Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding pay equity?

on behalf of the Minister for Women: Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why has she not instructed the Ministry for Women to monitor the ongoing implications of the Government’s pay equity changes on women’s pay?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’m told that any further advice from the Minister for Women or actions have yet to be decided.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will she allow her advisory councils to monitor the impacts of the Government’s pay equity changes, as they’ve offered her, and, if not, why not?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister for Women, I have a number of stakeholders who I draw on for advice. I’m told that further advice has yet to be decided. However, all advice that has been received by the Minister for Women to date has been of great importance and very satisfactory.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister consider the National Council of Women of New Zealand to be a key stakeholder, and, if yes, why has she not yet met with the National Council of Women of New Zealand to discuss the pay equity changes?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister for Women, the Minister for Women meets with a range of stakeholders and has a number of stakeholders who she draws on for advice. The National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women advises the Minister for Women on a wide range of issues relating to the employment of women, and I don’t have details as to the future calendar.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that “the reason people leave a country is because they think they can earn higher incomes somewhere else”; if so, how many women will seek higher incomes overseas due to the Government’s pay equity changes?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister for Women, I don’t own a crystal ball. However, I also think it’s really important not to try and conflate all these issues for political purposes. We do have people who make a lot of personal changes to their lives due to their own personal circumstances.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister for Women’s job to listen to and represent all women in New Zealand, rather than privileging the perspective of one particular council or group of women?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The Minister for Women advocates on behalf of all women in New Zealand and does a fantastic job.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can the Minister name any of the stakeholders—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just stop. It’s unnecessary, from both sides of the House. Please start again.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can the Minister name any of the stakeholders across the country who represent women who are celebrating the pay equity changes that have been brought in by her Government?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister for Women, I represent and advocate for women across New Zealand—not just one branch of women or two branches of women but all women—to make sure that we have the settings right. If you would like to have a look at the stakeholders that I regularly meet with, you just need to look at my diary, proactively released on the Beehive website.

SPEAKER: Question No. 2, Takuta Ferris. [Interruption] We’ll just wait for the House to settle itself—no comments are required while a question is being asked.

Question No. 2—Justice

2. to the Minister of Justice: What safeguards, if any, will he put in place to ensure that the Government’s proposed citizen’s arrest changes won’t “lead to unreasonable use of force and unlawful detention” as is highlighted by the Ministry of Justice in the regulatory impact statement?

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Any use of force that is beyond reasonable will expose people to potential civil or criminal liability. The public will need to exercise caution when effecting arrests, and police will use their discretion if they think someone has gone beyond the bounds of what is permitted by law. We are determined to give businesses and all New Zealanders more options to detain those stealing from them, because it’s not right that people can just walk out of a supermarket with a trolley full of groceries and nothing can be done about it. We are doing something about it.

Tākuta Ferris: What is his justification for expanding powers of citizen’s arrest when his own officials warned it will enable the use of unreasonable force against tamariki without reducing offending or improving public safety?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, the justification: for supporting retailers and small businesses to be able to get on with life, without having people steal from them and no one being able to do anything about it.

Tākuta Ferris: What assessment, if any, has he made of the racial bias already present in the public perception of suspicious behaviour, as confirmed by the Understanding Policing Delivery report, and of how these new powers might embolden racial profiling and vigilantism against Māori and Pasifika?

Hon Shane Jones: Victimhood—victimhood.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Again, on behalf—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. At least get one sentence out without people immediately beginning to barrack the Minister.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, this is not about race; this is about crime. This is about crime in our communities, where people are taking and are stealing, and others—those hard-working taxpayers of New Zealand—are left to hold an empty basket. This Government does not mind what colour, creed, or race a person is; it’s about the crime that’s being committed and sending a message that New Zealanders have had enough, and we’re giving New Zealanders the tools to do something about it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister had any reports on how the proposed powers of citizen’s arrest will impact serial electoral law breakers?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, the advice that the Minister will have received will have been about how we can support our communities to stop this crime from happening in the first place, and that is giving those tools to individuals, to retailers, and to our communities to be able to say, “We have had enough of people taking trolleys of food and taking and stealing from the good, hard-working citizens of New Zealand.”

Tākuta Ferris: Does he accept that this law could make it more dangerous—not safer—for Māori in public spaces, especially if it legitimises the use of force by untrained, unaccountable individuals?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, I invite that member to actually go to the Beehive website and look at the press release. It talks about having to use reasonable force, which is defined in section 39 of the Crimes Act. It’s not about any force; it’s about reasonable force.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying, in her answer one back, that common shoplifting is like serial electoral lawbreaking?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, it can very quickly become serial when people are allowed to get away with their crimes.

