Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

I am advised that a short time ago, the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee announced its latest review of the official cash rate (OCR). I am informed that it reduced the official cash rate by a further 25 basis points, taking the rate down to 3.5 percent. This means that the OCR has now fallen 200 basis points—that is, two whole percentage points—in the past nine months.

Sam Uffindell: How does the OCR affect economic activity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Changes in the official cash rate and expectations about its future path affect both short-term and longer-term market interest rates. Through these interest rates and other channels such as the exchange rate, a reduction in the OCR stimulates economic activity. Expectations are an important part of the story. The market was fully expecting a 25-basis-point reduction today, so today’s change has already been factored into long-term interest rates. Variable interest rates, on the other hand, may fall.

Sam Uffindell: What does the imposition of tariffs mean for inflation and the OCR?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The imposition of tariffs, from both the United States and those responding to that, is likely to unleash both inflationary and disinflationary forces. It’s not an easy task, and it’s probably premature at the moment to try and determine precisely what the net impact of these will be on New Zealand. I’m advised that this is something the Reserve Bank is considering and monitoring very carefully. I note that the market has recently been expecting more OCR reductions than it was before the tariff announcements.

Sam Uffindell: What have cumulative changes in interest rates meant for Kiwi families?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said in my primary answer, the OCR has been reduced by two percentage points over the past nine months. Families will all have their own unique circumstances, but I can give an example that helps illustrate the magnitude of these changes. For someone with a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years, a two-percentage-point drop in their interest rate would reduce their required repayments by around $300 a fortnight.

SAM UFFINDELL: How do Government policies support lower interest rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Monetary policy plays the predominant role in stabilising the economy, but fiscal policy can either be helpful or it can be unhelpful. When the Government is disciplined with its spending, it helps take the heat out of inflation and gives the Reserve Bank more room to reduce interest rates. That’s what our Government is doing. On the other hand, undisciplined, excessive, and pro-cyclical spending simply fans the fire of inflation and makes the bank’s job much harder. For a recent experience of that, see Budgets 2022 and 2023.

SPEAKER: That’s not an acceptable use—there should have been a full-stop after the word “bank’s”.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he proud with the cultural discourse facilitated by allowing one minor party to use Parliament as a platform to promote the erasure of Māori rights?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Rawiri Waititi: Love to. Is he proud with the cultural discourse facilitated by allowing one minor party to use Parliament as a platform to promote the erasure of Māori rights?

SPEAKER: The problem with the question is that the Prime Minister doesn’t have responsibility in here, as Prime Minister, for the decisions made prior to the forming of a Government. There might be another way to ask that question.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he proud with the cultural discourse facilitated by allowing one minor party to use Parliament as a platform to promote the erasure of Māori rights—

SPEAKER: No, no. That’s—

Rawiri Waititi: —through the introduction of the Treaty principles bill?

SPEAKER: Mr Waititi, that’s the same question. He has not allowed it. It is a matter of Parliament expressing—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: —no, I’m in the middle of something—at the very beginning, confidence in the Government. Find another way to ask the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I agreed with your first ruling on the question, but I think you’ll find the addition of the words at the end of that question very much bring it within the Prime Minister’s responsibility. The introduction of a Government bill is the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, thanks. You’ve got better ears than I have. I didn’t hear that. Ask again. It’s not going to cost you anything as far as—

Rawiri Waititi: Love to. Is he proud with the cultural discourse facilitated by allowing one minor party to use Parliament as a platform to promote the erasure of Māori rights through the Treaty principles bill?

SPEAKER: So where was the reference to a Government bill in that? It wasn’t there. Try—

Hon Members: Treaty principles bill.

SPEAKER: Give it a bit of an answer; just get rid of it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with the characterisation of that question.

Rawiri Waititi: Given he will be voting against ACT’s Treaty principles bill tomorrow—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t start like that either. You can’t pre-empt what anybody else in the House is going to do.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he be voting against ACT’s member’s bill that would erase Māori and Pasifika pathway spaces—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order?

Rawiri Waititi: —and scholarships from all universities across Aotearoa?

SPEAKER: It’s all right. I know what you’re going to say, because it can’t be considered ACT’s bill if it is a Government bill. I’m sure you’re about there. Just have another crack.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he be voting against—

Hon Member: Sesame Street.

Rawiri Waititi: Are you asking the question or me?

SPEAKER: He’s not going to be here to ask any questions shortly.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he be voting against a Government bill that will erase Māori and Pasifika pathway spaces and scholarships from all universities across Aotearoa?

SPEAKER: Well, what is the bill? Look, if you’re speculating about a bill that might come into the House at some point, you can’t do that either. You have to ask him about something he’s got strict responsibility for. Have one more crack.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he support the proposed member’s bill that will erase Māori and Pasifika pathway spaces and scholarships from all universities across Aotearoa?

SPEAKER: Well, yeah, so—

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. The Prime Minister does not have responsibility for members’ bills.

SPEAKER: That is—

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the point of order, the member’s bill will be a Government bill. And is he responsible for that?

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Just a minute. A member’s bill is a member’s bill; it’s not a Government bill. It’s heard on a member’s day. How caucuses choose to support or vote against the bill is a different matter. But there will be another way to ask that question. I’m sorry to be difficult for you, but it’s important to get these things right.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he support any bill going through this House that would erase Māori and Pasifika pathway spaces and scholarships from all universities across Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’ll have to wait and see what bill comes before the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: God, he’s gutless.

SPEAKER: One more comment like that and it’ll be out.

