Oral Questions

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes—in particular, a number of actions where a group of Ministers and departments have worked together very effectively to reduce youth crime. In Northland, for example, that is down by 40 percent, and it comes from a focus by Ministers, such as Karen Chhour and Oranga Tamariki, and Mark Mitchell and the police, who have allowed young offenders to be detained and corrected rather than continuing on with ram raids.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will the New Zealand Government recognise the unfolding genocide taking place in Gaza, particularly following the UN-commissioned report that concluded that “Statements made by Israeli authorities are direct evidence of genocidal intent.”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: As has been made clear by a range of Ministers across the Government, that is a matter under active consideration by the Government at the present time. Our position will be made clear by the right Minister, at the right place, and at the right time, which is coming up very soon.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Minister of Foreign Affairs correct when he said that the Deputy Prime Minister, David Seymour, was “talking out of his field” regarding the Government’s position on Palestinian Statehood?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, actually, he was speaking as the leader of his party, and that’s a matter for him, which I don’t have responsibility for, as is abundantly clear from the transcripts.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Minister of Foreign Affairs correct when he said that David Seymour’s statement regarding the recognition of Palestinian Statehood “was made by someone who’s got no authority to make it.”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it is certainly correct that the authority to make that statement on behalf of the Government rests with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, it is also true that this is a Government of three different parties, with leaders who each lead a party with its own identity, and, from the point of view of the Opposition, this Government is dangerously united.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the constant public disagreement between two of the Government’s most senior figures undermining the clarity and credibility of our foreign policy and the reason why this Government is still sitting on its hands?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: In answer to the first assertion in the question, there is not constant disagreement. There is a group of parties that have their own identities and are able to keep those identities and continue to work together in a cohesive and effective way. There is a real problem with many people’s view that you cannot have differences of opinion; you must conform. That is a view that is often associated with the left. People find it smothering, and, around the world, it’s making the left of politics very unpopular.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will he instruct his Deputy Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs to stop bickering, join our international partners, recognise Palestinian Statehood, recognise the unfolding genocide, and implement the sanctions that thousands of New Zealanders are calling for?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, first of all, we have a team that works together very effectively, and far too effectively for the Opposition’s liking; in fact—

Hon Peeni Henare: Sound dangerously evasive.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —dangerously effective in such a way that it’s going to keep the Opposition right where they are for a very long time. On the substance of the issue: you see, the reason that this Government is taking a deliberative view and considering all the details carefully is because we believe this issue deserves the careful consideration that we’re giving it.

Question No. 2—Trade and Investment

2. to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent steps has the Government taken to strengthen New Zealand’s trade and investment relationship with Saudi Arabia?

The Government has moved quickly to deepen ties with one of the world’s most dynamic economies, worth nearly US$3 trillion annually. In the last month, we’ve established the New Zealand - Saudi Arabia Business Council; agreed with Saudi’s investment Minister to create a cooperation framework between Invest New Zealand and the Saudi Government’s investment agency; and led a trade mission just this week to Riyadh of high-quality New Zealand businesses, where five new commercial partnerships worth more than $100 million were secured. These are practical outcomes that will mean more opportunities and stronger returns for New Zealand exporters, and more jobs for New Zealanders.

Tim van de Molen: What will the New Zealand - Saudi Arabia Business Council deliver for New Zealand exporters?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Business councils are a proven way to build stronger commercial connections and support exporters to succeed. A dedicated New Zealand - Saudi Arabia Business Council will raise awareness of opportunities, strengthen relationships, and help Kiwi firms do well in this growing market. It will play a key role in contributing to the Government’s goal to double the value of exports in 10 years. The establishment of a business council is an important step in strengthening trade and investment links between our two countries.

Tim van de Molen: What was agreed in order to boost investment ties with Saudi Arabia?

Hon TODD McCLAY: With my Saudi counterpart, the Minister of Investment, we agreed to establish a cooperation framework between Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Investment and New Zealand’s new investment agency, Invest New Zealand. Saudi Arabia is set to be the world’s sixth-largest economy by 2050, and New Zealand is well placed to attract the Saudi investment into high-growth sectors across the economy, including renewable energy, clean tech, advanced food production, wood processing, aquaculture, transportation, and tourism. The Government’s making it easier for foreign investors to do business in New Zealand through streamlining investment settings and stronger commercial engagement.

Tim van de Molen: What will the five new commercial partnerships mean for New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: In the trade mission that we concluded this week in Riyadh, we saw high-quality New Zealand businesses sign five new commercial partnerships with Saudi companies. This is expected to generate more than $100 million in commercial value for New Zealand. These partnerships mark an important step in deepening New Zealand’s trade relationship with Saudi Arabia and showcasing the strength and diversity of New Zealand’s offering with food and beverage, animal management, agritech, health, and the creative industries sector. I congratulate these businesses on their achievement—achievements of which you’ll see many more in the near future.

