Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government’s fiscal intentions and objectives?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: On behalf of the Minister, the Government’s fiscal intentions are to restore fiscal discipline to this country and to meet all our objectives.

SPEAKER: I think we’ve got a slight problem here. I’ll just take advice from the Clerk about what happens here. It’s clear that the Minister is in the House and can answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely true that the Minister of Finance is now in the House. However, another Minister has already started answering the question. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen before, but it does create a somewhat complicated issue for the House in that a Minister who has answered the primary question should be subject to follow-up questions, not somebody else taking over midstream.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting view, but as the member will know from his long experience in this House, it is up to the Government to decide who answers any given question on the day.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That is absolutely true. It is up to the Government as to who answers a primary question and any supplementary questions that flow from that. The Government have decided that Paul Goldsmith should answer these questions.

SPEAKER: No, the Government clearly decided that it was necessary for Paul Goldsmith to answer a question, but he can’t. He can’t answer for the nominated Minister who is now in the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

SPEAKER: We could go on for a long time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: We can indeed. If that is the case, then surely if a Minister is identified by the Government that they think should answer the primary question and the supplementary line of questioning goes in a direction that they weren’t anticipating, it’s not unreasonable now for the Government to ask that the Minister who is most appropriate to answer that question starts answering the questions midstream.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting view and I’m sure it would be the view that I’d take if I was in your position, but the Standing Orders are quite clear that the Minister is in the House. The Government has the right to nominate who answers questions. The primary, of course, is on notice, so the expectation would be that the content of that answer is well shared across the ministry.

Nancy Lu: What is required to achieve the Government’s fiscal strategy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Restraint is required. The Government is currently spending more than it is collecting in revenue. That is not sustainable as ongoing deficits must be funded by more and more borrowing. Fiscal consolidation is required to unwind structural deficits and, in the first instance, stop the rise in public debt as a proportion of the economy. It’s worth noting that the interest costs on New Zealand’s debt are already more than the combined amount of funding we are able to provide to the Police, the Defence Force, Customs, the Ministry of Justice, and Corrections combined. The Government is taking a deliberate medium-term approach to fiscal consolidation. This is not austerity. This is what you do to avoid austerity. The interest bill we are having to pay on the debt accumulated by the last Government means that our choices are more limited than they would otherwise be.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: $12 billion in tax cuts.

SPEAKER: The question’s about to be asked.

Nancy Lu: What levers does the Government have to drive fiscal consolidation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has two fiscal levers. One has the label “control spending”; the other has the label “increase taxes”. The Government’s focus is squarely on controlling spending, which, as a proportion of the economy, is still well above pre-2020 levels. I know others in this House, if they even care about the fiscal position, would go straight to the increased taxes lever. That would be a huge blow to households’ cost of living and to economic growth, just as the economy is coming out of a protracted downturn.

SPEAKER: I just make the point that yesterday I was quite firm with the Opposition members that they could not speculate inside a question, and speculating inside an answer is equally unacceptable.

Nancy Lu: How is the Government’s fiscal position affected by economic forecasts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Government can control what it can control. However, some of the biggest changes to revenue and expenditure are outside the Government’s direct influence. The economy affects the amount of revenue the Government expects to receive. It also affects expenditure—for example, growth and benefits, superannuation, and finance costs are driven by economic variables. As I outlined in answer to the previous question, the interest bill which the Government faces on its debt is something which requires us to pay off over time. Of recent updates, a series of downside revisions to economic forecasts made the Government’s fiscal goals much more challenging to achieve. Despite this, we are still on track to deliver a surplus by the end of the forecast period.

SPEAKER: Just to reaffirm things for the Leader of the Opposition, who raised quite a legitimate question, Speakers’ ruling 199/1, brought down by Speaker Hunt in the year 2000, makes it very clear that if someone else answers a primary and then a Minister turns up, the Minister answers the supplementary questions.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Prime Minister—maybe the Prime Minister will show up during this one—does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

SPEAKER: No, we’re going to stop, and we’ll start that again without the little quip.

