Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made about increasing the speed limit on State Highway 1?

Last week, I announced what many New Zealanders, I know, have been looking forward to: the start of public consultation on increasing the speed limits to 110 kilometres per hour on Transmission Gully and the Raumati Straights—22,000 vehicles using this relatively new road daily; important regional connector; safe, modern, reliable route for all road users. It’s the main gateway into Wellington and I’m very pleased that the Government is taking this important step to further enhance the road.

Tim Costley: Why is the Government considering this change now?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Delivering better quality infrastructure is part of the Government’s plan to grow the economy, reduce travel times, and increase the productivity of our transport network. We’re committed to providing State highways that get people where they need to go quickly and safely. Transmission Gully is designed and constructed to a very high safety standard, has very low crash numbers on the road since its opening in 2022, and safety features that greatly reduce the risk of death or serious injury in a crash.

Tim Costley: How can New Zealanders have their say on this proposal?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Consultation on raising the speed limits opened last Friday and will last for six weeks. People can submit on this consultation via the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) website as well as find more information on this proposal. I’m looking forward to the strong support of the local MP for the area it connects to, Tim Costley.

Tangi Utikere: Does he stand by Simeon Brown’s pledge to build the Ōtaki to north of Levin highway “no matter the cost”, and, if so, why has the project now been scaled back, despite there having been a toll consultation process based on the original proposal?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: NZTA is consulting on a range of measures in order to make the project more affordable, because, like many projects we inherited from the previous Government in which the costings were almost literally done on the back of the envelope, the project is experiencing cost pressures.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’re not going to start with swipes at the Opposition.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Malo le soifua manuia lau afioga Fetalai. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to a library worker, in relation to the pay equity changes, who says, “The end of our claim is devastating to myself and my colleagues. We were so close to a result, and to see that stripped away is incredibly painful. We will go on providing for our community. It’s just that now we will do it knowing that our Government does not value our work, and in the knowledge that we will have to start our long fight for fair wages all over again.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, I’d say to her the same thing that the Minister of Finance said in response to previous questions along similar lines yesterday and indeed the day before that, which is that the Government strongly values the work that these workers do, and that the pay equity regime that has been legislated by Parliament allows for pay equity claims. I would encourage her to participate in that process.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to Marianne Bishop, a retired residential aged-care worker, who says, “Why would you want to work in aged care when you can get the same amount at a supermarket or McDonald’s?”; if so, how does he expect to maintain essential care workers under those kinds of conditions?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the first thing I’d say to Miss Bishop is probably to ask whether or not we’re related! And then the second thing I would say is exactly what I said in relation to the last answer.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with a tertiary library worker who says, “My colleagues are on extremely low pay and deserve better. They deserve to be able to afford their rent, groceries, and be able to top up their Snapper cards that enable them to get to work.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, I don’t agree with that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she take up the challenge from Tamara Baddeley, a home support worker who says, “I challenge every single one of them to come and work with us. On our wages. Getting assaulted at work, paying for travel out of your own pocket. Then tell us why cutting off our pay equity claim is a good idea.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister stand by her action to increase the rate of depreciation of new assets by 20 percent, as announced in the Budget; and all the many messages of support that he’s had from small businesses up and down the country, supporting that and recognising that he’ll be investing more to grow the economy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, yes indeed I do. One of the most striking things about the response to the Budget has been the number of businesses who have proactively contacted Government Ministers in order to say to them, “We are now going to invest because of what you have done.” The Government welcomes that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she stop dismissing the many low-paid women workers across this country who are disappointed and angry about the changes to the pay equity regime?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the Government is not dismissing those workers. The Government values the work that they do, and the Government supports pay equity in the same way the Government supports equal pay. What we have done—as has been litigated in the Parliament for many weeks now—is make the scheme fairer and more affordable.

Question No. 3—Tourism and Hospitality

3. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent reports has she seen on tourism growth and international visitor spending?

I was pleased to see that the International Visitor Survey results for the year ending March 2025 show that international tourism contributed $12.2 billion to our economy. This is up 9.2 percent compared to the previous year, and international visitor arrivals are up 4.3 percent. This means more bookings in our restaurants, more reservations at local accommodation, and more people visiting our regions and attractions. We know how important tourism is to unleashing economic growth in New Zealand, and we know we need to get our tourism numbers back to 2019 levels.