Question No. 3—Education

3. to the Minister of Education: Kei te whakapono ia ki āna kōwhiringa katoa me āna mahi katoa kia whai putanga pai mō ngā ākonga Māori?

[Does she believe all her decisions and actions support positive education outcomes for ākonga Māori?]

On behalf of the Minister of Education, yes, absolutely, particularly the outcomes around attendance. It’s difficult to learn when you’re at school—some of us have the school reports and transcripts to prove it—but it’s impossible if you’re not there. If you take term 1 data from 2022 to now, in the last three years, we have seen a 20 percentage point increase in Māori school attendance. That is the biggest thing that will make a difference: more Māori at school.

Benjamin Doyle: He aha tāna whakamāramatanga i tāna kī atu, “I don’t want to be talking about the Treaty. I want to be talking about reading, writing, maths, achievement.”, ā, kei te whaiwhakaaro ia ki te hononga o te mahi whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi me ngā putanga ā-mātauranga mō ngā ākonga Māori?

[What is her explanation of when she said, “I don’t want to be talking about the Treaty. I want to be talking about reading, writing, maths, achievement.”, and does she acknowledge that upholding Te Tiriti is related to education outcomes for ākonga Māori?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I’m not getting any translation through this earpiece.

Hon Member: Plug it in.

SPEAKER: No, there will be none of those sorts of comments, thank you very much. It is a problem.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’ve got two here. I’ll try the other one, if that helps.

SPEAKER: Try the other one for a minute.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: OK.

SPEAKER: Would the translator please repeat the question. [Translation repeated.]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I do absolutely stand by that statement, on behalf of the Minister of Education. It is simply a fact that if you don’t have the basic literacy, the basic numeracy, and the basic understanding of the world of science and history, then your ability to uphold anything, including Te Tiriti, is going to be greatly diminished. That’s why this Government is focused on the simple idea of one teacher in one classroom with a knowledge-rich curriculum—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, whose knowledge?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —that is examined through proper examinations so that we are transferring knowledge from one generation to the next. I hear the member opposite asking which knowledge. Well, the simple fact is that there are curricula being developed in te reo Māori and in English.

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. If the member has got a question, take a supplementary. Don’t yell them across the House like that.

Benjamin Doyle: He aha ia i kōwhiri ai kia whakakore i NCEA, ahakoa ngā pōrahurahu o Te Runanga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa mē te kōrero tohutohu ōkawa, ka whakataumaha ake tēnei kōwhiringa ki ngā ākonga Māori?

[Why has she decided to scrap NCEA despite concerns from Te Runganga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa and official advice that it will further disadvantage ākonga Māori?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Education, the Government has decided to replace NCEA because we believe we can do better for all students, and that involves a more rigorous system of examination that ensures that students must learn the information in order to pass the test. Now, it is true that there is a range of perspective on the changes to NCEA, but this Government utterly rejects the idea that, somehow, all Māori students are disadvantaged by a more rigorous examination system. That’s the kind of thinking we need to get rid of.

Benjamin Doyle: Kei te kūraruraru ia i tā Te Budget 2025 whakaheke i te ahumahi mātauranga i ngā fulltime-equivalents toru tekau mā tahi kia uaua ake te ako mō ngā ākonga Māori? Ki te kore, he aha e kore ai?

[Is she concerned that Budget 2025’s reduction of the Māori education workforce by 31 fulltime-equivalents will make learning more difficult for ākonga Māori, and, if not, why not?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I’m getting nothing here. Can we try again? I don’t know what’s going on with it.

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the translator to say it again. If the Hon David Seymour could tell us if he’s getting that translation. [Translation repeated.]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Education, while there have been some changes in staffing across the system, overwhelmingly, this Government is ensuring resources are focused on fixing what matters in education, and that is the quality of the curriculum, the amount of learning support, the quality of the assessment, and the quality of the buildings and infrastructure. Those are the things the Government is focusing its resources on to make a difference for all students.

Benjamin Doyle: He aha te Minita i kāti ai i ngā kaupapa kia akiaki, kia whakamana hoki i te māia me te matatauranga i te kōrero reo Māori, pērā ki te Resource Teacher Māori me Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

[Why has the Minister cut programmes that encourage and enhance the confidence and fluency of speaking in te reo, such as Resource Teacher Māori and Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Education, it is absolutely true that we are committed to developing the resources and retaining the staff required to educate in both languages. In fact, in the last Budget, we have committed more resources to upskilling teachers in te reo Māori for exactly that purpose.

