Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s fiscal position?

There’s been some recent ill-informed commentary suggesting New Zealand’s fiscal position is strong and that our debt is not too high. I disagree. That view counts for New Zealand’s super fund as if it were available for day-to-day costs. It is not. It was confirmed this week that we’ll start contributing to superannuation from 2028. That money is already committed. The reality is our debt is very high by historic standards, we’re spending significant amounts on interest, and our ability to respond to future shocks is limited. Now is the time to rebuild buffers, reduce waste, and get the books back on a sustainable path, and that is exactly what next week’s Budget will do.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What is the scale of New Zealand’s debt problem, and why does it matter?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Between 2019 and 2024, Government debt increased by nearly $120 billion, rising from under $58 billion to $175 billion. Net core Crown debt reached 42 percent of GDP last year, the highest since the mid-1990s. The Government is still borrowing around $500 million a week, and that is not sustainable. Last year, we paid $8.9 billion in interest, and that is money that cannot go to health, education, or infrastructure. High debt limits our ability to respond to future shocks, increases our exposure to global risks, and places an unfair tax burden on future generations.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What is the Government doing to get debt under control while protecting essential services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is taking a responsible, balanced approach. We are not reducing essential services; we are re-prioritising existing spending towards high-priority areas. That means reducing low-value or wasteful spending and focusing on core services like health, education, and law and order. We’re also limiting the growth in new spending. The goal is simple: to deliver better results from the money already being spent, not just rely on more borrowing and more tax. By rebuilding fiscal buffers and managing spending carefully, we will put New Zealand in a stronger position for whatever lies ahead.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Has the Minister considered alternative approaches to fiscal and economic management?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen some interesting proposals from “Planet La La Land”, including an $88 billion tax grab, and unlike some members opposite, I’m prepared to rule them out.

SPEAKER: I’m on my feet. I’m sure even the Minister doesn’t read documents from “La La Land”. If it’s the end of the question, we’ll go to Laura McClure.

Question No. 2—Education

2. to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made regarding school attendance?

Today, I announced, on behalf of the Government, that Budget 2025 includes a $140 million package of new spending to improve attendance at schools over the next four years. This includes around $123 million for the delivery of a new Attendance Service, and almost $17 million to support and strengthen front-line attendance services, with better information, better case management, and more efficiency so that children get back to school when they’re not attending.

Laura McClure: What reports has he seen about the existing Attendance Service?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: When I became the Associate Minister of Education, I asked the Education Review Office (ERO) to review the Attendance Service. The report found that the Attendance Service was ineffective. It found that the current system fails to consistently improve student attendance, because funding varies by provider. ERO and the Ministry of Education recommended substantial reform, and that is what we’re doing. For example, the Government’s attendance action plan will include a requirement for schools to have an attendance management plan aligned to the Stepped Attendance Response scheme, or STAR, and that new and improved Attendance Service will address all of the Education Review Office’s recommendations.

Laura McClure: How will the new Attendance Service be improved?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We have listened extensively to principals, attendance officers, youth aid police officers, and social workers in a series of hui or round tables—

Hon Member: What about children?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —up and down this country. We have also listened to children—for that member who is interested. What we have done through this consultation is ensure that new funding will mean increased capacity to take referrals for chronically absent and non-enrolled students, who will identify and address the reasons for their absence. Providers will be equitably resourced and will work with a range of social agencies. There will be clear expectations, and, altogether, we will see each community working in the way that the most effective communities that I’ve listened to operate now.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What changed between Nicola Willis saying National “fully supported the 2020 law change to provide better pay equity for women”, stating at the time “it establishes mechanisms which allow people to make claims where pay equity and equal pay principles are not upheld”, and yesterday, when the Government tried to claim that the law change they fully endorsed at the time was wrong?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said yesterday, the Minister—it was a priority for her from day one. As we went through the course of the last 18 months, it became apparent that we have a broken, unworkable, unaffordable system left to us behind by the last Labour Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So was Nicola Willis wrong to describe the changes made in 2020 as “a National bill with a Labour sticker on it”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as we said, we went through the last 18 months, as it became very apparent how broken the system actually is. I think the question for the member is actually: are you going to support the new, fairer, clearer system; or are you going back to the broken, unworkable, unaffordable Labour Act? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Questions only come from one side of the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he says it’s unaffordable, is he saying the thing that changed between National fully endorsing better pay equity protection for women and their decision to repeal those extra provisions was that they found out it was going to cost more than they’d previously thought?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. The system has got completely out of whack as a Labour piece of law, in practice. When you have librarians being compared to fisheries officers, when you have administration workers being compared to civil engineers, it needs some sorting out. We are deeply committed to pay equity, but the practice had become unworkable, unaffordable, and broken. We’re fixing it, like everything. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Before the member asks his question, if the House will just quieten down, and certainly reduce the amount of barracking during answers to questions.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf in question time last week: “We believe that a lot of settlements being made now are settlements that should not be made”; if so, which settlements does the Government believe should not be made?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the point that we’re trying to fix up is a few things. One is the fact that we have comparators that aren’t realistic, and so we’re being very clear about tightening up the hierarchy of comparators. The second thing is that many of the claims have been very broad. There have been up to 90 different occupations that often come together in one claim with multiple employers. All we’re doing is going back to what was proposed in 2017, before Labour passed a law—took three years, did it under urgency, created a lot of flaws—and now we are fixing it up. And so the question for the member, again, is: are you with the new system or are you going back to the old system?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. First thing: I think the Prime Minister is well aware that he can’t ask the Opposition questions, but he certainly can’t ask the Opposition questions when he hasn’t even answered the question that he was asked. The question that he was asked did have two parts. One was whether he stood by the statement that Winston Peters made on his behalf, and he hasn’t indicated whether he did. The second is: if there were specific claims that he didn’t think should have been made, which ones were they? He didn’t deal with either of those two things.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he was getting to it, but the Prime Minister may continue.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, I’ll just say it’s not up to a Minister to determine the claims; we have a law to do that. We have changed the law, and under a new law, we expect pay equity claims to come forward, sadly. We’ve put money aside to actually pay and make sure those settlements can be delivered. Again, the question is for the member: which system do you support?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are primary school teachers eligible to lodge a pay equity claim under the new scheme but secondary school teachers are not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we’ve tightened up the criteria—going through, looking, making sure that there’s good evidence for a pay equity claim where there is sex-based discrimination, making sure that there is a relevant hierarchy of comparators, making sure that the claims are not broad, that they are specific, and there’s a good review period. You know, anyone—any individual, any union—can actually launch a claim under the new laws, and we encourage them to do so.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister why it was that secondary school teachers can’t lodge a claim but primary school teachers can. He’s just said that any union can lodge a claim, when that isn’t true. He hasn’t actually answered the question of why one group of teachers can and another group of teachers can’t.