Rima Nakhle: What actions is she undertaking to get tourism numbers back to 2019 levels?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I have announced a range of initiatives to boost tourism across New Zealand. I’ve been engaging with many tourism stakeholders, who are telling me that there is more capacity for many more tourists and that they welcome all visitors. I haven’t met a business who has said that they don’t want more customers. I’m also soon to announce my Tourism Growth Roadmap, so stay tuned for our plan to boost tourism further.

Rima Nakhle: How will more international visitors support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In the March quarter alone, spend by international visitors totalled $4.5 billion. This is more money invested into our cities and regions. Every time that a tourist comes to New Zealand and spends money at a local shop, buys a meal in a local cafe, and stays in our accommodation, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealanders. Economic growth from tourism enables the Government to invest more in public services like health and education. So our message is clear: New Zealand is open for business and we welcome visitors from anywhere at any time to come to New Zealand.

Rima Nakhle: What other announcements has she made to show that New Zealand is open for business?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yesterday, I was pleased to announce, alongside my fantastic colleague the Hon Minister Potaka, that cruise ships and aircraft will continue to have access to Milford Sound, rejecting a proposal to ban them. We know that Milford Sound is a major drawcard for international visitors, and the Sound will play a key role in helping the country’s tourism sector bounce back from the COVID hangover. Encouraging cruise ships and continuing access to the aerodrome will boost the local economy and support more local jobs.

Question No. 4—Environment

4. to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has he made about reforming freshwater rules?

Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and I announced the opening of consultation on sweeping changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. We are seeking views on proposals which will cut the red tape for farmers so they can get back to feeding New Zealand and the world. Proposals include making sure that council planning balances community objectives, including economic and social benefits with environmental protection; introducing flexibility to councils to set their own bottom lines according to what their people want; making provision for on-farm water storage; and ensuring that we can continue to have domestic vegetable production.

Cameron Luxton: Why is it important that vegetable production is covered in the new freshwater rules?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Local council rules have made it harder and harder to grow fresh, healthy vegetables in New Zealand, and some of the stories I’ve heard almost from day one of being a Minister are pretty silly. For example, the rules say you can’t rotate crops within a catchment even though there is no increase in total production—you’ve just shifted it to another block. If we want Kiwis to access fresh vegetables at affordable prices, we have to be able to grow them. I don’t want to be in a situation where we have to import all of our vegetables in cans or frozen because of overly strict freshwater rules. The consultation asks the public what they think about in terms of the best way to make sure we can keep growing veggies here in New Zealand.

Cameron Luxton: How are the proposals a return to localism in freshwater management?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: We are proposing on giving more power back to local communities through their councils by giving them the flexibility to set their own bottom line for contaminants. It is clear that setting bottom lines nationally, which was massively expanded under the previous Government, has failed in a way to help people manage fresh water. It can’t be right that for catchments even dominated by native bush, they can’t always meet these national bottom lines for some contaminants. It’s high time that Wellington gets out of the way so local communities can achieve the best environmental outcomes that they want.

Cameron Luxton: How will the proposals rebalance freshwater management in the interests of all water users?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Good regulation often requires policy makers to balance competing objectives in a way that makes people’s lives better. The previous Government’s freshwater rules are bad regulation because what they do establish is a vague spiritual concept called Te Mana o te Wai as the fundamental objective of the rules that must be addressed before all other community needs. This has led to the rules being applied in such a way that has strangled agricultural growth and bound farmers in compliance. We’ll hold consultation to gather public feedback and encourage everyone to share their thoughts. [Interruption] I can keep talking if you want?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a long enough answer. Thank you.