Benjamin Doyle: Kei te whaiwhakaaro ia, he tauira te whakaheke pūtea i te Resource Teacher Māori me Te Ahu o te Reo Māori i te whai kōwhiringa, e ai ki te Toihau o Te Taura Whiri i te reo Māori, ko Ahorangi Rawinia Higgins, tāna whakatūpato “reversing decades of progress in protecting and promoting te reo Māori,”? Ki te kore, he aha e kore ai?

[Does she acknowledge cutting funding for Resource Teacher Māori and Te Ahu o te Reo Māori are examples of decision making that Rawinia Higgins, Toihau of Te Taura Whiri i te reo Māori, describes as risking “reversing decades of progress in protecting and promoting te reo Māori”, and, if not, why not?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister, the reason that I don’t agree with that statement is that the Government is reorganising its resources to make sure that we get the best outcomes for all students, and that includes significant investments in Māori language teaching and Māori-medium curriculum. We are doing the work to ensure that Māori language teaching is strengthened, along with the entire system, by removing a huge amount of wasteful spending that we discovered upon being elected into office.

Question No. 4—Economic Growth

4. to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does she agree with Nicola Willis in 2022, when GDP shrunk by 0.2 percent, that “Today’s release of GDP data is more bad news for New Zealanders already struggling with the cost of living crisis”; and if so, what would she say now that GDP figures published today show a 0.9 percent decline?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In answer to the first part of the question: yes. I note that in the first three months of the year, the New Zealand economy grew by 0.8 percent—faster than Australia and twice what Treasury were forecasting.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Did her Government’s decision to cancel major infrastructure work, resulting in a 9.4 percent decline in construction for the year ending June 2025, contribute to the shrinking economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The Government has increased the amount of capital investment going into infrastructure projects. What I can confirm is that the fast-track regime, which has already ensured that the Auckland Port project will be under way before Christmas and has indicative approval for more than a thousand houses to be built in Auckland, along with around a dozen other projects—its cancellation, which his party believes in, would stop major private construction projects.

Hon Damien O’Connor: What does it say about her performance when half the time she has been Minister, economic growth has been negative, just adding to the growing list of negative outcomes in the New Zealand economy that highlight the reality of her growth agenda?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is the case that I cannot take responsibility for all the decisions made in the years leading up to my period as Minister of Finance. What I can take responsibility for is fixing it. What I can also say, quite confidently, is that things would be a heck of a lot worse if you lot were in charge.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why does she blame international events for her 0.9 percent decline, when for the same period Australia grew by 0.6 percent, Japan by 0.5 percent, and the UK by 0.3 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’d note that in that quarter there was also negative growth in Germany, Canada, and other countries. I also do not recall that member congratulating me in the first quarter of this year when our rate of growth was many multiples more than Australia’s, but I look forward to him being able to do so in the future again.

SPEAKER: Question No. 5, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. [Interruption] Just wait until everyone is settled and quiet.

Question No. 5—Māori Development

5. to the Minister for Māori Development: Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka. E whakapono ana ia ki ngā mahi a te Kāwanatanga kia whakapūmautia te reo Māori?

[Does he stand by the Government’s track record on upholding obligations to te reo Māori?]

Āna. [Yes.]

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: E whakaae ana te Minita ki ngā kōrero a te Kaikōmihana mō te reo Māori e mea ana, “e raru ana te reo Māori i ngā kawenga me ngā mahi a tēnei Kāwanatanga”?

[Does the Minister agree with the statements of the Māori Language Commissioner that states, “the Māori language is endangered by the conduct and activities of this Government”?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA: He mihi kāmehameha nā te ngākau iti rawa ki te kaikōmihana, ki te toihau o Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, me te mōhio hoki ka nui āna kīanga kōrero ahakoa ko wai te Minita, ahakoa ko wai te Kāwanatanga.

[Significant acknowledgments of my humble self to the commissioner, the toihau of the Māori Language Commission, and I am also aware that she has made many statements regardless of who the Minister is, regardless of who is in Government.]

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Hei whakanui i te 50 tau o Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, e whakaae ana te Minita kia kāwhakina te kaupapahere a te Kāwanatanga e aukati ana, e tuaruatia nei rānei i te whakamahi o te reo Māori i roto i ngā tari kāwanatanga?

