Oral Questions

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is his Government willing to accept women in New Zealand being paid less than men for doing the same amount of work of the same value?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not. This is a Government that’s very committed to pay equity and ensuring that we do everything we can against sex-based discrimination.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should any New Zealanders believe that his Government is committed to ending gender-based pay discrimination when they’re unilaterally cancelling pay equity claims for 34 different workforces, covering tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people, mostly women?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we’re doing here is we’re making sure that we actually have a process that’s more robust, workable, and sustainable. The Act and the practice has moved away from what it was intended to deal with—sex-based discrimination—into a much broader set of issues around labour market conditions and other things. So we’re bringing it back to its core purpose: to deal with sex-based discrimination—that’s a good thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does he think tens of thousands of teachers across New Zealand will feel to see their claim for equal pay unilaterally cancelled by his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we’re doing is, it’s important that we have one robust system. We want a level playing field for everyone. We want to make sure that—it’s not practical to have two systems operating at the same time. We don’t want the uncertainty and we don’t want the unfairness. But I’d just say to those teachers, to the unions, to the individuals involved: they can make a claim under the new laws and we fully expect to be making claims under the sex-based discrimination laws under the Pay Equity Act.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was the budgetary cost of settling pay equity claims considered when the Government made this decision?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. This is about making sure that this legislation is actually fit for purpose and it’s actually much more sustainable, workable, and less complex.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will this year’s Budget contain any changes to the level of financial risk that the Government is exposed to around the settling of pay equity claims?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, what I’d say is that we’ve put money aside to make sure that the Crown’s obligations are met for any pay equity claims that come together under the new law. I admit the changes will actually lead to lower costs for the Government. Obviously, those costs will be lower than what has been previously projected, but obviously that is Budget-sensitive information that will be revealed with the Budget.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should women across New Zealand—

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: During the Prime Minister’s answer, at least 10 members of the Labour Party have been screaming out their own questions, even though they’ve got supplementaries that they can have allocated to them. Would you please ask them to keep quiet?

SPEAKER: What I would just suggest to them is if they think the questions that are being asked are inadequate, they do take a supplementary at a different time. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins might like to repeat his question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should women across New Zealand be the sacrificial lambs in this year’s Budget, being told they have to accept lower pay for the same value work compared to their male counterparts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is just—I don’t agree with that question and the way that that was phrased. We are staying very committed to pay equity and we are staying committed to sex-based discrimination. We’re making sure we’re just tightening up this law. If individuals or unions have claims to make, they can make claims under this new law. The Government has set money aside to meet those obligations and we’ll do that, but we want a much more workable, sustainable, robust system. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: There is always a degree of robustness between the exchanges of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister that’s been happening for years, but that barracking has got to stop. It’s far too much. It is certainly not inconsiderable, nor is it rare, reasonable, or witty.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his pledge to offer an average family with kids an extra $250 a fortnight; if so, why have only 304 families received that support?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we worked very quickly to get money out to working New Zealanders who are wrestling with the early childcare costs, which are incredibly expensive in this country. We made some assumptions—the Inland Revenue Department made some assumptions on some incomplete information. But, having said that, I’m really proud that we’ve actually got money out to 56,000 working families up and down New Zealand, costing us about $42 million. We’ll continue to do that. I’d just say to that member: if you really cared about low and middle income working New Zealanders, you would have supported the tax cuts.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are only half the number of families he promised extra support getting anything at all under his complicated FamilyBoost scheme?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m pleased to say that there are 56,000 families that have applied and received support for their early childhood education costs. Isn’t that a good thing? I would have thought the member would have been thankful that, actually, working families are getting money and support for their early childcare costs.

Question No. 2—Environment

2. to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What has he seen and heard from recent engagement with farmers?

Over the last month, I’ve had the opportunity to visit several farmer-led river catchment groups in a range of spots throughout the country. I got to hear about and see examples of some wonderful land management from groups of people who obviously care deeply about the environment. I saw a range of techniques, including specially engineered wetlands and containment bunds, which will do a great job of filtering contaminants. In my local area, I saw a bioreactor which essentially uses wood chips to react with contaminants, like nitrate, and filter them out. It rammed home to me that the people that live on the land have the most interest in protecting it.

Cameron Luxton: Did the Minister see any barriers to farmers making further environmental improvements?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Oh, yes. I was amazed to see the level of bureaucratic red tape that farmers have to battle to do something great for the environment. I saw one example of a farmer who wanted to fill in a few open drains and create a beautiful wetland rich in biodiversity, but would have been forced to go through a costly resource consenting process. I talked to a farmer who almost gave up on creating a wetland just because of the cost of the red tape. One landowner wanted to put a decarbonisation plant at the back of their property, but because there were a couple of rushes in the paddock, the council called it a wetland and they weren’t allowed to do anything. It just confirmed to me how broken our resource management system is.

