Oral Questions

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and we were very proud of the statements yesterday by the Hon Mark Patterson and the Hon Nicola Willis, who are putting New Zealand wool first again. This miracle thread contributed $549 million to our economy in the last financial year, and now it’s being prioritised by 130 Government agencies and departments, who are working on our buildings, recognising the immense benefits of our exporters.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the comments of the Minister of Finance that the Government is creating the conditions for a competitive supermarket industry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, and we stand firmly by this commitment because it was in the coalition agreement between the New Zealand National Party and the New Zealand First Party. It’s long been our position that the duopolistic—I know it’s a multi-vowel - sound word, so a lot of people over there will probably be attracted to it—stranglehold on our grocery sector requires a third entrant. That is why we are replacing the Resource Management Act, the Overseas Investment Act, clamping down on anti-competitive behaviour, and fixing food labelling and import standards to lift competitive products.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the comments of the Minister for Rail that the Government is delivering rail ferries and straightforward infrastructure?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, we are compelled to go with the truth. Two new ferries for the next 30 years—both will move 1,500 people and 2.4 kilometres of lanes for cars, trucks, and rail wagons each movement. That’s more than the current fleet. We are pleased to confirm to the House that the Ferry Holdings board has invited six commercial shipyards to compete on price and quality. We don’t, of course, talk about who they are so that we keep a commercial advantage as the buyer.

Jamie Arbuckle: Does he stand by the comments of the Minister of Police that the Government will not defund the police?

Francisco Hernandez: You’ve already done it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: “Dun-ette”—what’s “dun-ette”? Your policy? Ladies and gentlemen, can I just say that people feel much happier with cops on the beat—even 48 percent of the Green vote felt that way. How many people felt that they’d be safer in a dark alley with a gang member? Well, less than 8 percent felt that way, and the Greens were all a part of them as well. Now, we’re going to get cops back on the beat. We are now well on track to be getting our extra 500 people. The intake is the largest it’s ever been, and so we’re flat out doing it—and do you know something? I think we had sometimes 7,000 applicants to be in the police at the very beginning. So the interest is starting to pick up big time.

Question No. 2—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

2. to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Have Māori-Crown relations improved since the coalition Government took office?

The honourable member will know that Crown-Māori relations are not static—they are tested, they have their ups and downs, and they evolve. There have been challenges over the last 18 months, and successes too, like Minister Jones’ Regional Infrastructure Fund supporting investments in Rātana, Waitangi, and Parihaka; like Treaty settlements led by Minister Goldsmith; the Ō-Rākau bill that transferred the ownership of Ō-Rākau back to Ngā Ahi e Toru, housing; and various fast-track projects—24 of which are either led by, or co-invested with, Māori organisations. We cannot break Crown-Māori relations. The Crown and iwi and Māori are inextricably tied through the Treaty and obligations and responsibilities that go with kāwanatanga, rangatiratanga, and, most importantly, kotahitanga.

Hon Willie Jackson: If his Government is focusing on unifying this country, as Christopher Luxon claimed, how does undermining te reo, destroying the Māori Health Authority, and dismissing tikanga achieve that?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a number of steps that this Government is absolutely focused on—for example, getting the economy back on track, and that includes Māori and all New Zealanders delivering better public services, including folks who live in Hamilton that are Māori, Pasifika, Asian, or New Zealanders trying to get to the hospital and get proper patient health outcomes; and, of course, the law and order mahi that Minister Mark Mitchell is undertaking.

Hon Willie Jackson: What is the Minister most proud of: cutting Māori voices from councils, rolling back efforts to narrow the eight-year life expectancy gap between Māori and non-Māori, or allowing Te Tiriti to be used as a bargaining chip in coalition negotiations?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am very proud of maintaining a very respectful and dignified posture in this House and out in the electorate that I serve.

Hon Willie Jackson: How could the Minister enable and vote for the first reading of a bill that the Waitangi Tribunal says “would unsettle the constitutional foundation of Aotearoa”, just to cling to three years of fragile power, when the damage to his mana and legacy will live on for ever?

SPEAKER: You can’t use a question to make a personal reflection like that. Have another go or give it up.

Hon Willie Jackson: OK. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister look at tamariki Māori, including his own children, in the eye and say his Government honours Te Tiriti?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, I have it in hand. That’s equally offensive, so one more time.

Hon Willie Jackson: OK, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. How can Māori respect the legacy of a Minister for Māori Crown Relations who claims he’s too far down the food chain to protect Te Tiriti?

SPEAKER: Marginal.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m actually very proud of the work that this Government has undertaken to progress a number of Treaty-related matters, including the mahi that Minister Goldsmith and I attended, one week ago, in Taumarunui with the Ngāti Hauā deed of settlement, including a number of matters that have advanced Māori economic development, including last week’s announcement around work that we are doing to assure that the Tōnui Māori framework—how Government can support Māori economic development—can move forward. I’m very proud of that focus on localism and devolution. What I would not be proud of, as the last Government showed, is monopolising Māori development and thinking that we know everything about Māori development. We don’t.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: if he was to lose six Māori colleagues as a result of his work, would he regard that as a failure?

