Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her answer to oral question No. 4 yesterday, in relation to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, that “I always advocate for women, and I have been consulted on and advised on this legislation from the outset”; if so, on what date was she first consulted regarding the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s Cabinet paper reviewing pay equity policy settings?

In relation to the first part of the question, yes, I do stand by my statement. In relation to the second part of the question, I was consulted on the Cabinet paper referred to once it was drafted in March, but I was involved in earlier conversations about the development of the paper and policy.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s Cabinet paper correct that the Government didn’t even bother to consult the Ministry for Women on their proposal to cancel pay equity claims; if not, on what date was the Ministry for Women consulted?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: In relation to the first part of the question, as has been noted in the Cabinet paper, the Ministry for Women was not involved in the consultation. However, I am the Minister for Women, I am responsible for that ministry, and I have been involved from the outset.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What feedback did she give on how many of the now 33 cancelled pay equity claims were not based on sex-based discrimination but based on other factors as claimed by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Throughout the course of the development of this policy, I’ve been involved in a number of discussions with my ministerial colleagues across our coalition. I advocated on a number of occasions for a fair and robust pay equity system, which is why I’m so pleased that we are retaining a system that will finally, genuinely address sex-based discrimination.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: If the Government’s proposals to scale back pay equity were “developed in a short time frame with limited time to assess implications and unintended consequences”, as the Cabinet paper states, how can she be confident that this policy will not disadvantage women?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I think, as I outlined to the House yesterday, the resulting Act that was amended over the past few days by this Parliament will have positive outcomes for women. It will finally and fairly set in legislation a process to raise and resolve gender-based discrimination in various workforces.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is former National Party chief press secretary Janet Wilson correct that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Start again.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is former National Party chief press secretary Janet Wilson correct that “the coalition Government is complicit in pulling together a dirty little deal that saves it billions while denying working women their day in court.”; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Look, Janet Wilson is obviously a citizen of this country, free to share her opinions as she sees fit. I would like to clarify, for the record, one more time for the Opposition benches, who do not seem to be understanding it: we are not walking back our commitment to equal pay or pay equity.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that no pay equity settlement has occurred since 2020 or with the Public Service Commission, which says that over 100,000 women have benefited from pay equity settlements since 2021?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I always agree with the Prime Minister.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who said that this is a “blatant and shameful attack on women”, or Kristine Bartlett, who said that “women have just been let down so terribly” by this Government or the Minister for Women, who claims that this is “positive news for women”?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I’d say, to all of those people who have offered comment, that this Government is committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace. We have amended the Equal Pay Act to make the process more robust, more sustainable, and more workable. There will still be a way to raise and settle pay equity claims.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

I see a number of reports, and this morning the Treasury released the interim financial statements of the Government for the nine months ended 31 March 2025. The statements include Crown revenue and expenses for those first nine months of the fiscal year. They also update both the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC—that is OBEGALx—and the Crown’s interim debt position.

Suze Redmayne: What do the financial statements say about Government revenue and expenses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Core Crown tax revenue was around $200 million higher than what was forecast at the half-year update in December, and core Crown expenses were around $600 million lower than forecast. There are a number of reasons why the financial statements vary against forecast, and these variations can correct themselves over the course of a year. However, Treasury has advised me that they expect core Crown expenses for the whole year to be less than previously forecast. In part, this represents genuine savings within the year, and, in part, it reflects some rephasing of expenses into the next fiscal years.

Suze Redmayne: What do these variations mean for the operating balance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As at 31 March, the OBEGALx deficit was around $500 million smaller than forecast. This was mainly a consequence of the lower core Crown expenses I just mentioned. On the basis of an enduring reduction in core Crown expenses across the year, I would expect that the OBEGALx deficit this fiscal year will be lower than that forecast in the half-year update. However, the rephasing of expenses across years and the impact of tariffs and global economic uncertainty will have a negative impact on OBEGALx in future years.

Suze Redmayne: What do the financial statements say about Government debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government’s cash flows in the first nine months of this year were $1.7 billion lower than forecast at the half-year update. Much of this is for technical and timing reasons. Together with higher-than-expected gains on some financial instruments, it means net core Crown debt nine months into the year was more than $2 billion lower than previously forecast. The Treasury’s next fiscal release is in two weeks, when the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update is released alongside the Budget.

Question No. 3—Finance

Before I call the Hon Barbara Edmonds, I have been notified that the answer to this question, given the nature of the question, may be a little longer than usual.