Tākuta Ferris: Can he explain how a policy that doesn’t reduce offending and increases risks of violence against tamariki, whānau, and vulnerable communities meets any standard of responsible or effective lawmaking?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I reject the presumption that this law is not going to have an effect. I think it’s going to have an absolutely great effect, especially for our businesses and our communities out there.

Cameron Luxton: What benefits can the Minister foresee citizen’s arrests will have for tradies who catch someone stealing their tools?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, the proposed citizen’s arrest changes mean that tradies will be able to detain anyone they catch committing a crime such as stealing their tools, if they feel that it is safe to do so. Following the arrest, police must be called and their instructions must be followed. Tradies, who are often self-employed and are often targeted by thieves due to the equipment that they have—we think it’s only right that tradies and New Zealanders have an extra tool to detain those that deliberately disrupt their livelihoods.

Hon Shane Jones: Has the Minister had any reports as to how the proposed citizen’s arrest changes might apply to vandals and economic saboteurs defacing and scribbling graffiti over our fishing fleet on the ocean?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, this law that we will be introducing will allow any citizen who feels confident and safe to do so to be able to initiate a citizen’s arrest, call police, and take their advice. But I must say that it is not for people to have to do, but it’s something that they may do, should they feel safe and confident to do so.

SPEAKER: I just would like to point out that if someone asks the Minister a question, it would be polite to listen to it rather than speaking through it.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Last week, the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee announced the latest review of the official cash rate (OCR). It decided to hold the OCR at 3.25 percent, but continued to foreshadow further reduction, saying, “If medium-term inflation pressures continue to ease as projected, the Committee expects to lower the Official Cash Rate further.” In terms of the inflation outlook, the committee said it expects annual Consumers Price Index to increase in the middle of this year for various one-off reasons, but to fall back to around the 2 percent midpoint by early 2026.

Dan Bidois: By how much has the official cash rate fallen so far in this easing cycle?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: From late 2021 onwards, the OCR was progressively raised to 5.5 percent to combat inflation spurred on by the previous Government’s spending. Since last August, the OCR has been reduced by 2.25 percentage points, easing the cost of borrowing and delivering much-needed cost of living relief. It is important to remember that these OCR reductions are still flowing through to mortgage rates as many people are on fixed-term mortgages and will not yet have had the benefit of lower rates. Over the next six months, close to half of fixed-term mortgages are due to be repriced, so there is still a lot of easing momentum coming through the system.

Dan Bidois: What risk did the Reserve Bank identify to the outlook?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the monetary policy committee identified risks, including uncertainty around tariff policy and how this will affect the global economy. It noted that conflict in the Middle East and Ukraine has contributed to volatility and uncertainty around global energy prices, and it raised the risk that prolonged economic uncertainty might cause businesses and households to hold off investing and spending. While economic growth over the past six months was stronger than expected, the committee thinks it could weaken in the June quarter. Overall, however, the committee says that “Higher export prices and monetary policy easing should contribute to a gradual recovery in economic activity.”

Dan Bidois: How has the Government been supporting the easing of monetary policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: When it comes to adding stimulus to the economy or taking it away, the Reserve Bank does this through monetary policy. Fiscal policy can get in the way of that—for example, by being highly pro-cyclical, as it was in 2021 to 2023, or it can get out of the way, which is this Government’s approach. Our strategy of gradual fiscal consolidation over time allows monetary policy to respond by setting interest rates lower than would otherwise be the case, and it helps rein in New Zealand’s debt, which is getting close to Treasury’s ceiling of 50 percent of GDP. Some would spend more and rack up more debt, and that would be disastrous for New Zealand.

Question No. 4—Education

4. to the Minister of Education: How many Resource Teacher Literacy and Resource Teacher Māori jobs will be lost as a result of the Government’s decision to defund these roles?

