Oral Questions

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it worth slashing the future pay of hundreds of thousands of women workers to fund $2.9 billion in tax cuts for landlords?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I resent the characterisation of that question. This is a Government that is not getting rid of equal pay, it’s not getting rid of pay equity, it’s not getting rid of collective bargaining, it’s not cutting the women’s pay, as the member has tried to scaremonger over the last few weeks. We encourage anyone who wants to launch a pay equity settlement claim to do so. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK, OK. We’ll get into it right from the start. That general commentary throughout the answer to the question was just heckling, not occasional points of interjection—quite far from it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it worth cutting women’s future earnings to hand $216 million in tax breaks to tobacco companies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we didn’t do that either and I reject the characterisation of that question too.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it worth short-changing New Zealand women workers to cover Nicola Willis’ billion-dollar ferry blunder?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s a pretty petty line of questioning from the economic illiteracy of the other side. I just encourage you all, look at that front bench alternative and say, “Can any of those run an economy?” No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Hey, stop pointing, stop pointing, stop pointing. Don’t point with that finger.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough, thank you. Good idea to slink down low like that. You’re still visible behind that glass.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it worth diminishing women’s futures to gift half a billion dollars to tech giants like Facebook and Google?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I reject the characterisation of that question and I’d just say to the member: wait for tomorrow because this is a Government that cares about working people, women or men, Māori or non-Māori. If that member cared about it, he would have backed our tax cuts.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it worth undercutting women’s future wages to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into private health providers whilst quietly privatising New Zealand’s front-line health services?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ha, ha! Oh, goodness! I’d just say to the member: what has been fantastic from this Government is that you’ve seen us cut the wasteful spending, lower inflation, lower interest rates, get the economy growing, give tax relief for the first time in 14 years, and, most importantly, wages are growing faster than inflation, which helps working people. Under the last Government, they went up $82 in three years; under this Government, they’ve gone up $1,100 on average.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does it help the Hon Nicola Willis’ Budget that the ferry decision has saved her $2 billion from the blowout iReX project?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, firstly, I just want to thank our fantastic Minister for Rail, because he’s obviously sorted out a hell of a mess that was handed over to us from the Labour Government, and I want to say thank you for that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he just describe paying women properly as “wasteful spending”; and was it worth taking—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No—OK, OK. Rules apply equally. Absolute silence while a question’s answered. If someone outbursts like that again, they’re out. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, please start your question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he just describe paying women workers properly as “wasteful spending”, and was it worth taking billions of dollars from women workers to rescue the Budget, as David Seymour has celebrated?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, that is not what we have done. I’d just say to the member, I think he needs to think very deeply about the questions he’s asking today.