3. to the Minister of Finance: When did she first consider the pay equity changes for inclusion in Budget 2025, and what modelling did she receive, if any, on the number of workers likely to be affected by the Equal Pay Amendment Bill?

Upon becoming Minister of Finance in December 2023, I was quickly made aware by Treasury of the amount of money that was built into the Government’s forecasts to meet future pay equity settlements. I was shocked by the size of the number, which had not been previously disclosed publicly, and which had grown very rapidly. A significant portion of the money was set aside for the Government to fund what is known as “the funded sector”, which is the non-Government sector settlements. This is private sector, NGO, or community service providers that the Government contracts and, therefore, does not employ as its workers. The previous Government had made a decision that meant the full costs of these settlements were being factored into the books, as well as the actual public sector settlements that the Government wasn’t obligated to fund. I took some time to receive advice on these issues, and I took proposals to Cabinet, in April 2024, to adjust expectations around funded sector claims. This lessened the projected cost to the Crown of these claims, but only by a relatively small amount. As this pay equity reset was being implemented last year, it became clear that there were deeper, more underlying issues with the Act, which had a broad scope and had departed from its original purpose of addressing genuine sex-based discrimination. Last December, the Cabinet Strategy Committee discussed the high-level legislative settings for pay equity and indicated a preference to confront those underlying issues quickly. I outline all of this to make clear that, in answer to the first part of the primary question, changes to pay equity settings were considered through last year and into this year, and as that work progressed, since last December’s Cabinet discussion, the financial implications were taken into account in Budget 2025 discussions. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, with regard to the specific bill, I previously received advice from Treasury about the number of workers involved in particular claims, but that is not the same as what the member is asking. By its very nature, and like other employment legislation, the bill affects all workers, because anyone can consider their rights to make a claim.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. That question was answered in about 20 seconds—the first minute and a half was totally unnecessary. Giving you a prior warning that there’s going to be a longer answer is proper process if the whole answer is required to address the question; it was not. That was abused as a way to try and rewrite history or to put forward their perspective as to what happened. That wasn’t the primary question. The minute the Minister said, “In answer to your question,” that’s when the answer actually started.

SPEAKER: That is the opinion of the member. It’s not the way I heard it, and I’ve read the primary and would ask the member to do the same. I don’t think the Minister stepped outside what is required to answer that question, and I think it was an appropriate courtesy to the House to inform the House it would be slightly longer but, quite frankly, not all that much longer.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many women will lose the right to make a pay equity claim under these changes?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Any woman who can demonstrate that she has a case with merit—that she was discriminated against in her pay on the basis of her sex—will be able to make a claim under this legislation. It will be a legal judgment as to which cases meet that test, and it is not for me, in this House, to offer a legal judgment.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How were the Treasury able to quantify the savings from this policy if she doesn’t actually know how many women will be affected?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What the Treasury had done as a practice under the last Government was that because the last Government did not allocate any funding in its operating allowances for pay equity settlements—did not allocate any money for those settlements—the Treasury formed a view that it was likely that those costs would otherwise be incurred by the Crown, and so they put them in the forecast. That is, they affected the surplus and deficit position. They formed those forecasts, I am advised, on an assessment of what they thought the claims would be, how many workers they thought would be affected, and what the costs were. But, of course, the ultimate number of people that would be affected was determined by whether or not those claims were successful.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that “pay equity processes should be used for genuine issues of discrimination”; if so, which of the 33 cancelled claims were not “genuine discrimination”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I stand by my statement.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: will any person with a pay equity claim be able to make one under the new legislation, or have some engaged in hyperbolic, distracting psychobabble?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do think that it is of regret that members opposite with a responsibility to their communities, I think, have made relatively misleading statements about the rights that are now available to New Zealand women, who still have the right to equal pay and the right to make pay equity settlements, contrary to what some members opposite are trying to allege.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How can you expect us to have order if you’re going to let that happen?

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? Are you now challenging my rulings of the House?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, there was no ruling.

SPEAKER: Well, there wasn’t, and it’s not for you to make them or to require them, other than through a point of order.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her position that she is dedicated to pay equity, when Te Tai Tokerau Principals’ Association have called it an “appalling slap in the face for women”, and Hospice New Zealand calls these changes “a real kick in the guts”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because the Government has a very clear position that it is upholding settlements for existing pay equity claims and, furthermore, has created a transparent, workable, practical process for further claims to be raised. What’s more, because we have advanced that legislation rapidly, people will be able to submit claims the minute the Governor-General gives assent.

