.

Rima Nakhle: Why is it important that stalking and harassment is an illegal and jailable offence?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: As I’m sure people understand, stalking and harassment pose a serious threat of serious harm to victims, and the behaviours can be a precursor to even more serious and violent crime. For too long, stalkers have been able to harm their victims through unwanted, persistent, or repetitive intrusions into their lives, causing serious emotional and economic harm with few legal consequences. I want to thank those who campaigned for this change and the more than 600 submitters to the Justice Committee, who bravely shared their own stories, experience, and the impact that stalking and harassment has had on their lives.

Rima Nakhle: What feedback has he received on the Government’s action to protect New Zealanders from stalking and harassment?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, and I quote one piece from Layba Zubair from the Aotearoa Free From Stalking group, who said, “I think this is a very big win. I think it’s important that especially in today’s political and social climate we do acknowledge the wins that we get in advocacy. It’s a good step forward.” I say to Layba: I wonder whether some of those who advocated for the change ever thought that this Government would deliver it, and I am pleased to say we have, with the broad support of the House.

Rima Nakhle: What other actions has the Government taken to protect New Zealanders from harm?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the criminalisation of stalking and harassment is part of a wider effort by Government to restore real consequences for crime. For too long, victims have not been the priority in our justice system. Another thing we’ve done is to ensure that victims of sexual violence have the ability to decide whether an adult sex offender has their name permanently suppressed That, I think, is another important change. The Government has also been reforming the sentencing regime, capping sentencing discounts at 40 percent and amending the principles of sentencing to include the requirement to take into account victims’ interests, as committed to in our coalition agreements with New Zealand First and the ACT Party.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: Can he confirm that in 2024 New Zealand had a year-on-year decline in electric vehicle sales of 70 percent compared to 2023, and, if so, does he concede that his Government’s policies significantly reduced demand for electric vehicles?

Yes, the member’s data aligns with data held by the New Zealand Transport Agency. There are a number of factors affecting the demand for electric vehicles (EVs). Weaker economic conditions have affected consumer demand for vehicles more generally. For example, total vehicle sales are actually down around 14 percent in 2024 compared to 2023. The global supply of used EVs at the age and price point New Zealand consumers are looking for is constrained, and many consumers who were early adopters and fast followers, I’m advised, brought forward their purchase of EVs in 2023 before the Clean Car Discount ended.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he think Simon Lucas, a Mitsubishi dealer, is wrong when he says the removal of the Clean Car Discount caused sales to “collapse by 80 to 90 percent”?

SPEAKER: There was too much commentary during that question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Should I repeat it, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he saying that Simon Lucas, a Mitsubishi dealer, is wrong when he says the removal of the Clean Car Discount caused sales to “collapse by 80 to 90 percent”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, I’m not saying that. He’s probably right on the margins. If you take away free money for middle- and high-income New Zealanders who go out and buy Teslas and KONAs paid for by people who can’t afford to make the transition to EVs, like our hard-working farmers and tradies who were stung with a ute tax, in order to transfer the money to largely middle- and upper-income consumers who wanted to go out and buy a Tesla—no, he’s probably right on the margins, but that regressive, inequitable, stupid scheme this Government did away with.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does his Government have an active policy to transition its own fleet by prioritising the purchase of electric vehicles, and, if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government’s focus is not on transitioning its own fleet to electric vehicles; this Government’s focus, as that member should know, is on cost-effective solutions and value for money. We have asked Government agencies to prioritise their focus on that because that is the single best thing we can do for the New Zealand economy, which remains our overriding focus.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So has his Government completely given up on electrifying our vehicle fleet because it’s inconvenient for the importers of highly polluting motor vehicles, and what does that mean for our carbon reduction targets in transport?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, electrification of the New Zealand economy is going to occur over time, and it will occur for our vehicle fleet. New Zealanders will make the transition and switch to electric cars and electric vehicles, but we are not going to put into law a scheme, like the previous Government did, that does not work. The simple reality is that the Clean—[Interruption] Well, here’s the reality—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —unless there are urgent changes made to the Clean Vehicle Standard that is going through Parliament right now, the price of many ordinary cars that New Zealanders use and buy, both used and new, will rise—in some cases, in punitive ways—on 1 January next year, and the Government is taking action to prevent that.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why did he and his officials only consult the motor vehicle importing industry and not any independent climate experts or anyone else in the development of this legislation; is it because he thinks it’s his job as a Government to respond to the needs of the motor vehicle importing industry and not reduce emissions?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government went and talked to the people who import used and new cars because they are the people affected by the previous Government’s stupid policy.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that it is his Government’s priority to improve margins for the importers of high-emissions vehicles rather than policies that increase the number and availability and affordability of electric vehicles for New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, that’s a mischaracterisation of the policy intent. The Government’s intention, through the changes we’re making to the Clean Car Standard through Parliament right now, is to avoid a situation where people buying ordinary run-of-the-mill petrol-powered cars on 1 January next year pay a punitive amount more to buy either used or new versions of those cars, because of the incorrect and faulty settings of the Clean Car Standard. We are fixing that, and if the members of the Opposition want to go out and raise the price of ordinary cars at a time when many Kiwis are doing it tough, good luck. I suggest they actually don’t.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve forbidden members from wearing the badges of registered New Zealand political parties. Is it permissible for a member to wear the flag of a State that the New Zealand Government doesn’t even recognise, such as Julie Anne Genter wearing a Palestinian flag badge?

SPEAKER: No, it’s not. As of Tuesday a week ago, as notified to all party whips, that type of display is not acceptable. I’d ask her to remove it or leave the House—one of the two.