[In celebration of the 50th anniversary of Māori Language Week, will the Minister agree to remove the policy of the Government to stop, or make subordinate, the use of the Māori language within Government departments?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Hei whakatairanga hoki i Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, kua kite hoki au i ngā mahi nunui, roroa hoki, ngā tāngata i hīkoi atu ki te taimoana ki konei, ā, tae atu ki ngā rangatahi i kōrero atu ki ngā Manu Kōrero. Kāre au i kite i te mema o te Rōpū Reipa ki reira. Heoi anō, hei whakautu hoki mō te kōrero nei, he wā ka piki, he wā ka heke, engari me kore tātou e pōhēhē mā te Karauna tō tātou reo e whakarauora. Heoi anō mā te ranga whānau, mā te ranga hapū, mā te ranga iwi e whakarauora tō tātou reo, ā, ka riro hoki mā te Kāwanatanga me te Karauna ia e whakatūwatawata.

[In the promotion of Māori Language Week, I have seen many significant and wide-reaching activities, the people that marched to the oceanside here, and including the young people that spoke at the Manu Kōrero speech competition. I did not see the member of the Labour Party there. Anyway, in response to this statement, at times it improves, at times it declines, but we should not mistakenly believe that it is up to the Crown to revitalise our language. However, it is up to the many ranks of whānau, of hapū, and of iwi to revitalise our language, and it will be the Government and the Crown to fortify it.]

Question No. 6—Housing

6. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements have been made about improving social housing?

Last week, the Minister of Housing and I released an update on the allocation of the 1,500 community housing provider (CHP) social houses funded in Budget 2024 for delivery up to June 2027, and the 550 social homes in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland funded in Budget 2025. Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga—Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga—MHUD), and community housing providers are getting on with approving, contracting, and delivering these homes. We’ll also publish a monthly dashboard summarising the delivery of these social houses funded from Budgets 2024 and 2025, as well as Māori housing houses. Just on that, since coming into Government, we have allocated and funded over 1,000 Māori housing places across Papakāinga, affordable rentals, and other types of housing. This dashboard means that public providers and members of the Opposition can see progress being made.

Tim Costley: What type of social homes are being built and delivered?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We are making sure we get the right type of houses built in the right places with the right supports for those in genuine need. Around half of the people currently on the social housing wait-list need a one-bedroom home, yet only 12 percent of the homes within Kāinga Ora are one-bedroom homes, and this is not good enough. So we’re changing it up. We’re changing how social homes are prioritised and procured, with a greater focus on data- and evidence-driven needs analysis to deliver the social homes people need, and for the 2,000 places funded through Budgets 2024 and 2025, about 48 percent of the homes will be one bedroom, around 42 percent will be two bedrooms, and around 22 percent of them are expected to be accessible or accessible-ready homes.

Tim Costley: Whereabouts are the social and Māori homes being built and delivered?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga—MHUD has, for the first time ever, deliberately allocated houses on the basis of identified housing need across regions by, for example, looking at the housing deprivation data, emergency housing use, and the social housing wait-list. This is the first time, actually, this has ever been done. But based on the pipeline data in Budgets 2024 and 2025, places across this set, including Māori housing, include nearly 1,000 in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, over 500 in Te Moana-a-Toitehuatahi Bay of Plenty, 350 in a beautiful place called Waikato, 300 in Heretaunga Hawke’s Bay—great place; I went to school there—250 in Northland Tai Tokerau, and nearly 100 in Whakatū, also known as Nelson. Let’s build houses where they’re most needed.

Tim Costley: In addition to the over 2,000 social houses funded by the Government, how many net new homes have been delivered?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Since we came into Government, tata kite whitu mano whare—nearly 7,000 net new social homes—have been delivered, and this includes over 5,400 net new homes delivered by Kāinga Ora and over 1,400 net new homes delivered by CHPs. These homes, of course, are additional to the over 2,000—rua mano—community housing provider social homes funded by this Government so far, and I look forward to further announcements in this space, at a beautiful location coming near you.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve traversed the issue of this Government claiming they’ve built 7,000 houses in this House before, but the question was: of the 2,000 houses funded by this Government, how many have they built? How on earth can the Minister claim to have built 7,000?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s not for me to judge whether or not the answer is correct or otherwise, but, simply, has it been addressed, and it has been addressed.

Tim Costley: Speaking to the point.

SPEAKER: I don’t think there’s any more to say, but—

Tim Costley: Well, the member is completely incorrect in what he said. My question was in addition to the 2,000, how many net new homes were there, and the answer I heard was another 7,000 additionally.