Kahurangi Carter: Which of the 33 pay equity claims were not based on genuine discrimination?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m being asked for a legal judgment, which is not for me to give. But I would also note that it is not simply an issue of whether the claims have merit—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’m sorry. I can’t have people chipping at me for not intervening in a question, when it’s very hard to hear the answer because of the barrage that’s being directed at the Minister answering.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would also note that it’s not simply an issue of which claims progress, and I’m advised that it’s expected that a number of claims will continue to progress; it is a matter of, once they are in progress, how they are assessed and the comparators that are used. The Government’s concern has been that other market-based factors were being brought into the assessment. This law should be about gender and sex discrimination, not issues that are more properly dealt with through the normal bargaining process.

Question No. 4—Children

4. to the Minister for Children: E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

[Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?]

Yes, in the context in which they were made at the time.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she still stand by her statement “There will be no financial impact and there’ll be no impact on … front-line services. This is a guarantee.”; if so, why are multiple reports, community services, social workers, and the Children’s Commissioner saying otherwise?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m not sure where that quote came from, so if you would give me time to verify that quote, I would stand by or not stand by it. But what I would say is that we have had to clean up a system that had no accountability and no responsibilities when it came to where money was being spent and whether money was being spent well and what outcomes we were getting for that money. Some tough decisions had to be made. Yes, some people were affected by that, but I still stand by the decision to clean up the system.

Kahurangi Carter: Is there an impact on front-line services due to the Minister’s policies and decisions?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Any decisions made around contracts are an operational matter, but what I would say is that the system has been broken for a very long time. Now, there is accountability. Now, there is a Government that is focused on outcomes for the people that that money is meant to be put towards, and we are focusing on the safety and wellbeing of children.

Kahurangi Carter: How does she explain the worsening outcomes for tamariki, such as declining immunisation rates and rising mental distress, as reflected in the 2023-2024 child and youth wellbeing indicator report, if it is not a direct result of her decisions to underfund Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I don’t believe that I have responsibility for immunisation results, and I don’t believe I have responsibility for many of the things that were mentioned within the question.

Kahurangi Carter: How receptive does she think the social workers that she thanked yesterday in question time are to her acknowledgment when they are the ones who responded to those 95,000 reports of concern, managed unsafe caseloads, and struggled with their own wellbeing, all while knowing that 1,300 vulnerable tamariki don’t have a caseworker?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would, once again, like to thank those social workers for the job they do. They pick up the phone, and they deal with a large amount of reports of concern. It’s their job to pick up the phone and respond to reports of concern. The fact of the matter is that the cases that that member has just spoken to—the 1,300 unallocated cases—the number currently is at 1,184 unallocated cases. In 2023, when there were 45 percent fewer reports of concern, the number was 1,150. That number is not OK. But what I can say is I would shudder to think what that number would be if we hadn’t cleaned up the system and made sure that it was working well.

Question No. 5—Children

5. to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made regarding key performance indicators for Oranga Tamariki?

Last week, I announced that Oranga Tamariki has made progress across all four key priority areas I have asked them to focus on. These are things that will make the biggest difference to the wellbeing and safety of children. These four key priorities are: ensuring the safety of children and young people, supporting caregivers, addressing youth offending, and improving complaint management practice. These improvements show that when we set targets and focus on delivery, we can see results and clear improvements in the delivery of services.

Laura McClure: What are some of the key performance indicators that have improved under her watch?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The latest quarterly report shows that the proportion of complaints that were handled in a way that meets the high standards we have set has increased from 51 percent to 59 percent. There is more work under way to improve this even further. The percentage of children in care who have been visited by their social worker within the target time to ensure their ongoing safety and wellbeing is at 96 percent. Thank you again to the social workers that work so hard for our young people. We know that frequent social worker visits are one of the most important things we can do to make sure that children are safe in their placements and that their needs are being met.

Laura McClure: What are some of the other priority areas?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: One of the other priority areas we have set is to address youth offending. I’m particularly pleased with the dramatic improvement we have seen against the reduction in youth offending targets. This is a Government that is focused in this space, and we have a target to reduce the number of children and young people with serious, persistent offending by 15 percent by 2030. As of this month, we have already seen a 12 percent reduction in the first year alone—well ahead of the estimated projections.