SPEAKER: Well, look, you may not be getting an answer the way you want it, but the answers the Prime Minister gives stand. If that leads to further supplementaries or some other course of action, so be it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the Government think that women working in the funded sector—like Plunket nurses, palliative care nurses, aged-care workers, and midwives—should settle for less pay given his Government’s decisions not to fund pay equity in those predominantly Government-funded sectors?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, individuals or unions can make claims under the new legislation. The criteria is clear. We’ve changed the criteria—I understand that—to fix a broken, unworkable system, but individuals, unions may make new claims under the new law.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he not aware that his Government has made an explicit decision not to fund pay equity claims in the funded sector?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I just say to the member: we have tightened up this legislation given how unworkable and broken it has become. We are making sure there is strong evidence for claims. If there’s evidence and merit for claims, go forward—if there is, in fact, a case around stronger, tighter comparisons on comparators, if there is actually a need for us to have a longer review period, and also to make sure that the claim is actually specific, not broad. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Good—good. We’ll just calm down.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding the Government’s crackdown on drunk drivers?

It’s Road Safety Week, and I’m pleased to confirm that our crackdown on drunk-driving is showing signs of success. Stats from 2024 show an almost 40 percent reduction in the number of road deaths where alcohol was a contributing factor. It’s fantastic news; it shows our plan to improve road safety is working.

Sam Uffindell: How is the Government tackling drunk-driving?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’re focused on improving road safety through road policing and enforcement, investment in new and safe roading infrastructure, and targeting contributors to fatal crashes such as drugs and alcohol. Police have really stepped up their efforts. In 2024, police delivered 4,118,159 breath and breath-screening tests—the highest number recorded in a calendar year, smashing their target which was 3.3 million breath tests per year. They also exceeded their target of focusing 65 percent of their breath testing on the highest risk times. We’re really proud of the police and we back them all the way.

Sam Uffindell: What impact is this focus on drunk-driving having on the total road toll?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is making a difference. In 2023, there were 92 alcohol-related road deaths; last year, 2024, down to just 57. There’s a steep reduction in alcohol-related road deaths; it’s the lowest in a decade. It’s also significant given the presence of factors that can drive up the road toll such as population increases, continued increases in the size of the vehicle fleet, and increases in the total vehicle kilometres travelled. Every avoidable road death is a tragedy. There’s always more work to do, but this is a step in the right direction.

Sam Uffindell: What other actions is the Government taking to reduce road deaths?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, alcohol is one substance that can cause danger and death on our roads. Drugs are currently going untested. That’s why the Government has passed, finally, Parliament’s third attempt at roadside drug-testing, which will come into effect later in the year. Around 30 percent of our road deaths have resulted from crashes involving drivers who have consumed impairing prescription or illicit drugs. This will be a big step forward and bring our drug-testing regime into line with our very successful breath-testing regime.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of road safety and alternative transport and drunkenness, does the Minister consider proposals to fund light rail right across Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch for $11 billion in this document which I’ve got here [Displays Green Party document, with inserted picture of Soviet flag], when Auckland—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Keep advertising!

Francisco Hernandez: Thanks for the shout-out, Winston. Join the party—I’ll send you a membership form.

SPEAKER: Listen. I don’t want to send an entire party out but I will. When questions are being asked, regardless of whether you like them or not, you listen to them quietly.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister consider proposals to fund light rail across Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch for $11 billion—in this document right here—when Auckland light rail alone would cost $15 billion, to be an example of the inebriated influence?