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: With the usual caveats, most certainly, yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who is correct: Christopher Luxon, when he said the decision to take billions of dollars from working Kiwi women has nothing to do with the Budget, or David Seymour, when he said that decision has “saved the Budget”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the law change that is being restored—and it was changed in 2020 by all parties in this Parliament, who mistakenly made those changes because no settlement happened since then—we’re going back to the law of 2017 [Interruption]. Listen, you might learn something—listen, you might learn something. We’re going back to the 2017 law that saw nurses gain $2 billion. We believe that a lot of settlements being made now are settlements that should not be made, are wait and see, because all those past claims—35 cases—can be heard in the same way into the future but the law will be different.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did Nicola Willis call the pay equity process a “sign of success” last year if it now needs dismantling, and is the Government’s real motive to balance the books at the expense of working Kiwi women?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, the motive of the Government is to ensure we’ve got a workable law that compares like with like. You cannot have all these professions that are just miles and miles away. Dare I say it, when you start talking about pay equity, the first thing you must understand where women are concerned is what a woman is.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is his definition of a woman—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry, I’ll just—sorry. There was a lot of noise during that question. We do want to have questions asked in silence. We can’t start to break that down. I’d ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is his definition of a woman someone who’s paid less than a man?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, my definition of a woman is not what that member said, “I’ll get back to you later.”, and still can’t describe it and said the other day that it was someone who said that they were a woman. No, if we’re going to deal with this issue properly, then let’s respect women, ensure that they get a fair go, and the—[Interruption].

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Pay them what they’re worth.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, in your case, it’ll be a quarter of what you’re getting now. There are women and women, you know. But, no, no—this shouting. If that member had any experience, she would know that she’s got all these supplementary questions to ask, but no, no, she shouts across Parliament every darn day from the front bench. Now, back to my point—back to my point—the experience of 2017 was that there were fair settlements. The experience since 2020 is that the law didn’t work. That’s why practical steps are being made. As for the comments on what it means, let’s see when the claims are over.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you. For absolute clarity, can you please confirm to the House that that answer was on behalf of the Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: It’s not for me to clarify that; it’s for the person who’s answering the question to clarify it. Until that clarification comes from that person, it can’t be demanded by anybody else.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. With respect, sir, it is a requirement for Ministers to indicate when they are answering on behalf of other Ministers that they are doing so, and that is your responsibility to ensure that happens. Also, with respect, this is a point that I have made quite regularly with the Deputy Prime Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, and you have already ruled previously that he is.

SPEAKER: Well, I have in certain circumstances where he has made it clear. It’s for the House to determine. If someone stands up and speaks as a Minister, then that is where it sits. I can’t start telling them or demanding that they are speaking for someone else.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. It’s on notice—

SPEAKER: Yes, that is the point. That is the point, and think about what I’ve just said.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the Deputy Prime Minister is not answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, who’s he answering on behalf of?

SPEAKER: Well, you can make that conclusion yourself. He’s not answering it as the Minister of Foreign Affairs or as the Deputy Prime Minister; he’s answering as the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Very good, thank you, Mr Speaker. How is it showing respect to Kiwi women that the Government—supplementary? Sorry, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That’s all right. I knew what you were doing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Very good, thank you. How is it showing respect to Kiwi women, as he claims, for the Government, under urgency, to unilaterally cancel pay equity claims covering hundreds of thousands of New Zealand women who are being paid less than men simply because they are women?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the last statement is categorically incorrect. The reality is we had all these—[Interruption] Do you want to hear the answer?

SPEAKER: I think—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Or do you want to hear your stupid voice?

SPEAKER: No, no.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You can’t have both.

SPEAKER: Mr Peters—[Interruption]. OK, look. It’s always an excitable time when the House is in urgency, but that’s no excuse for things to break down quite the way they are. So we’ll hear the balance of this question and answer exchange in silence. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, do you want to add to that answer?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why do he and his Ministers keep denying the obvious, that this is about robbing Paula to pay Paul, stripping Kiwi women of fair pay to clean up Nicola Willis’ economic mess?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To quote someone: I refute the premises of that question. The second thing is that the law worked successfully in 2017, as evidenced by the settlements. But when the law doesn’t work, even though it was supported by every party in Parliament, our job when we make mistakes is to recognise that and fix it, and fix it we are. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. Everyone quiet please.

Question No. 3—Transport

3. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding rapid transit in Auckland?

Excellent news. A couple of weeks ago, I was proud to announce, alongside His Worship Mayor Wayne Brown, that faster, more frequent reliable public transport for Auckland’s north-west is one step closer with the New Zealand Transport Agency board endorsing the north-west rapid transit investment case. As members will know, the north-west of Auckland is home to 90,000 people, one of the city’s largest planned growth areas—100,000 people will live there by 2051. They deserve reliable, frequent public transport like other parts of Auckland do as well.