Laura McClure: Are there any indicators that are not on track?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes. Whilst through efforts, there are some things that we are still concerned about. The percentage of reports of concern that are responded to within the established time frames is currently at 86 percent against a target of 95 percent. Performance against this measure is largely driven by the volume of reports of concern. There has been an unprecedented increase in reports of concern in 2024 and 2025—up 58 percent in the first six months compared to the previous year. Despite this unprecedented increase, the timeliness of responses and the number of unallocated cases has remained at similar levels as under the previous Government.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to oral question No. 11 on 6 May 2025?

Yes, I stand by my answers that were given on 6 May, especially where I acknowledged that my systems have not reflected best practice, and I have taken multiple steps to make changes to improve them.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is sending or receiving over a hundred communications to her Gmail account avoiding the use of personal accounts for ministerial business as far as possible, as required by the Cabinet Manual?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve said, I have acknowledged that it was untidy. It was not best practice. I’ve taken a lot of measures to ensure that that doesn’t happen again.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many different personal email accounts has she used to communicate on issues relevant to her ministerial responsibilities?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have one parliamentary address that I have used to—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Personal.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve got one personal—sorry. I’ve got one personal email address that I’ve used in regard to this question. Sorry.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How does it enable the accurate preservation of ministerial decision-making, as required by the Public Records Act 2005, to forward emails sent to her Gmail address to her parliamentary address several months after they were sent to her personal email address?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve said a number of times, I acknowledge that this has not been tidy, that it has not been best practice, and I’ve made a number of changes to our practices. I would acknowledge, though, that every time I’ve been asked to comply with the Official Information Act, I have.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister realise that the Cabinet Manual does not actually preclude such a use, but it has a proviso with respect to best endeavours—but it does not preclude such a use, and there is a whole litany of Labour Party members—

SPEAKER: No, that’s good.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —who did that as well?

Hon Erica Stanford: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no—hang on.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes. The Cabinet Manual does go on to say that there are certain ways that you should treat those emails to make sure that they are caught up in the Official Information Act. I would acknowledge that on a number of occasions—not just this one, but on other occasions—those emails have been released under the Official Information Act, on a number of occasions.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can she assure the House that every single email that is related to her ministerial portfolios that has ever been sent to or from her personal email account has been captured for the official record, as required by paragraph 2.87 of the Cabinet Manual?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have complied with the Official Information Act. I have also made sure that everything is available to be captured and have forwarded everything that I’ve needed to to my parliamentary email address. I will acknowledge, though, in a very similar case to Kelvin Davis, I receive a lot of unsolicited emails like, for example, things from people in India asking for immigration advice, which I never respond to. I almost regard those as being akin to spam, and so there are those ones. But, similarly, other Ministers have had probably very similar issues.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made?

Mr Speaker—I don’t need notes! I’ve made three really exciting recent announcements, the first of which was an announcement around supporting our wonderful teaching workforce: investing, in a pre-Budget announcement, $53 million to stop teachers having to pay their registration fees, which will affect around 115,000 teachers over the next three years.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she received from teachers on this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Within hours of announcing this initiative, I received positive emails from principals and teachers. One teacher, from Northland, said, “Ngā mihi. Thank you. The teachers’ council registration fees caused me significant financial stress. This is the single most useful thing that has occurred in many years to reduce teacher stress. It’s much more than financial relief, but also a welcome indication that, as a profession, we are being heard, and a wonderful gesture of good faith. I am grateful to have my mahi as a teacher acknowledged in this manner, and I turn to acknowledge your mahi in making this happen.”

Grant McCallum: What did she announce to help parents understand their child’s learning?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Every parent wants to see their child thrive at school so they can be confident, capable, and ready to take on the world. Last week, I announced our brand new Parent Portal. The portal provides a clear, easy-to-understand, and year-by-year guide to what children will be learning in English and maths, aligning with the new curriculum, so that our parents can be partners in their children’s education. Until now, parents haven’t always had consistent access to this information, and I am delighted that this new tool will support both schools and parents to strengthen their relationship between home and school.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister tell us as to whether or not she got Willow-Jean Prime’s one email of the day on these issues?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: That’s—[Interruption] Sorry, just a minute. Just a moment. That’s not a reasonable question for the House, nor is it something that the Minister, in all reality, can easily disclose, if it were to be the case.