It’s been stated in all the Budget 2025 documentation: in total, we have reprioritised Resource Teacher Literacy (RT Lit) and Resource Teacher Māori (RT Māori) roles to fund more literacy and maths intervention teachers, and to deliver the biggest investment into learning support in a generation. This will affect 110 RT Lit and 48 RT Māori staff, allowing us to contribute to funding 492 fulltime-equivalent literacy and maths intervention roles to work in schools directly with children across New Zealand.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why was she looking to reprioritise the $55 million for Resource Teacher Literacy and Resource Teacher Māori roles before the consultation even started?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, what happens when you consult is you have to have a plan in mind to start with. We had a plan in mind in reprioritising some funding from the RT Māori and RT Lit roles because of the reports that we’d seen in the past and the feedback from the sector. We consulted in good faith, and made a decision just before the Budget.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why didn’t she consult with the executives of the Resource Teachers Literacy and Resource Teachers Māori before making her decision?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As was appropriate, I directed the Ministry of Education, at a deputy secretary level, to take on that role, and they advised me once they had spoken to the umbrella organisation.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What specific services, if any, will replace targeted literacy interventions currently delivered by Resource Teachers Literacy, and how will the ministry ensure that these reach the same students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, that is a fantastic patsy question because what we have reprioritised those roles into, as I said earlier, is 349 literacy support roles. When the schools’ contribution is factored in, that equals 700 literacy support teachers spread across 2,000 schools, rather than the 110 roles that we had before. What I would say to those RT Lits is that now that there are 700 roles available—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, stop there. You’ve asked the question and presumably you’re wanting an answer, and so we’ll now hear the answer in silence.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I was about to say, there are 700 fulltime-equivalent roles spread across 2,000 schools across New Zealand, and I would encourage those RT Lits—as I have directed the ministry to do—to work with them to identify those roles and encourage them to apply for those roles, because we do want to keep those specialised staff in the system.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Isn’t it the reality that her new framework has no real future for the expert Resource Teachers Literacy and Resource Teachers Māori to provide reading and writing support for children who are falling behind?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.

Question No. 5—Environment

5. to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Is the Minister concerned about the state of freshwater quality following a Statistics New Zealand indicator showing that over the past five years, drinking water pollution levels were exceeded in at least 45 percent of sites for E. coli and 12 percent of sites for nitrates?

There are definitely areas where freshwater quality is not up to the standard we expect. There are different causes of groundwater contamination that range from land use, to wild animals and infrastructure failures. In some cases, these are longstanding issues that have emerged over time and will require investment and change over the long term. We can’t and we shouldn’t try to make all fresh water in New Zealand pristine straight away. That’s why the Government is consulting on making sensible changes to freshwater rules that protect the environment and support our growing economy. Also, it is important to note that the data in this report is not representative of New Zealand’s drinking-water quality. Samples are tested from all monitored wells, regardless of whether they are used for human drinking water or not.

Lan Pham: Does he accept that nitrate contamination is the biggest threat to rural drinking-water and groundwater quality and that the primary driver of nitrate pollution is intensive dairy farming?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I do not accept that that is the primary concern for New Zealand farmers in terms of drinking water—you know, it is a very small amount. Often, it is driven by actions that have happened a long time ago, and not just by what’s happened now. Many aquifers have long recharge times that take a while for water to flow through, so we can’t just lump this all on dairy farmers right now. This has been a long-term thing to occur, and it’s going to take a long time to fix.

Lan Pham: What actions right now is the Minister taking to improve freshwater quality outcomes so that the number of breaches of maximum acceptable values for nitrate and dangerous levels of E. coli contamination are reduced?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: In terms of actions, one of the actions I’m most proud of is the work that we are doing regarding farm plans. These will be instruments that will help farmers identify precisely the issues that are occurring on their farms, will provide them with solutions and actions to take, and will help them and their catchment groups in terms of improving water quality.

Lan Pham: Is he concerned about the national drinking-water quality survey of New Zealand rural schools, which showed that nitrate contamination is the biggest threat to rural communities’ drinking water and that more than a hundred rural schools have nitrate levels that exceed 1 milligram per litre?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I was actually more concerned by the reports of arsenic and lead in those reports. To me, that was a far more concerning number than the nitrate limits, and one of the questions—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I’d be concerned about all of it, if I were you—I’m concerned.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, I’d rather not have arsenic compared to nitrates, thank you very much. Obviously, the other side is quite keen on arsenic—OK, good on you. That’s what my initial concern was on reading that report, and I asked questions to the ministry around “Have those schools been warned about this? Are actions being taken?” From what I understood, a number of those issues were caused by infrastructure and other elements, and a big part of our focus was on understanding where those problems were coming from.

Hon Shane Jones: Is it possible that a number of commentators—reflected by the character of this last question—have mixed up drinking water with bathing water and swallowed the wrong one?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: That is entirely possible.

Lan Pham: How would removing the protections of national bottom lines for freshwater pollution and removing the nitrogen fertiliser cap—as is currently being consulted on by his Government—protect communities’ drinking water?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, I’d say, firstly, that these elements are under consultation and no decisions have yet been made. But I would say on the nitrogen cap that the key focus for New Zealand over the years has always been on what are the outcomes, not what the inputs are, and a big issue I always had with the nitrogen cap was that it focused on an input, not the outcome. You can get a much better outcome, potentially, by applying more nitrogen through fertigation, and thus not actually have the same leaching. Just having an input number, to me, never made any sense; it’s the output we need to focus on.