SPEAKER: No, that call is an attack.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister take a stand if the coalition seeks to harm Crown-Māori relations even more, including the removal of Treaty principles from the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms, or will he continue to merely stand back and wring his hands?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Standing Order 390: that question cannot stand, because it’s not a statement of fact. The Treaty of Waitangi principles have not been removed from that public document, the proposed statute.

SPEAKER: And more than that, the end of the question most certainly had a personal reflection in it. Last chance to get a question that’s in order.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. For someone to break the rules once is a mistake, twice is stupid, but three times is trifling with you. Why don’t you just end this question?

SPEAKER: I thank the member for offering that advice and I would certainly point out to him that if I were to apply that in all cases to the most literal interpretation of answers to questions, very little would be answered in this House. Last chance, Mr Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you very much. Can I ask the Minister: what is the point of having a Minister for Māori Crown Relations who only considers the interests of the Crown?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Certainly, I’m very privileged and honoured to be the Minister responsible for Crown and Māori relations and someone who is working in a team, not just talking about things and handing out money like Al Bundy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: As a matter of future work, when was the last time he heard from the Minister who set up the ministry of Māori-Crown relations?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kua roa te wā. [It’s been a long time.]

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the fiscal policy response to economic shocks?

This morning, Treasury released a draft long-term insights briefing for public consultation. The paper is about the appropriate role of fiscal policy—that is, Government decisions about spending and revenue—through economic shocks and business cycles. Part of the motivation for the paper was a reflection on COVID times and how fiscal policy was used both during and after the pandemic. Looking ahead, it is relevant when thinking about the fiscal response to future shocks and significant global events such as the world is experiencing at present.

Katie Nimon: What does the draft long-term insights briefing say about the relative roles of fiscal and monetary policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The paper confirms that in all but exceptional cases, macroeconomic stabilisation should be left to monetary policy run by the independent Reserve Bank. However, there is a case for using fiscal policy to stimulate the economy when the official cash rate is so low that reducing it further is not practical or effective. The paper is sceptical of using large-scale infrastructure investment as a form of stimulus, as it typically involves lengthy planning, design, and construction processes. Otherwise, discretionary fiscal policy should focus on the medium-term goals of debt sustainability and effective delivery of public services.

Katie Nimon: How are these findings relevant to the current global turmoil?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, they confirm that in the first place, monetary policy is the way to deal with any immediate impact on the New Zealand economy. With the official cash rate at 3.5 percent, the Reserve Bank has plenty of room to reduce interest rates, if it needs to. In terms of fiscal policy, the current turmoil makes it even more important to get New Zealand’s fiscal position back on an even keel so that we retain market confidence and can react, if necessary. The operating balance has been in deficit for many years. We are now on a path back to surplus. Debt has risen very sharply since 2019. We are now on track to see that debt curve bend then start to decline—that is the crucial role fiscal policy is playing.

Katie Nimon: What alternative approaches to fiscal policy has she seen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen one commentator saying that there may need to be more spending in the Budget to stimulate the economy and that “I think there’d certainly be a justified case for that”. The commentator also said, “if it’s investment spending, rather than short term spending, there is absolutely a case for that at the moment”. Since these statements suggest an entirely different approach from that which Treasury is advising in its draft long-term insights briefing, I would encourage Chris Hipkins to take up the Treasury’s invitation and make a submission.

Question No. 4—Education

4. to the Minister of Education: Is she committed to the purpose of the Education and Training Act 2020 that establishes and regulates an education system that “honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supports Māori-Crown relationships”; if so, how?

Yes. Honouring the Treaty in education means raising achievement and closing the equity gap by addressing the disproportionate representation of Māori students in the lower quartiles of educational achievement. That’s why, at the start of term 2, every kaiako teaching in Māori medium and kura kaupapa will have received their detailed pāngarau lesson plans, student workbooks, activities, and classroom-ready resources for their tamariki—the first roll-out of high-quality, curriculum-aligned math resources in te reo Māori, delivered by this Government.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she have confidence in Elizabeth Rata’s contribution to the curriculum, given she told the Justice Committee that New Zealand “is under serious threat from those who would replace liberal democracy with tribal sovereignty, and by doing so will create a racialised society—apartheid.”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, Elizabeth Rata was one of many writers of the English curriculum, one of 20, in fact. Actually, when the Ministry of Education are looking to contract writers for the curriculum, they look for experts in curriculum design and in English. What they don’t do is trawl back through people’s histories, because we are interested in the content of the curriculum. If the member was really interested in raising Māori achievement, she would be asking questions about the detail of the curriculum, but she’s not. She’s asking questions about what the people who wrote the curriculum believe. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for silence.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with Elizabeth Rata, who told the select committee that there was a risk “of cultural posturing, intimidation, perhaps even violence” from opponents of the Treaty principles bill?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. The Minister is not responsible for the statements of Dr Rata, made at select committee.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: My question was: does she agree with them?