Question No. 5—Women

5. 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’re made.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why, when the Minister of Finance first informed her of pay equity changes via a phone call on 9 November 2024, did she not tell the Ministry for Women?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I don’t have detailed information on that, but I can say that the Minister and other Ministers discuss matters a lot of the time about a range of things, and not all of them are the sort, and to the level, that we need to advise the ministries of.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why, when she first received a copy of Minister van Velden’s Cabinet paper on pay equity on 14 March 2025, did she not provide a copy to the Ministry for Women?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I don’t have any information on that, and I have no indication that what the member’s just said is correct.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Point of order, Madam Speaker. This was actually in response to written parliamentary question 24163, which absolutely says that that happened on that date, and it’s a follow-up question to that particular written parliamentary question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. So that’s confirmed the member’s question, but the Minister has said that she didn’t have an answer. I think that’s still—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, I think it’s very important that I don’t try and make things up, because in this Government we try and be absolutely spot on. So I would much rather that that member asked either the Minister directly or she did another written parliamentary question.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why did she not inform the Ministry for Women on pay equity changes the day prior to the announcement, instead leaving it to the Deputy Public Service Commissioner to inform her ministry?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It’s exactly the same answer as before. The other thing is, of course, that the Public Service Commission has been deeply involved in this, and perhaps you’d like to ask the Minister for the Public Service, who’d be happy to tell her exactly what’s what, including what a woman is.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is it correct that the Ministry for Women employs some of New Zealand’s experts on pay equity, and, if so, why did she not once consult with them on the Government’s pay equity changes?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, it’s exactly the same answer as before, and I really do think that the member should also consider that the Minister herself is an expert on women’s issues—again, knowing exactly what a woman is.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was her statement to the House that changes to pay equity and cancelling 33 pay equity claims “can only be a good thing for women” based on official advice; if so, who provided that advice?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf of the Minister, I’m thrilled to say that the Minister is capable of thinking for herself, and one of the things that she knows is that any plan and scheme for pay equity has to be fair, it has to be sustainable, it has to be realistic, and it cannot be in a situation where it removes all ability for the Government to be able to fund health or education or anything else that women also care about. Actually, the other thing is it cannot have a ridiculous situation where admin workers are compared to civil engineers, which is the nonsense that we inherited from that lot.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How is it possible that she knew about pay equity changes six months before they were announced and yet never consulted with, met with, or even told the Ministry for Women about the changes?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I imagine that until we’ve actually got something to talk to, then it is difficult to go and have discussions with ministries.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: There was a Cabinet paper!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: When it comes to Cabinet papers, Cabinet papers are themselves something that are kept very close to us, because we do not go round like the previous Government and just throw them around. But I do think it’s important the ministry—[Interruption] Do you want an answer or not? You don’t want an answer? OK.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member’s interjected to the point where that question is now over.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Minister of Transport: Are local road controlling authorities required to increase speed limits under the Government’s policy if one of the reasons for a speed limit reduction since 2020 was proximity to a school, and are impacts on road safety a factor that allows local road controlling authorities to retain safe speeds?

I’m advised that under the land transport setting of speed limits rule, road-controlling authorities are required to reverse permanent speed limits of 30 kilometres an hour on residential or neighbourhood streets from 1 January 2020, where a reason for setting that speed limit was because there is a school in the area. In these cases, road-controlling authorities are required to implement variable speed limits of 30 kilometres an hour outside the school gates of urban schools, during pick up and drop offs, by 1 July 2025, with the remaining roads reversing to their previous speed limit. To the second part of the member’s question: after 1 July 2025, road-controlling authorities can set speed limits on the local roads in accordance with the new rule, which requires them to consider the estimated safety impacts of any proposed speed limit change.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I left it to you to decide this, but when a question is framed in that way, the questioner is required to follow—strictly—the words that have been written on that page, and that questioner did not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry—I didn’t pick that up at the time, Rt Hon Winston Peters, but I think the question has been asked and clearly answered, in a way that I think we’ve had an answer to the question. So I’d invite Julie Anne Genter to ask her next supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That’s not the way standards go in this House. If you get it wrong, you don’t benefit from that mistake. You’re required to put it right, and that’s what I ask you to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look—I understand. If it’s the wish of the House that the member repeats that question again and reads the words correctly—but at the end of the day, I feel like the question has been put and understood by the Minister. Is it the wish of the House that the question be repeated?