Dan Bidois: How will Aucklanders benefit from this project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This is a big project and a big win for the people of Auckland, particularly the north-west. Sixty percent of people in the north-west commute out of the area every day. Delivering the north-west busway will be a game-changer and build on the northern busway, the City Rail Link, and the Eastern Busway. We’ll be able to move 9,000 passengers per hour in each direction. It’s the equivalent of four motorway lanes and, when built, will provide 25-minute journey times from Brigham Creek to the city centre all day and every day.

Dan Bidois: Very good. Supplementary, Mr Speaker—[Interruption] What work is already—

SPEAKER: No, no. Sit down. You’ve made a comment rather than a question. We’ll move to question No. 4, Carmel Sepuloni.

Question No. 4—Women

4. to the Minister for Women: Does she agree with the statement on the Ministry for Women website that “The majority (80%) of the gender pay gap is driven by harder to measure factors like conscious and unconscious bias and differences in choices and behaviours”; if so, how has this shaped her advocacy?

In response to the first leg of the question, yes. I’d also agree with the statement on the website that Aotearoa New Zealand has a proud history of advancing equal rights, and the Equal Pay Act of 1972 “outlawed discrimination in wage rates between men and women performing the same job.”, and this still stands.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “this is a Government that’s very committed to pay equity and ensuring that we do everything we can against sex-based discrimination.”; if so, why has the Government pushed through legislation under urgency to stop women from making pay equity claims?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Of course, I always agree with the Prime Minister, and I’d like to elucidate for the member that this is positive news for women. This law change provides a very clear legal framework for raising and resolving pay equity claims—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just stop. We’re not having that ongoing barrage like that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t say anything.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t say anything.

SPEAKER: Unusually, you didn’t say anything. But your colleagues certainly filled in for you, and almost matched your volume. Please, Nicola Grigg.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: As I was saying, this law change provides, finally, a very clear legal framework for proving sex-based undervaluation and raising and resolving those claims. That can only be a good thing for women.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Just wait for quiet, because it’s people behind you who are pretty excited.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand by her statement, from only 6 March this year, that “This Government absolutely remains committed to pay equity and meeting its obligations under the Equal Pay Act.”; if so, what has changed?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Of course I stand by my statement. I want to be clear to this House that this law change is not walking back equal pay or pay equity; we are making improvements to a failed system.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did she advocate for a robust select committee process for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to allow women the chance to have their say, or is this bill so urgent that the Government doesn’t need to hear from women?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I always advocate for women, and I have been consulted on and advised on this legislation from the outset.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with Kristine Bartlett that “I feel as though women have just been let down so terribly today. It’s just so sad. I don’t know what is going to happen in this society.”; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: What I would say to Ms Bartlett is that we are amending the Equal Pay Act to make the process more robust, more workable, and more sustainable.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is her top priority still to “support women to economic empowerment”, and, if so, how does undermining pay equity and cutting the Pay Equity Taskforce achieve this?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Yes, I do stand by that statement. Supporting women to economic empowerment is my number one priority as the Minister for Women.

SPEAKER: Question No. 5, Carl Bates.

Carl Bates: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on, hang on. It’s a simple rule; if there’s a question being asked, don’t speak.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How come you’re looking at her, not the Minister who interjected at the end of her own question?

SPEAKER: I’m terribly sorry, I just assumed that there was a general noise coming from around the House, and I was wanting to affirm a position with your good self, given your vast experience in Parliament! Carl Bates.

Hon Shane Jones: Hear, hear! Rules!

Carl Bates: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: That’s right, Mr Jones, rules. Please be quiet.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?

The Government has been relentlessly focused on restoring law and order in New Zealand. We’re putting victims back in the heart of the justice system and we’re restoring real consequences for crime by taking a range of actions such as restoring three-strikes legislation, giving police more tools to effectively deal with gangs, and strengthening the sentencing regime. We have an ambitious agenda and we’re progressing at pace.

Carl Bates: What update can he provide on the Government’s violent crime reduction target?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, on entering Government at the end of 2023, the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey recorded 185,000 New Zealanders as being victims of violent crime over the preceding year; that is, victims of assaults, robberies, and sexual assaults. The Government has focused the justice system on reducing that number and has set an ambitious target of reducing the number by 20,000 to 165,000 victims by 2029. I’m pleased to tell the House that the latest figure that was released recently is 157,000. That’s 8,000 fewer than our target for 2029. It’s still 157,000 victims too many, but it does show great progress.