SPEAKER: And that is a legitimate question.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I didn’t listen to Elizabeth Rata’s contribution to that select committee—it was not to do with education.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: One more over here.

Hon Willie Jackson: Another stupid one, no doubt.

SPEAKER: That’ll be goodbye shortly.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can she reassure the thousands of educators associated with the 13 peak educational bodies that the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in education is safe, given that she is downgrading consideration of Te Tiriti o Waitangi through legislation?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to that question, we’re not downgrading it at all. The very first part of replacement section 127 in the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), which is currently being introduced to the House, is about making sure that educational achievement is the paramount objective.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Where was Te Tiriti?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: And I said in my very first answer to the question—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Where was Te Tiriti?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —that if we’re going to honour the Treaty, we need to make sure that our tamariki Māori are achieving in our education system—that has to be the paramount objective.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: So not Te Tiriti as well.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: And one of the most essential qualifying objectives to that is making sure we all honour the Treaty, and it says that in section 127.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. During the answer to that question, the person who put the question interrupted with three other questions at the same time. Now, either she’s serious about getting an answer or she’s just posing here and showing off what she doesn’t know. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: And there is—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No—supplementary question, the Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister believe it’s the Government’s policy to hire people on their expertise in the relevant area, or to discriminate on their political beliefs; in other words, is the Government committed to following the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act, or do we just ignore those and let our prejudices run rampant?

SPEAKER: In so much as any of those points relates to the Minister’s portfolio, a very brief answer could be given.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I know that the ministry, when they were appointing writers, were looking for curriculum experts and English experts.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is proposing to cut Māori resource teachers (RTs), who work most closely with tamariki Māori needing the most learning support, being committed to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’ve traversed this in question time many times. The model of delivery is not working for tamariki Māori. We’ve already said that there are numerous RTs of Māori based in areas where there are a very low proportion of kura kaupapa—where, in Northland, for example, we have many kura kaupapa and only two RTs of Māori. The way that we deliver the service is not equitable; it is not optimised. We are going to make sure we take that funding and put it back into Māori education so it is more equitable and it is more optimised so we see benefits in the classroom for tamariki Māori.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why will she not meet with the resource teachers of Māori and accept their letter signed by over 6,000 supporters calling on her to retain funding for resource teachers of Māori?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There has been a process of consultation—that has closed, and now we will look at those answers that are being given back and take those into consideration when we make our decisions.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the letter from the National Association of Resource Teachers Advisory Māori, who would have liked to have given this letter to the Minister personally, but she would not meet with them.

SPEAKER: You don’t need to say the last part. Who is in possession of that letter already?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Just me, because they handed it to me at my meeting prior to this.

Hon Nicola Willis: They haven’t sent it to her yet.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: No, they wanted to meet—

SPEAKER: Now, hang on—hang on. No explanations. Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I tell you what, I know it’s Thursday and we’re about to go into a long recess, but just hold and check a little bit. Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she seriously claim to be committed to a system that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi when she reduces the importance of considering Te Tiriti o Waitangi on school boards, cuts Māori resource teachers, and appoints fringe anti-Māori thinkers to her advisory groups?

SPEAKER: No, sorry, that’s not a reasonable question.

Question No. 5—Transport

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Transport. Does he accept evidence that a person struck by a vehicle travelling at 30 km/h—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute, Ms Julie Anne Genter. Could you, please, start your question again. The House needs to be listening to what you’re saying.

5. to the Minister of Transport: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he accept evidence that a person struck by a vehicle travelling at 30 km/h has a 90 percent chance of surviving, dropping to only 20 percent if hit at 50 km/h; if so, will he listen to the pleas from school principals, aged care residents, and communities who want to keep safer speeds of 30 km/h?