Hon Members: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Carry on, Julie Anne—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is not—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—I’m sorry, Mr Peters—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —for the House to decide. There are Standing Orders. There are Speakers’ rulings. You’re required to follow what’s written down there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Peters, I’ve made a ruling. I’d invite the Hon Julie Anne Genter to ask her supplementary question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why is the Government forcing local councils to increase speed limits on residential streets around schools, and what will the impact on deaths and serious injuries be of that change?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we’re requiring road-controlling authorities to go back to the speed limits they were before the last Government’s changes forced them to be reduced. We are preserving the ability for variable speeds around school drop off and pick up, because we have a simple view, which is that you should go slowly when there might be kids around, but at 3 a.m. in the morning, when there aren’t any children around—in fact, there’s no one around—you should be able to go at 50 kilometres an hour.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why has he not allowed councils to retain safer speed limits that have been accepted by their communities, such as in New Plymouth, where councillor Amanda Clinton-Gohdes said, “My stomach turns at the thought of having to roll back the changes we made with 89 percent community support. I resent that a Government which campaigned on localism is making us go against the wishes of the vast majority of our community.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as I said in response to the second part of the member’s primary question, there is the ability for road-controlling authorities—after 1 July—to set speed limits in accordance with the new rule, which requires them to consider the estimated safety impacts. In fact, some councils are doing that right now.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How is it fair to force variable speed limits on to communities who have made it clear they want to retain permanent safer speed limits, like the principal of Inglewood Primary, Juliet Vickers, who has said, “A fixed 30 kilometre an hour limit provides clear, consistent messaging crucial for student safety. Variable limits create confusion and uncertainty, increasing the likelihood of drivers exceeding safe speeds and putting children at greater risk of [harmful] accidents.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The answer is the same as I gave in the earlier supplementary, which is that we just take a common-sense view, which is that when there are kids around and it’s busy, you should go slowly, which is why we’re requiring variable speed limit signs—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Have you seen the signs?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes—I know how to read, and they’re not that complicated. It means that when you drive past the school, there will be a sign that says, in a particular time zone, for that particular school, the speed limit is 30 kilometres an hour. It’s not that complicated. It means that when you drive past it at 4 a.m. or 6 a.m. or whenever, when it is safe to do so because there’s no one on the streets, you shouldn’t have to artificially lower down your speed limit, when it is perfectly safe to drive at 50 kilometres an hour. That’s our view.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can the Minister tell me, at 3 p.m. on a Wednesday—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, please. Quiet. There’s a question being asked.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Looking at this sign—[Holds up image of road sign]—can the Minister tell me, at 3 p.m. on a Wednesday, if he drives past the school, what speed should he be driving at?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no, because I need my glasses. But the point is that it will vary depending on the school and the local road-controlling authority. But it’s not that complicated: at pick-up and drop-off times, relevant to the local school, relevant to the local council, the speed limit will be 30 kilometres an hour; at other times it won’t be. The Greens might find it hard to understand, but I think most Kiwis can get their heads around it. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he amend the rule to allow common-sense speed limits to be kept where there is evidence of a clear safety benefit, and, if he won’t, will he take responsibility for any increase in deaths as a result of automatic speed reversals, required under the rule his Government implemented and forced councils and communities to comply with?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In relation to the first part of that member’s question, the answer is no, because we think the balance we have struck is the right one. Our changes are common sense, and I think Kiwis agree with us.

Question No. 7—Conservation

7. to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has he made about Milford Sound?

Yesterday, the erudite Minister for Tourism and Hospitality, Louise Upston, and I announced a $15 million investment into sustaining tourism and conservation in the iconic Milford Sound / Piopiotahi. Manuhiri to Milford Sound / Piopiotahi will continue to enjoy a world-class experience, thanks to improved amenities, assurance for local business, and enhanced conservation. Minister Upston has also noted that decisions to enable cruise ship access and aerodrome use are key to growing tourism and local businesses and to help get the economy back on track.

Joseph Mooney: Why is the Government investing in Milford Sound?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This majestic UNESCO World Heritage site in Fiordland / Te Rua-o-te-Moko attracts more than a million visitors per year and pumps about $200 million into the regional economy, creating jobs and boosting incomes. Milford Sound / Piopiotahi had, and has, a key role to play in keeping the country’s tourism sector recovery after recent challenging years. The Milford Opportunities Project put forward a range of advice on how to enhance the future of this wonderous place, and so it was essential that we took it onboard, came to decisions, and got on with the mahi.