Question No. 11—Vocational Education

11. to the Minister for Vocational Education: Does she agree with Skills Group head of consulting, Josh Williams, that vocational pathways are “capped and it’s trapped”; if not, why not?

I agree with the full quotation from the inimitable Josh Williams, which the member has paraphrased, and I’ll read the full quotation: “At the moment there is a lot of fantastic innovation and a lot of very good vocational pathways delivery happening, but it’s capped and it’s trapped in schemes like Gateway and Trades Academies, and there’s little pockets of money here and there”. This is precisely why the excellent Minister of Education and I are working closely to ensure that in the proposed replacement to NCEA, there are strengthened vocational pathways, based on industry-led skills standards, that will provide clear pathways into work or further vocational training.

Shanan Halbert: Can she assure the House that no young people have been turned away from foundation training under her watch due to a lack of course places?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Tertiary funding has always been capped. It’s not an open cheque book, although the previous Government has, at times, treated public funding like that.

Try and start again without the barb that makes it look like you’re building the whole question around a political attack. It’s not the role of a Minister being held to account.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tertiary funding is capped.

Shanan Halbert: Will reduced polytechnic courses lead to more or fewer people accessing training?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, the vocational education sector, and particularly the polytech sector, is going to be far more sustainable now going forward, with the very significant exercise we have done in taking out costings and ensuring that they are viable. They are therefore able to offer courses that their communities need, that their industries need, and that will provide pathways into employment for our young people.

Shanan Halbert: Where will people go for work-based training, given her Government has overseen record levels of liquidation in sectors like construction?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, we’ve been labouring this point quite a lot: work-based learning occurs when employers have the confidence to employ people, and that is for apprentices and trainees as well. So our job of keeping Government spending down, of keeping inflation down, ensuring that there is confidence out in the sector to employ people—that is when there will be more work-based training. That is when there will be more apprentices and more trainees out there gaining skills.

Shanan Halbert: Have non-completion rates for apprenticeships increased since cutting the Apprenticeship Boost to one year?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, when the Apprenticeship Boost was bought in as a COVID response, there was a huge increase in numbers going into apprenticeships, but unfortunately they weren’t doing the training, and therefore the completion rates were less than 50 percent. That is not a good outcome for those apprentices, it is not a good outcome for the employers, and it is not a good outcome for the Government. We want to have apprentices going into apprenticeships who are progressing through their apprenticeship. [Interruption]

Just wait for your colleagues to settle down.

Shanan Halbert: Will fewer courses, fewer employers, and cutting the Apprenticeship Boost lead to fewer or more apprentices completing their training?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Having businesses who are confident that the Government has got their spending under control, that the economy is coming back, taking on more apprentices, having more sustainable vocational education providers who are operating in an efficient manner, and ensuring that industry skills boards create qualifications and set skills standards that industry wants will make a much better vocational education system.

Question No. 12—Women

12. to the Minister for Women: What recent announcements has she made about the gender pay gap toolkit?

It’s fantastic to recently see that New Zealand’s gender pay gap has fallen to 5.2 percent—the lowest since records began. While that is a significant milestone, wider gaps do persist for Asian, Māori, Pasifika, and disabled women. That is why, today, I have launched the second iteration of New Zealand’s first ever Government-backed pay gap calculator, which calculates ethnicity-gender and gender-disability gaps, as well as new resources for small and medium sized businesses and guidance, importantly, for young women to confidently discuss pay at work.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How does the expanded gender pay gap toolkit help drive economic empowerment for women?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Indeed, that is my number one priority as Minister. By helping organisations measure and address their pay gaps, we are supporting women’s economic empowerment, enabling fairer workplaces, and contributing to the Government’s goal of economic growth. By supporting fair pay and transparency, it empowers women to achieve their financial security and career advancement.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What? This is a joke.

SPEAKER: Hold on. Sorry, before you start—that’s absolutely enough. Just constant barrage is not interjection; it’s just boorish behaviour. Dana Kirkpatrick.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What role do small and medium sized businesses play in closing the gender pay gap?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Well, this Government recognises that small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are vital to New Zealand’s economy, so the expanded toolkit includes tailored resources for those SMEs, recognising their unique constraints and providing practical steps to measure and address their gaps. By enabling more businesses to take action, we are ensuring the progress is widespread, supporting women’s economic empowerment and contributing to a more productive and resilient economy.

Hon David Seymour: Can the member reconcile the calls of apparent Armageddon when this Government reformed the pay equity laws with the fact we’ve just reached a record low on the gender pay gap?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I thank the member for that question, and indeed—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment, the Hon Nicola Grigg. The House will maintain its decorum through the answer.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I thank the member for that question, and indeed it would appear that those doomsday predictions did not eventuate.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How does addressing pay gaps for women from all backgrounds contribute to the Government’s broader economic goals?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: By closing pay gaps for women from all backgrounds, we do unlock the full potential of our workforce—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This stuff is going to be great on social media—can’t wait.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: —we drive productivity, and we support sustainable economic growth, Ms Sepuloni. Fair pay and transparency empower women to achieve financial success and career advancement. This Government delivers results, not just empty PR.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Worst Minister ever for women—the worst Minister for Women ever.

SPEAKER: OK. I’ve warned that member a number of times. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni will leave the House.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Willie Jackson: Question time’s over, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The member Willie Jackson’s willing to go with her—away you go. Your choice, in this case. Actually, that ends oral questions for the day. We’ll take one minute while those who have to leave the House for other business to do so.