I’m advised there’s a large body of research on the risk of a pedestrian being killed after being hit by a motor vehicle travelling at different speeds. While the chance of survival is greatest at lower speeds, I’m advised that crash outcomes are influenced by a range of factors. It’s not quite as simple as the member is indicating. The Government is committed to improving road safety, and we’re focused on targeting the highest contributing factors to fatal road crashes, such as alcohol and drugs, distracted drivers, and building and maintaining our road network to a higher standard. As to the second part of the question, the Government has taken steps to improve safety outside schools by requiring variable speed limits to be implemented outside schools by 1 July 2026. This includes variable limits of 30 km/h outside schools in predominantly urban areas. Furthermore, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has been listening to community concerns. Following strong local feedback to proposed speed changes in some parts of the country, such as Rākaia, in Canterbury, and Marybank, in Nelson, NZTA has announced new consultation on these speed changes to make sure they’re getting it right.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why is he claiming that the variable speed limits around schools are an improvement to safety when 85 percent of deaths and serious injuries within 400 metres of a school gate happen outside school drop-off and pick-up times; and the rule, as drafted, is going to force councils to increase the speed limit around hundreds of schools in Auckland, and in Wellington, a primary school, an intermediate school, two aged-care facilities, a hospital, and two early childhood centres?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Government has taken the pragmatic view that speed limits should be lower around school pick-up and drop-off times, because that’s when kids are there, but driving past a school at midnight should not require someone to drive at 30 km/h. As to the second part of the member’s supplementary, councils, as Road Controlling Authorities, have the ability to consult on lowering speed limits after 1 July, and some have already started doing that.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: What does he say to the Point Chevalier School principal, who said, “I attended the funeral of a young man, about 10 years old. He was hit by a car … in a 50 km/h area. That could have been different if it was 30 km/h around that school.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’d say to him that all deaths on our roads are tragedies, and I’d encourage him, if he feels strongly, as he clearly does, around the particular speed limit near that particular school, which I’m not familiar with, to talk to the relevant road controlling authority to express those concerns.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: What does he say to Freemans Bay School principal Cindy Walsh, who, last year, was witness to a student being struck by a car outside of the school, outside of drop-off and pick-up times—“The car was travelling 30 km/h, as required. The student was taken to a hospital with moderate injuries and shock and was discharged the day after. If the car was travelling at 50 km/h, he would have received a serious injury or death.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’d say exactly the same thing I said to the person the member was referring to in the question before.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he amend the 2024 speed limit rule to allow local authorities and NZTA to retain safer speed limits of 30 km/h where there is strong community support, especially around schools and aged-care facilities, where people are crossing the road all during the day; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The rule allows for that. After 1 July, road controlling authorities can consult local communities on what the speed should be on the roads that they control. Hamilton City Council has already started it. I know that the member is particularly concerned about Wellington City Council. She should go and talk to the city council.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he saying that councils don’t have to reverse the speed limits between now and 1 July?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.

Question No. 6—Disability Issues

6. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement, “That is why we are prioritising disabled people, their families, and carers”; if so, is she confident that all Government agencies are acting in the best interests of disabled people?

Yes. Prioritising disabled people, their families, and carers is a priority for this Government, and that is why we have provided a record $1.1 billion funding boost to Disability Support Services in last year’s Budget. The state of affairs left by the last Government needed immediate action to stabilise the disability support system. The disability strategy refresh is a key piece of work to improve the lives of disabled people, and I have recently announced the membership of key working groups. These groups will meet for the first time tomorrow and include the disabled community experts from across Government and business. Our Government is focused on improving the lives of disabled New Zealanders.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she agree with the immigration Minister’s decision to exclude some disabled children of temporary migrants from being able to get a student or visitor visa?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, I’m very confident in the Minister of Immigration’s decisions.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does she justify the exclusion of disabled migrant children from student and visitor visas, given New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, it might interest the member that, actually, that was a decision that was also agreed by the previous Government. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait!

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Was she aware of these immigration changes prior to the announcement; if so, did she advocate on behalf of migrant children with intellectual disabilities?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Look, while I accept that it’s challenging for the family involved, New Zealand, like every other country in the world, has immigration policies that take into account the needs of New Zealanders.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does she say to the parents of the six-year-old child with Down syndrome in Waikato who faces deportation because of her Government’s decision to deny him a visa?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, that member would well know that the House is not a place to discuss individual immigration cases, but, as I said, for any family with a child with a disability, it’s incredibly challenging, and I accept that.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Will she advocate to the immigration Minister to intervene and allow migrant children with Down syndrome to stay in New Zealand; if not, what message is her Government sending about the value and potential of people with Down syndrome?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve answered the question. I have confidence in the Minister of Immigration. In terms of the decisions our Government has made, they are in the interests of New Zealanders. While I accept that it’s challenging for the individual family involved, I would remind that member of her Government’s previous position around the United Nations’ rights of the child that didn’t propose any change.

Question No. 7—Oceans and Fisheries

7. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What assurances can he provide, if any, that his proposed fisheries reforms will not diminish Māori customary gathering rights or the ability of New Zealanders to gather kai moana to feed their whānau?

I can confirm to the House that the proposed changes that are currently going through the process of consultation will not diminish the mātaitai food-gathering rights of tangata whenua, a feature of the 1992 settlement. Similarly, nothing that is proposed is going to undermine the interests of garden-variety Kiwis, because sustainability will be uppermost in the officials’ minds as they develop proposals.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree that under the quota management system (QMS), many taonga species such as tipa—scallops—and koura—crayfish—have become functionally extinct in many areas, leading to the closure of their commercial fisheries and rendering the fisheries settlement assets granted to hapū and iwi in 1992 absolutely worthless; if not, why not?