Joseph Mooney: How will this benefit the local economy?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We are supporting the local economy, providing certainty for tourism and concession operators, and rejecting previous interesting ideas to close the use of the aerodrome and to deny cruises access to the fiord. Tourism creates jobs and incomes, which are especially important for the livelihoods of whānau in our regional and local communities. Te Papa Atawhai / Department of Conservation is also giving local operators more certainty by cutting through concessions processes and making it easier for businesses to get on with their mahi to create jobs for Kiwis and to get the economy moving again.

Joseph Mooney: How will this announcement protect the nature and heritage of Milford Sound / Piopiotahi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Toitū te taiao. We are investing in better infrastructure to enhance protection for nature with sustainable tourism. We’re investing $15 million: $7 million from Te Papa Atawhai’s capital works programme and $8 million of international visitor levy funding. Manuhiri accessing the fiord and Milford Road will soon enjoy new, enhanced short stops, including an alpine nature walk at Gertrude and better facilities and amenities at Hinepipiwai / Lake Marian. The Little Tahiti Landfill will also be cleaned up, as well as an improved boat ramp at Deepwater Basin. Future work will involve the Department of Conservation / Te Papa Atawhai engaging with Ngāi Tahu stakeholders such as local government and the tourism sector on further initiatives.

Question No. 8—Conservation

8. to the Minister of Conservation: Has he received any advice on the impact of Conservation funding cuts on jobs and communities; if so, how many jobs have been identified as at risk?

Discussions around jobs are actually an operational matter for Te Papa Atawhai / Department of Conservation (DOC), and they are consulting with DOC kaimahi. It’s a kaupapa that’s out for kōrero with those kaimahi. There’s no identification of the total number of jobs at risk while under consultation.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Will he intervene to save the Pūkaha National Wildlife Centre to prevent job losses, save local businesses, and support their conservation work with native species?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Pūhaka is a wonderful place on that side of the Remutaka Range, and, of course, our local MP is Mike Butterick—top man. It is an independent charitable trust that runs and governs Pūkaha, and Te Papa Atawhai is mindful of the various wildlife species that are looked after, and, of course, have ongoing concerns for the welfare of endangered and at-risk species throughout the conservation space. DOC / Te Papa Atawhai continues to support kōrero between the trustees and those with vested interests in the success of Pūkaha, including the local iwi Rangitāne.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Can he confirm that over 200 jobs will be lost at Te Papa Atawhai / Department of Conservation since his Government took office?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In relation to that question, I recommend that the person asking the question submits a written question to my office.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does he justify the fact that over—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet! Can I ask the member to start the question again. We had a bit of noise coming from the other side.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does he justify the fact that over 90 percent of people who are likely to lose their jobs in the latest round of DOC job cuts are women and are on DOC’s lowest-paid end?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am actually very proud that the majority of the workforce at Te Papa Atawhai / Department of Conservation, are wāhine and nearly 50 percent of the senior leaders at Te Papa Atawhai / Department of Conservation are wāhine, but there seems to be some increasingly fuzzy maths coming from the other side of the House around numbers. Again, I’d like her to make sure she’s clear about what’s fact and what’s opinion.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Maybe he should be clear about that. Can he—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, please!