SPEAKER: Well, it would be a question that may stand, although you can’t use a Government question to attack an Opposition party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I didn’t.

SPEAKER: I realise how skilfully you’ve put that; no question about that. The problem is the question is about drink-driving, not railcar driving. So we’ll give it a miss.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. The last supplementary question asked by the original questioner widened the scope of the subject, and the Minister answered. That gave me a chance, which I was waiting for desperately, to ask the question correctly. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well there is always the problem of creeping scope on questions, and so a brief answer might be appropriate. It’d better be brief—like “No.”

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Mr Speaker, I noticed the member holding up a copy of the hammer and sickle, and I think that says it all about the party’s plans he’s talking about!

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much. Far be it for me to enter into an issue that involves another party, but there is actually an important principle here. The Deputy Prime Minister deliberately used that question to attack another party in this Parliament. He held up a document produced by that party. Now, that should have been enough clues to stomp down on the question. It should not have been allowed, regardless of what previous supplementaries touched on, and then the answer itself followed through with the exact thing that you tried to prevent.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s true, and I’ll deal with that outside of this particular forum.

Hon Member: Why don’t you dismiss the whole party?

Who spoke then? Question No. 5, the Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Noa’ia, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with Christopher Luxon, when describing FamilyBoost, that “Our view is it doesn’t cost much more to administer”; if so, how much has been spent on administering the scheme relative to the amount paid out?

Yes, in context, which in this case was a quote made in Opposition long before Inland Revenue (IR) had given any advice. To the second part, as the member will know from working at IR, there is always a cost to administer tax credits and rebates, especially with a new scheme. For FamilyBoost, it was important to have systems in place to ensure integrity, make it easy to apply, deal with phone calls, and provide support and education for parents to claim what they are entitled to. I don’t have information on actual administration costs, but IR received $12.1 million this year to administer FamilyBoost, reducing in future years. So far, more than 58,000 families have benefited from this payment, and I want to see many more benefit from it in the months ahead.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Have the admin costs of $14 million this year proven to be value for money since only half the number of families have taken up FamilyBoost, and only $48 million has been paid out?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to see more families benefiting from this scheme, which puts cash directly in the bank accounts of people with high early childhood education costs. That’s why I have asked Inland Revenue to provide me urgent advice on changes we can make to the scheme to ensure more New Zealand families can benefit from it, and I look forward to making announcements about that in June. The alternative, of course, is the approach that member proposes in which zero families would get a FamilyBoost payment.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When she said, “I have told Inland Revenue I expect the cost to fall in coming years.”, does that mean she has instructed Inland Revenue to spend less than the $11 million she has already allocated for admin costs in the next year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it is wonderful to see that we are now finally agreeing that it is always appropriate to look for efficiencies and reductions in Government spending that aren’t driving value. That is my baseline expectation of every Government agency: look for efficiency; do it with less money if you possibly can—and I have exactly the same expectation of the Inland Revenue Department.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can she confirm that any money that hasn’t been paid out to families for FamilyBoost this year will be returned to the Government, and Budget 2025 will reflect this?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Budget 2025 will be revealed on Budget day—just a few sleeps to go. What I have made clear is that the indications of the amount that we wanted to spend on the scheme remain my intentions, and what I want to see is many more families benefiting from this scheme. I want those dollars in the bank accounts of Kiwi families who are struggling with the cost of living. They like this scheme. We just need more of them to be eligible for it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will the remainder of the 100,000 families she promised FamilyBoost receive it?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I’ve said, that’s subject to future announcements.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she admit that this policy failure has let down working families just like she has let down working women across the country? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just ask the question again.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she admit that this policy failure has let down working families?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I disagree with several characterisations in that question, and I’d just say this: that member wishes to support women and working women. When she sees misogynistic terms of abuse used against—

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —women, she should—

SPEAKER: Stop there! The question is to answer from a Government perspective, not attack other members in the House, and that’s the final warning on that one. Is there another supplementary? Question No. 6, the Hon Marama Davidson.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga—sorry, to the Prime Minister. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, there’s a wee conversation going on over here. You’re obviously talking to me. What were you saying?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, no, no, I wasn’t, sorry.

SPEAKER: Oh, well, that’s something, then, you should keep very quiet, to yourself.

6. 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: Does he agree that healthcare is a right and that access to it should not be determined by how much money you have?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want all New Zealanders to have access to healthcare. Whether it’s in the public system, the private system, we want their outcomes and their health needs met.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that one in six adults in Aotearoa avoid seeing their GP due to costs, and, if so, what is he doing about it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just encourage the member to look at the health Minister’s recently announced primary care package, where he’s doing everything he can to make sure that overseas doctors that are here in New Zealand—that their qualifications are recognised so they can get into GP practices. The work that he’s doing to incentivise attracting nurses and support and GPs into rural practices—I just encourage the member to go look at that policy; I think there’s a lot of things that she would want to support.