Lan Pham: How does he think the so-called rebalancing of Te Mana o te Wai towards commercial profits will improve freshwater quality when the primary driver of freshwater pollution in our rural communities is driven by commercial profits?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I’d once again reiterate that it is not about favouring one over the other; it is about trying to achieve a balance. The other side of the House constantly talks about “Where are our jobs?”, “Where’s the economy?”, etc., etc. We need a farming economy—80 percent of our exports come from our primary sector. This is the engine room of our country. We need to ensure that not only are we improving the environment but we are making farming possible in this country, as well.

SPEAKER: Just before we go any further, that was largely the Government side getting terribly excited about the answer. You should be far more respectful of the Minister who is delivering that answer.

Question No. 6—RMA Reform

6. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made regarding the transition to the Government’s new planning system?

Yesterday, at the Local Government New Zealand conference, I announced that the Government intends to stop councils wasting time and money on plan changes in advance of the new planning system coming into force. The Government intends to move an amendment to legislation currently before the House to prevent councils from initiating new plan changes under the Resource Management Act (RMA) unless they’re absolutely necessary, and removing requirements for them to review their plans and policy statements going forward. It’s our view that councils shouldn’t be spending millions on plan changes that they’ll have to redo again once the new planning legislation comes into effect.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What plan changes are exempted from this policy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The default rule will be that no plan changes can proceed, but there will be a limited number that will be exempt from the stopping. Examples include streamlined planning processes and private plan changes under the RMA. The Government also recognises that councils need to be able to do changes relating to natural hazard management, as well as plan changes required by Treaty settlement agreements. Therefore, they will be exempt from these new requirements. Councils will also be able to apply to the Minister for an exemption to continue to notify a plan change.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What feedback has the Minister seen on this announcement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There’s quite a lot of support for this change. Let me quote Sam Broughton, president of Local Government New Zealand—not a noted fan of the Government, normally—“This is really good for local government to hear some certainty.” Federated Farmers—who do tend to support the Government, to be fair—said that this change is “welcome news [for] farmers,” and that “Halting plan changes now avoids councils rushing to put in new red tape [in place] before the new RMA is in place.” This is a sensible change to save the ratepayer money and to get them focused on the transition to the new planning system and the new flexible infrastructure funding and financing system. There’s lots of legislation coming before the House, and I look forward to debating it in this Parliament.

Simon Court: Can the Minister confirm that in the new planning law, developers wanting to build a supermarket, an IKEA, or a solar farm won’t be subject to resource consent conditions that require Māori groups to say a karakia before earthworks commence or before removing a native tree?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is certainly the Government’s intention that consent conditions that are currently attached to quite sensible projects be reduced down. There are far too many consent conditions attached to projects that drive up cost and time and money. The member has quoted one example like that, but there are many more that people could also identify in this House.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that his mission is to ensure that “all New Zealanders can access the timely and quality access to healthcare that they all deserve”; if so, is he confident that is happening?

In the context it was made, yes. But, as the member will know, this Government inherited significant wait-lists with too many Kiwis waiting too long to receive the care they need. My focus is on putting patients first so that they get the care they need when they need it. That’s why we’ve brought back health targets to focus our health system on delivery for patients, we’ve increased the number of doctors and nurses caring for patients every day, we’re delivering more surgeries like hips, knees, and cataracts through our Elective Boost, and we’ve delivered a record funding increase for GPs to improve access to care closer to home. We’re starting to see progress for patients, but we know there is more work to do, and we’re getting on with it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Are the 130 Wellington women who have to travel to Christchurch for cancer surgery getting the timely and quality healthcare they deserve?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member will know, there was a resignation of a specialist in Wellington. Health New Zealand is working to ensure that those patients continue to receive the care that they need, but my expectation for Health New Zealand is that they also work at pace to make sure that that service is re-established.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Do only 370 women aged 70 to 74 deserve breast cancer screening when his Government promised that 120,000 women would be eligible?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member knows, that programme was started in Nelson, and the full roll-out will begin later this year. But I would note that that member was saying to the New Zealand Herald that Labour didn’t campaign on it because officials advised her that it would be too challenging. Well, on this side of the House, we’re actually getting on and delivering it. If that Government had been re-elected, no women would be eligible.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Do women deserve a three-day maternity stay, as proposed by Catherine Wedd, and, if so, will he fund the $130 million needed to actually make that care happen?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as you know, that is a commitment in our coalition agreement. It is going through the legislative process, and on this side of the House, we are committed to timely, quality access to healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is abandoning plans to make cervical screening free ensuring that all women can access the healthcare they deserve?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on this side of the House, we have not made any changes to the eligibility for cervical cancer screening. But what I can confirm to the House is that the number of women receiving cervical cancer screening has been continuing to increase under this Government, and I want to continue to acknowledge the hard work being done across the country on cancer screening to ensure more people are receiving the screening they require.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is his Government’s habit of saying one thing and doing another the reason that Health New Zealand thought it was acceptable to cut maternity beds at Wellington Hospital?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on that side of the House, clearly they want to talk down our health system. On this side of the House, I want to thank the hard-working healthcare professionals up and down our country, who are working hard every single day, putting patients first, and delivering timely, quality access to healthcare for New Zealanders.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements have been made about making it easier for internationally trained doctors to work in New Zealand?