SPEAKER: That should have been a correction that came from the Minister.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: To the Minister, how can he credibly stand in this House and claim that there is “progress being made” when the number of Kāinga Ora homes under his watch has reduced by 177?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m not aware of the fuzzy maths that the member opposite has presented, but I’ll gladly receive a question by way of written parliamentary questions.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The claim by the Minister that brought into question the integrity of the claim is at direct odds with claims by Kāinga Ora themselves. I think it is unparliamentary, and certainly not good for order, when Ministers are able to claim that a member in this House is deliberately—well, I think the term was “fuzzy”, when his own department that he’s referred to in the answers have stated this in news reports just last night.

SPEAKER: Well, you could go back to the comment I made in the House before, but if the member’s got counter information, he can always table that in the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s publicly available, though, sir, so I can’t.

SPEAKER: Well, OK.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement regarding the bowel cancer screening age that “We are committed to matching Australia. The critical restriction to enable that is access to more colonoscopies”; if so, why?

on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes. That is why this Government expects Health New Zealand to continue work to expand access to colonoscopy and improve management and access for people of any age with bowel cancer symptoms through the roll-out of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for symptomatic pathway.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that Health New Zealand’s colonoscopy capacity will be significantly freed up by those changes in 2026, enabling the screening age to be lowered to 45 years without additional funding, capacity, or workforce?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: What is correct is that when we’ve said we’d commit to Australia’s age, they took 15 years and a stepped approach, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. The first step goes down to 58—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: But capacity is coming on in a year’s time.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: —and the member wants to ask me a question while I’m answering the first question. But, yes, we will have to increase capacity for the colonoscopy workforce.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the Minister aware that the changes he mentioned for FIT testing in his response to my primary question would mean that so many colonoscopies would no longer be needed, the Government could screen down to the age of 45 without any more workforce, any more facilities, or any more colonoscopy capacity?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, in answer to that question, I actually agree with Grant Robertson, the Labour Minister of Finance in 2023, who said that the bowel cancer screening age would need to be lowered in stages, and that’s what we’re doing.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the Minister saying that even though the opportunity is presenting itself, they are not going to take it, and, if so, why?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: No. What I’m saying at the moment is that if you take one of the targets around urgent 14-day colonoscopies, the target is 90 percent; we are at 83 percent at the moment. That is the reality of the health system we inherited. That’s why we’re taking a stepped approach. There is a pressure on the colonoscopy workforce. It is a doctor-led workforce, and that’s why we’re building capacity with nurse-led colonoscopies. We want to take a staged approach, and that’s what this Government is committed to.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the Government saying now that the reason he’s not willing to take this cost-free opportunity to expand screening to the same level as Australia—as per their election commitment—is because they’d rather use the capacity to address Health New Zealand’s deficit?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, isn’t it funny how everything seems so simple when you’re in Opposition, and you’d wonder why it wasn’t so simple when they were in Government. This Government is committed to lowering the age to 58, and that is showing more evidence of saving lives than their policy of going down to 50 with certain population groups. We’re committed for health need across all New Zealanders. We’re committed to comparing ourselves to Australia, but, as I’ve said in previous answers, that took Australia 15 years. That’s why we’re taking a stepped approach, and that’s why even her colleague Grant Robertson, when he was a Labour Minister, agreed with this Government.

Question No. 8—Energy

8. to the Minister for Energy: What recent announcements has he made on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill?

This week, we announced changes to the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill that will help unlock investment and accelerate New Zealand’s transition to clean energy. These amendments enable the Government to designate marine areas for offshore renewable projects while giving developers the certainty to invest, while providing clarity for those exploring under the Crown Minerals Act. This positions New Zealand to lead in offshore renewables and unlock high-value jobs.

Rima Nakhle: Why has he made these changes?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, offshore wind requires a significant upfront investment and that is why we are establishing a clear regulatory regime through the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. However, during the select committee process, offshore wind developers raised concerns about their projects coexisting with other activities, particularly seabed mining. This change is a clear signal that we’re open for investment.

Rima Nakhle: What will these changes mean for existing permit holders?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, these changes are about balance. We want to clear the way for offshore wind, but we also need to protect the rights of existing permit holders. The Government will take into account the impact on existing mining permit holders when determining these areas, and we expect that the offshore wind and mineral sectors will enter into constructive discussions on how their activities may coexist near each other.

Rima Nakhle: What could offshore wind mean for New Zealand?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I’ve been blown away with the opportunity that offshore wind presents. New Zealand has some of the world’s greatest offshore wind potential. While there is a lot of hot air coming from the other side of the House, offshore wind can be more powerful and more consistent than onshore wind, which is critical when so much of our electricity comes from intermittent sources. Offshore wind could bring jobs and abundant energy to grow our economy. This Government has a strong commitment to double renewable energy by 2050, and offshore wind will play a critical part in that plan.