Hon Marama Davidson: If improving access to GPs is a top priority, as said by his health Minister, then why has his Government not maximised GP training placements at Auckland and Otago universities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The places will be up over 100 over the course of this term; I think the member may have not followed some of the announcements that have happened since we’ve come to Government. But I think the other thing is it’s incredibly sad that the member didn’t actually support the Budget last year that led to $17 billion more going into healthcare.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept Victoria University research findings that show primary care spending has not increased in real terms since 2009, and will his Government continue this austerity approach or invest in this sector so it can deliver the care New Zealanders need?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can speak to is that this is a Government that has a record expenditure on healthcare. We spend close to $30 billion a year. We put another $17 billion in over the course of the last Budget, and the Minister of Finance has already confirmed there’ll be more money going to health this year. We have a lot of money going in. We’re doing some good work in expanding our workforce. We’ve got clarity about the targets that we expect patients to receive. We want to see a higher-performing Health New Zealand and the Minister’s doing a great job trying to get that performance improvement.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the New Zealand Initiative that “Lack of GP access forces patients to emergency departments, overwhelming them nationwide … a financial haemorrhage hiding in plain sight.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we know that there is huge pressure on our healthcare system that has built up over a long period of time. But I would just encourage the member to look at what we are doing in health because I think there are a lot of things the member would support. We’re putting more money in, we’re hiring more people, we’ve got clarity around the targets, we’re making sure things are patient-focused. We’ve got work to do to make sure we get a high-performing Health New Zealand, but we’re on to that too.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I’ll just say I do hope it’s a genuine question, not a dig at the Opposition.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister agree that mining income and royalties will help out with paying for healthcare, and does he also consider that a proposal for mining royalties to increase from 2 to 4 percent in this document being an indication that—

SPEAKER: No, no—sorry. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, that’s an interesting topic for a speech. We’ve got the general debate coming up shortly; you can expand it there.

Question No. 7—Māori Development

My question is to the Minister for Māori Development in absentia: does he stand by his statement—

No—no. Start again. Sorry, look, the rules are very, very clear. You’ve got to present the question to the House as it’s on notice, and therefore as it’s on the drill sheet, so that everyone knows exactly—no adornments; nothing else. Please start again.

7. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement that “Over the past 50 years, the Tribunal has made significant contributions to the Māori Crown relationship and informed the settlement of both historical and contemporary Treaty claims impacting generations of whānau across the country”? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Right, we will wait for total silence as the Minister replies.

on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: What problem is he trying to solve by reviewing the Waitangi Tribunal when it is doing exactly what it was originally set up to do and has been doing an exemplary job for the last 50 years, like that member?

SPEAKER: Just why the last bit in the question? It causes problems for everybody. The last bit was totally rhetorical and unnecessary.

Hon Members: Move on.

SPEAKER: Excuse me! Ask the question again without the flick at the end.

Rawiri Waititi: What problem is he trying to solve by reviewing the Waitangi Tribunal when it is doing exactly what it was originally set up to do and has been doing an exemplary job for the last 50 years?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf of the Minister, the tribunal has been doing a good job, but the problem is—they’ve raised this issue as well with the Minister—that after 50 years of doing the job and with the same legislation that they’ve had, they know that they have a lot of claimants who are waiting an extremely long time to have their matters heard. They want to be more efficient, and the Minister has received many complaints from claimants as well as the tribunal that they need to be able to do their job in a more timely fashion, and the Minister is cognisant that that is a good thing.

Rawiri Waititi: What accountability mechanisms, if any, are in place to ensure this review will not breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi or existing settlements, given this would normally be the role of the Waitangi Tribunal to determine?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf the Minister, I think it would be very odd to have the tribunal reviewing itself. It is actually much better to have an independent, technical advisory group, led by eminent KC Bruce Gray, with a small but very talented and experienced group of people working with him. The Minister is very aware this is a serious matter and not one for joking, and he takes it very seriously.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he aware of any other constitutional bodies being reviewed with the same level of scrutiny, or is it just the Waitangi Tribunal that’s been lucky enough to be singled out?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf of the Minister: he is a highly educated and experienced person—he’s fully aware that, from time to time, courts have been reviewed in their structures. He’s aware of the excellent work of the then Minister of Justice on the judicature review, which I think I may have had something to do with. He’s also extremely aware that every tribunal in every system of justice and constitution from time to time needs to be reviewed. But it’s great to hear that the member is so keen on exactly the same constitution that he’s often railed against.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the incoming Deputy Prime Minister that the Waitangi Tribunal has become woke and that, ironically, the Government is fast asleep?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf of the Minister, I’m sure the Minister has never heard the Hon David Seymour make those statements, but I do think that Mr Seymour agrees with the Minister very fully that this is a matter that needs to be reviewed. And when the Waitangi Tribunal’s made clear some of the issues that they’re having, of course the right thing to do is to consider a review and then to get on with it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister come to the conclusion that for some, the only good thing about the 1840s was the 1848 Communist Manifesto?

SPEAKER: Now, look, I’m sorry, I have to say, in the world of three strikes and you’re out, you’ve used up your three strikes.