Good news: yesterday, the Medical Council of New Zealand announced that Chile, Luxembourg, and Croatia have been added to the list of comparable health systems, which means doctors from those countries will now be eligible to apply for provisional general registration that will be processed within 20 working days. They also announced fast-track registration for GPs from the USA, Canada, and Singapore, and they announced shorter assessment time frames for overseas-trained specialists from the UK, Ireland, and Australia. This means qualified doctors from these countries can now get registered faster, start working sooner, and begin helping Kiwis get better without being tied up in red tape. This is a practical, common-sense change to support our goal of getting more doctors into hospitals and clinics across the country, and I thank the Medical Council for their decisions.

David MacLeod: How will these changes support our front-line health services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: These changes to the comparable health system list now enable eligible doctors from 29 countries to have their applications processed within 20 working days so that our international doctors can get to work supporting New Zealanders without unnecessary bureaucratic delays and administrative hurdles. We know that internationally trained doctors already play a vital role in our health system. They support our domestically trained workforce, fill critical gaps, and contribute enormously towards the delivery of timely, quality healthcare. We’re ensuring that these doctors aren’t stuck on the sidelines. They’re where they’re needed the most: in clinics, in hospitals, and in our communities.

David MacLeod: What other actions is the Government taking to make it easier for overseas-trained doctors to work in New Zealand?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This decision from the Medical Council complements a range of initiatives the Government is progressing to boost the number of doctors. Earlier this year, I announced a two-year training programme to support up to 100 additional overseas-trained doctors to enter New Zealand’s primary care system. These are doctors who are not from the comparable health system countries. Over 180 expressions of interest were received for this programme. This strong response shows there is untapped potential in New Zealand, so we’re removing the barriers and saying clearly that if you’re an overseas trained doctor and you want to help New Zealanders, we want you in our health system.

David MacLeod: How do these announcements fit with the Government’s plans to ensure Kiwis have access to timely care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: These announcements build on the Government’s record $16.68 billion in additional health investments across three Budgets. We’re putting that funding to work by delivering more capacity in general practice, upgrading urgent care services, launching a new 24/7 digital health service, and reducing pressure on our emergency departments. We’re a Government that is focused on results and rebuilding the health system around the needs of patients, not the bureaucracy. Yesterday’s announcement is one more step in our plan to ensure New Zealanders get the health they need.

Question No. 9—Vocational Education

9. to the Minister for Vocational Education: How many jobs at polytechnics have been cut, or are proposed to be cut, since she took office?

While those matters are operational for the individual polytechnics, I can confirm that since I took office, staffing numbers have reduced or are planned to be reduced by 620 fulltime-equivalents (FTEs). I can confirm that from the end of 2023 to the end of 2024, there has been a reduction of 380 FTEs. Obviously, 2025 numbers are not available yet. This has occurred as independent financial advisers have worked with individual polytechnics to develop their pathways to financial sustainability—work that should have been done more than five years ago.

Shanan Halbert: Was she briefed on the likely job cuts as a result of her reforms?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes.

Shanan Halbert: Hmm—

Hon Chris Bishop: Oh! They told the Minister something.

SPEAKER: I tell you what: there’s a question being asked, so let the question be asked with some respect.

Shanan Halbert: How many jobs are at risk at Toi Ohomai’s Rotorua, Taupō, and Tokoroa campuses?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It’s my understanding that Toi Ohomai are going through a consultation phase of a proposal for those two campuses, and no decision has been made yet.