Hon Chris Bishop: In reference to a supplementary a couple ago, is the Prime Minister aware that vast bulk of the New Zealand health system, like general practices, are privately owned?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on whether the first part of that question—regardless of what the second part of it was—is actually in order. Can a Government Minister basically stand up and ask a supplementary question that the very first part of it is designed to attack the Opposition? Speaker’s rulings have previously indicated very clearly that that’s not the case.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. This is a debating chamber. Mr Speaker, you’ve previously ruled, I think rightly, that there needs to be a backwards and forwards and an ebb and flow in relation to the issues being discussed. We risk making this place sterile.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be the case in your opinion. But the point that is raised by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins is a valid one because I have made it clear that the question itself would have stood if it weren’t referencing a previously asked supplementary, which the member, or the member’s party, has no responsibility for. They do for the answer, but not for the question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What will it take, if not 14,000 babies at risk of starvation in the next 48 hours, for our Government to sanction Israel for its war crimes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we have called that out. We think it’s utterly unacceptable that Israel is not supplying humanitarian assistance in the way that it should do. I think you have seen the Minister of Foreign Affairs sign a statement with 23 other Foreign Ministers in recent days that I think is entirely appropriate. We expect the free flow of humanitarian assistance to travel through Gaza, and with respect to Israeli sanctions, you have seen us continually increase those sanctions against illegal settlers, as we will continue to do.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree with world-leading scholars on genocide that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, those are decisions for others to determine. But what I’d say is that we are very much in the case that we want to see hostages released, we want to see a free flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, we want to see an immediate ceasefire, and—importantly—we want to see the parties get round to get back to having a two-State solution in place.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If the Prime Minister does not consider Israel’s bombardment of Gaza a genocide, what would he call it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member that that is a determination for others to make who are closest to it and who can make that assessment. As I’ve said through the course of this conflict, this is a horrible conflict. It is an utter tragedy. We are asking for Israel to allow humanitarian assistance—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Do something about it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —to go into Gaza, and I’d just say to the member that we have done something about it. I’d encourage her to read the statement that our Foreign Minister signed, with 23 other Foreign Ministers, in recent days, calling on Israel to release and enable humanitarian assistance to get through to Gaza.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister consider adopting my Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill as a Government bill to enforce basic sanctions against Israel—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry. Too much talk during that question. It’s not for anyone to start individual commentaries on a question. Start the question again, please, Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister consider adopting my Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill as a Government bill to enforce basic sanctions against Israel for its war crimes, like this House did against Russia for its war on Ukraine; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d point out to the member that we have increased our sanctions against illegal Israeli settlers—they are travel suspensions and they are other sanctions. But I’d just say to you that the foreign policy of New Zealand is led by our Foreign Minister, and I think he’s doing a very good job of navigating his way and leading New Zealand through this conflict.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the 22-State document that went out 2½ days ago was but a confirmation of the same speech that was made to the United Nations by the Foreign Minister, having talked to the Egyptians, the Turks, the people from Indonesia, and the Palestinian Authority—unlike some, who have talked to no one on this matter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just—

Chlöe Swarbrick: We need actions, not words.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, but the Foreign Minister is correct. He has joined with 23 other Foreign Ministers in calling out that and saying that humanitarian aid should never be politicised and that they expect humanitarian aid to be flowing freely through Gaza, and I think it’s been a very strongly worded statement of where the New Zealand position is.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s objective for net core Crown debt?

A key element of the Government’s fiscal strategy is to put net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward trajectory towards 40 percent and, in the longer term, to keep it between 20 percent and 40 percent of GDP. Treasury forecasts in the half-year update in December showed net core Crown debt reaching 46.5 percent of GDP in the 2026-27 fiscal year before beginning to decline. The Budget forecasts for debt and other fiscal indicators will be released tomorrow.

Dan Bidois: Has she seen any recommendations for a debt ceiling in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Treasury did a very thorough piece of work in 2022 to determine a recommended ceiling for New Zealand’s net debt, taking into account the country’s vulnerability to economic shocks and the need to have fiscal headroom to deal with them. After a lot of analysis and modelling, Treasury’s central recommendation was for a net debt ceiling of 50 percent of GDP. This debt ceiling was adopted soon afterwards by the finance Minister at the time, Grant Robertson, and was a key part of his fiscal strategy.

Dan Bidois: Does she accept this recommendation for a net debt ceiling?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. The Government has acknowledged that on the grounds of debt sustainability, 50 percent of GDP should be considered the upper bound for net debt. However, a ceiling is not a target. New Zealand needs a healthy balance-sheet buffer, as, in comparison to many other countries, we are a small economy, vulnerable to natural disasters, reliant on commodity exports, and dependent on international debt markets. Debt can rise quickly, as recent history has shown, and high debt means high interest costs. The Government’s objective is, therefore, to get net debt under 40 percent of GDP over time to provide buffers for future shocks.

Dan Bidois: What recent reports has she seen on the 50 percent net debt ceiling?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen at least one commentator endorsing Treasury’s recommended 50 percent net debt ceiling, pointing out that this remains good advice and that New Zealand needs fiscal headroom to deal with economic shocks. At least one other commentator disagrees, saying that high debt is myth and that the other commentator must be talking about the past. It’s a total shambles.

Question No. 3—Women

3. to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her answer to oral question No. 4 on Thursday, 15 May that “The initial conversation I had with the Minister of Finance regarding pay equity occurred on 9 November 2024”; if so, on what date did she first inform the Ministry for Women of potential pay equity changes?