Question No. 8—Workplace Relations and Safety

8. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with Andrea Vance, who said about the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, “It is a curious feminist moment, isn’t it? Six girlbosses—Willis, her hype-squad Judith Collins, Erica Stanford, Louise Upston, Nicola Grigg, and Brooke van Velden—all united in a historic act of economic backhanding other women”; if not, how is unilaterally stopping 33 pay equity claims not a historic act of economic backhanding other women?

Hon Shane Jones: Sir, I raise a very serious point of order. It’s quite clear in Standing Order 390(1)(c), it’s quite clear from Speakers’ rulings that it is not in order to quote in such a way you bring fellow members of the House into disrepute. How on earth this question got through your process—that’s something that obviously you can address. I’m aware that Speakers’ ruling 175 does enable a member to ask a Minister for matters that they’re responsible for, but any reasonable person watching today knows that that member is asking a question containing material derived from an article designed to bring my colleagues into disrepute.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll thank you for firstly giving me the opportunity to review my own performance, and I will undertake that with some vigour. The first point is that Standing Order 390(1)(a) makes it clear that the bar for discreditable references is a very high one. Criticism of a Government policy—even if it is in the strongest terms—is permitted. That’s why we have a Parliament. The system of accountability that we have means that if a Government Minister has responsibility in a particular area, they can be questioned on opinions that might come from somebody in the media, as is the case here. On further reference, Speakers’ ruling 175/5—Ministers can be asked if they agree with the opinions of others, so long as the opinion is about something the Minister is responsible for. That brings this—although it’s uncomfortable and could be considered a little pointed—within the scope of the current Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speakers’ ruling 175 has to be contrasted with 192. I’d like you to look very carefully at Smith’s ruling—Speaker’s ruling 192/5.

SPEAKER: I will certainly do that. Thank you for the advice.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to test with you the scope of what you’ve just ruled. Are you now saying—

SPEAKER: Now, I want to make it clear I’m quoting the Standing Orders and existing Speakers’ rulings.

Hon Chris Bishop: Is it therefore in order, sir, for the Government to find any old article about anyone in the House and ask themselves questions about the Opposition in order to respond to particular areas within their scope of ministerial responsibility? Because that has the potential—

SPEAKER: No, no, it’s not. That’s a ridiculous proposition because the Standing Orders make it very clear that a question in the House cannot be used to attack the Opposition.

Hon Chris Bishop: But there are lots of ways through that—

SPEAKER: No, no. Stand on your feet if you’re going to talk to me. If you can find some clever ways that get past me, good luck. If the Government wants to waste its time doing that, it’s perfectly acceptable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, I want to refer you to Standing Order 390(1)(c), which says “Questions must be concise and not contain … discreditable references to the House or any member of the Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression.” That catches the provision that Mr Jones is complaining about.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Do you want a mirror?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You wouldn’t know about the law.

SPEAKER: Sorry, what did you say—390-something? We may as well get it right. What was the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s 390(1)(c): “discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression.” It says at the beginning “(1) Questions must be concise and not contain [that]”. So they’re caught, and I don’t know how it got through the—

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, the point is it says the “question” must not contain—the question itself is: does she agree with a comment made by someone else? I mean, how would a democracy work if there can be never any questions in the House about what people outside the House have to say—what people are reading in their newspapers, etc., etc. Why would you want to deny the Minister the opportunity to refute that?

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. This question refers to “girlbosses” and “hype-squads”. How can that be consistent with Speaker’s ruling 192/5 about discreditable references to any members of Parliament and unparliamentary expression? I accept it’s in a quotation from a newspaper article, which many members found offensive. How can those references possibly be in order? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, listen. We’re going to start again if people can’t do that. The next person that speaks during a point of order will be having an early afternoon.

Hon Chris Bishop: Primary questions and the purpose of question time is to elucidate facts, not to have a go at the Government Ministers by way of quoting offensive newspaper articles through quotations in primary questions. It clearly falls foul of Speaker’s ruling 192/5.

SPEAKER: Yes, but I’ve just ruled that it doesn’t. So that is the end of that and we’ll have Brooke van Velden answer the question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was hard to find a single sentence in Andrea Vance’s article I agree with.

SPEAKER: That’d be enough of an answer.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: No, there’s no point of order on this. You’ve answered the question. It’s a controversial question. I’m keeping order in the House. The member would be advised to take my advice, resume her seat, and take the next supplementary.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she believe that teachers are entitled to pay equity, and, if so, why did she say they don’t have a right to be angry at her changes?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Mr Speaker, point of order. I was not given the opportunity to answer the second part of that question, so I did not answer the primary question.

SPEAKER: With respect, I ruled that you did answer enough of it, and I’m now telling the House that the first supplementary does not relate to the primary. So we’ll move on, if everyone’s ready?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually agree with the Minister in the sense that in not being allowed to answer the second part of the question, fully accepting that the first part was answered, it then makes the supplementary question that was asked not relevant. If the second part of the question was addressed by the Minister, the supplementary was absolutely linked to the primary, sir.

SPEAKER: Yes, but you can’t suppose what the second part is. I’ve taken a simple view that the first part of the primary question asked that the Minister agrees. She said she doesn’t. There can’t be a second part beyond that.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order—this better be something that’s really useful.