Shanan Halbert: How many jobs are at risk at NorthTec and Whitireia WelTec?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I’m very pleased to say that at NorthTec, we have a wonderful team of community leaders who are working very closely with NorthTec to ensure that NorthTec can deliver quality education and training to that very important part of our country. With regard to Whitireia WelTec, that’s a very interesting situation. Whitireia WelTec in 2018 had a liquidity crisis, and the Government at that time put $20 million of financial support into Whitireia WelTec. You would think that given that amount of money, the first thing that Te Pūkenga might have done would be to look at the viability and what was driving that. But, no, it didn’t happen, and, in fact, Whitireia WelTec—

SPEAKER: OK, OK—that’s fine.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —is forecasting—

SPEAKER: You’ve strayed well away from the actual question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a long answer, or at least a response, but the question was very specific. The Minister had no problem addressing it when it was in relation to a different polytech, but at no point did that response address the request for information about proposed job cuts at those two polytechs.

SPEAKER: No, I think the answer given by the Minister—because I’ve been listening carefully to these—was that there was a leadership group from within the community who were working through a plan. Now, that, I think, is a satisfactory answer. I was thinking as the answer went on that there might be something more relating to it, but it went off on to something entirely different.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister—

SPEAKER: No, no—sorry. We’ve got a point of order here.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: With respect, sir, the Minister said that there was a group of community leaders that were working with the polytech to ensure that education continues. That doesn’t address the specific question as to how many jobs are proposed to be cut there. The concern was not around the provision of education, but the number of jobs that were cut.

SPEAKER: Well, forgive me for my assumption that the education could only continue if there were people to deliver that education.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: With the same number, though, sir? Come on, this is not unreasonable.

SPEAKER: Well, when they say they’re working on a plan, I think that’s—I’m not going to get into that level of adjudication. I would ask the Minister to perhaps be very specific in the answer to that previous supplementary and not go off on to other circumstances. Can the Minister—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: No, I’m calling the Minister.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The second part of the question was about Whitireia WelTec, and I was explaining that Whitireia WelTec are forecasting an $11.3 million deficit—

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s good.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —for this year, which—

SPEAKER: The clarification being sought is: has the leadership group come up with a number, as opposed to—

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: They are certainly working through ways in which to pull down that forecast deficit of $11.3 million.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as this is about vocational education, which could lead to a career in politics, has she got any idea how she can improve this crushingly boring question time that’s putting Mogadon out of business?

SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] No, the—[Interruption] Excuse me, how many people are chairing in here? The question started with the word “could”.

Shanan Halbert: How is having fewer jobs, fewer polytechnics, and fewer courses going to help our regions?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, it should be really clear to everyone that having a deficit of $11.3 million for one of our polytechnics is not sustainable on an ongoing basis, and, therefore, getting a viable network of polytechnics is critical to getting there. Now, that is requiring financial work to be done and, as part of that, there are going to be job losses, and if I could give the example of Whitireia WelTec, which, in their creative arts area, is running at a ratio of one staff member to 5.6 students, the speaker will be able to understand why some of these job losses are occurring.

Hon Simeon Brown: Can the Minister clarify to the House whether or not financial literacy courses will be one of the courses offered at these polytechs, and, if so, will members of the Opposition be eligible?

SPEAKER: OK, the member—sorry. I’ve warned and warned and warned. It’s time for the Minister to leave the House. Leave the House with some speed.

Hon Simeon Brown withdrew from the Chamber.

Question No. 10—Vocational Education

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Nō reira, tēnā tātou e te Whare. My question is to the Minister for Vocational Education, and asks—[Interruption]

Sorry, I tell you what: you can start again. There was so much noise here that I couldn’t hear a word you were saying, and I want to hear.

10. to the Minister for Vocational Education: Does she stand by her statement that the Government’s plan for polytechnics will “set the sector up for long-term economic and learning success”; if so, is she concerned about Whitireia and WelTec closing their creative arts campus and Toi Ohomai proposing to close their Tokoroa and Taupō campuses?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, I note that Whitireia WelTec’s creative arts campus has only 301 students enrolled in it, when the campus is set up for 1,000 students. The media has reported this morning that while the campus will close, all programmes currently delivered on this campus will move to the Whitireia WelTec Petone campus in 2026. Regarding Toi Ohomai, they are currently consulting on the future of their campuses, and no decision has been made.