Hon SHANE JONES: Point of order. Can I direct the Speaker of the House to educate the member that there are a plethora of Speakers’ rulings—196, 197—that rule that question out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your advice. But one thing you cannot do is direct the Speaker of the House. If you want to answer the question, by all means. If you don’t want to answer it, then say so—“It’s not in the public interest” would be the only reason for that not being answered.

Hon SHANE JONES: I cannot respond to a question that’s riddled with factual inaccuracies.

Tākuta Ferris: Will he propose compensation to hapū and iwi for the gross devaluation of their fisheries settlement assets and loss of income as a result of a failure of the QMS to ensure the sustainability of those fish stocks; if not, why not?

SPEAKER: I think Standing Order 372 is the one I quote that relates to the content that can be in questions. That question had a number of assertions, suppositions, and, effectively, positions put that may be contestable. Is there another way you could ask the question that might meet the Standing Orders?

Tākuta Ferris: Given the current state—

SPEAKER: No. We tend not to start a question with “given” because that’s requiring that there’s already information about the question that should be information that’s being sought. So just start with a question wording.

Tākuta Ferris: The current state of many species renders fisheries settlements that iwi received in 1992 value-less—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that questioner has had enough time to frame his question, and up till now, after this lengthy discourse, he is making a statement. Surely he’s been here long enough to learn what the lessons of this House are.

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, we’ll have one more go. Just start with a question. I think it should be relatively easy to get a question out of that. I’m being very lenient. It’s a Thursday and it’s a particularly interesting Thursday, so have one more go.

Tākuta Ferris: OK. Will he propose compensation for loss of value of fisheries settlements to iwi?

Hon SHANE JONES: The fisheries settlement, otherwise colloquially known as the “Sealord settlement”, was settled in 1992. The full and final settlement enabled Māori to receive quota and participate under a general set of rules governing the conduct of commercial fishing. There is nothing especially distinctive about the quota under the law that the member avers. All quota owners are bound by general legal decisions, a decision that was negotiated by others including Sir Tipene O’Regan; supported by the former All Black, a former member of Southern Māori, Tutekawa Wyllie, when they had a reputable representative.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he believe that allowing fishing companies to carry over uncaught quota from one fishing year to the next fishing year will help improve the sustainability of local fish stocks; if so, how?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, the member has galloped further than both experience and expertise—those decisions have not been signed off permanently. At this stage, we are still in consultation. So ko tāku ki te mema, tāria te wā. Makere mai koe i tō hōiho. E hoki ki te kōhanga. [I say to the member, wait. Get off your horse. Go back to kindergarten.]

Tākuta Ferris: Over 300,000 tonnes of fish is commercially harvested from Aotearoa’s oceans every year, and exported at rock-bottom prices—Minister, do you think the bulk harvesting of kahawai, the people’s fish, and exporting them for less than $2 a kilo qualifies as a good economic and social value return for New Zealand’s natural resources?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m sure that I speak on behalf of a host of the members of the House who love fishing and realise that we need to enhance the value of this valuable stock. But we are not running a Soviet empire here, where politicians dictate what the market should pay.

Tākuta Ferris: Minister, the commercial fishing industry illegally discards, or just throws overboard, 10,000 tonnes of unwanted fish per year—double that of the recreational patch of the entire country. You are proposing legalising the dumping of fishing at sea—

SPEAKER: No, sorry. Look, you’ve got to ask questions. The Standing Orders are very clear—390—you cannot make assertions; you cannot put assumptions that you’re making to the Minister without the context of a question.

Tākuta Ferris: Ka pai. Are you proposing legalising the dumping of fish at sea, and will this have a negative or positive impact on fish stock sustainability; if so, how?

Hon SHANE JONES: The access to the commercial fisheries in 1986 was largely privatised, and there are a host of views as to whether or not that system will hold well into the future. At the moment, the proposal that is out for consultation does not contemplate the dismemberment of the quota system—and consultation is still actually under way. But I have to say, as a warning to that member: please do not bring questions that bear a remarkable resemblance as to what LegaSea said to me last Friday.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Minister of Housing: Can he guarantee that cutting a net 673 roles at Kāinga Ora will not impact any front-line services, including those working with the Ministry of Social Development to place people in public housing?

No Minister can guarantee anything, particularly with regard to operational matters for the Chief Executive of Kāinga Ora, but I have stressed to Kāinga Ora that I expect front-line service delivery to not be affected by the change proposal they are undertaking.

TAMATHA PAUL: Will his cuts impact staff who work on community engagement and provide support for tenants, including building trust with tenants?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I don’t have the details as to the specific impact on community engagement. You’d need to put that down in writing; I can provide that. As I’ve said, I don’t expect there to be an impact on front-line service delivery for Kāinga Ora.