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Can he confirm that 14,000 jobs will be lost as a result of his decision not to extend Jobs for Nature funding?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can confirm that the time-limited Jobs for Nature funding that was undertaken by the previous Government gave no commitment to all those kaimahi and Jobs for Nature.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does it make sense—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Who was that? Be careful. Start again, please.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does it make sense at a time when we have a biodiversity crisis and the highest rates of threatened species in the world for his Government to continue to cut jobs that protect our environment?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The biodiversity crisis did not decrease under the previous Government; it actually increased. But what we’re committed to is continuing to support those credible biodiversity organisations committed to biodiversity through a variety of funds, such as the Community Conservation Fund and the international visitor levy, and maybe those are opportunities that members of the Opposition can look into supporting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I struggled to hear the answer to that question. I’m going to invite the member to ask the question again and I’d like the answers without attacking the member who asked the question. Could you please ask that question again. I couldn’t hear what the Minister was saying.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Sure. How does it make sense at a time when we have a biodiversity crisis and the highest rates of threatened species in the world for his Government to continue to cut jobs that protect our environment?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, I will repeat, in the silence that you have provided, that the biodiversity crisis did not reduce under the previous Government. The fact that we have the highest number of endemic species that are endangered did not decrease under the previous Government. But we continue to support a range of initiatives whether it’s Te Mana o Ngāti Rangitihi Trust up there in Tarawera or the Manaaki Ruahine Trust up there near Mōkai Pātea, or the Hollyford Conservation Trust down there in Fiordland, Te Rua-o-te-Moko, and I encourage those members of the Opposition who want to actively participate in those projects to actively get out of their seats and go and do it.

Question No. 9—Hunting and Fishing

9. to the Minister for Hunting and Fishing: What recent announcements has he made in the Hunting and Fishing portfolio?

This morning, I announced the Government’s plan to reform Fish & Game New Zealand. These reforms will modernise and strengthen Fish & Game to improve the national management of hunting and fishing resources and advocacy, while maintaining local control over local fishing and hunting rules. As Minister, I want to make it as easy as possible for Kiwis to go hunting and fishing in New Zealand. This long overdue reform to Fish & Game will refocus the organisation on its core job of managing our sport-fish and game-bird resources, and implement a more professional approach to national decision-making.

Suze Redmayne: What do these changes mean for licence holders?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: These reforms will make several key changes for licence holders. Fish & Game will now shift to a nationalised fee collection system to reduce the double handling of licence fees and ensure that funding actually follows the activity in the region. The new Act will require fish and game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders, such as farmers and the aviation sector, in their decision making. Also, one of the key changes agreed by Cabinet is that advocacy functions will be revised so that the New Zealand Fish & Game Council will set direction that is binding on regional fish and game councils. Those councils will only be able to take court action in relation to advocacy if explicitly approved by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council or the Minister as appropriate.

Suze Redmayne: What are the next steps for these reforms?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Following this announcement, officials from the Department of Conservation—and myself—will be engaging thoroughly with Fish & Game to work with them on the reforms. Drafting is under way on the new standalone fish and game Act which will give effect to these changes. That bill is expected to be introduced into the House later this year.

Suze Redmayne: What other announcements has the Minister made in his portfolio?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I’m glad to say that in addition to this morning’s announcement on fish and game reforms, I recently announced that the Wapiti herd of special interest (HOSI) designation process has begun. The Wapiti HOSI represents an opportunity for economic growth in regional New Zealand—so places like Fiordland. Better, healthier Wapiti herds provide opportunities for domestic and international visitors to hunt the only free-range Wapiti herd outside of North America.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether he did consult and assure the Opposition parties about his policy to protect minnows and shrimps?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As much as the Minister’s responsibility aligns to that question.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I reached out to all of the hunting and fishing spokespeople in the Opposition, but there were none to be found.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 10—[Interruption] When it’s quiet. Question No. 10, Steve Abel.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that New Zealand farmers are the “No. 1 most carbon-efficient in the world”; if so, on what factual basis?

on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: Hell yes, I do! In 2021, AgResearch found that the carbon footprint of New Zealand milk was 0.76 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of milk solids. Ireland, who are also amongst the lowest carbon footprints, were at 0.88 kilos; the global average was 1.28 kilos. As a country, we should be proud of our farmers, and this Government is. We are backing them and are committed to their success.

Steve Abel: Is the Minister aware that according to the OECD ranking of 54 countries, in terms of the emissions efficiency of their agriculture, New Zealand ranks behind the United States, China, Australia, Canada, and all 27 European Union countries, falling at 49th, which makes us one of the most pollution intensive agricultural producers—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet during questions, please.

Steve Abel: —that makes us one of the most pollution intensive agricultural producers in terms of climate emissions in the entire OECD?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: On behalf of the Minister, no, I am not aware of that report but, as with a number of these reports, there are always some caveats in them. And the question would be: what are they measuring? How are they measuring it? The report that I quoted is based on the known global standard for measuring carbon footprint in dairy—the International Dairy Federation and the International Organization for Standardization’s standard on dairy footprint. So I will back that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: That’s dairy.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I thought that’s all you believe we did in this country.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, please.