Hon David Seymour: I can assure you, Mr Speaker. We’ve got a Minister here who has been attacked by a very questionable question. I think the best thing that can happen right now—instead of everyone else interrupting—is she be given a full opportunity to respond the way she wants to.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your view. I don’t agree with you.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, well, your first one was out of order.

Hon Jan Tinetti: So I can bring one into order.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m a strong woman and I can speak for myself.

SPEAKER: That’s good, and you only get to do that when you’re called to do it. This is a highly controversial question. You answered that you didn’t agree with anything in the article, and I’ve ruled there can’t be a further question on it. This question can attempt it, but I think we’re going to be moving on if it doesn’t meet the test.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How is unilaterally stopping 33 pay equity claims not “a historic act of economic backhanding other women”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I disagree with the comments made, and particularly the note of the use of the term “backhanded”, which refers to Andrea Vance’s article, which was quoted from this weekend. I do not agree with the clearly gendered and patronising language that Andrea Vance used to reduce senior Cabinet Ministers to “girlbosses”, “hype-squads”, references to “girl math”, and “c[unts]”. The women of this Government are hard-working, dedicated, and strong. No woman in this Parliament nor in this country should be subjected to sex-based discrimination. I’ll tell you who I do agree with: I agree with the former Minister for Women, Jan Tinetti, who said that misogynistic abuse against women in public office was “an indictment on our society.” I actually think it’s very curious—and it’s a very curious feminist moment—when a former Minister for Women repeats parts of a clearly misogynistic article in this House.

SPEAKER: Good. [Interruption] That’s enough. Just let me make it very clear that while the—[Interruption] Who’s speaking? Just let me make it as clear as I can: while the Minister was giving an answer that was quoting commentary from a news article, it may have been better to refrain from one word that was fully expressed.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is her idea of a “robust and workable” pay equity system one that entrenches women being paid less than their worth?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The whole point of a pay equity system is to find sex-based discrimination and stamp it out. That is what this Government is keeping. I have heard so many references from people across this Chamber to things that this Government is not doing. We are not cutting women’s pay. We’re not cutting equal pay. We’re not removing a pay equity system. We are making the pay equity system better so that we can find sex-based discrimination and stamp it out.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was changing the threshold for female-dominated work from 60 to 70 percent a result of feedback and consultation, or simply the first number the Minister thought of?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can think of many numbers, and I would suspect that the Minister for Women should stop refraining from—

Hon Members: Former.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Sorry. The former Minister for Women should refrain from any attempt to conflate those numbers with girl math, like Andrea Vance did.

Hon Peeni Henare: How about 8 percent? There’s a number.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Mr Speaker.

Hon Peeni Henare: There’s a number—8 percent.

SPEAKER: Just wait—just wait till your colleague has finished the rant.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was saving Nicola Willis’ Budget worth gutting the future pay of 180,000 workers?

SPEAKER: No, you can start that question again. We’ve had people being very pedantic about how questions should be asked; that certainly doesn’t meet any test.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Was saving the Budget—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t make that point on it.

Hon Jan Tinetti: OK, I will go into my next one, Mr Speaker. Was “saving” the Budget worth gutting the future of 180,000 workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Nobody’s pay has been cut.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she believe that teachers are entitled to pay equity, and, if so, why did she say they don’t have a right to be angry at her changes?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Anybody can bring a pay equity claim.

Question No. 9—Immigration

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Immigration—

SPEAKER: No, just hold on. There are far too many conversations going on around the House—far too many conversations going on around the House. When we get a bit of quiet—Dr Campbell.

9. to the Minister of Immigration: What update can she provide about the recent changes to the Active Investor Plus Visa to attract more global investment to New Zealand?

Since the Active Investor Plus Visa opened on 1 April, we have received 100 applications. Sixty-three of them are new. For context, in just six weeks, we’ve received over half the number of applications that came in under the previous Government’s policy in 2.5 years. It’s not interest; it’s action. These investors have indicated they’ll be investing a minimum of $380 million into our business and economy—how’s that for “girl math”? They’ll also be bringing girl networks and expertise to New Zealand businesses to create real opportunities for growth. New Zealand is open for business, open for investment, and serious about unlocking our economic potential.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How does the new Active Investor Plus Visa differ from previous policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The previous policy settings were restrictive and uncompetitive. We’ve replaced them with a modern, flexible framework featuring two clear pathways: growth and balanced. The growth category supports high-potential Kiwi businesses, while the balanced option allows a more conservative investment. Almost 80 percent of new applications are for the growth category, showing strong interest in active investments in New Zealand. We’ve also removed the unnecessary hurdles like the English language test and reduced physical-presence requirements. This flexibility is key to making New Zealand a top-tier investment decision.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What feedback has she received about the new Active Investor Plus Visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Licensed immigration advisers and lawyers that I’ve spoken to have been very positive. They’ve all told me that they’re seeing a significant increase in interest in the new visa, and some have advised they are recruiting new staff to be able to respond. Malcolm Pacific Immigration’s CEO, David Cooper, also noted the offshore market is ready for these changes, with significant interest from Germany, the US, Japan, and Korea. By attracting foreign investment, this Government will boost economic growth, create more jobs, and foster long-term partnerships to help us ensure a prosperous future for New Zealand.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Where are applications being received from?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’re seeing significant global interest in these new investment settings. Sixty-two percent of new applications are from the United States, with China and Hong Kong following, but applications have also been received from Germany, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Japan, Taiwan, and the Czech Republic. These investments will help grow businesses, create jobs, and provide new skills for young people. This is all part of our plan to grow the economy and provide higher-paying Kiwi jobs.