Yes, I stand by my statement that the initial conversation I had with the Minister of Finance about the recent changes to pay equity was on 9 November. In relation to the second part of the question, as I have previously stated to the House, the ministry was not consulted during the process of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill development, but it was informed the day before the announcement.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did she request the Ministry for Women be consulted on Minister Willis’ pay equity Cabinet paper or Minister van Velden’s pay equity Cabinet paper?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Given the sensitivities of the matter, only a small number of agencies were consulted on the changes—that included Treasury and the Public Service Commission. I received advice from them and was satisfied with that advice. They are, indeed, considered to be the lead agencies and experts on pay equity, and I took that advice.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know we can’t ask for yes or no answers, but I feel like that wasn’t addressed. All I wanted to know was whether she made the request for the Ministry for Women to be consulted, and I got a whole lot of information that wasn’t relevant to that question.

SPEAKER: It was totally relevant to the question. I was listening for that, because I thought that was where you might go. The Minister just said that there was a small number of agencies who were consulted. That might lead you to a conclusion.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why was the Ministry for Women not consulted on either of these Cabinet papers?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: As the Minister for Women, I have noted already to the House that I did continue to advocate for women during the development of this policy.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When she told the House, on 8 May, that the Ministry for Women was not involved in consultation but she was, does this mean that she never consulted with her officials on changes to pay equity?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Again, as has been made very plain to this House in the Cabinet paper, the Ministry for Women was not consulted. However, throughout the process, I was consulted. I am the Minister for Women. I am responsible for that agency.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asking whether or not she consulted with her officials on changes to pay equity once she was informed, which I think is a fair and reasonable question, given, as a Minister, you usually would consult on anything important like that with your officials.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be the member’s experience. What the Minister just said is that the ministry was not consulted and that she undertook the consultation as the Minister for Women. I think that’s a reasonable answer.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When Minister Willis first told her about pay equity changes in November, did she advocate that savings from pay equity changes go to initiatives that support women; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Of course I continued to advocate for the existence of a robust and fair pay equity system, and I am satisfied that that is what the Government has delivered.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that this Government’s austerity agenda is undermining the wellbeing and safety of our most vulnerable tamariki, considering the serious and systemic failures highlighted in the recent UNICEF report and the Auditor-General’s Oranga Tamariki inquiry; and, if not concerned, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, we are not running an austerity agenda. This is a Government that’s investing for growth, jobs, and wages.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he confident that his Budget will address how Aotearoa supports tamariki and their whānau, considering we have the highest youth suicide rates in the world post-COVID, the second highest rate of child bullying, as well as poor physical health linked with food insecurity; and, if not confident, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response to the findings of the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the procurement and contract management of Oranga Tamariki, which stated, “We did not see evidence that Oranga Tamariki understood how its decisions would affect children and their families.”; and who does he believe is responsible for this oversight?

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister can answer one of those questions.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, it wasn’t good enough and we must do better.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why should the public trust his Minister for Children to effectively manage her ministerial responsibilities, considering the same Auditor-General’s report also stated, “The effects of decisions on children and their families are still not known.”, given that the core role of Oranga Tamariki is to centre the effects of Government decisions on children and their families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because I’ve spent time with the Minister and I know she’s an incredibly hard-working, passionate Minister who’s doing everything she can to improve the performance of Oranga Tamariki. It has been an underperforming organisation for a long period of time, and she has been doing everything she can to lift the performance, as we are finding in many agencies across Government.

SPEAKER: I just tell the member that conflating two parts of a question with the word “given” is not an acceptable way to ask a question.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he acknowledge that failing to adequately fund support services in his Budget will put more tamariki and their whānau at risk?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Budget hasn’t been announced—that happens tomorrow—so I think the question is very leading and assumptive.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding rail funding in Budget 2025?

Yesterday, alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Rail, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I announced that there is $461 million of funding to maintain and renew the rail freight network in the Budget, alongside $143.6 million to replace and upgrade the Auckland and Wellington metropolitan rail networks. This is all about delivering an efficient and reliable rail network that supports growth and productivity.