SPEAKER: We’ll have answers that are sort of matched to the conciseness of questions.

Cameron Luxton: What is the Government doing to address these issues?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: It’s absolutely vital that we make it as easy as possible for farmers to do the right thing. I’m a big believer in the potential of farm planning. It’s a much better way to manage environmental effects than these resource consents or local planning rules that are often far too one size fits all. That’s why we are reforming farm plans to make sure the cost and the amount of work that goes into them is based on risk. We’re also changing the law to avoid duplication by recognising the heavy lifting that industry groups, primary sector processors, and catchment groups do in supporting farmers to develop these plans.

Cameron Luxton: What other changes is the Government working on to address this red tape?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, the Government is looking at replacing the Resource Management Act with a system based on the enjoyment of property rights. This system will have a tighter scope based around managing genuine environmental effects and the effects on the neighbours’ property rights. We will make it narrower and faster, replacing the default requirement for getting permission via blunt consents. By using other tools like standards that will lay out accepted ways of doing things like building a wetland, Kiwi farmers will be able to get on with doing the good stuff, not filling in paperwork.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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 believe his Government is doing enough to meet the growing demand for emergency food relief, and, if so, when does he anticipate his tax cuts for the wealthy will start trickling down to the one in four children now living in households where food runs out often or sometimes?

SPEAKER: Now, look, sorry, you’re going to have to rephrase that question. You can’t have suppositions thrown into questions if you want factual answers. We went through this during the last session, and I’m going to be a bit strict on it from this point. Please have another crack.

Hon Marama Davidson: I will rephrase: does he believe his Government is doing enough to meet the growing demand for emergency food relief, and, if so, when does he anticipate his tax cuts will start trickling down to the one in four children now living in households where food runs out often or sometimes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for their question. What this Government’s doing is we are rebuilding the economy, and we are under strong economic management in very uncertain times. We are making sure that we have got inflation down to 2.2 percent. It was 7.2 percent under a Labour-Greens Government; now 2.22, 2.5. Interest rates are down 200 basis points. That means, for someone with a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years, that’s $300 extra a fortnight freed up to be spent in the economy and to support that family and those individuals. For the first time in a long time, our economy’s growing again.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response, then, to the Children’s Commissioner’s statement that the latest annual report on child and youth wellbeing “shows a deeply concerning reality for the children of New Zealand. It shows that on the most basic things, like having enough healthy food, safe and healthy housing, and physical health, we are majorly letting children down. We are going backwards.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I disagree that we’re going backwards, because our Budget 2024 is designed to lift 17,000 children out of poverty, unlike the last year of the Labour-Greens Government, that put 23,000 more children into poverty. So we know we have more work to do, but we’re working incredibly hard on all of these issues.

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he say to Amber, a mother from Auckland who recently shared with Auckland City Mission that “Our cupboard can look so empty. Some nights I don’t eat. I’ll make sure the kids have eaten heaps and then I save some for tomorrow night.”, and what is he doing to address food insecurity faced by whānau like Amber’s?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we’re doing, as I said before, is we want to grow our economy. We’re fixated on growth, growth, growth. We don’t believe the degrowth approach of the Green Party, for example, is the way in which we can get more money to Amber so that she can be supported with her food needs.

SPEAKER: I just equally suggest that reference to another party’s policy when the Government is being questioned should only be in reference to historic facts and not supposition.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he acknowledge that if his Government does not increase funding for food security measures in the upcoming Budget, things will get worse for the 54.8 percent of Pacific children, the 34.3 percent of Māori children, and the 41 percent of disabled children who are already disproportionately impacted by food insecurity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is a Government that focuses and spends $120 million to directly support Kiwis in need of food through the hardship grants available through the Ministry of Social Development. But it’s also a Government that’s fixing the economic fundamentals to make sure that we can get cash into Kiwis’ back pockets. We’re doing everything we can to grow, grow, grow, to run a great economy so that we can get cash through to people so they can deal with the cost of living.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Prime Minister commit to lifting all families out of poverty through ensuring everyone in and out of work will have a decent weekly income so all tamariki have enough to eat?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re working incredibly hard to lift incomes, and the way we do that is through economic growth—it’s as simple as that. That’s why every decision that we take in this Government is through the prism of economic growth, because that matters above and beyond everything else. It’s the way that we get cash into families’ pockets.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What is the operating allowance for Budget 2025?