Question No. 9—Oceans and Fisheries

9. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: E whakaae ana ia ki tā te Environmental Defence Society kī atu ko tā Tiriti o Waitangi he whakatakoto “obligation on the Crown to legislate for effective marine management”; ki te kore, he aha e kore ai?

[Does he agree with the Environmental Defence Society that te Tiriti o Waitangi sets out an “obligation on the Crown to legislate for effective marine management”; if not, why not?]

Ngā hoaketanga kei ahau, me kaua te moana me wana pānga e tītōhea ai, ahakoa nā raro i Te Tiriti, nā runga rānei i te ngākaunui o te marea ki te moana.

[The responsibilities I have, the ocean and its interests must not become desolate, whether that’s under the Treaty, or on the value placed on it by the public.]

Teanau Tuiono: He aha te oranga ki roto i te whakaiti i ngā ara arotake, arā judicial review, mō te whakahaere i te ahu moana, ā, he aha te take kāre ia i whakarite i tetahi tukanga kia rongo i ngā kōrero a te katoa?

[What is the benefit in reducing the judicial review process for managing ocean assets, and why did he not arrange a process by which all of the public’s statements might be heard?]

Hon SHANE JONES: Preparing a strategy and approaches that reflect what the Environmental Defence Society is seeking to achieve, including a special oceans Act, will take time. It will never eventuate in the absence of priority given to economic development. These things take time.

Teanau Tuiono: He pātai tāpiri: He aha āna kaupapahere kia tiakina te oranga o ngā popoto, ngā Māui dolphins, ā, ka whakaaetia e ia kia aukati te set-net me te trawl fishing ki roto i ō rātou kāinga, ā, ki te kore e whakaae, he aha te take e pērā ai?

[What are his policies for protecting the health of the Māui dolphin, and will he agree to a moratorium on set nets and trawl fishing within their habitats, and if he does not agree, why is that?]

Hon SHANE JONES: Over the years, a host of restrictive measures have been put in place for this mythological creature sadly known as the Māui dolphin. This has had a significant impact on the ability and the viability of the fisheries sector, but we should not devalue the work that has already taken place on the west coast of Te Ikaroa-a-Māui to provide remedial measures for this declining population of mythical Hector’s dolphins.

Teanau Tuiono: Kei a ia he māharahara, he āwangawanga rānei i te heke o te tautoko a ngā kamupene hī ika nā runga i tana kaha aronga ki a rātou noa iho, kei tua atu i te hapori whānui?

[Does he have any worries or concerns regarding the decline in support of fisheries companies due to his focused attention given to them alone, beyond the wider community?]

Hon SHANE JONES: Ā, ko te koronga kei ahau, me pēhea rānei e whakaranea ai te oranga mai i ngā mau o te moana, ehara i te mea mō ngā kamupene hopu, hao ika ānakenake, otirā ko ngā whānau, ko ngā hapū, me te iwi hoki i whiwhi ai i ngā pānga kia āhei ai rātou kia haere tonu ki te moana, hīhī haohao ai kia riro mai i a rātou he oranga. Koia tēnā te hoaketanga whakaharahara kei ahau.

[Oh, the desire that I have, how might wellbeing be expanded from the ocean’s haul, not only for the companies that catch fish alone but indeed for the families, the hapū, and also the iwi that have acquired interests so that they may go to the sea and go fishing with line and net so that they may have some benefit—that indeed is the enormous responsibility that I have.]

Teanau Tuiono: Ka whakaaetia e ia kia aukati i te wāhi hī ika ki Chatham Rise i te mea kei te tata ngaro te orange roughy ki reira, ka hiahiatia rānei te whakapakaru i ngā māra kāoa rānei?

[Will he agree to close the fishing area on Chatham Rise because the orange roughy is nearly gone from there, or would he prefer the coral gardens be destroyed?]

Hon SHANE JONES: That fish referred to as the orange roughy is known in Māori as niho rota. That area has been the subject of considerable public discussion and any decisions made under law, in the future, governing the amount of fish that may be taken from that area will be announced in due course. But I would say to the member: less uncritical repetition of untested science is best.

Teanau Tuiono: Ka whai mahere ia kia whakauru i ētahi atu anō panonitanga ture kia tāwharau ai i āna kaupapahere; mēnā i pērā, ka kōrero ki te Attorney-General kei ngoikore haere ngā tukanga ture?

[Is he planning to introduce any other law changes to protect his policies, and, if so, has he spoken with the Attorney-General about how these may erode legal processes?]