Tamatha Paul: Why did Cabinet decide to remove the operating principles from the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Act, including the requirement for Kāinga Ora to be a fair and reasonable landlord?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Cabinet has agreed to make some amendments to the Kāinga Ora legislation, but the precise details of that will be worked through as part of our general reorganisation of the housing system. So it’s subject to further decisions. Generally, the Act is complicated and confusing, and our view is that the Act can be simplified.

Tamatha Paul: What are his expectations of Kāinga Ora to ensure tenants are treated with dignity and supported to sustain their tenancies?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: My expectation is that Kāinga Ora follows the law.

Tamatha Paul: Does he stand by his statement that making changes to the way Kāinga Ora operates is “in line with a back-to-basics approach”; if so, does he not think that requirements for Kāinga Ora to provide warm, dry, and healthy housing and support tenants to lead lives with dignity are basics?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m very proud of the work that Kāinga Ora has undertaken so far as part of the—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Shameful—absolutely shameful.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, if the member wants to listen, I’ll explain why. There is a challenging change proposal under way for staff at Kāinga Ora. There has been a reduction in staff working in Kāinga Ora so far, but despite that, as part of the reset plan, satisfaction with repairs and maintenance has increased from 74 percent in March last year to 83 percent at December 2024, and satisfaction, with MyKāingaOra, which is a metric that Kāinga Ora measures, has gone from 71 percent in March 2024 to 79 percent in December 2024. This proves that it is not necessarily about how much money you spend or how many staff you hire; it is actually about efficiency and focusing on the front line.

Tamatha Paul: Are staff at Kāinga Ora responding positively to his continuous restructures and cuts, and, if so, does he think this will impact the quality of services provided to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: They’re not my restructures; they’re the operational responsibility of the chief executive, and so they are undertaking that. Of course, there will be challenging situations for any staff affected by change proposals in any organisation but, as I’ve just pointed out to the House, it is possible to achieve better service delivery for vulnerable tenants—indeed, all tenants in Kāinga Ora properties—at the same time as focusing on efficiency, and the numbers I’ve just pointed out to the House demonstrate that point very neatly.

Hon Shane Jones: Is it accurate to say to the Minister that the rationalisation of Kāinga Ora is likely to lead to the delivery of housing proposals and options which are a lot more affordable?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed, that is the case. It’s early days in the turnaround plan, but the numbers I’ve seen suggest that Kāinga Ora is doing an excellent job in focusing on a back-to-basics approach, in terms of building. They are delivering units at a greater cost-efficiency compared to the past. As I say, it’s early days, but there are very encouraging signs so far, and I encourage them well on that journey.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he seen on the housing market?

I’ve seen many reports, but yesterday I saw the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s rental bond data that shows the median rent for new tenancies is sitting at $600 per week; when this Government took office, the figure was $600 per week. For every month since, except for a minor blip in January, this has remained at $600. In both the Bay of Plenty and Canterbury, rents for new tenancies have actually fallen around 6 percent year on year to February. By way of comparison—just to pick two random dates—from October 2017 to December 2023, median rents for new tenancies across New Zealand rose by $200 per week.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Just when the House settles itself.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What reports has he seen on the social housing register and emergency housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As of 31 March this year, there were around 19,000 households on the register; this is 6,000 fewer than when this Government took office, and 1,000 less than last quarter. Housing register numbers are continuing to drop because more applicants are being housed and because Ministry of Social Development front-line staff are more actively following up on whether or not people on the register are in housing need. As for emergency housing, households living in emergency housing motels have reduced by 85 percent under this Government, from over 3,000 in December 2023, to 459 at the end of March.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What steps has the Government taken to support community housing providers (CHPs)?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It was a big day last month when we announced two measures to reduce the debt-financing barriers for community housing providers. This is something that the sector has long called for—it is complicated, but we have established lending facilities of up to $150 million for the Community Housing Funding Agency to unlock lower-cost finance for CHPs by pooling their financing requirements. This lays the foundation for the agency to borrow billions of dollars and lend at even lower rates for CHPs, supporting not just social housing but also broader affordable housing portfolios. We’re also engaging with banks on a loan guarantee scheme by way of the Minister of Finance. There is quite a lot of appetite for this. This will allow banks to pass on meaningfully reduced interest rates to community housing providers, creating neutrality between Kāinga Ora (KO) and the community housing sector. This Government backs both Kāinga Ora and the community housing sector to house vulnerable New Zealanders.

Hon Nicola Willis: Would the Minister seek to encourage commercial banks to take part in this lending scheme, and would that be seen as a good contribution by those banks to assisting with our housing affordability challenges in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed I would. One of the problems that the community housing sector has faced as they seek to grow over the last 10 years or so, since the modern inception of the system, has been the high cost of finance offered by commercial banks. The Crown can borrow at Crown borrowing rates—or Kāinga Ora can borrow, essentially, at Crown borrowing rates, once we got rid of the Bloomberg terminals and stopped them borrowing on the private financial markets—but the community housing sector has had a very high cost of borrowing. We are sorting that situation out, and I encourage the banks to play their part on this journey to create more affordable housing for New Zealanders.