The operating allowance is the amount of net operating funding, on average, per year that the Government intends to spend on new discretionary policy initiatives in the forthcoming Budget. In the Budget Policy Statement last December, I said that the operating allowance for Budget 2025 would be $2.4 billion. Last week, I announced that the Government has reduced the size of the allowance to $1.3 billion. This has been achieved by a combination of spending restraint and reprioritisation. To put it in perspective, the operating allowance in Budget 2022 was around $6 billion and, in Budget 2023, it was $4.8 billion—two far bigger-spending Budgets than this one—which left New Zealand with a structural deficit that our Government is working hard to remedy.

Cameron Brewer: What role do operating allowances play in New Zealand’s fiscal management approach?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: They play a key role and have been used by successive Governments for more than two decades. Importantly, allowances are a net concept. Within the operating allowance, spending increases and revenue reductions are offset by savings and revenue-raising initiatives. The operating allowance, therefore, captures discretionary choices under the Government’s direct control. I would note, however, that some of the biggest changes to expenditure and revenue in the Government’s forecasts, such as revisions to tax forecasts and the increasing costs for things like New Zealand superannuation, are managed outside the allowance framework. This means that overall spending in the Budget will increase by more than the operating allowance.

Cameron Brewer: What is the impact of a lower Budget 2025 allowance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it adds up to smaller deficits and less debt. As I said, we’re dropping the allowance from $2.4 billion to $1.3 billion. This means the Budget deficit will be $1.1 billion smaller each year, on average, than it otherwise would have been. Consequently, Government debt will be less than it would have otherwise been.

Cameron Brewer: What reaction has she seen to her announcement of a lower operating allowance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, one member referred to this as “slash and burn”. ANZ’s economists offered a more sober appraisal, saying, “The previous Government’s expansion was so unsustainably large that part of the cost to rectify that was always likely to include some tough choices.” They go on to say, “From a macroeconomic perspective, reducing the operating allowance in the face of a weaker economy is not going to exacerbate any economic underperformance caused by global factors. That’s because the Reserve Bank will respond to the growth and inflationary implications of fiscal developments with a lower-than-otherwise official cash rate, supporting households and businesses.” This is good economic management. It is not austerity. It is not “slash and burn”. It is responsible economic management that restores the principle that Governments should take fiscal care so as not to burden future generations with unmeetable debt.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement about FamilyBoost that “there are around 21,000 families who would get the full rebate of the $150 per fortnight”; if so, how many families have consistently received the full rebate of $150 a fortnight since the scheme started?

Yes. I was using an estimate provided by Inland Revenue (IRD). As the member will know from her time working there, Inland Revenue is a highly professional organisation that uses the best available information to cost policies. IRD advised me that the modelling for this policy was challenging as there was little reliable data about how much parents were paying for early childhood education. We now have much better data about that. IRD assumed more families were paying higher childcare costs than turned out to be the case. In answer to the second part of the question, I can advise that, in total, 57,736 families have so far received FamilyBoost. I continue to encourage more families to apply. In the third quarter of 2024, 1,646 families received the very maximum payment. In the fourth quarter of 2024, 1,189 received the maximum payment. In the first quarter of this year, 1,272 families received the payment. As you will appreciate, families’ circumstances vary throughout the year, so across those three quarters I’m advised that 349 families received the full payment in each quarter.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How is it IRD’s fault when they were forecasting the scheme that she designed and estimated to benefit 130,000 families?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, at the time that National was campaigning on this policy—and I’d note that that is not my ministerial responsibility—we estimated, and what was very clear was that up to 130,000 families would be eligible for the policy. We were clear that the amount of payment that families would get under the scheme would depend on two things: (1) their income, but (2) how much they were paying in early childhood education fees. To get the maximum payment, families would have to have more than $300 a week in early childhood costs. It remains my goal to ensure that more families are getting the benefit of this great policy to support families with the cost of living. So I have asked IRD for more advice on how we can make tweaks to the scheme to ensure it reaches even more families. I’d note that under the member opposite’s approach, zero families would have got this payment.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why have only a fraction of those she promised received the full amount?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I’ve made clear in my earlier answers, when I was asked how many families we estimated would get the full payment, I relied on modelling and data provided to me by the IRD. I stand by that as a sensible approach. An alternative approach, I suppose, is for me to make up my own number rather than rely on the tax officials whose job is to inform me of their estimates and modelling. I think I did the appropriate thing by relying on IRD’s data, and I continue to stand by the fact that FamilyBoost has ensured that more than 56,000 families have received cold, hard cash in their bank accounts to support them with the cost of living.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it a failure that only 349 families, rather than the estimated 21,000 families that National made promises to, received the full amount?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I again reject the characterisation of the member’s question. National never promised a particular number of families would receive the maximum payment. We always anticipated that payments would vary depending on circumstances. I can advise the member that in the third quarter of last year, 13,713 families received more than $500 for the quarter; 9,556 received more than $600; and 6,344 received more than $700. The point here is that, while the amount of the payment varies, tens of thousands of New Zealand families have benefited to the tune of hundreds of dollars because of this policy. And I would remind everyone in this House that when it came to addressing the cost of living, our Government delivered and that party opposite opposed this policy to deliver cost of living relief to families with young children. Under their approach, zero families would have got those payments.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What broken promise is she most proud of: the $150 a fortnight for 21,000 families—