Question No. 10—Public Service

10. to the Minister for the Public Service: What impact will recent changes to the Equal Pay Act 1972 have on public sector workers, particularly women?

The changes to the Equal Pay Act do not cut women’s pay or change their rights to equal pay. What they do is give women a system that focuses on the actual issue of sex-based discrimination. Equal pay is fully supported by the Government and remains protected in New Zealand law, as it has since 1972. Public sector workers can still make pay equity claims, but they will now have a much more robust, sustainable, and workable system. We expect that there will be additional pay equity settlements for further workforces under the Government’s improved pay equity regime. It was, by the way, a National Government that delivered the first ever pay equity settlement in New Zealand.

Camilla Belich: Has any public sector pay agreement been set at lower levels due to expected increases from future pay equity settlements?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I’m not sure whether or not they have. I haven’t heard that, and, certainly, as the Minister for the Public Service, I might have heard that, but I’m certainly not aware of that.

Camilla Belich: Is cancelling 33 pay equity claims consistent with the commitment to close the gender pay gaps in the public sector?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am delighted to tell the member that the pay gap in the public sector is actually very low—it’s about 4 percent. Now, I actually think that of the particular claims that will be discontinued, nine are in the public sector and four are in the Public Service. These claims are still able to be raised under the new system, and further pay equity settlements are expected.

Camilla Belich: Is it consistent for the Government to claim it supports eliminating gender pay gaps while removing obligations to recognise pay equity and prevent gender bias, as proposed in her 6 May 2025 Cabinet paper?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it’s really important to realise that women actually do a brilliant job, as do most men, and I look at this and say that women just want to be treated in a fair manner. They don’t want to be patronised and told that if they do math, it’s “girl math”, or that they should not be able to stand up for themselves or else they are suddenly referred to by indecent names and treated unfairly. I have always hoped that all the women in this Parliament—and men—would like to stand up for women to be able to be treated in a humane and decent manner, and not reduced to foul names.

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for her speech, but she didn’t actually address either limb of the question, which referred to a specific decision she’s made in a Cabinet paper.

SPEAKER: Oh well, if the Minister would like to add, that would be—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, not really.

SPEAKER: No, well, I’m asking the Minister to address the specifics of the question.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, she’d need to ask the question again, please, because I was so enjoying myself—

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —I forgot what her question was.

SPEAKER: Yes, everyone’s got plenty of time today.

Camilla Belich: Is it consistent for the Government to claim it supports eliminating gender pay gaps while removing obligations to recognise pay equity and prevent gender bias, as proposed in her 6 May 2025 Cabinet paper?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, it is.

SPEAKER: Yeah, on balance, I think the question was answered, with all due respect. So that’s two goes at it. Have you got another supplementary?

Camilla Belich: If she supports the agreed gender pay principle that trust and engagement improve performance, how does bypassing consultation with affected women align with this?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I’m sorry; the question doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Perhaps if we could have it again?

Camilla Belich: Certainly. To the Minister: if she supports the agreed gender pay principle—which is outlined in a document on the Public Service Commission’s website—that trust and engagement improve performance, how does bypassing consultation with affected women who have pay equity claims align with this?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think the fact is that the Government has to make decisions, and even though we certainly are consulting with women—because women are taxpayers; women are people who are going about their jobs—the fact is that the Government has to make certain decisions. The Government has made a decision because the changes brought about that we’ve inherited in the pay equity system made it unworkable, and it cannot be right to have civil engineers and librarians on the same level or treated as though they’re doing the same job. They’re quite different jobs.

Camilla Belich: Will axing current pay equity claims mean lower future pay for affected public sector workers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I wouldn’t have thought so. They seem to have a very strident union that could assist them with collective bargaining. But I’d also say this, which is that everybody needs to be treated with respect, whether they’re on the centre or the right, or employer or employee, and there’s nothing wrong with treating people as humans and not using the sorts of terms as though suddenly these women, who are taxpayers, are not valued as well. I think: why don’t you just treat them with respect?

Question No. 11—Veterans

11. to the Minister for Veterans: What investments is the Government making to support veterans in Budget 2025?

The Government’s making significant investments to ensure that our New Zealand Defence Force remains a credible contributor here and overseas, but also looking after our people, past and present. That’s why the Minister of Defence, Judith Collins, recently announced in the pre-Budget statement that there will be a boost of $1 million additional funding for Veterans’ Affairs. This will specifically help to ensure that applications for the treatment they need and deserve will be processed in a much more timely fashion.

Tim van de Molen: Why is the Government making this investment?