Hon Shane Jones: Is the Minister confident we will no longer see reports that KO building costs will explode again to $6,500 per square metre to deliver bog-standard housing solutions?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m very confident that, with the turn-around plan endorsed by Cabinet, and the new management team and governance in place at Kāinga Ora, we are getting that agency back on track.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: What evidence, if any, does the Minister have that supports the removal of the relationship and sexuality education guidelines from schools?

The Education Review Office’s recent evaluation found that, and I quote, “While there was widespread support from students and parents for RSE being taught in schools, there is an inconsistency in the RSE teaching and learning that students experience throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. What students are taught, if they are taught it, and when they are taught it can depend on where they go to school.” The Education Review Office (ERO) found that schools find consulting difficult and divisive, and found the optional guidelines like those produced under the previous Government have left too much to chance. This Government is resourcing the sector with a knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum that clearly outlines what’s being taught and when, giving teachers certainty and parents clarity on what their children are learning so they can make informed choices about their education.

Shanan Halbert: Was there anything at all in the Education Review Office’s report that recommended the removal of the relationship and sexuality education guidelines from schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I already outlined, in my previous answer, the findings of ERO that said that there was huge inconsistency around New Zealand and what students were learning and that many students were missing out on things. It was then my recommendation that we get rid of the RSE curriculum guidelines—also, can I say, in acknowledgment of our agreement with the New Zealand First Party in our coalition agreement to remove those RSE guidelines.

Shanan Halbert: How does she reconcile her recommendation to remove the relationship and sexuality education guidelines, given her own Education Review Office report found that those very guidelines were supported by 87 percents of parents and whānau?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve already made it very clear, in many answers in this House, including just the other night, that the RSE guidelines are not a curriculum. They are causing confusion. They are meaning that some students are learning some things and some are not. What we do need is a year-by-year, knowledge-rich curriculum document that is required to be taught by schools, which gives clarity to teachers and the ability for parents to pull their children out if they should wish to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not the mass majority of parents in this country want their children to go to primary school, in particular, to learn the “three Rs”—all the basics—and get those serious steps organised, and not to learn Shanan Halbert’s values on RSE or whatever he stands for?

SPEAKER: The question was going well until the last bit. Does the Minister want to respond?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Oh, look, as the country well knows by now, this Government has a focus on reading, writing, and mathematics to make sure that we are teaching the basics brilliantly so children can go on to live the life that they want. In the instance where parents may not be teaching their children some of the basics in the health and physical education curriculum, the State is creating a curriculum that is clear, that is year by year, that is knowledge-rich and detailed that parents will be able to withdraw their children out of if they should wish to teach these issues themselves at home. [Interruption]

Shanan Halbert: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Just wait—all right.

Shanan Halbert: Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who said the guidelines are “woke”, “out of touch”, and “indoctrinate our children”; if so, how does she reconcile these views with the actual evidence that she, as the Minister, was presented with?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I always agree with the Deputy Prime Minister. In this case, it was very clear: the RSE guidelines are not a curriculum; they are a guideline. They are not year by year, they are not knowledge-rich, and they were leaving far too much to chance—as outlined in ERO’s report. We are now replacing those guidelines with a knowledge-rich curriculum that details every single year what will be taught and when to give teachers confidence and parents the knowledge of what their children will be learning if they choose to remove them from those lessons.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister of the view that long has it been that Governments have been driven by the victim of in loco parentis, which means “in the shoes of the parents”, and that the teachers have responsibility to the parents and not people like Shanan Halbert?

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, you can’t use a Government question to attack the Opposition, which that was. So I’ve been very fair to others; if you want to reword the question, that would be—no. OK, we’ll move on. Shanan Halbert—supplementary. [Interruption] Mr Halbert, just wait till the House gives you the respect of listening.

Shanan Halbert: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Was the reason she chose not to meet with rainbow youth organisation Inside Out because she knows that the removal of the relationship and sexuality education guidelines will put rainbow youth at greater risk of harm?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No, because we are creating, as I’ve already said so many times, a detailed year-by-year, knowledge-rich curriculum which covers all of those topics that parents will know what their children are being taught and when, leaving nothing to chance, unlike the RSE guidelines, which were vague and waffly, were not year by year, and were causing confusion, as outlined in ERO’s report.

Shanan Halbert: Supplementary? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: All right, but I think if you’re going to ask a question, your colleagues should at least allow the House to hear what the answer is so that you can get the answer you’re after.

Shanan Halbert: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Was putting politics before our kids by caving to New Zealand First in the exchange for power worth it—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t do that. No, sit down—[Interruption]—sit down!

Question No. 11—Transport

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Associate Minister of Transport. What recent announcements has he made about the Ashburton Bridge?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Why was there so much talking during that question? What was so important that the House had to be interrupted and disrupted by people having conversations while a question is being asked? Please ask the question again.