Carl Bates: What impact does such good progress towards the violent crime reduction target have on New Zealanders?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, 28,000 fewer victims recorded between October 2023 and now is a statistic amongst a world of statistics. But each of those 28,000 people represent an individual that is spared from the trauma of violent crime—somebody’s son, daughter, husband, wife, partner, friend, or loved one. That’s why our Government has focused the justice system squarely on reducing the number of victims of crime.

Carl Bates: What is next in the Government’s plans?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government soon will be taking decisions to further strengthen consequences for crime by reforming the Crimes Act, and, in doing so, we’ll continue to receive and consider advice from the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime, relating to strengthening trespass laws, addressing low-level offending, as well as progressing law changes to make the citizen’s arrest provisions sensible and effective.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

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?]

on behalf of the Prime Minister: In all good tidings, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with his Minister of Conservation that “The richness of Aotearoa New Zealand’s biodiversity and our iconic landscapes are a source of great pride to New Zealanders. We need to focus our minds on protecting this taonga now and into the future”, and, if so, what is his Government doing to protect te taiao?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The one qualification as to the name of the country you’re speaking about, I agree with him totally.

Hon Marama Davidson: How long has he given the public to submit on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, which will allow developers to lawfully kill New Zealand’s protected wildlife?

SPEAKER: That’s a very specific question that might better be addressed to a select committee as opposed to a Minister. Ask a different one.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I’m happy to answer it.

SPEAKER: Oh, OK. Right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Long enough for us to come up with some very sound, practical, and workable legislation.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he see the irony in rushing through a bill to authorise the killing of wildlife when his own Government’s biodiversity implementation strategy, released on Monday, states that “New Zealand has one of the highest proportions of threatened species in the world”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, all members of this Government understand entirely what that member is talking about, but the reality is that this is a long programme over decades that we have been working on, and it’s nothing new that we don’t know, so to speak. But certain culling has to happen in the interest of the total number of species in this country. That’s just plain common sense.

Hon Marama Davidson: How does he expect the Department of Conservation to fulfil additional expectations, as proposed under his Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, when the director-general has already said “the department is not currently financially sustainable for what we are being asked to do”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer for that is to go and ask all those people around this country—and there are tens of thousands of them—who would be happy to contribute and help out the Department of Conservation on that very issue. That’s what sharing the burden looks like, and I can say there are thousands and thousands of New Zealanders, men and women, who would want to help now, and they’d not want to be paid for it.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that without funding in the upcoming Budget, conservation work will continue to be chronically underfunded and reliant on private philanthropy?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, this Government has never believed that tossing money around like an eight-armed octopus is the answer for everything.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can I ask, Acting Prime Minister, had previous Governments been responsible for numerous authorisations that had been issued for the incidental killing of wildlife, and also, does he have a concern that if we follow the recent judgment that’d stop this, the TV3 programme, a number of roading projects, and green infrastructure projects will be ceased?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That sounds different from culling.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Now, this is the truth now. With respect to both questions, on the first one, we most certainly agree; on the second one, thank you to the Minister for pointing out the abysmal record of the past that we are seeking to correct.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with Associate Finance Minister David Seymour that “I actually think that Brooke van Velden has saved the taxpayer billions. She’s saved the Budget for the Government.”; if so, what are the savings from the changes to pay equity?

I understand from my colleague Mr Seymour that he was speaking as ACT leader when he made that statement, not associate finance Minister. The words the ACT leader chose are not what I would choose. I agree that changes being made to pay equity legislation will reduce the Crown’s expected future costs from pay equity settlements. There is some important context here and, as has been the practice with successive Ministers of Finance, it is my judgment that it is in accordance with the public interest to provide detailed information about this in the full context of the Budget. However, to help the member, I can confirm that there is a reduction in projected future costs to the Crown of several billion dollars. However, there are two reasons why the projected costs of pay equity settlements projected by the Treasury have been rising exponentially, and they are not all related to the changes in the bill which the Government is progressing. The first relates to the costs to the Crown as an employer. This Government intends to keep meeting those costs. Where claims are made that demonstrate that women employed by the Government have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender, it is our Government’s intention to fully fund those settlements, and we will provide funding for that in our Budget—

SPEAKER: Good.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is also the Government’s intention to fully uphold settlements. You’re getting impatient but they want the information, I tell you—

SPEAKER: Yep, I am.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: But the second issue relates to the way that the Government responds to claims made against private sector employers. The last Government established an expectation that those costs would be fully met by the Crown, and that is not our expectation.