Tamatha Paul: Why should Wellington learners have any faith in the Government’s polytechnic reforms when last year they could access hands-on practical learning in our city, and, under her reforms, they’re seeing campuses close, courses cancelled, and teachers sacked?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, the issue for Whitireia WelTec is that they are forecasting an $11.3 million deficit for this year. In terms of the arts campus, it is a $4.2 million lease and the cost per student for that lease would be $14,000, at a ratio of 1:5.6. Those ratios are simply not viable to continue, and so is the member suggesting that the rest of—

SPEAKER: No, don’t ask the member a question.

Tamatha Paul: Will students in Wellington have better hands-on and practical training opportunities following the dismantlement of Te Pūkenga, and, if not, who actually benefits from the Government’s reforms?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This is to ensure that there is a vocational education and training network of polytechnics that are financially viable, because you cannot access any sort of training if your polytechnic has a liquidity issue.

Tamatha Paul: How will workers in Tokoroa who are already reeling from the closure of the Kinleith Mill be supported to retrain and upskill when their local, purpose-built trades campus is proposed to be shut down following the Te Pūkenga reforms?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I said earlier, Toi Ohomai is consulting on what will happen with that campus. No decision has been made.

Tamatha Paul: Does she agree with South Waikato Mayor, Gary Petley, that Tokoroa is “a community that already ranks among the five-most deprived in New Zealand, and which has one of the highest Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) rates … nationally”, and, if so, will the Government provide any support to Toi Ohomai or an alternative to prevent the closure of the Tokoroa campus and give hope to our community?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, as I have already announced, a further $20 million per year for the next two years has been reprioritised from the Tertiary Education Commission to enable additional funding where there are strategic regions with, for example, high numbers of NEETs or delivery that is strategically important to this country. So, yes, I have ensured that additional funding is there to support exactly the sort of situation the member is describing.

Tamatha Paul: Based on that criteria, will the Minister guarantee that Tokoroa, which has high levels of NEETs and has been deprived, will be prioritised for funding to save that campus and opportunities for students and young people in Tokoroa?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It is an operational matter for Toi Ohomai to determine where and how they provide delivery. But I can assure the member that in the modelling that I looked at, in terms of accessing that $20 million additional for two years, Toi Ohomai was one of the greatest recipients of it.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about school property?

I was very proud to announce yesterday that the Government has put an end to building open-plan classrooms. Open-plan classrooms aren’t adequately meeting the needs of students. While open-plan designs were originally intended to foster collaboration, they’ve often created challenges for schools, particularly around noise and managing student behaviour. In many cases, open-plan classrooms reduced flexibility, rather than enhanced it. We have listened to parents and the sector, and all new classrooms will be built using standard designs that prioritise flexibility, like sliding glass doors and bigger spaces, over open-plan layouts.

Joseph Mooney: What feedback has she seen about her actions to end open-plan classrooms?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. A parent said, “I’m delighted that common sense has finally prevailed.”, another person said that open-plan classrooms were “distractions for learners, especially in high-cognitive focus areas like reading and maths, disadvantaging many students. Well done.”, and a teacher with 40-plus years of experience said, “Open plan has always been a hindrance to children’s learning. As a teacher I’ve seen it, children writing on the floor in various hunched positions was a common sight, so unhygienic and making writing difficult. They were also noisy, creating stress and distraction amongst students. Thank you for your hard work in lifting the standard of education in New Zealand.” [Interruption]

Joseph Mooney: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Wait.

Joseph Mooney: What other announcements has she made about school property?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We have responded to population growth in Wellington, with a $25 million targeted investment into new classrooms. Newlands Intermediate School is receiving 10 classrooms and Aotea College is receiving 16 classrooms. Aotea College is an example where existing open-plan classrooms were not optimal. This investment will deliver new, standard teaching spaces that better meet the needs of both students and staff. Delivering these classrooms in repeatable designs and off-site manufactured buildings also ensures we are achieving maximum value for money. Planning is already under way for these projects, with construction expected to begin within the next 12 months.

Joseph Mooney: How was she able to build more classrooms?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As it turns out, it wasn’t that hard. In 2024, we lowered the average cost of a classroom by 28 percent so that we could deliver 30 percent more classrooms than the year before. We’re continuing to drive down the cost so that more Kiwi kids can access them faster. In 2025, new classrooms cost, on average, $620,000, compared to $1.2 million at the end of 2023. By building more off-site manufactured classrooms in repeatable designs, we are building more classrooms so that parents, schools, and communities have certainty and clarity about the school property and more students benefit from having warm, safe, dry classrooms, and I’m going to have another very big announcement tomorrow in Auckland.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Why is he proposing to change the law in ways that could undermine claims by 150,000 New Zealanders against two Australian-owned banks totalling $600 million?