Rima Nakhle: What can metro passengers in Auckland and Wellington expect to see as a result of this funding?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We need to be up front about the fact that there have been years and years of under-investment in the core of our metro rail networks in Auckland and Wellington. These are overdue and critical renewals. There is a big backlog of work. That failure to do the work has made services less reliable, with commuters experiencing disruption. We want metro rail to work in Auckland and Wellington, and that means we need to invest in the tracks and the signals and all of the things that go into making sure the network is reliable and commuters can experience reliable journey times.

Rima Nakhle: How does this investment support the rail freight network?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This Government backs rail and the important role it plays in our freight networks. It moves around 13 percent of national freight and a quarter of New Zealand exports, complementing our road freight network. This additional investment fully funds the Rail Network Investment Programme—sometimes known as the RNIP—for 2024-27, delivering that, maintenance and network operations, asset renewals, and other improvements.

Rima Nakhle: What kind of projects does he—[Another member calls for a supplementary question] My apologies, OK. That’s OK

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh my goodness!

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: She hasn’t got her question.

SPEAKER: No, take your time. Take your time. You were—

Rima Nakhle: What kind of projects does he expect this additional funding to support?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This might not be headline-grabbing, like a new railway line or new trains, but it is important that we look after what we have. We need to replace these old bridges, culverts, and other assets on the railway line. A failure to invest in and maintain these assets has led to speed restrictions and other problems on the rail network. When we build our new infrastructure, we need to make sure we look after it as well. So we’re backing rail. Most importantly, we’re backing the maintenance and the renewal work that needs to be done on our networks.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: does he think it’s possible that all the problems with respect to railways in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch can be fixed for $11 billion, as has been prospected by one group in this country?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’ve learnt not to rely on economic forecasts and particularly accounting estimates from members of the Opposition.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: So that’s OK, is it?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Kick him out.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Every bloody day!

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister share with the House what was the final—

SPEAKER: Just a minute, one more comment like that, and you’re going. Let’s be very clear: the Government is allowed to refer to situations that they’re dealing with in relation to public commentary on them. That’s what happened there. So I’m being as pedantic as the House might want, but not so pedantic as to make question time completely irrelevant.

Hon Shane Jones: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister confirm for the House whether he’s been briefed as to what was the final figure associated with light rail escapades in Auckland?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, what started life as a $300 million tram—

SPEAKER: It’s a very, very simple, straight question. So don’t muck it up by turning it into an attack.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The answer is: around $30 billion.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I was just wanting to know from the Minister: what sort of direct feedback did he have on the announcement yesterday?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, generally the feedback from Wellington commuters at Wellington Railway Station was very positive. However, as always, you can’t please everyone!

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement in relation to Budget 2025 that “The vast bulk of these initiatives will be funded from savings. As in last year’s Budget, existing areas of spending will be redirected towards higher priorities”?

Yes. And the next sentence was: “Without that, new initiatives would have to be funded from yet more borrowing or by yet more taxes. Either would put New Zealand’s economy at risk.” And I would note that Budget savings will also come from the repurposing of funds previously held in contingency for potential future costs.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is giving tech giants like Facebook and Google a $479 million tax break a higher priority than pay equity for 180,000 mainly women workers?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I completely reject the characterisations in that question and would repeat: a pay equity regime exists in law and the Government expects future pay equity claims and future pay equity settlements.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is giving a tobacco company a $216 million tax break a higher priority than ensuring our kids have fresh and healthy school lunches?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I also reject the characterisations in that question, and what I would put to this House is that if a party is unable to identify any savings, then what they are telling New Zealanders is more taxes and more borrowing are on their way.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is giving landlords $2.9 billion in tax breaks a higher priority than additional support for survivors of sexual abuse?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Again, rejecting the characterisations in that question, and noting our Government has delivered a historic package of redress initiatives for those survivors of abuse in State care. We’ve done the right thing, something that the members opposite had the opportunity to do and did not fund.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is choosing to give money to those who don’t need it a higher priority for her than improving the lives of New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, what I take from that question is that the member’s view is that the millions of New Zealanders who received tax relief in last year’s Budget didn’t need it. Well, I think they did. After the cost of living crisis that your party delivered, they really needed—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Question No. 7—Tourism and Hospitality

7. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent reports has she seen on tourism in New Zealand?