Yes, good. I think supplementaries from the Minister’s own side might help with that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When did she first receive advice by the New Zealand Treasury on the potential savings from changing the law to cancel 33 active pay equity claims?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have been receiving briefings about the projected future costs of pay equity settlements—as I recall—from within my first days as Minister of Finance, and what I do recall observing was that those projected costs were far, far greater than I had ever appreciated, and far greater than I think Parliament appreciated when it first passed the pay equity reforms in 2020. As I just said, this, in particular, related to a Cabinet decision made by the last Government that it would fully meet the costs of successful claims against private sector employers—that is to say, the taxpayer being a backstop for employers found to have discriminated against women on the basis of their gender.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that “We are committed to maintaining stability for New Zealanders by continuing to invest in essential front-line services.”, and, if so, how is cancelling the pay equity claim for 75,000 teachers investing in the front line?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I stand by all my statements. As I have said, it remains the Government’s solemn commitment that where pay equity claims are proven against the Government as an employer—for example, as the employer of teachers—if a pay equity claim is proven, that teachers have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender, then we will meet the costs of that settlement. It’s important to note that workforces advance their working conditions and pay through a number of channels. One of them is pay equity, and that should relate to gender discrimination. The other, second, very important channel is through normal bargaining; that’s how workers bargain for improved conditions and improved pay and, yes, I can confirm the Government has put aside funding in our Budget to meet the costs of future teacher bargaining.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What is she doing to assist the additional 9,000 women who are unemployed compared to this time last year, and how will cutting women’s pay incentivise them into work?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I object to the statement made in the latter half of that question, which is untrue. We are not doing that, because what the member is referring to is claims that have been made that have not been proven. Where there have been settlements, the Government is continuing to fully fund the upholding of those settlements, and, second, we are continuing to allow claims to progress where discrimination can be proved on the basis of gender. So those sorts of outlandish statements undermine the credibility of the member and her party.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Throughout this question, the Minister of Finance has given incredibly long answers that extended well beyond the scope of the question, including insulting the people who are asking the question. You’ve been quite hard on our side of the House today, and I simply ask that you apply that standard to the other side of the House and that Ministers answer the questions that they’re asked and they refrain from insulting the people who are asking what are very fair and legitimate questions about a bill that’s going through the House under urgency with no public scrutiny.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Thank you. Just before we hear from you, Mr Bishop—I will hear from you—I’d just ask the Leader of the Opposition to reflect that the last question that was asked was very wide of the wicket and it didn’t relate to any previous answer. I was about to stop it, but then thought, “No, it’s a big issue. Let it run on.” The Hon Chris Bishop—no? OK.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement from 2 May 2024 that “In the past few years, a substantial number of public sector claims have been settled and the taskforce has supported agencies to build up their expertise and knowledge of their obligations. It is a sign of success”; if so, what has changed since May 2024 that requires legislation to be passed under urgency before her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I stand by that statement because it remains the case that those settlements that have been reached will be upheld but also it is the case that the expertise that was built up by public servants through the claims process is partly what has informed the Government’s decision to refine this Act, because what we found was that claims were being able to be progressed across a range of issues that went beyond the intended scope as it related to discrimination on the basis of sex. Finally, what I would make clear is that we are passing this legislation under urgency in order to provide absolute clarity and in order for claims to once again be submitted. It is not the case that this is required for the Budget, because, actually, the decisions made by Cabinet were enough to put the financial implications into the Budget. The legislation did not need to be passed in order for that to happen.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What claims were outside the scope of the legislation that required the legislation to now change urgently before her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it’s long been a practice of this House that we won’t make legal judgments about which claims may or may not be successful in future.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is more important: saving her Budget, or ensuring women are paid enough?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the characterisation in the first part of the question. In answer to the second part of the question, I stand by the statements I have made for several years, which is that I wish to see women be advanced and I wish to see them have equal rights and opportunities to men. It remains my view that women don’t always have equal rights and opportunities to men, and that is why we are entrenching a workable pay equity regime that, by the way, is one of the most progressive in the world, as it stands, in the legislation we’re advancing today, so that where women are being discriminated against on the basis of their gender, they can make claims and have them settled.

Question No. 8—Mental Health

8. to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcement has he made supporting Women’s Refuge through the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund?