SPEAKER: No—sorry. As much as the previous Greens speaker had to reword a question, for the same reasons you need to restart that question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is she most proud of: the $150 a fortnight for 21,000 families, the delivery of the Cook Strait ferries, or the over a billion dollars of savings for her Budget by making it harder for women to seek pay equity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am most proud that after 14 years of denying New Zealanders any tax relief, after a Government that delivered them sky-high inflation and rapidly rising interest rates, our Government delivered millions of New Zealand workers and families tax relief that supported them to meet their costs of living. Behind that commitment was a principle we hold dear, and that is: those who work hard should be rewarded for their effort, and the Government should respect the wages of working people.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: After all that, not one clap.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There’ll be a right clap over there. Can I ask the Minister whether she’s done the financial analytics behind the thinking that somehow a ferry tender for two ferries at $400 million that blows out to $4 billion can somehow make common sense economically?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a good point, which is that there are a number of achievements that this Government should be proud of, and one of them is the fact that we actually faced up to the complete blowout that the last Government allowed to occur with their ferry project, which was beset by problems, and as a consequence we are delivering a much better deal for the New Zealand taxpayer, who deserves a lot more respect than they got under the last Government.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: What actions has the Government taken to restore real consequences for crime?

The Government has been busy in its efforts to restore real consequences for crime. We’ve delivered on our promise to strengthen sentencing by restricting sentence discounts and by adding added aggravating factors so that offenders are more appropriately held to account. We’ve restored three strikes, and we’re making changes to ensure convicted adult sex offenders are publicly named and held to account, if that’s the victim’s wish. There’s much more to come.

Tom Rutherford: What decisions has the Government made in relation to prison voting?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government has agreed to reinstate a total ban on voting by sentenced prisoners, reversing the changes made by the previous Government. Our country has rights and responsibilities. If individuals breach those responsibilities to the extent that they’re sentenced to prison for crimes that are serious enough to result in a prison sentence, it’s only fair that they temporarily lose the right to participate in the democratic process.

Tom Rutherford: How have voting rights changed over the past few years?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the previous National Government brought in a full prisoner voting ban in 2010. The Labour Government changed that in 2020 so that some prisoners—those serving less than three years—could vote. Those serving three years or more still can’t vote. The proposed change will establish a consistent approach to prisoner voting, regardless of the length of the sentence. The total prison voting ban for all sentenced prisoners underlines the importance that New Zealanders accord to the rule of law.

Tom Rutherford: What feedback has he had on the announcement?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’ve had a lot of feedback, including one from Jenny online, which said, “It’s the victims that deserve rights, lots who will never get over what has happened to them because of people who committed crimes. It’s time to thank you, National, for being there for the voice of the victims.”