International visitor arrival numbers released by Stats NZ last week show a 4.3 percent year-on-year increase. Our international visitor numbers remain at 85 percent of pre-COVID numbers, which reinforces our need to grow demand to New Zealand in the short term. Tourism is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth. That’s why we’ve made investments through our tourism boost package, including our “Everyone must go” campaign, to bring visitor numbers back to pre-COVID levels. [Interruption]

Joseph Mooney: How will targeting—

SPEAKER: Just wait a minute. Just wait a minute—OK.

Joseph Mooney: How will targeting Australians improve overall visitor numbers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our “Everyone must go” campaign with Tourism New Zealand was all about encouraging Australians to pick New Zealand for their next holiday. Visitor numbers from Australia are currently at about 91 percent compared to 2019, so we know that there’s more room to grow. We also know that around four million Australians are actively considering a holiday in New Zealand, and this campaign is building on this momentum, and encouraging more of our Aussie neighbours to visit.

Joseph Mooney: What else is being done to encourage more Australian visitors to New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Jetstar is launching three new routes from Australia into New Zealand next month: Sydney to Hamilton, the Gold Coast to Hamilton, and the Gold Coast to Dunedin. These services will add more than 190,000 new low-fare seats between Australia and New Zealand. This will strengthen airline connectivity, making it easier for our Australian friends to come on over.

Joseph Mooney: How will more international visitors support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth as tourism directly supports almost 200,000 jobs and contributes $44 billion to the economy. Every time a tourist comes to New Zealand and spends money at a local shop, buys a meal at a local cafe, and stays in our accommodation, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, 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.

Question No. 8—Regulation

8. to the Minister for Regulation: What recent announcements has he made on progressing the Regulatory Standards Bill?

On Monday, the Government introduced the Regulatory Standards Bill to Parliament. The bill sets out clear principles for lawmaking and regulating so that New Zealanders can be free to live their lives and use their property without labouring under the yoke of some populous, knee-jerk rule that a politician made for convenience a long time ago, and still holds them back today.

Todd Stephenson: Why is this bill a priority for the Government?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: A wise economist once said that “Productivity is not everything, but in the long term, it’s almost everything.”, and it’s the only way to sustainably grow wages and lower the cost of living to New Zealanders. If we want to raise productivity, one of the most powerful things we can do is reduce the amount of time that people spend in compliance activity, or giving up on doing things in the first place, and, instead, allow them to have more time to do the things they want to do: to provide for themselves, their friends, and their family.

Todd Stephenson: How will this bill hold politicians and regulators to account?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There’s awfully good news for some of the people who’ve been heckling me. If they ever get back to this side of the House, this bill will not—

SPEAKER: No, no, just talk about your own stuff, nobody else’s.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I was trying to—it sounds like they want to be in the conversation.

SPEAKER: Yes, it may do to you, but it doesn’t to me. The member will constrain himself to a simple answer, or take an early shower.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: OK, I’m sorry to put that image in the House’s heads.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Mr Speaker, I’m not a simple man. I mean—it doesn’t give me very good choices, does it? This bill doesn’t ban bad regulation, but it does put on sunlight and expose it. The bill makes it clear when proposed laws breach the principles of good regulation, and allows the public to see who’s responsible.

Todd Stephenson: What role will the new Regulatory Standards Board play?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Regulatory Standards Board will be an independent board providing public assessments of whether legislation is consistent with the principles of good lawmaking. It won’t have a power to veto good law, but it will allow voters, businesses, and Parliament to judge whether the rules being put before them are reasonable.

Todd Stephenson: What impact will the Regulatory Standards Bill have on the stock of current legislation?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Unfortunately, New Zealanders—on their firms and their farms and raising their families—produce and suffer under an enormous yoke of red tape and regulation. This has been built up over many decades. But never fear: the Regulatory Standards Bill will require a retrospective review of that red tape and regulation that currently exists against the principles of the bill.