Last week, I announced that the Women’s Refuge—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry—everyone can calm right down.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced that the Women’s Refuge was the latest recipient of the Government’s Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund. The funding will support 250 advocates based within the 41 women’s refuges across New Zealand. Over the past five years, Women’s Refuge has supported, on average, 15,000 women per year. This funding will help Women’s Refuge better support these women and children in their time of need.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will funding from the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund support Women’s Refuge?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The funding will support Women’s Refuge to upskill their staff and improve connections with local mental health services and referral pathways. The feedback I often hear about mental health services is that they are too hard to navigate because the system is too disjointed and people don’t know where to go. This funding will help Women’s Refuge to join up the system to make it more accessible to those in need. Government funding will be match-funded to total over $1 million to deliver this initiative.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has the Minister received on this recent announcement?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Women’s Refuge chief executive Ang Jury said, “This is a project that we wouldn’t have been able to look at without this funding, … [and] it would have been impossible without”. I had a message from Bethany, who said, “This is awesome to hear. Our Women’s Refuge centres across the country do amazing work. I hope the funding will be spread to the regional centres.” I’m happy to tell Bethany and the House that this funding will support Women’s Refuge across the country and all of the 41 Women’s Refuge centres. I’m proud that we’re able to help Women’s Refuge support women and families in their time of need.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What other organisations have benefited from the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund, and what changes has he made to round two of the fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: So far, we’ve been able to support MATES in Construction, the Mental Health Foundation, Youthline, Wellington City Mission, Rotorua’s Youth One Stop Shop, Sir John Kirwan Foundation, and there are still further announcements to come. Round two of the fund will also see a lower limit required from $250,000 per application to $100,000. This means more front-line services will benefit, but the real winners are New Zealanders looking to access timely mental health and addiction support.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. 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?]

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why did his Government choose to pass the pay equity amendment legislation under urgency, bypassing public and expert input and good lawmaking practice?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The judgment of that question, at the conclusion, is demonstrably false. It demonstrates that the person knows nothing about industrial relations law and doesn’t understand that, at the very bottom of where the labour unions and others are, we made our consideration way back then on the question of minimum wages. Now, the fact is that we need one system for all claimants. We did not need the confusion that arose after 2020, so we’re going back to a system in 2017, which worked so successfully that the then claimants got $2 billion.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If we are to believe the Prime Minister that the pay equity amendment is about a more robust and workable system, why has his Government chosen to unexpectedly announce and pass the law under urgency, without any chance for public or expert engagement or scrutiny, in just two sitting days?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the famous words of William Shakespeare, if the deed should be done, it had better be done quickly.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is not robust and workable about the current pay equity scheme?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What’s not robust about the current pay equity scheme is that you’ve got all sorts of illogical comparisons, with no relativity whatsoever, and that’s one of the reasons why the claims have been dragged out these last five years. We want to have the system fixed, and remember: some of us have got a record in terms of fair pay, superior to any other people in this Parliament. That’s our record, and so I’m certain that, when it’s over, as the Minister of Finance has warned over and over and over again, there will be a fiscal impact. Why don’t we wait and see what the findings are?

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is the purpose of making the pay equity process more difficult and cancelling 33 active claims, representing hundreds of thousands of women in this country’s lowest-paid industries?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Nothing has been cancelled, to the extent that they can revive all those claims under the new regime. It’s so simple: we’re going back to a law that worked before some misguided politicians—unfortunately, far too many—changed the law and it didn’t work.

Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety

10. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with Thomas Coughlan of the New Zealand Herald, who said about her changes to pay equity legislation that “It is deeply wrong that Parliament can take away that work in a matter of hours”; if not, why not?

May I start by making something very clear: this Government is committed to maintaining a pay equity regime, and none of the changes this Government is making undo the hard work of Kristine Bartlett, whose work Thomas Coughlan was referring to. This Government denounces sex-based discrimination in the workplace. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on a minute. If there’s going to be concern about the answer to a question, I need to be able to hear it, and there’s too much noise for me to be able to hear that. Please carry on.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: This Government denounces sex-based discrimination in the workplace. We will continue to have an Equal Pay Act to address cases of genuine sex-based discrimination. We are continuing to allow anyone to raise a pay equity claim. What we are doing is making the system more robust, workable, and sustainable. On that basis, I do not agree with Thomas Coughlan’s characterisation. However, I do agree with a different journalist’s characterisation, which was Mike Hosking from this morning. His article said, “Reform for the Pay Equity Act is good.” [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just stop. Just wait till the excitement settles down. [Interruption] Now, just wait—I said just wait.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: He said, “Kristine Bartlett was, to many, a hero. She was a very likeable woman. She was a caregiver who argued her work was undervalued and she deserved more. The Labour Party who love ‘feels’ and are not exactly unfamiliar with the unions and leapt all over it and the Equal Pay Act … was born. The downside was how to compare this so-called ‘underpaid work’ like in nursing homes [etc.] … They decided at the time comparing mechanics to rest home workers made sense, even though it didn’t, and doesn’t. [And] That’s why Brooke van Velden has announced pay equity is going to be, quite rightly, tipped up and sorted out.”