Steve Abel: Does the Minister accept that, even according to Fonterra’s 2024 report calculating the full extent of emissions impact, Australian dairy farming is less emissions intensive than New Zealand dairy farming, making us not even the lowest emissions dairy farmers in the region, let alone the world?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: That report included deforestation numbers. So the fact is that Australia chopped all its trees down a long time ago, whereas we’d chopped down some pine forests in the last 20 years. So if you remove that and you look at just the cow production, the feeding, we are still better than Australia.

Steve Abel: Is he able to recognise that acknowledging our high agricultural emissions as compared to other countries’ agricultural emissions is not a critique of farmers and food producers but a consequence of the fact that we have so many intensively farmed dairy cows?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Of course that’s criticism. This is all the Green Party does—criticise New Zealand dairy farmers, New Zealand farmers. You seem to not want to have any farmers in this country. We should be celebrating our farmers.

Steve Abel: Will the Minister correct the Prime Minister’s repeated misleading statements on the emissions impact of New Zealand agriculture?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I stand by my earlier answer. The Prime Minister is correct.

Steve Abel: Is the Minister aware that there is a wide variation in emissions intensity even within New Zealand farming systems, and, if so, will he support the likes of the billion-dollar organics sector to grow its high-value, low-emissions farming and growing methods, and, if so, how?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The challenge here is that that wide variability goes across all farming types. You will find organic farmers that are high emitting. You will find ones that are more efficient. The bell curve exists, no matter the farming type. We will back all New Zealand farmers, whatever they choose to do.

Question No. 11—Vocational Education

Question to the Minister for Vocational Education: has the Treasury advised the Government that “Demand for tertiary education and training is currently forecast to exceed the volume able to be funded”; if so, what advice has she received about the potential for job losses at New Zealand’s polytech institutes and universities?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Here we go again—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member did ask that question in a different order to what it was on the sheet, so could you please—[Interruption]

Shanan Halbert: Shall I do that again, Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can do that again, thank you.

Question to the Minister for Vocational Education tuarua: has the Treasury advised the Government that “Demand”—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet please; it’s a question.

11. to the Minister for Vocational Education: Has the Treasury advised the Government that “Demand for tertiary education and training is currently forecast to exceed the volume able to be funded”; if so, what advice has she received about the potential for job losses at New Zealand’s Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics, and universities?

Unfortunately, that advice that the member is referring to is the initial advice from the Treasury and their funding forecast for the tertiary education system. Subsequent to that, more funding for the sector was requested and this was included in the Budget package. Budget 2025 invests $111.4 million in additional funding over the next four years for that expected increase in volume. To answer the second part of the question: I have not received any specific advice about job losses at New Zealand’s universities and I’ve received a range of advice about financial improvement measures being undertaken by Te Pūkenga’s business divisions.

Shanan Halbert: How many people in polytechnics, workforce development councils, universities, and Ako Aotearoa are in line to lose their jobs as a result of her decisions?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Each of those entities are autonomous entities. They make decisions about their business operations and their number of staff. The Minister doesn’t make those decisions.

Shanan Halbert: In what way, if any, are crisis meetings happening at university campuses across the country due to her decisions and an endorsement of those decisions?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The universities are addressing their financial situations in various ways, as you would expect. Universities are like many businesses across New Zealand at the moment; they are adjusting to the financial situation of this country. Again, they are autonomous entities that will make their own decisions.

Shanan Halbert: Is the reason she didn’t answer questions about Te Pūkenga’s financial situation in select committee yesterday because it is expected to post a surplus?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Te Pūkenga have certainly improved enormously their financial situation because they have agreed to work alongside this Government to disestablish Te Pūkenga. Therefore, their very big, bloated head office has been disestablished. So under the direction of this Minister, they have certainly pulled back a number of areas of expenditure that should not have been happening.