Todd Stephenson: What makes this bill different from past efforts to improve regulation?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: This Government is different from previous ones in that it actually takes action. Many Governments in the past have talked about improving red tape and regulation—this one is legislating it. It’s a core element—not a “nice-to-have”, but a core element of this Government’s programme is to free up productive capacity by reducing the red tape and the regulation that adds cost to what we do, makes people say “no” to doing things they could have done, and deadens our culture, as so many of those opportunities are lost. So to the Opposition: this is your last chance to ask a supp—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: You sure? OK.

SPEAKER: You don’t get to call people for questions. I do, and I might stop that.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding pay equity and workforce conditions in the education sector?

Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she say, “The unified pay scale makes the situation more complicated” in relation to sex-based undervaluation of secondary school teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Because it does.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she committed to the principle of pay parity for teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she ensure that any pay increases primary school teachers achieve through pay equity will be passed on to secondary school teachers who are now unable, under the new law, to make their own pay equity claim; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That’s not a matter for me, and I think the member knows that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is it the case that while there is a strike at the Ministry of Education over a pay freeze and a 22,000 strong petition for support staff to be paid fairly, the Government’s actions will also entrap teachers at all levels into being underpaid?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Sorry, can the remember repeat the question? I wasn’t sure what she was asking.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is it the case that while there is a strike at the Ministry of Education over a pay freeze and a 22,000 strong petition for support staff to be fairly paid, the Government’s actions will also entrap teachers at all levels into being underpaid?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It was a very broad question and there was a lot going on in it. But, essentially, we value teachers hugely. We’re about to go into pay negotiations—although it’s something that I’m not allowed to comment on. That will be something that will be worked through by the ministry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can she recall who brought in pay parity for primary teachers, based on qualifications with secondary school teachers, and how massively it helped a hugely woman-populated profession at that time?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I can confirm that.

Question No. 10—Housing

10. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What role, if any, have the Government’s policies and decisions played in contributing to the 53 percent increase in homelessness in Tāmaki Makaurau between September 2024 and January 2025, particularly for rangatahi?

Homelessness is a symptom of a broken housing system and a broken mental health system, and fixing these crises are both important for this Government. Government target No. 8 was to reduce the number of households in emergency housing by 75 percent, and we’ve achieved that in 15 months. One priority was to ensure that children were not growing up in that catastrophe that we know as emergency housing, and our decisions and mahi have led to around 3,000 children leaving emergency housing and coming out of emergency housing over the past 18 months. We’re very proud of that. The December 2024 homelessness insights report states it is not possible to determine the extent to which changes in homelessness numbers reflect broader economic, social, and health contexts or are attributable to policy changes.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What specific actions is the Government taking to prevent homelessness among rangatahi Māori, particularly to those exiting State care or youth justice systems, and how will these outcomes be measured?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As this House has been told in the past, rangatahi-supported accommodation and youth-transitional accommodation continue to be supported. In addition to that, there are a number and a range of services—whether or not those are housing support products, Housing First, transitional housing, and other pathways—for those people, including youths, who have some significant housing deprivation challenges.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How does the Minister justify the 2024 Budget decision to cut $40 million from Māori housing providers and $20 million from transitional housing for rangatahi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we will recall, a number of agencies had to ensure that there were appropriate savings that came through Budget 2024 to enable and support ongoing delivery of better public services, such as health, education, defence, and the Police. But it was absolutely enthusing and energising for us to be in Toitu Tairawhiti last week in Gisborne where we saw the mahi—the good mahi—that has been undertaken by the people in Toitu Tairawhiti to construct around 150 new homes, with a priority on single mamas and tamariki.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What steps is the Government taking to empower kaupapa Māori and Māori- and community-led housing and support services, such as Mā Te Huruhuru, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, in line with its Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This House may recall that recently we announced around $200 million of Māori housing tautoko to build 400 homes right throughout the country. Whether or not that’s up in Kaitāia or in Tūranga and Toitu Tairawhiti, with the good mahi they are doing, and Ka Uruora throughout the North Island and others throughout the country, we continue to be very proud of the mahi that we are doing to support Māori housing and also the mahi that Minister Penk has been undertaking around granny flats and some of the ongoing mahi and good work being undertaken to look at papa kāinga.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to gather itself a bit. Thank you.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What is the Government doing to ensure the safety and wellbeing of rangatahi placed in emergency motel accommodation, and when will it invest in safe, culturally grounded, long-term, alternative, led-by-Māori communities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Let’s get back to some data points. In December 2023, there were around 3,438 children in emergency housing—that moral, fiscal, social, and cultural catastrophe. As of the end of March, there were around 516—many, many of whom were Māori that have left and exited as a result of the Priority One decision that was taken by this Government to expedite those households and whānau who have been living in emergency housing for over 12 weeks. Now, we are very proud of the decisions that we have taken to expedite those whānau and tamariki out of those difficult and exposed lives in emergency hotels, particularly in places like Ulster Street in Hamilton West.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister have any idea as to how many homeless Māori the $80 million - plus profits of the Waipareira Trust could house if the money was applied to them properly?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There is a lot of mahi to do, and we’re getting on and doing the mahi here in this Government.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Will the Government commit to increasing funding for Māori housing and wraparound services for providers in Thursday’s Budget, in light of the 53 percent increase in homelessness in Tāmaki-makau-rau?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As the “mana pūtea” Minister Willis will say, one more version of “Hine E Hine” to come. Kia ora tātou.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: A point of order, please, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific, and I just wonder if the Speaker can advise, where the member asked “Will the Government commit to increasing funding”, based on a 53 percent increase in Tāmaki-makau-rau—we’re not clear on what that answer was or whether it was actually directed to the actual question.