Grant McCallum: What other announcements has she made to support our students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Last week, I was really delighted to announce at Tawa College, with the Minister of Finance, that we are embedding financial education into the refreshed social sciences curriculum. It is crucial that our kids are taught how to budget, how to save, and how to invest, and understand things like loans and insurance. I know that our parents have long called for financial education to be a priority, and we have answered those calls. We are equipping every Kiwi student with real-life money skills, ensuring they can make informed financial decisions and have the best opportunity to succeed.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, “our priority is building a strong economy to reduce the cost of living, support more people into work and lift incomes for women to help them and their families out of hardship”; if so, how does the Equal Pay Amendment Bill contribute to lifting women’s incomes?

Yes. The Equal Pay Act provides a process to raise and resolve claims of sex-based discrimination. The changes being made are to ensure the process is robust, workable, and sustainable. The Government is committed to maintaining a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims. Where a genuine claim is identified and addressed, this will lift the incomes of women covered by the claim.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The question specifically asked around the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, which was passed yesterday during this period of urgency. The answer by the Minister was talking about the Equal Pay Act, which was not what the question was about.

SPEAKER: Well, I suppose it doesn’t become an Act until it’s—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s an amendment Act, though, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, would the Minister like to correct that term?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is the Equal Pay Amendment Act that will be given Royal assent very shortly.

SPEAKER: That’s good—that will save a lot of corrections.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What action is she taking to raise the incomes of Māori and Pasifika women, who are once again overrepresented in the latest unemployment figures and who will also be hit the hardest under the Equal Pay Amendment Bill?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I disagree with the second part of that question. Where there is a genuine claim under the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, which is soon to be given Royal assent, of course they will be able to lodge a claim. What I said in this House in the debate a couple of days ago, which the member seems to not understand—which is a bit staggering really—is that there are two different issues. One is pay equity; one is low wages. Unfortunately, the member is conflating the two.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Not all issues of low pay are to do with pay equity. Hello!

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she stand by her statement, “If we want an equitable future where poverty is eradicated, we must strengthen our commitment to empowering women and girls and to ensure no one is left behind.”, and, if so, how does scrapping 33 pay equity claims ensure that no one is left behind?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course I agree with my statement.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What is she doing to support the 6,000 additional women on jobseeker, and how does cutting their pay help incentivise women into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, the member is talking about those on the jobseeker benefit, so they receive a benefit. I’m not sure that they receive pay at the moment. I do want them to receive pay, which is why I’m focused on getting them off welfare and into work.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she hold her head up and commit to lifting women’s pay when her Government has passed retrospective legislation, under urgency, that wrecks 33 equity deals and will result in billions in wages not going to workers, of whom almost all are underpaid women?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I would say to the House that that member needs to be very, very careful with her words. There is no deal; it is a claim. It is a claim that’s being considered and a claim that can be resubmitted for consideration. If the claim is valid and has merit, then those women will receive a pay equity settlement and will get a lift in their income.

SPEAKER: Just a reminder to people on my right that questions are heard in silence and answers aren’t given halfway through the question.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order. It has long been the expectation in this House that statements made in questions should be able to be verified and authenticated as correct. I would like to point out—and I would encourage you to look over the Hansard at some point in the next few days—that Opposition members have fallen into a habit of making statements which are factually untrue in their questions and supplementary questions. It’s either sloppy because they don’t know what they’re talking about, or it’s wilfully misleading. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Listen—there was point of order being taken, and you may not like it, but you should listen to it in silence. That is also a longstanding convention of the House. I will follow that course of action, but let me just make it very clear that question time is a time for Ministers to answer questions that are put in front of them. Yes, they should be answerable, and I’ll certainly look at them on that basis.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just for the public’s interest, is it a true thing to say that the Government has cancelled 33 deals, or is it the truth that the deals were never there in the first place and that this House has been dramatically misled?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Leaving to one side my longstanding concerns around abuse of questions in this House, we’ve had a point of order from a Minister essentially accusing us of lying. That is directly after interjecting during the question, calling us misleading, and now a question from the Acting Prime Minister doing the same. Now, I accept that you are going to review it, but, at the very least, we would expect that any assertion that any member of this House is being dishonest should be pushed back against by you.