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does the Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, who stated that people serving two years or less in prison should still be able to vote and that a total ban on prisoner voting is “extreme”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I don’t agree with that sentiment, and, of course, with the passage of time, people and parties sometimes change their views on matters.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. 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.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree that his Government’s decision to rapidly and radically cut the size of Government from 34 to 30 percent of GDP without any appreciation of the limits of private investment’s ability to fill the economic activity gap has kneecapped the growth that he so often likes to tell us he’s aiming for?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly do you grow an economy, as the Prime Minister keeps saying is his goal, by cutting investment in people, a stable climate, public services, and infrastructure?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of the question. What I’d say is, first and foremost, you have to make sure you’ve got an economy that’s being well managed, and we have stopped the wasteful spending. That in turn has lowered inflation; that in turn has lowered interest rates; that has driven GDP growth; and, important, that will keep people in their jobs. We have been through a challenging time. But the good news is we have turned the corner and now we cannot just watch a recovery take place; we get to shape it. I just encourage the member to look at our Going For Growth plan; make sure we get a world-class education system; embrace science, technology, innovation; have world-class infrastructure; make sure we get rid of red tape and bureaucracy; and, importantly, have more trade and investment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister consider his Government’s self-imposed fiscal rules, resulting in a slashing in investment in public services, radical, given Treasury has said that this historically low expenditure would change “the fundamental role of Government in New Zealand”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m a little bit confused what the member’s talking about because this is a Government that has put almost $17 billion more into healthcare, on top of the normal almost $30 billion spent each and every year. This is a Government that has spent more on healthcare than any previous Government in the history of New Zealand. This is a Government that is actually fixing our education system to make sure that our kids have a shot at high-paying jobs down the road, by learning to read and to do maths well, and we’re getting them to school—thanks to two great Ministers doing an awesome job. This is a Government that’s wanting to grow our economy. Growth, growth, growth is great.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that far from the radical position which the member characterised spending at a rate of 30 percent of GDP as, it was in fact the case under successive National- and Labour-led Governments that spending as a proportion of GDP by the Government was less than 30 percent, including—as I recall—during the first years of the Labour Government, supported by the Green Party?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly did the Government find $12 billion for military spending while it’s also telling us that there’s simply not enough money to invest in ending child poverty or climate action?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. We can do both things at the same time. We can walk and chew gum. I’d just say to that member: who do you think are the people that go and help the Pacific in climate-related emergencies? Who are the people that actually support peacekeeping around the world? It’s our Defence Force. So we’re very proud of the investment that we’re making in our defence assets, and, at the same time, we’re increasing expenditure on health and education, law and order, and also business growth.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When his Minister today announced stopping pay equity claims, saying, “The changes I am proposing will significantly reduce costs to the Crown.”, are we to take it that his Government expects working women to pay the cost of his landlord tax cuts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of the question. As I said in answer to earlier questions on this, we have money set aside to make sure we are meeting the obligations for pay equity claims under the new laws. The costs will likely be lower and, as a result, you’ll see what they will be in the Budget. But the thing is, money will be invested in health and education and core front-line public services, and that’s a good thing. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, we’ll just wait for a bit of quiet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What changed between when his Government said the pay equity process was working well, and therefore it could abolish the pay equity task force, and today, when they’re now legislating under urgency to do away with 33 active pay equity claims, or is it simply the case that what they’re trying to do is desperately find a way to balance the budget because the tax cuts they delivered were unaffordable?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member, I answered this before: we are making sure that we have a much more workable, sustainable, robust pay equity and sex-based discrimination system. We are very committed to it. We just need to make sure that, actually, there is evidence for the claims; we need to make sure that there are strong comparators that are relevant. We want specific claims, not broad claims, and we need to make sure that the reviews are appropriate. We’re just making sure that it’s a much more workable system, fair and level for everybody.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Is his first priority as Health Minister still “focusing Health New Zealand on delivering the basics and achieving targets”; if so, why have wait times for first specialist assessment and elective treatments worsened?

Yes, you cannot manage what you don’t measure, and that’s why this Government reinstated health targets: to drive accountability and ensure access to timely, quality healthcare. Too many New Zealanders are waiting too long for first specialist assessments and elective treatments, and addressing this is a priority. Wait-lists have been growing over several years. Despite an increase in elective procedures and first specialist assessments being completed last year, the rate at which people were being referred on to wait-lists continues to outpace the rate at which people were receiving treatment or being seen. However, I’m pleased to inform the member that Health New Zealand advises me that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment in the week ending 13 April has reduced by over 8,000 since the first week of January.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can he expect others to be accountable for targets, if he doesn’t own up that there has been a 6 percent deterioration in first specialist assessments, and a 3 percent deterioration in elective treatments since the change of Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: If we’re going to talk about percentages, we could talk about the 6,500 percent increase in the number of people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment when that party was in Government; or we could talk about the 2,500 percent increase in the number of people waiting for an elective treatment more than four months, while that party was in Government. The wait-list ballooned. We’ve put in place targets. Now we’re focusing the system on delivery so that people can get the healthcare they need in a timely and quality manner.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who does he expect to do the additional procedures, when Health New Zealand’s last quarterly workforce report shows 310 fewer nurses and 47 fewer doctors employed in our health system?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There are more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand than in 2023. We’re investing in front-line services and we’re focusing on ensuring that we treat the patients and get the timely and quality access to healthcare that is needed. As I said in my primary answer, I’m pleased to inform the member that Health New Zealand advises me that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment in the week ending 13 April has reduced by over 8,000 since the first week of January. That is progress. Because of the huge wait-list that we inherited, it’s going to take time to deliver. I’m focused on delivery.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his statement “There is no such thing as a hiring freeze.”, or does he accept that official statistics now show hiring has been frozen?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There are more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than there were in 2023. We’re investing in front-line health workforces and we’re focusing on delivery. We’re investing $16.68 billion over three Budgets, so we can invest in the front-line services that New Zealanders need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister confirm that with the last three answers on the statistical improvements that he gave in those answers, the primary question, or the questioner, was demonstrably, deliberately false?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re focused on delivery. We’re focused on outcomes. We have more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than in 2023. We’re focused on outcomes. As I said in my primary answer, 8,000 fewer people are waiting on the first specialist assessment wait-list for the week ending 13 April than in the first week of January. That’s progress. We inherited massive wait-lists which ballooned under the previous Government, and we are focused on getting patients the care they need.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he try to blame senior doctors for longer waits for treatment, when it is his Government’s hiring freeze that means New Zealanders are going without the care they need?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I was very clear when it came to the union deciding to go on strike, that they should have put the offer that was presented to them a week prior to the strike to their members to vote on, rather than going on a strike which has caused 4,300 elective treatments or first specialist assessments to be delayed. That’s unacceptable. We must put patients first.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Question No. 9—just waiting for a bit of quiet.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, supplementary. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. How does the ministry’s decision to remove ethnicity as a factor in wait-times align with his targets to reduce wait-times when Māori are still waiting longer for treatment than non-Māori?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is very clear: we are focusing on need and we’re focusing on making sure that we are ensuring that patients get the treatment they need in a timely and quality manner, and that applies to all New Zealanders.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. That was a mischaracterisation of the actual question. The question, which is an equity-based, policy-based, needs-based—