11. to the Associate Minister of Transport: Thank you. What recent announcements has he made about the Ashburton Bridge?

Last week, the Government was very pleased to announce a major milestone that will be great news for locals and for freight in the South Island: the second Ashburton Bridge is ready to move ahead at pace. The business case has been approved, geotechnical investigations will begin soon, and next week, we go to market for technical and design support. This is a fantastic development for Cantabrians, a fantastic development for South Islanders, and for State Highway 1 resilience. As our Government focuses on “Going for Growth”, our work remains on getting essential infrastructure in place so that people can get where they want, when they want, safely and conveniently.

Miles Anderson: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just wait. All right.

Miles Anderson: What benefits will the second Ashburton Bridge bring?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: The benefits of the second Ashburton Bridge are numerous. The 24,000 vehicles using the bridge every day to commute, transport freight, and go about their lives will enjoy reduced congestion, improved road safety, reduced delays, improved reliability in the case of potential closures. It will also accommodate future growth.

Miles Anderson: How is the second Ashburton Bridge important for supporting future growth?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I was pleased to see that in ASB’s recent Quarterly Regional Scoreboard, Otago, Canterbury, Tasman, and Southland were the four strongest-growing regions, all in the South Island. There is so much potential across the South Island, and infrastructure projects—like the second Ashburton Bridge—will be vital to connecting those regions together, and for transporting our goods to market. As we work to double our exports over the next 10 years in places like mining and coal, and see our tourism bounce back, projects like the second Ashburton Bridge are vital to ensuring that New Zealand continues to punch above its weight.

Miles Anderson: How does the second Ashburton Bridge tie in with other transport work in Canterbury?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Upgrades will also be made on the adjacent roads beside the bridge, but beyond that, we are focused on progressing delivery on our roads of national significance and our roads of regional significance. That includes State Highway 1 Belfast to Pegasus and the Woodend Bypass, Mr Doocey; State Highway 76 Brougham Street upgrades, for the members in Christchurch; State Highway 75 Halswell Road improvements, Megan Woods; and State Highway 1 Rolleston access improvements. We are also looking into further improvements for State highways south of Christchurch, including around capacity, resilience, and bridge replacements between the Lyttelton port and Timaru port, along with the role of rail and the potential four-laning of that corridor.

Question No. 12—Children

12. to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made regarding a safety-first approach for Oranga Tamariki?

On Tuesday, I announced that I have asked Oranga Tamariki to undertake a full scoping review of all existing appropriation measures to ensure that they are focused on the things that matter most to our most vulnerable children and young people. I was concerned that Oranga Tamariki is currently required to report on and meet targets that take them away from their core purpose, which is the care and protection of children and young people. These children and young people deserve the best possible care and protection system we can provide, and I’m committed to removing any barriers or distractions that prevent them from achieving this.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why is it important that Oranga Tamariki takes a safety-first approach?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Since becoming Minister, I’ve made it very clear to Oranga Tamariki that they must always put the safety and wellbeing of children at the forefront of their decision making. This is what I and this Government have consistently reinforced, including just last week, with the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. By reviewing all existing measures and targets, we can make sure that Oranga Tamariki is focused on what is most important, which is the safety of children.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What are some of the measures and targets Oranga Tamariki currently have?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Currently, Oranga Tamariki are assessed against a performance measure which states that the percentage of children in out-of-home placement for more than three months who are placed with family or whānau will be at least 58 percent. Of course, if a child or young person is not able to be safe at home, then wider whānau or family should be considered as a potential placement option. However, I’m concerned that having this sort of target as a performance measure for Oranga Tamariki sends a message that the safety of the child does not come first.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Are there any other current targets or measures which are not focused on children’s safety?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes. Oranga Tamariki currently has a performance measure that the percentage of all service contract funding contracted with iwi and Māori organisations will be greater than 23 percent. These organisations should not just be seen as some sort of quota or tick-box exercise. What should determine the funding is the outcomes for our children. I want to make clear that there are a number of excellent iwi and Māori organisations doing great work within the community. I meet with them all the time in both my portfolios. This is a Government that believes in principles: principles, like focusing on outcomes, not outputs; principles, like safety, should always come first when it comes to our children and young people.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she aware that section 4 already puts the child’s safety and welfare above all else when making decisions—and so does not need to remove these targets?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes. Section 4A does require that, but we also need to make sure that the internal priorities of Oranga Tamariki are clear that the focus is safety first.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is cutting funding to front-line community providers for early intervention and prevention a safety-first approach?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: That member constantly asks this question and talks about cuts. There were no cuts. The money was reprioritised—like we’ve been talking about—to where the money gets the best outcomes for our children.

SPEAKER: Good—excellent. That concludes oral questions. Some members will need to leave the House for other duties; we’ll take 30 seconds before I call the next Government order. Can I just say to the gallery: please keep the noise right down to nothing.