SPEAKER: Well, let me just review the afternoon. A few minutes ago, you were requiring the Minister for Social Development and Employment to correctly name a bill. What Mr Peters just asked a Minister is: is it true that there were no deals done? If the pedantic exercise is to be followed right through, there were no deals done, obviously, because these were cases before the court. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for that question to be asked in the context of getting everything, all the time, 100 percent accurate on all matters.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order, I take your feedback just now, but isn’t there a difference between, for example, saying that something is just factually incorrect and then accusing someone of being misleading? A point of order saying the name of an Act is incorrect is quite different to accusing another political party of having misled the House. I do think a distinction should be made, because we have had people recently going to the Privileges Committee, for example, for using language that would have been accusing someone of lying or misleading. I’m just seeking clarification as to whether, now, we are basically treating factually correcting someone equivalent to accusing someone of misleading the House.

SPEAKER: Well, you’re predetermining an answer that might have come from a Minister. To ask a question about whether it was correct to say that deals had been done or deals have been stopped or whatever, I don’t think, is the huge transgression of the question time process that might be suggested by some.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. It might be easier if this just goes to be reviewed. The point of order that I made actually wasn’t about the accuracy of the question; it was the fact that there was an accusation of dishonesty against other members of this House, which followed on from a point of order which did the same and an interjection which did the same. That is my concern. There is a longstanding convention in this House—in fact, a rule—that you cannot infer dishonesty on other members, and it happened three times in a row. Now, in order to prevent this dragging on, maybe it’s easier if you just commit to reviewing it and coming back, but we’re deeply concerned that on three instances by way of interjection, point of order, and question, that was allowed to occur.

SPEAKER: Yes, and there were most certainly interjections, particularly yesterday, from my left making exactly those sorts of accusations.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker!

SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the point of order or a new point?

Hon Nicola Willis: Yes, I am. Out of an abundance of caution, let me make it clear that I’m aware of the Standing Orders, and the intent of my statements was not to imply dishonesty so much as to make clear that the effect of the statements being made by the member was to mislead, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

SPEAKER: Well, let me make it very clear that there will always be, in any debate, statements made by people that they find to be their particular truth. Some people would say that is misleading, but it is not deliberately misleading—quite a different thing. The Standing Orders deal with deliberately misleading, which is a much higher test.

Question No. 9—Tourism and Hospitality

9. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made to boost New Zealand as an international travel destination?

Yesterday, I was pleased to announce that visitor visa applicants will no longer need to have their document translation certified in order to come to New Zealand. Visitors applying to visit New Zealand in languages other than English face additional barriers in terms of time and expense around certification. This change will encourage more international visitors across multiple markets. Tourism is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth, and these changes are part of our plan to bring international visitor numbers back to pre-COVID levels.

Sam Uffindell: What does this announcement mean for international visitors?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This announcement brings New Zealand’s English translation requirements into line with Australia. It means that, while translations will still be required, applicants will only need to advise who translated it and the qualification or experience of the translator. In this process, it removes additional translation fees for all visitor visa applicants who need to provide translated documents, including those from China and India. These changes come into effect from 26 May.

Sam Uffindell: How will this announcement support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This announcement reinforces our Government’s commitment to make travel to New Zealand as seamless and easy as possible. The translation requirements were an unnecessary barrier for visitors, and this change shows that we’re serious about New Zealand being open for business. Encouraging more visitors means more people staying in our hotels, eating in our cafes, spending in our shops, and visiting our attractions—creating jobs and driving economic growth. When tourism grows, so does our economy.

Sam Uffindell: What feedback has she seen on this announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The feedback’s been fantastic. The New Zealand Airports Association said, “The Minister’s announcement today will measurably improve New Zealand’s competitiveness as a tourism destination. We strongly support practical steps like this that make it easier for people to choose to apply … here.” Andrew Wilson, who’s the chief executive of RotoruaNZ, said it was “another really positive” move, and “We’re pretty happy to see anything that removes a bit of friction, particularly for … Chinese and Indian visitors.” There will be more to come; 2025 is our chance to reinforce the value of tourism to a humming, vibrant country, where we welcome anyone, from anywhere, at any time.

Question No. 10—Environment

10. to the Minister for the Environment: Does she consider that she has been a strong advocate for environmental protection in the Government’s decisions?

Yes, I do. For example, particularly the recent decision by the Government to consult on a regulated product stewardship scheme for agricultural plastics, including plastic bale wrap, silage sheets, and plastic agrichemical containers. This side of the House knows that our farmers, our rural communities, and our catchment groups are at the front line of environmental protection, and I am proud to give them another tool to be able to continue the good work that they do.