Hon Judith Collins: Just ask the question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: —addresses Māori and Pacific Islanders, and there wasn’t actually an answer in that—thanks, Judith.

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister could say the same thing again if he likes.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government is focusing the health system to treat people based on the needs that they have and ensuring that all New Zealanders can get the access to timely and quality healthcare.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Supplementary—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How did that go?

SPEAKER: Because she was faster off her feet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, she wasn’t.

SPEAKER: Yes, she was. I’m pretty sure. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—it was like a blur; you could hardly see it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. How will proposed cuts to Māori and Pacific health and immunisation providers, many of whom serve high needs and hard to reach whānau, achieve his target to increase immunisation rates for children to 95 percent at 24 months?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government is very much focused on delivering on the basis of need. We continue to invest in providers who serve a variety of communities to ensure that we are reaching out into Māori and Pacific communities so that we can meet those targets. But as I said in the previous answer, we are focusing healthcare delivery on the basis of need so that all New Zealanders can access timely and quality healthcare.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to why on earth he hasn’t consulted with Ayesha Verrall, who’s an absolute expert on medical waiting lists and endless delays?

SPEAKER: No. Is there another question?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes. How does his decision to cancel bowel cancer screening for Māori and Pasifika from the age of 50 align with his target of faster cancer treatment for 90 percent of patients when these groups have the highest rates of bowel cancer in the country, with 18 percent of cases diagnosed under the age of 50?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we’re focusing on, as I said, healthcare delivered on the basis of need. We are lowering the age for all New Zealanders to be able to access bowel cancer screening to the age of 58. We are also making targeted investments to target those communities—Māori, Pasifika, Asian communities—where they have lower bowel cancer screening rates, to lift those rates so that we can save as many lives as possible.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister believe that Māori health outcomes have improved since his Government dismantled Te Aka Whai Ora?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say to the member is that we are making tremendous progress; we’re investing more, hiring more. We’ve set real clarity around the targets of what we expect to deliver for Māori and for non-Māori. Now we need a high-performing Health New Zealand to deliver it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What specific action has the Government taken under his leadership to address inequities in life expectancy for Māori and non-Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very proud of the five targets that we’ve set in healthcare. We want people to have faster access to cancer treatment, Māori or non-Māori. We want to make sure that under-two-year-olds, Māori or non-Māori, are immunised. We want to make sure there are less wait-times for emergency departments, first specialist appointments, and elective surgeries.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he consider it unacceptable that Māori die seven years earlier than non-Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’ve got to continue to work hard to close that gap.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can the Prime Minister claim to govern for all New Zealanders when Māori health outcomes are deteriorating under this Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would dispute the characterisation of that question. I said this Government has set clear targets about what we expect the healthcare system to deliver for patients, Māori or non-Māori. This is a Government that’s invested record amounts of money in the healthcare system. It’s a Government that’s expanding the workforce in the healthcare system, and it’s given tremendous clarity to the system as to what it’s to deliver for patients. Now we need to crack on and build a high-performing Health New Zealand.