Hon SHANE JONES: I’ve been known to have multiple discussions with the Attorney-General, and I am very conscious that there are a host of court cases pertaining to fisheries. Who knows what fresh bouts of litigation might take place, but any decisions made and plans introduced will be done in a way that strikes a balance between utilisation—but I will not be guilt-tripped about mythical creatures living off the west coast of Taranaki.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. to the Minister for Māori Development: E whakapau kaha ana tōna Kāwanatanga ki te tautoko i te reo Māori ki Aotearoa nei?

[Is the Government doing all it can to support the Māori language here in New Zealand?]

Āna, kei te whakapau kaha te Kāwanatanga me te Karauna, ki te hāpai, ki te tautoko i te reo Māori. Heoi anō, he nui ngā mānuka takoto kei mua i te aroaro o te Kāwanatanga me te Karauna, hāunga ko ngā iwi, ngā marae, ngā hapū me ngā whānau.

[Yes, the Government and the Crown are working hard to promote and support the Māori language. However, there are many challenges in front of the Government and the Crown, not to mention the iwi, marae, hapū, and whānau.]

Hon Peeni Henare: Did he discuss with Minister Stanford that rationale why te reo Māori is important for children’s learning before she removed it from children’s reading resources; and, if so, what was her response?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ka nui hoki ngā kōrero i waenga i a māua ko te Minita Mātauranga e pā ana ki ēnei momo take, me te mōhio hoki ka nui tana tautoko i te ahunga, i te anga whakamua o te reo Māori, ā, ki āna pukapuka motuhake, arā ko ngā decodable books, i roto i te reo rangatira. He nui ngā kōrero e pā ana ki āna mahi tīkaro mai i te reo Māori i ngā pukapuka reo Ingarihi engari kāre anō au kia kite i te kōrero ōkawa e pā ana ki āna mahi.

[There have been many discussions between myself and the Minster of Education regarding these types of issues, and I know that she is very supportive of the direction and the progress of the Māori language, including with her special books—i.e., the decodable books in the noble language.]

Hon Peeni Henare: Did he raise with Minister Stanford the concerns from Professor Rawinia Higgins, who said she had “significant questions about the commitment to supporting te reo Māori” when the Minister cut the Te Kawa Matakura programme?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kāre au i te āta mōhio ki ngā whakanekenekenga katoa e pā ana ki tērā hōtaka, engari ia te rua wiki, ia te rua wiki, māua ko Minita Standford e kōrerorero ana mō ēnei take, arā tō tātou reo Māori hei pītau ira tūāpapa hoki mō te nanahi, mō te nāianei me te āpōpō.

[I am not entirely aware of all the ins and outs regarding that programme, but every fortnight, Minister Stanford and I discuss these types of issues—i.e., our Māori language as an excellent foundation for yesterday, for today, and for tomorrow.]

Hon Peeni Henare: Will the Government financially commit to the language and culture of rangatahi Māori in Tāmaki-maka-rau by funding the $850,000 per year it costs to host the Māori stage at the ASB Polyfest, or will his Government leave this important rangatahi kaupapa high and dry?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kua kite hoki i te nui tautoko a tēnei Kāwanatanga me ngā Kāwanatanga o mua i ngā mahi a Te Matatini. Ka riro anō mā tērā ohu a Te Matatini ēnei momo kaupapa e whakatūwatawata. Me te mōhio hoki kaua e riro mā ia te maikuku o te Kāwanatanga e whaiwhai haere i āna pūtea, pīnati pūtea nei, e whakatū i tētehi kaupapa. He kaupapa nui, he kaupapa whakahirahira hoki tō te kaupapa Polyfest, e mihi ana ki ngā kaiwhakahaere me ngā kaiwhakamaunu i tērā waka.

[I have seen the great support of this Government and previous Governments for the activities of Te Matatini. It will again be left to that board of Te Matatini to fortify these types of initiatives. And I also know that it won’t be left to each finger of Government to pursue its funding, its peanut funding, to manage such initiatives.]

Hon Peeni Henare: How can anyone have confidence in Ministers responsible for the Māori language when the Government cuts funding, cuts courses, cuts te reo from books, cuts te reo from official invitations, and then expects to reach 1 million speakers by 2040?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kua kitea hoki ngā kīanga kōrero a tō mātou, ko te Kāwanatanga, Manu Pūtea te whakatuarā hoki i Te Matatini. Koia hoki tētehi o ngā kanohi nui o te ao e pā ana ki tēnei iho pūmanawa, ko tō tātou reo. Kāore ia i tapahi i ērā pūtea, engari i whakatuarā i ērā pūtea tautoko i Te Matatini, tae atu ki ngā kaupapa pērā i te Māori Manaaki Trust, tae atu ki te $700 miriona - $800 miriona e whakapau kaha ana ēnei Kāwanatanga ki ngā kaupapa reo Māori, ki ngā kura reo Māori me ērā o ngā hōtaka ki roto i ngā kura. Nā reira kia āta haere, kia āta whakatūpato i te kupu kōrero ka maringi mai i te arero o te tangata e tapahi ana tēnei Kāwanatanga i ngā pūtea tautoko katoa.