Hon CHRIS PENK: It’s consistent with our efforts to improve public services across New Zealand, and that in turn must include that veterans have access to the timely services, such as treatment and rehabilitation, that they need. It’s been a priority for me and the Government as a whole to reduce the period of time that veterans must wait to receive the processing of their claims. That’s why last year, in fact, in the Budget, an additional $4 million had already been provided to ensure faster processing times.

Tim van de Molen: What progress has been made to clear the backlog of applications for veterans’ support?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Veterans’ Affairs faced, at the peak of the backlog, some 2,800 unresolved claims. That was clearly unacceptable in the context of these personnel having served New Zealand with pride and distinction. Through a combination of hard work and the additional resourcing from Veterans’ Affairs and the Government of the day, respectively, that backlog has been reduced to a little over 2,000 outstanding claims. That is still unacceptable. There is more work to do, but progress has been made and we look forward to continuing to make further progress in the weeks ahead.

Tim van de Molen: What other recent announcements has the Government made for our veteran community?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The Government’s also working to formally recognise more of our ex - New Zealand Defence Force service personnel as veterans in law. For those who’ve worn the uniform, that particular word speaks to pride and holds deep personal meaning accordingly. We also intend to establish a national veterans’ day, accompanied by an annual veterans’ service award ceremony. As we speak, we’re consulting with the veterans’ community and all its key players about when this day should be commemorated.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

12. 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, and I welcome the member’s support for our coalition Government’s support and use of gas. I notice in their alternative budget that they have $800 million set aside for securing gas supply and I think that’s a good idea.

SPEAKER: Good.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his answer—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. You’re here to answer questions about the Government, not to inform the Opposition of their own policies.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’m happy to debate the Green Budget.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ha, ha!

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yeah, we can.

SPEAKER: No, no. Chlöe Swarbrick, you are trifling with the House. I’ll cut your question off if you do that again.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his answer yesterday, “I am comfortable with the concept of profit” in the context of our country having among the world’s most expensive early childcare costs, clearly driven by profit motive?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think there’s a lot of assumptions in that question. What I would say is that I’m against $44 billion in additional debt, I’m against $88 billion in additional tax, and that would be very worrying as an alternative Labour-Greens Government if that was followed through as real policy.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How can that question be allowed when it makes an argumentation about the cost drivers of early childcare education, which may be the member’s ideological presupposition but actually has no basis in fact?

SPEAKER: We’ve had one of those days where people have said a lot of things that don’t strictly comply with some of the Standing Orders that it has been suggested I should be strictly following. I thought it was question No. 12, the House was in a quiet state, and I thought it was a question the Prime Minister could relatively easily answer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister think we have among the most expensive early childhood education costs for parents in the world, while we also happen to have among the highest Government subsidies in the world for early childhood education, if not for the profit motive in the middle?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, many commentators have observed that we’ve got high early childhood education costs, but we do have Government subsidies to support parents. One of those great programmes is FamilyBoost, and I encourage more parents to apply for support.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What would make the most difference for families in this country: his administratively expensive FamilyBoost, which just 249 families are receiving the full entitlement for, or publicly owned free early childhood education?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What would make the most difference to families in New Zealand is a Government that runs the economy incredibly well, that doesn’t waste money, that lowers inflation, that lowers interest rates, that gets economic growth going, and that gets people in jobs. That’s the work of this Government, you know; that’s what we’re doing. We want to lower the cost of living for New Zealanders and that’s because we’ve got good economic management. Fundamentally, if you care about working people, you run the economy well. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen in the Labour-Greens Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Should early childhood education be free for families; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have an early childhood sector that, actually, the Minister’s done some good work on, about taking out cost and compliance, by getting sensible regulation in place. Of course, parents have the support from Government with some subsidies and, also, as I say, the FamilyBoost programme’s a great one and I encourage parents to sign up for it.

Point of Order—Use of Quoted Material in Oral Questions

Point of order. Sir, I want to raise a tricky point of order, because we had the most extraordinary day of language in the House. Speakers’ ruling 188 deals with the acceptance of questions. We know—those of us who have been around for a while—that the Clerk’s Office has a great deal of influence and guidance as to the content and character of questions. But the final arbiter, sir, is you. Then we go down to Speakers’ rulings 191, where it makes specific reference to newspaper articles. When you go away, hopefully, and review today’s events, can I urge you to not make the same mistake we made today by enabling a quote to slip into a question which was guaranteed to lead to disorder, presumably because the architect had that in mind. It’s not good for the people in the gallery and it sure as hell ain’t good for the people watching at home.

SPEAKER: It’s also not particularly good for the member to tell me that I’ve made a mistake.

Question No. 10 to Minister—Amended Answer

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A new point of order?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, entirely new—thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer to an oral question from today.

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

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I answered a question from the member Camilla Belich regarding the gender pay gap. What I should have said was that the gender pay gap has decreased by 1 percent over the last year in the Public Service to 6.1 percent and that the pay has gone up 4 percent for men since 30 June 2023 and up 5.1 percent for women in that time.

SPEAKER: We come to the end of question time. Before I call on an honourable member to move miscellaneous business, those who need to leave for other activities, other commitments, please do so quietly.