Question No. 10—Defence

10. to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcement has she made about funding for Defence?

On Sunday, at Whenuapai Air Base, with the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs Minister, I had the pleasure of announcing a substantial investment in the Defence Force. We’re committing around $2 billion to replace the ageing Seasprite maritime helicopters, and we’re investing an extra $957 million in defence force activities, personnel, and estate. These investments are the first step in implementing the Defence Capability Plan announced last week, which outlined $12 billion of planned commitments in the next four years. We’re building a modern, combat-capable New Zealand Defence Force to operate in a rapidly changing world which is inherently more dangerous, and we’re dealing with the world as it is, not the world we’d like it to be.

Tim van de Molen: What are the capabilities of these helicopters and how does this benefit New Zealanders?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, these maritime helicopters will operate off Royal New Zealand Navy ships. They will increase the defensive and offensive capability and surveillance range of the frigates. The helicopters are a new generation that will be equipped with more advanced sensors, communications technology, and combat systems, all of which are critical for Defence to protect New Zealand and New Zealanders. In addition, they will extend the Navy’s ability to support non-combat tasks like search and rescue and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. We are a trading nation with a huge exclusive economic zone. We need naval and aviation capability that can support New Zealand’s defence, security, and trade objectives.

Tim van de Molen: What will the additional $957 million of operating funding cover?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This $957 million is for the New Zealand Defence Force activities, personnel, and estate. This investment in defence equates to $239 million a year over four years and puts us on the path for defence spending to reach 2 percent of GDP by 2032-33. Our people are being called upon to go more places more often and for longer, and we must continue to pull our weight and play our part in contributing to global security. This funding will enable the Defence Force to do that. It includes $150 million for the Defence Force to sail, fly, patrol, and train more often; $39 million for personnel allowances for such things as deployments; $20 million for international deployments; $3 million to increase essential engagement with international partners; and $26 million for critical estate maintenance to improve accommodation and working and training conditions for our people, as well as $33 million over four years to provide for civilian staff pay increases.

Tim van de Molen: What reports is she hearing from Defence Force personnel about these announcements?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, they’re just delighted. They are absolutely fizzing. They joined up to do stuff; they joined up to serve their country and to get stuff done. This Defence Capability Plan and Budget funding will enable them to do even more. They’re feeling supported and appreciated and they’re no longer leaving in droves. In fact, statistics from April show that Navy attrition has fallen to 5.8 percent from a high of 17.3 percent about two years ago. For the Air Force, it’s down to 6.9 percent, down from 13.1 percent, and for the Army it’s 7.8 percent, down from 17.7 percent. They’re hearing the message that we value them and that we want to help them to keep us all safe. And there’s another message for them: it’s just the beginning.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that she has complied with paragraph 2.86 of the Cabinet Manual?

I have used my personal email in the past. While the Cabinet Manual acknowledges that this may happen, I have now put in place practices so that, as far as possible, this is minimised in the future.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she ever invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account for ministerial business since becoming Minister?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Many people have my Gmail address, both from before I was a Minister and when I was in Opposition. Some of them still continue to use it. As I’ve said in my primary, I take steps as far as I possibly can now to ensure that that stops happening.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order. That wasn’t my question. My question was “Has she invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account since she has become”—

SPEAKER: Sorry, wait on. Are you taking a point of order?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Yes, that was not my question. I asked if she had invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account.

SPEAKER: Well, presumably, if she’s given them that address at some point, they’ve been invited. That would be the conclusion you’ve reached.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: But since becoming a Minister, I said.

SPEAKER: Minister. OK, well, the Minister may like to have another crack at that.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll reinstate what I said. Many people have my Gmail address, and I receive unsolicited emails. As far as I can recall, I’ve never given out my personal email, but, as I say, it’s freely available. Unfortunately, many people can find it online and they have emailed me at my personal email.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she ever used her personal Gmail account to organise ministerial meetings?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No. All meetings that have been organised have been organised through ministerial office, and they are all available in the proactively released diary managed either through my political staff or through my private secretaries.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is everything she organised via her private email recorded in her ministerial diary?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I didn’t organise any meetings through my Gmail, and any meetings that have been organised have been organised by my senior private secretary, my office, and have been recorded in the proactive diary releases.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister find it unusual that there are some members of Parliament who are so lacking in doing their duty as responsible MPs or Ministers that nobody writes to them? [Interruption]

Hon Member: Every question time, we’ve got to put up with this nonsense.