Lan Pham: Does she consider she demonstrated strong advocacy for improving the air we breathe when she delayed better standards for air quality that would have brought us into line with World Health Organization standards, given poor air quality contributes to over 3,000 premature deaths per year?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There are a number of things, and they have come out in our environment report recently, where it shows that we’ve made significant progress. There are other areas where we do need to make further progress, and, obviously, the member has alluded to one of those. I think, particularly from reports such as our environment report, that it has been very much a message of hope that we are putting interventions in place. Things are happening—reduced methane emissions, reduced waste to landfill. Certainly, there is much more to do, as the member has expressed, but we are well on the way, and there is hope in the changes.

Lan Pham: Did she demonstrate more than hope for freshwater protections in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, which, for the first time in Aotearoa’s history, makes it legal to further pollute our most degraded waterways?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Resource Management Act will ensure that we can do several things—first of all, unlocking that development capacity that we need for housing and for business growth. It will enable the delivery of high-quality infrastructure that, again, we need, particularly around things like enabling the doubling of renewable energy. At the same time, it will safeguard the environment, it will safeguard human health, and it will ensure adaptation to the effects of natural hazards. We are ensuring there is a balance.

Lan Pham: How did her strong advocacy for environmental protections translate into the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, that now unprecedentedly legalises the killing of wildlife in a law that is designed—

SPEAKER: Just hang on. You can start that question again, and the House will be silent while the question is asked.

Lan Pham: How did her strong advocacy for environmental protections translate into the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, that now unprecedentedly legalises the killing of wildlife in a law that is designed to protect wildlife?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. The Standing Orders are absolutely clear—Standing Order 390. That question is not rooted in fact.

SPEAKER: Well, the question started with a question word, which was “how”. I’d assume that the answer from the Minister will completely refute any supposition that’s in the question.

Hon Shane Jones: It may have started with an interrogative, but it is based on a faulty assumption about the legislation which has been referred to. Whatever answer this person might be responding to is based on something that’s false.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well—you want to add to that?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Yeah, I think the Minister can speak for herself, and if she wants to refute the answer to the question, she can do so.

SPEAKER: That’s good. I’m pleased you think that. I’m not going to get into a particular discussion with the member. You’ve raised a point of order; effectively, he has made a new point, but I would also say that most questions are asked from a point of view of not knowing what the answer is. Therefore, there is always some degree of questionability inside the question itself.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I refute the premise of that question.

Lan Pham: Does she agree that environmental protection means safeguarding the environment from unnecessary harm and pollution, or does she consider weakening regulation to allow for more pollution, overriding existing protections, and authorising the killing of wildlife to equal protection?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This Government is doing an incredible amount to ensure that we have balance—balance which enables development, balance which protects our environment. It is absolutely imperative that we can provide more solar farms and more wind farms so that we have more renewable energy. It is absolutely imperative that we provide for more housing. But, equally, it is imperative that there is, within that enabling legislation, environmental protections. We believe, as a Government, that both can be achieved on balance.

Lan Pham: Does she think that being the first Minister for the Environment outside of Cabinet since 1972 has meant that her advocacy for the environment on behalf of all New Zealanders has gone unheard?

SPEAKER: It’s a question that the Minister might want to respond to, but, in the end, the ranking of Cabinet is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, not the Minister themselves.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I’m interested, as a question, that she is implying that I have not got influence and am not standing up for the environment. I can assure the member that I have been involved in discussions around resource management replacement, around things around our farm plans, around fresh water, and around national direction. The member might do well to reflect—

SPEAKER: OK. Good. I think we’ve got it. There’s too much noise to carry on.

Hon Shane Jones: In the context of her strong advocacy for environmental protection, has she found any green unicorns?

SPEAKER: Good, that’s—when we’re all quiet.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister’s strong advocacy for the environment left her well prepared to answer more frequent questions from the Green Party about the environment, should they ever eventuate?

SPEAKER: Today has not been a good day for full compliance with the Standing Orders. That may mean that there’s got to be a tighter look at things next week. I certainly will make the reviews that have been requested from both sides of the House.

Question No. 11—Arts, Culture and Heritage

11. to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What updates can he provide on New Zealand Music Month?