[The statements of our, the Government’s, finance Minister have been seen that support Te Matatini. That is one of the most visible visages in the world regarding this true talent, our language. She did not cut that funding, but instead backed that funding that supports Te Matatini, including initiatives such as the Māori Manaaki Trust, and including $700 million to $800 million that the Government has expended on Māori language projects, Māori-medium schools, and other such programmes within schools. And so we must take it easy, we must take care with the words that pour off our tongues—that this Government has cut all support funding.]

Question No. 11—Transport

11. to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about the Ashburton Bridge?

Earlier this month, I announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency has signed a contract with Fletcher Construction to progress the detailed bridge design so that the construction on the new Ashburton bridge can kick off early next year. This is real progress towards the National Party’s campaign promise to start construction of the bridge in our first term. We are a Government that is delivering on our promise to the people of mid-Canterbury.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is a second bridge needed?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: With about 24,000 vehicles using the current bridge daily, we need to ensure that people and goods can get up and down the South Island. Futureproofing this bridge is important to improving network resilience south to Otago in case of emergency events like flooding. The new bridge will be a vital connection for Tinwald to Ashburton and to relieve congestion on State Highway 1.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the next steps for the bridge?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Along with building it, we have to do the geotechnical investigations in and around the Ashburton River. They have now been completed and the bore hole samples are being analysed to better understand the ground conditions for building the bridge. The project team is progressing property purchases, statutory approvals, and procurement. Design and construction contracts are expected to be signed at the end of the year. All this demonstrates the need for things like our fast-track approvals process to make sure that we can get things built in this country. I look forward to announcing the next steps once negotiations have been concluded, and we’ll be pitching for the bridge to be named Browns’ Bridge in honour of two of its strongest advocates.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that “this Government is delivering for all workers”; if so, why?

Yes, I do stand by my statement in the context in which it was made. This Government is delivering for all workers by reintroducing 90-day trials to ensure greater opportunities for those who may not otherwise have a shot at a job. We’re removing the 30-day rule that binds new employees to collective agreements to ensure all workers have freedom of association. I could go on about all of the changes, but it is the last question on a Thursday.

Camilla Belich: How can she stand by her statement when the Government is offering teachers an effective pay cut leading to strike action?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can’t get involved in individual collective bargaining that’s happening across the public sector.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not asking the Minister to comment on that; it was asking her to defend her statement in light of the industrial action that is under way.

Hon David Seymour: This Minister does not have responsibility for that negotiation. It puts her in a very difficult position.

SPEAKER: That probably is a fair point. Camilla Belich can ask the question without losing one of the allocated questions.

Camilla Belich: Can I ask the same question again?

SPEAKER: No, slightly—

Camilla Belich: Different?

SPEAKER: Think about the exchange we’ve just had.

Camilla Belich: Given that the Minister stands by her statement that the “Government is delivering for all workers”, how is she delivering for nurses when they are complaining and taking action in order to achieve safer staffing?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: As I said before, I won’t be getting involved in individual collective bargaining that’s happening across the public sector, but what I would say is that this is a Government that also takes into consideration patients, who are also workers, and it is deeply disruptive for all workers who have surgeries—they might have things that they need to go to hospital for—which get disrupted, and they may have taken annual leave off for those procedures, and then, they’re cancelled at the last minute. This is a Government that takes all of that into account.

Camilla Belich: How can she stand by her statement when she has extinguished 33 pay equity claims and only one union is even considering filing new claims under her changed scheme?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Because, of course, we want our laws to do what they say they do. I would just suggest that it’s a very interesting circumstance that, when that member, after all of this time, said that this pay equity system doesn’t exist and it can’t be used, there is actually a union using it.

Camilla Belich: How can she stand by her statement when doctors have no choice but to take industrial action in the face of an effective pay cut?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’m not responsible for doctors or the actions that they take. They are responsible for their own actions. This is a Government that believes in personal responsibility.

Camilla Belich: How can she stand by her statement when thousands of workers will be gathering around New Zealand on Saturday to protest the Government’s actions against pay equity?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Like I’ve said, the equal pay system remains. Pay equity remains. Some unions are looking to use it, and I would suggest that that member might wish to encourage others to use the system that has been established under the law.