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why is she mandating that pay equity claims can only use comparators from the same industry when the very point of pay equity claims is to highlight that female-dominated industries are less valued than male-dominated industries?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The reason why we are introducing the hierarchy of comparators is so that we have greater confidence in the pay equity system rightly identifying issues of genuine sex-based undervaluation. We start at home, making a comparison with people who work within the same company or employer. If there is no comparison with people who have a different but similar work environment, a different employer—if there is no comparator there, within the same sector but not across industry. This means that we can have greater confidence that we are picking up genuine sex-based undervaluation and not other labour market forces and things like inflation.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Did she compare social workers to air traffic controllers because she fundamentally believes that work done mostly by women is inherently less valued than work done by mostly men?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, I did because they do it themselves.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she think “very real and significant cost reductions to Government.” is a price only women should pay for?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, I believe women should be paid for their work. Every woman in this Cabinet believes women should be paid for their work. What we don’t agree with are muddied laws. We have laws that Labour pushed through that have made pay equity confused with things like collective agreements; confused with inflation; confused with other labour market forces, things like technological change, demographic change—a whole range of labour market forces. If you genuinely believe in gender-based and sex-based discrimination being stamped out, then you would support this bill, because that’s exactly what it does.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether the questioner, who is a primary school teacher, has told her as to who gave primary school teachers—massively filled with women in that population—pay parity?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how is that question in order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Because you’re looking at it; that’s why.

SPEAKER: No, hang on a minute. I’m not about to dissect the question, but in the context of the question that is asked, in the context of the supplementaries that I’ve been listening to very carefully, because the answers have been lengthy, it’s not an unreasonable question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely unreasonable to refer to the background, the prior employment, of any member in a question to a Minister. How is that in any way in order? It is a complete departure from the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, no—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can be very helpful.

SPEAKER: Well, we’re not going to go on too long.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The reality is that the teaching profession in more recent years has massively become more the province of women than men, it’s sad to say. But the reality is I was just trying to make the point that this person, who has an experience as a headmistress of a primary school, was the—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Principal.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, well, the principal—same thing. There’s a lot of ranges of the way to describe them. Some still describe themselves as headmistress. Not everybody’s like that person: confused about what a woman is. But the point here is that they were the beneficiary of pay parity.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Mr Speaker, I’m willing to attempt to answer the question.

SPEAKER: I think everybody in the House—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just a minute. I think everybody in the House already knows the answer, so we won’t be hearing it. Point of order?

Hon Jan Tinetti: Well, I was just going to say, how does that Minister have responsibility for pay parity and giving it to teachers?

SPEAKER: I’ve just said I think we know the answer. The question’s not going to be answered as it was being asked. Do you have another supplementary?

Hon Jan Tinetti: Yes, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe that this gender pay gap, as it currently stands, simply isn’t wide enough?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I believe that the gender pay gap and pay equity are separate concepts. The gender pay gap has far more individualistic elements to do with career choices, time away from work, part-time work. Pay equity is about systemic sex-based undervaluation, not on an individual scale but on a workforce-wide scale.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is her message to Kiwi women whose work is undervalued that they should just suck it up and work harder to grow the economy?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My message to women who believe they are undervalued is that this Government does value women. We believe in having a pay equity system that is fair, that is workable, and that is sustainable. That is not changing. People can still make claims, but if we genuinely believe in stamping out sex-based undervaluation, everybody should be in favour of being able to correctly identify it.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is she comfortable that taking the women’s movement backwards by decades will be her political legacy?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My political legacy shouldn’t be the focus of that member. She should focus on doing her job. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Are we all right?

Hon Member: No, I’d like to keep going.

SPEAKER: Well, if some people need to let a bit of steam out, leave the House and just let it go out in the fresh air somewhere.

Question No. 11—Children

11. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement that “increased reporting also shows that people feel like they can report their concerns to Oranga Tamariki or other government agencies and that these reports are being captured and actioned”?