This year, we are celebrating 25 years of New Zealand Music Month, highlighting our incredible artists and music community throughout the country. This month’s all about supporting the local music scene, streaming local, seeing local, and buying local. To celebrate and support the success of our homegrown sounds, there are more than 500 entries in the gig guide for the month coming up, and I encourage all Kiwis to make the most of the great opportunity.

Ryan Hamilton: How is the success of Kiwi musicians being celebrated this music month?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, last night, alongside others in Parliament, I attended the launch of the Smokefree Rockquest, hosted by yourself, Mr Speaker, featuring performances by alumni Georgio Lines and Troy Kingi and last year’s winners, Top Shelf and Emerson, and an excellent school band, Sweater Weather. Rockquest is an excellent initiative, and I wish all this year’s participants all the very best.

Ryan Hamilton: What insight can he provide on the success of New Zealand musicians?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m pleased to report to the House that New Zealand artists are conquering the world. In the past 30 days alone, Kiwi artists with more than 3 million global streams on Spotify include Balu Brigada, BAYNK, Benee, Jawsh 685, Lorde, Princess Chelsea, and Savage.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister have a particular favourite contemporary New Zealand recording artist; if so, who?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m very fond of Devilskin.

SPEAKER: Greg Fleming—Ryan Fleming—Ryan Hamilton! I’ve caught Goldstein syndrome! Ryan Hamilton.

Ryan Hamilton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What contribution does the music industry make to the broader New Zealand economy?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, music brings joy to our lives and brings people and communities together, but it’s also big business. A report produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that, in 2023, the music industry contributed $901 million to national GDP. The same report estimated that the industry contributes employment of approximately 5,600 people. With the talent that we have here, there’s a great opportunity to grow the sector even further.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree that The Warratahs’ “Cruising on the Inter-Islander” is the best New Zealand track and far superior to “Nobody Takes Me Seriously”, like Split Enz over there?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, indeed. Another line that springs to mind in relation to the Opposition is “Down the drain like molten toothpaste”.

Hon Chris Penk: Is the Minister looking forward to getting out of this Crowded House?

SPEAKER: I can’t believe—it’s not even the end of the year! Before I call the member we’ll just try—[Interruption] Are we quiet?

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that “women should be paid for their work”; if so, does she consider that the Equal Pay Amendment Bill will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of women to be paid fairly for their work?

Yes, I stand by my statement, and, no, I don’t consider that. This Government is committed to maintaining a pay equity regime, and all settled pay equity claims are being upheld. The changes we’re making to the pay equity system will ensure women are paid fairly by focusing the system on genuine cases of sex-based undervaluation. I would also note that pay equity bargaining is not the only route for workers to negotiate increases in wages, and pay equity should not be conflated with general collective bargaining. Collective bargaining processes will continue to allow workers and employers to negotiate increases in income and consider market-based factors like inflation. That is the correct avenue, whereas pay equity processes should be based on cases of sex-based undervaluation.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why did she raise the threshold of “predominantly performed by female employees” from 60 percent to 70 percent?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: We believe, as a Government, that the threshold for entering a pay equity claim has been too low because there have been cases that have been brought where it is very difficult to determine whether or not what has been identified is sex-based undervaluation or other things and other labour market conditions, like inflation. This is why it’s important for us to ensure that when we are settling pay equity claims, we can hand-on-heart say it is because of sex-based undervaluation.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How many of the 33 pay equity claims her Government cancelled will now not meet the new minimum threshold of 70 percent?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: It is not for me to determine whether or not different people will meet the thresholds. That’s not under my control. It is for unions and individuals to bring claims, and I cannot say whether or not unions and individuals will bring claims or will re-scope claims or not bring them at all into the future.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Can she confirm the claim made by secondary school teachers, representing around 30,000 teachers of whom 63 percent are women, might no longer qualify due to the threshold changes she passed under urgency yesterday?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Like I said before, it is not for me to determine whether or not people will be successful, whether they can enter bargaining, and whether or not they can bring that claim. It is for the union or the members to bring a claim to their employer and for that employer to determine whether or not they believe that claim should be brought. If they disagree, they go to dispute; that is not my role as a Minister.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Did she move the threshold to 70 percent to shut out secondary school teachers, to avoid the cost of paying them equally, and, therefore, in the words of David Seymour, “save the Budget”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I did not change these thresholds for any individual case. I did it because it’s the right thing to do.

That brings oral questions to the end. Those members who need to leave the House for other appointments, please do so quietly without conversations on the way.