The proposed changes are part of a large suite of common-sense financial reforms that include empowering regulators to take proactive action, streamlining licensing requirements, and taking a fairer, more proportionate approach to non-disclosures. This proposed change will align the law from the period between 2015 to 2019 with the current legislative arrangements. This proposed law change is all about ensuring courts have the discretion to come to fair and equitable outcomes.

Arena Williams: Was he wrong when he claimed in his 30 May interview with Heather du Plessis-Allan that the banks would have to refund all the interest and fees for the entire loans, and, if so, how does he justify signing off on a law based on that inaccurate claim?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, in relation to the conversation I had with Heather du Plessis-Allan, I accept that we were speaking at cross-purposes, and I accept that.

Arena Williams: Well, then, why did the Minister claim the banks were not lobbying the Minister on this issue, despite documents showing that the Banking Association was heavily involved in the process?

Hon Damien O’Connor: Tell the truth.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I haven’t been lobbied by—

SPEAKER: No, hang on—sorry. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: In terms of lobbying, this has been an issue since 2015, when the law was first enacted, and it has been a matter that parties have lobbied for that period of time. Not just banks, but all lenders—second-tier lenders, non-bank lenders—have been lobbying on that issue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Arena Williams: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the—OK, I’m sorry, I’ve got to stick to my three rule. Arena Williams.

Arena Williams: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why were ANZ and ASB given private meetings after the public consultation ended, when everyday New Zealanders affected by this lawsuit were not given the same opportunity to have their say?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I’m not aware of the meetings to which the member is referring. There are meetings held often with interested parties. Maybe the member would be more specific.

Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, to prevent—

SPEAKER: Sorry—a point of order, Arena Williams.

Arena Williams: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document released under the Official Information Act (OIA) that is not publicly available that shows this process was started because of lobbying by the Banking Association on 10 June 2024.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Wait till the end, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Who released it?

Arena Williams: The release is from the Government department that has advised on the issue, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

SPEAKER: And are you telling me that it’s not on a Government release website?

Arena Williams: It’s not been proactively released, no.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document released under the OIA that is not publicly available—

SPEAKER: OK, could I just make it clear. I let one go through. The normal politeness or protocol around this is to wait till the end of the question, so I think we might do that. Is that all right?

Arena Williams: All right.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interests of preventing faux outrage and on the view that sunshine is the best antiseptic, as such, does he accept that the badly drafted 2015 legislation was voted against by only one party—that’s the one you’re talking to—and fixed from 2019 onwards when New Zealand First was in Government, and that if the 2015-19 claims succeed, it’ll see windfall gains for litigation funders, 28 percent paid in tax, and very little for actual claimants? Where were you then?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yes, it appears that the people who have the most to gain from not making this change seem to be the litigation lawyers.

Arena Williams: Does the Minister accept that the document I’ve tabled shows that he got the facts wrong, and, if so, how can he justify his decision to advise the Cabinet committee to retrospectively change the law to kill an ongoing legal case about hundreds of millions of dollars owed to ordinary Kiwis?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I haven’t yet had an opportunity to have a look at the paper that the member has tabled.

Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document released under the OIA that is not publicly available, but shows that as at 6 June 2024, Cabinet were not considering retrospectively wiping out the court action.

SPEAKER: Why are Government department papers released under the OIA not yet public?

Arena Williams: I—

SPEAKER: It’s not a question for you; it’s a question for perhaps the State service to listen to. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker, can I speak to your brief interlude?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t know. Is it going to be a criticism of the Chair, because that won’t go well.

Hon Chris Bishop: Never—never, Mr Speaker. I was just going to make the point, sir, that this Government has adopted the practice that started under the previous Government, actually, of the regular proactive release of material that’s relevant to Parliament. But, of course, it’s members and the media and all sorts of people who ask OIA requests to Government departments all the time, and there is material released to members and the media that is not part of a proactive release schedule.

SPEAKER: I wasn’t criticising the proactive release arrangements; I was simply questioning why it is that a Government department might decide to release some information to an individual who has requested it. If it is available in that form, it should be available to all the public.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Earlier in question time, it was raised around whether a question from a Minister was appropriate because of a lead-up, and your response was actually that “Well, ‘can’ is a question word, and therefore it’s OK.”—or “could”, as it were. Could you please reflect on whether a question that starts with “In the interests of ‘X’ ” complies with that, and whether that approach to questions should be encouraged during question time?

Yeah, I’ll have a look at the Hansard because I thought it was an “It’s” in front of it, which would still be a statement, so I’ll have a check of that. We’ve come to the end of question time. Those who have other business should leave quickly, quietly, and without conversation on the way.