Shanan Halbert: So why won’t she release the financial advice provided to her on her replacement model?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There are a couple of bits of financial advice there. Obviously, Te Pūkenga have not put out their annual report yet. I understand that will be ready very shortly. In terms of the financial information for each of the business divisions, since the middle of last year Te Pūkenga have been using financial advisers to work with each of the business divisions to ensure that they have a pathway to viability. That is work that should have happened more than four years ago and did not. That work is now being undertaken to ensure that the polytechnics—when they are stood up—will be viable.

Shanan Halbert: Is it the case that her dismantling of Te Pūkenga will actually put polytechnics at serious risk of closure and lead to even more job losses?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. What has put the polytechnic sector—and in fact the vocational education sector—at enormous risk is that very foolish Te Pūkenga New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology proposal from the previous Government, which spent hundreds of millions of dollars creating an absolute shambles for our institutions. It is heartbreaking for me to see the damage that was done over the last six years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m advised that the member has run out of supplementary questions.

Question No. 12—Vocational Education

12. to the Minister for Vocational Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context they were given. In particular, I’m extremely proud of the work that this Government is doing to return control of polytechnics and institutes of technology to their communities, and ensuring that work-based learning is driven by the industries that are so important to our economy, and driving our agenda for growth.

Tākuta Ferris: What is the benefit of changing the name of Te Pūkenga to New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST), given it is being disestablished in 18 months?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: If the member had a look at the Education and Training Act, he would find that the legal name for Te Pūkenga is the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. So that is the name that it has, and the reason why I think it is important as we disestablish it—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m trying to hear the Minister.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —and the reason why I think it is important to use that name in the disestablishment process is that it will become much more of a technical holding company for the end of the disestablishment process. So I think it’s just really important to go back to that technical name.

Tākuta Ferris: Can she guarantee the proposed move to a federated model for Te Pūkenga will not result in the closure of further regional campuses as we are already seeing in Northland, the East Coast, Taupō, and Te Tai Poutini?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The federation model is very much to ensure that it can support some of those really sparsely populated regional campuses. It’s very difficult for a polytechnic to be able to deliver in those smaller-population areas where they may not have the volume of students to be able to run a programme financially viably. Using the federation model, those small campuses will have access to around 160 programmes that the Open Polytechnic has available online so that those small campuses can have blended delivery of on-campus and online, and therefore deliver to smaller cohorts.

Tākuta Ferris: What consultation, if any, has she undertaken with current Māori representatives on workforce development councils (WDCs) and with iwi Māori regarding the proposed disestablishment of workforce development councils?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I speak with a range of different people on this. There are some really significant leaders—Māori leaders—that have been involved with WDCs, and I think of people like Turi Ngatai, who has been very free in his advice that he’s given me. And, of course, I work with the Mātauranga Iwi Leaders Group where there’s some really knowledgeable and capable people who can give me some advice on that.

Tākuta Ferris: What is the rationale for withdrawing the Te Pūkenga Charter from legislation which requires Te Pūkenga to be “responsive to the needs of all regions … learners, industries, employers, and communities.”, and how will she ensure that regional education needs continue to be met without the charter’s legislative framework?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because Te Pūkenga NZIST won’t exist, it can’t have a charter. So what I have done is amended the legislation, and I draw the member’s attention to sections 321, 314, 318, and 370 where it prescribes that polytechnics will need to develop meaningful relationships and engage with communities at a local level, including Māori employers and hapū and iwi; that characteristics of polytechnics will be that they improve outcomes for Māori students and trainees and Māori communities in collaboration with Māori and iwi. What I have ensured is that embedded all through the changes in the legislation is a requirement for polytechnics and Industry Skills Boards to have that relationship with Māori communities and Māori industry leaders.

Tākuta Ferris: Can she explain why she is removing the requirement for polytechnic councils to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in their governance, management, and operations?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because I am requiring them to have a board that reflects their community and their industries in their community; and that will reflect the Māori community, of the Māori interest in that community. I expect it to be an integrated and embedded acceptance and integration with Māori—not tokenism; not people being placed on to boards as a token gesture, but ensuring they are working closely with communities, with iwi, with hapū, to address—

Tākuta Ferris: How’s that gone in the past?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, it hasn’t gone well in the past. That’s why I’m embedding it in this legislation.