SPEAKER: Well, I just hear from my left the suggestion that every question time there is a need to put up with so-called dis-nonsense. Unfortunately, it is a House where people do have the right to stand on their feet and say largely what they’re thinking, as long as it is not offensive to the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. So just to clarify, you are saying that members have the right to stand up and ask a question they know is not in order to make a political point, and that’s all good with you?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not what I said at all. If you will then refer to Hansard, you’ll find out what I did say.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has everything that has been through her personal email account that relates to her portfolios been recorded in accordance with the official record-keeping practices?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That’s exactly why we’re here. The Cabinet Manual says that any emails should be kept for the purposes of the Official Information Act. They have been; they’ve been disclosed, and that’s why we’re here. What I would say, though, is that I am absolutely, 100 percent focused on reforming the education system, which is why we’ve done so much work. All the while, the member across the House has spent her time trawling through my Gmails, and I’d rather she spent time perhaps reading the message that I sent her, inviting her to be part of the NCEA change package, which she has declined to respond to—but that sums up the Opposition’s priorities, which is not our kids.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received assurances from the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), Ministerial Services, parliamentary IT, or any other relevant agency that her Gmail has never—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, look, sorry—a question’s being asked, and questions are asked in silence. We’ve had too much of that today on both sides. Start again.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received assurances from the GCSB, the NZSIS, DPMC, Ministerial Services, parliamentary IT, or any other relevant agency that her Gmail has never been breached?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have not done that, but I have made sure that there is two-factor authentication on my Gmail, which is one of the things that we’re required to do.

Question No. 12—Trade and Investment

12. to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding free-trade agreements?

Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement. As a result of its early entry into force many months sooner than had been forecast, goods exports to the EU from New Zealand have surged by 28 percent, delivering an additional $1 billion in export revenue in the first year. This is very good news for our hard-working exporters and, as the Hon Damien O’Connor has said, should be celebrated by every member in this House. This week also marks the first in-person negotiations for a comprehensive free-trade agreement (FTA) with India, one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, with huge untapped potential for New Zealand exporters—an important milestone in our relationship with that country.

Rima Nakhle: What benefits has the European free-trade agreement delivered for New Zealand’s exporters over the past year?

Hon TODD McCLAY: In just 12 months, the agreement has unlocked major new opportunities for exporters and delivered improved market access to nearly 450 million consumers. That $1 billion increase in export revenue is already benefiting Kiwi exporters directly, particularly our farmers—for example, sheep meat exports grew by 29 percent, worth more than $200 million; kiwifruit exports grew by 69 percent, an additional $316 million; butter exports, 105 percent increase; squid exports, 66 percent, worth $25 million; and machinery exports grew 104 percent, worth an additional $173 million. Services trade also grew by 22 percent, meaning more jobs and better pay for Kiwis.

Rima Nakhle: What is the significance of a comprehensive free-trade agreement with India?

Hon TODD McCLAY: With a population of 1.4 billion people and GDP estimated to grow to US$5.2 trillion by 2030, India offers significant potential for New Zealand exporters. Negotiations were launched on 17 March, and there has been significant engagement with officials since then. This week, as I said, marks the first in-person round of negotiations towards a comprehensive FTA, and they’re taking in place in India. This follows the highly successful visit to India by our Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, including to Gujarat last year, and the formal launch of negotiations by my Indian counterpart and me during the Prime Minister’s large and successful trade mission to India in March.

Rima Nakhle: What else has the Government achieved in the past 17 months regarding trade agreements?

Hon TODD McCLAY: One in four Kiwi jobs relies on trade, and last year, our export revenue added a significant $100 billion to the economy, including a significant, huge contribution by New Zealand farmers. Strong agreements and relationships ensure better jobs, higher wages, and access to world-class public services for New Zealanders. It’s been a very busy and important year for trade and agriculture. Since the Government was formed, we have brought the EU FTA into force earlier than forecast; signed an agreement with the UAE, 99 percent of tariff elimination on day one; concluded negotiations with the Gulf Cooperation Council, also 99 percent tariff elimination over time; brought the upgraded ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand FTA into force recently; signed the ACCTS agreement on trade and sustainability; announced services on trade-upgrade negotiations with China; and now are launching negotiations for an FTA with India—all part of the Government’s agenda to grow the economy.

Question No. 1 to Minister—Amended Answer

I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: For what reason?

SPEAKER: You don’t—well, a small outline of the reason.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a supplementary question to No. 1 today.

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was asked whether the budgetary cost of settling pay equity claims was considered when the Government made this decision. What I should have said was that while Cabinet received advice on a range of considerations, our primary motivation was ensuring the regime would be more robust, workable, and sustainable.

The normal practice would be for a much more substantial reason. But can we now take 30 seconds while the House allows those who need to go to other business to do so.