Yes. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank people who do make reports of concern and remind everyone, whether you’re a teacher, neighbour, family member, or anyone else: if you see something, please say something. I also want to acknowledge the social workers who are the ones picking up the phone, responding to safety concerns, and working alongside children and young people and their families and communities. The work of Oranga Tamariki front-line staff needs to be recognised.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What urgent action is she taking to ensure that every child reported to Oranga Tamariki is assigned a social worker without delay, including the 1,000 tamariki who are currently sat on a waiting list?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst I understand the unallocated cases of young children are sitting at a high number of around 1,300, we cannot pretend that this is a new issue. This has been an issue for a very long time. But what I can say is I’m really proud of the hard work of our front-line social workers who have managed to keep that number the same, even with a massive increase of reports of concern.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What reassurance can she offer to the over 300 care and protection social workers who are dealing with a caseload of more than 20 tamariki, especially when work protocol requires intervention at this stage?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There are many measures that have been put in place. We have been trialling support staff alongside front-line staff workers to help with work that isn’t necessarily required by a social worker. I am out on the front line talking to as many of these people as I possibly can to hear what the concerns are region to region, because a one-size-fits-all model doesn’t work. I’m out listening to see how we can make a difference.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How is the Minister ensuring that the 45 percent rise in reports of concern is matched with sufficient resourcing so that tamariki are not left vulnerable and at risk due to unmanageable workloads?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think I referred to that in my previous answer. I can’t snap my fingers and fill a vacancy. There are vacancies available, but we are also working alongside other measures to support our front-line staff.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How is the Minister addressing the increasing pressures of a cost of living crisis, rising stress levels, and cuts to social services that the Children’s Commissioner has identified as contributing to the rise in reports of concern?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: That’s a massive assumption to make—that assumption as to the reasons behind the reports of concern.

Question No. 12—Regional Development

12. to the Minister for Regional Development: What reports has he seen on regional development in Northland?

I was particularly glad to read a report recently that Australians have secured a prospecting permit to explore for minerals in a part of Northland that has a bad problem with P. Opportunities are very narrow for the young people. Sadly, however, it elicited a response of “humbug hapū”, who would rather do nothing. I am not going to tolerate the hobbling of the minerals sector because of fanciful ideas from hapū leaders who are more interested in sovereignty than genuine mahi.

Tanya Unkovich: What plans does the Government have to reindustrialise Northland?

Hon SHANE JONES: At Marsden Point, the Government, through following up on the coalition agreement, is moving ahead with the creation of a drydock facility. It’ll be a landmark project. It’s part of a grand vision that our Government has for the regions. This facility will address an omission in our broader economic infrastructure, and, at the moment, we are talking to a range of parties. It is these concrete developments that give regional New Zealand confidence, not people protesting about sand when they live in houses made of concrete.

Tanya Unkovich: What plans does the Government have to increase economic resilience in Northland?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m sure everyone in Parliament agrees that energy is an ongoing affordability problem. Security continues to challenge us as we go into every winter. Indeed, it was only today that Methanex have announced a partial closedown in an arrangement with Contact Energy, to ensure that secure flows of energy keep the lights on. To that end, an energy bridge is contemplated in Northland. Prior to any final decision, a sum of money has been allocated to ensure that the costs of this project are robust and don’t suffer any problems with either inflation or non-delivery. It’s this type of transmission development and transmission investment that gives confidence to investors and garden variety Kiwis.

Tanya Unkovich: Why is reinvigorating Northland so critical for New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: There are nigh on 190,000 to 200,000 New Zealanders who call this part of New Zealand home. It’s proximate to Auckland and can create a larger flow of energy, sorely needed, but it is also, as we’ve seen in Kaikohe, a sad indictment on the recent history in New Zealand that meth and the associated criminality has been allowed to spread as some type of cancer. The leader of the Ngāpuhi tribe, Mane Tahere, a bright young man, said, “The police are not the enemy of Māoridom. The police ought not to be defunded, and Ngāpuhi do not believe that.” That is why we are standing strong for the rule of law, the reinvigoration of energy, and to drive the people who peddle P and sell delusions that the police should be defunded out of public life.

Just before we come to end of question time, I might just ask the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage what that badge is that’s on his jacket.

Mr Speaker, I can inform the House that it is New Zealand Music Month, and that is the badge.

Well, I thought you could say something more than that!

And it is an occasion to celebrate the quality of New Zealand music, from Shihad to Devilskin to Lorde, to all those great players, and this is a month when we celebrate that.

And how is that being celebrated here in Parliament today?

By the wearing of this badge, Mr Speaker—and also, because we have people from Rockquest at a function at 6 o’clock, which I think all members should attend.

Well, that took a while to get to! I’d ask other members who have to go off to other duties to leave quietly.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.