SPEAKER: I took it to mean that the—[Interruption] I’m speaking. I took it to mean that the Budget’s being delivered tomorrow and that he was not going to be releasing Budget information ahead of the delivery tomorrow.

Question No. 11—Māori Development

11. to the Minister for Māori Development: He aha ngā kōrero kua pānui atu mō ngā wātene Māori i ēnei rā tata nei?

[What recent announcements has he made about Māori wardens?]

Nōku te hōnore, nō māua tahi ko Minita Costello, ki te whakapāho i te Hatarei kua hora nei, kua piki ake te pūtea tautoko ki te tohatoha atu ki ngā wātene Māori mai i te $1.2 miriona ki te $2.7 miriona ia te tau. He oati—he oati. I tae mai te Pirīmia Tuarua, a Winitana Petera, me te Pirīmia Christopher Luxon. Ka nui te mihi kāmehameha ki ngā wātene Māori i tō rātou kaha ki te whai i te kīanga kōrero, “Aroha ki te tangata”, heoi anō ki te whakahaumaru hoki i ngā hapori Māori, Kiwi nei.

[It is my honour, myself and Minister Costello, to announce last Saturday that the funding support to distribute to the Māori wardens has increased from $1.2 million to $2.7 million per annum. This is a commitment—a commitment. The Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, and the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, were in attendance. Many huge thanks to the Māori Wardens for the consistent pursuit of the saying “Compassion for humanity”, but also to keep our Māori and Kiwi communities safe.]

David MacLeod: How do Māori—

Hon Shane Jones: Māori wardens, go pick up Rawiri!

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Mr Jones, you know that you can’t call out like that during the asking of a question. It’s very disorderly, and you know where that leads.

David MacLeod: How do Māori wardens support safer communities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Māori wardens, in some way, shape, or form, have supported whānau nationwide for more than 150 years, and now there are over 500 wardens volunteering their mahi to support New Zealanders every day, from engaging with rangatahi around truancy and deescalating conflicts; helping out at various important hui throughout the country, like Waitangi week, Hōkai up in Waikato and in the surrounding rohe; and also managing some very challenging circumstances on the streets of New Zealand, particularly Hamilton. Māori wardens use their longstanding relationships to build and support their communities—what we call manaakitanga. They work alongside Police, Minister Mitchell, and social service providers, and this funding will help with the expansion of their services and, of course, to improve and increase capability.

David MacLeod: What impact will this increased funding have?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Budget 2025 funding will help secure and stabilise the financial sustainability of the Māori wardens, allowing them to align and expand their services to meet whānau and community needs. This means that the already more than 500 wardens—who are volunteers, might I repeat—are able to better support whānau every day, including engaging with our rangatahi, managing some serious challenges and conflicts on the streets, and helping to tautoko various hui.

David MacLeod: When can communities expect to see the benefits?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Very soon. Additional funding is expected to flow from 1 July 2025, and my officials will be working with the respective organisations to get these increased funding arrangements in place.

Question No. 12—ACC

12. to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by his statements and actions in relation to the Accident Compensation Corporation?

Yes, especially my statement that the ACC scheme is there to support New Zealanders who have a need for the care and support that ACC provides and that ACC is something uniquely Kiwi and something we should all be proud of.

Camilla Belich: Which of his statements is correct: that “ACC will always be available to support victims of sexual violence”, or that there is a “live and current” question as to whether the Government might cut eligibility for survivors of sexual violence?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I stand by both those statements, and, as Minister, my number one focus is on ensuring that the sustainability of this scheme is ensured.

Camilla Belich: Why did he tell The Post that he was considering cutting ACC eligibility for survivors last week, and then this week—only five days later—tell Newstalk ZB that he had “no intention” to shed responsibility for survivors from ACC eligibility?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The member is conflating two separate issues. The issue that she refers to in terms of a project called Hikitia! is in relation to an injury prevention programme run by ACC, and there has been no cut to that programme. What ACC have advised me is that they have made an operational decision to pause the roll-out of that scheme while they review the programme.

Camilla Belich: Why is he stopping the expansion of Hikitia! in ACC-administered sexual violence prevention programmes?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: As the member will well know, ACC is an independent Crown entity, and I, as Minister, stand at arm’s length from operational decisions.

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yes, and points of order are heard in silence.

Camilla Belich: I seek your guidance. In anticipation of the Minister not answering that question, I did check the Cabinet Manual, and in relation to Ministers and Crown entities, it quite clearly states that he is to be involved and to monitor and review Crown entity operations and performance. My question was around the operations of that Crown entity.

SPEAKER: Well, there’s a difference between monitoring and participating in them, so the Minister can give his answer again, just to make it clear for the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. ACC, as an independent Crown entity, have made an operational decision, and I stand at arm’s length from that operational decision. They have advised me that they are merely pausing the programme to evaluate it.

Camilla Belich: Is his stopping of the expansion of an ACC-funded sexual violence prevention programme and considering cutting eligibility to ACC for survivors of sexual abuse part of the Government’s broader strategy to save money at women’s expense?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We let the first one go because the answer from the Minister clarified that, but the supplementary just then contained an incorrect assertion that the Minister had intervened to stop a particular programme. As his answer just revealed, he did not. It was an operational decision made by ACC—

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK, that’s all—all gone.

Hon Chris Bishop: —so she can’t ask that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. If we go back to the first response to the first question, the Minister said that he stood by his comment, and that comment was that the Government was considering a cut. It is entirely appropriate for this question to be asked.

SPEAKER: He also said that the question as it was asked was conflating two different positions, and I think there was nothing wrong with his answer. We’ll progress this by Camilla Belich considering whether or not her question as it was asked was within the bounds of the Standing Orders, and if it’s not, she should adjust it and ask it again.

Camilla Belich: Is ACC stopping the expansion of the ACC-funded sexual violence prevention programme, and he, as Minister, considering cutting eligibility to ACC for survivors of sexual abuse part of the Government’s broader strategy to save money at women’s expense?

SPEAKER: No, the last part of that rules the question out, because you can’t assert that that is what’s actually happening. Ask the question without the last bit on it.

Camilla Belich: Is ACC stopping the expansion of the ACC-funded sexual violence prevention programme, and he, as Minister, considering cutting eligibility to ACC for survivors of sexual abuse part of a Government programme to save money at the expense of a large percentage of the population—namely, women?

SPEAKER: Well, that—just give a brief answer, so we can move on.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Absolutely, categorically no.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Those who have to leave the House for other business should do so quietly and without having conversations on the way.