Rawiri Waititi: What is more important to the Prime Minister: giving $12 billion to support United States’ war efforts or using that money to eliminate poverty at home?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Actually, on this side of the House, we can do both. And that’s why we’re working incredibly hard to get our economy well managed and growing again. That’s why you’ve heard me talk about “growth, growth, growth” all year. That’s what it’s about. But we also have obligations, and we need to make sure that we carry our end and we hold up our end and our obligations. And I’m very proud of the investment that we’re making in defence as well. That’s what actually supports people in the Pacific. It’s what supports people here at home. And we should be very proud of that investment. We are backing up our values with actions.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he support his finance Minister refusing to adjust the year’s Budget to account for the US tariffs when they are projected to have the same impact as the 2008 global financial crisis?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, no disrespect, the member is a member of a party that talked about $200 billion being raised through some crazy Labour-Greens capital tax arrangement, which is just patently wrong. I just say to the member, the way that tariffs work is that any tariffs that are being levied on New Zealand businesses by the Americans are passed through to American consumers. That is why we don’t support tariffs and trade wars. That’s why we continue to advocate very strongly for no tariffs, no trade wars, and a rules-based system, and we will continue to do so. But that is levelled on businesses of New Zealand exporting to the US and it’s passed on to US consumers, and, of course, the concern is that that will lead to rising prices, rising inflation, slowing economic growth, and that will cause disruption in the global economy.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Mr Speaker, in that answer, the Prime Minister mentioned two other parties. Speaker’s ruling 205/4 makes it very clear that no party that isn’t involved in the asking of the question should be brought into the answer.

SPEAKER: That is true, but I do wonder whether in this day and age of coalitions where there has been a coalition and the Government is reflecting on a certain stance that they deal with as a result of that Government that that Standing Order can be strictly applied. But I’m happy to have a look at that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir. The only coalition that Te Pāti Māori have been involved in is a National coalition, not with Labour or the Greens. So I’m sorry, that doesn’t work. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me! That’s a very significant historical fact, but the reality is that the Prime Minister spoke about the support for, and I think that’s a salient point. I’ll certainly take a look at it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether he’s going to set aside any money in the next Budget for members of Parliament to be better prepared in terms of Parliament’s protocols, the Standing Orders, and Speakers’ rulings, or in the words of Ice Cube in 1992, “Check yourself before you wreck yourself.”?

SPEAKER: Yeah, none of that. Unless the Prime Minister wants to stand up and pledge an enormous amount of money to Parliamentary Service, that’s not a question he can answer.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he acknowledge that by not adjusting the Budget to these tariffs, unemployment will increase by 3 percent, Māori unemployment by 6 percent, and inflation by 4 percent, as it did in 2008?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think the member really struggles with understanding economics. The simple story here is that we do not advocate and we do not support tariffs and trade wars. We think that’s bad for the global economy. We think that’s bad for all countries. But how it works is that a tariff is levied by America on New Zealand exporters of 10 percent, that is passed through with higher costs and prices that American consumers pay, it ends up supressing the US economy, which has impact on the global economy, and that is of concern. That is why I just say to New Zealanders watching this debate, if you seriously think the alternative is Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori managing the economy, that’s not right.

SPEAKER: I’ll just remind Government Ministers: attacking the Opposition in an answer to a supplementary is contrary to the Standing Orders.

Rawiri Waititi: With over a billion worth of export goods by iwi authorities and Māori enterprises in 2022, what is his plan for securing trade agreements with a range of countries that will enable our products here from Aotearoa to reach and access global markets for the best possible price in the face of global financial insecurity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very pleased the member’s asked that question, because our iwi businesses are doing exceptionally well and are able to do commercial deals and sell their products and services all around the world, and I’m very, very proud of them. They accompany me on trade delegations—that’s where we’ve been to Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Korea, the UAE, the Gulf Cooperation Council trade deal, and recently India. So they are doing exceptionally well. That’s why iwi was a critical part of our Infrastructure Investor Summit, and I expect that there will be some great partnerships that comes as a result of that.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon that he’s “focusing on unifying the country”; if so, how does introducing the Treaty principles bill, opening up one of the most divisive debates on race relations New Zealand’s seen in a generation, contribute to unifying the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think, you know, we’ve talked before ad nauseam about the Treaty principles bill. There’s a range of opinions on that topic; they have been aerated in this Parliament. The bill will come before the House tomorrow, and, as a result, it’s going to get voted down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said before the election that David Seymour’s Treaty principles bill was divisive and that the National Party wouldn’t support it; if so, why did he break that commitment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the National Party position’s been very clear on the Treaty principles bill, but we had a compromise in an MMP environment—as that member will understand how coalition Governments are formed. The ACT Party didn’t get exactly what it wanted, the National Party didn’t get exactly what it wanted, but we found a middle ground and a compromise.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he agree to support the Treaty principles bill, given David Seymour has said it wasn’t a bottom line for the ACT Party in coalition negotiations, or were his self-professed excellent negotiation skills on the blink that day?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the last part of the question, they weren’t on the blink.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Simeon Brown that “It’d be a waste of Parliament’s time to be progressing a bill and hearing select committee submissions on a bill that we’re not going to be supporting.”; if so, why did he agree to progress the Treaty principles bill when he’d said all along he wouldn’t support it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s why it was supported at first reading, there was a select committee discussion about the debate, and it’s not being supported beyond that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he speak on the Treaty principles bill in the House tomorrow, given it is the most divisive and regressive piece of legislation this Parliament has seen in decades and he is directly responsible for the fact that it was supported at first reading?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As that member will be well aware, I won’t be here tomorrow to speak on the bill, but I will of course speak to media. Our position is incredibly well known and has been well articulated over many months.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t he show up in person and bring an end to the fight that he himself provoked by telling New Zealanders why he would flip-flop, saying he didn’t support the Treaty principles bill, then he voted for it, and now he’s saying he won’t vote for it further?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just think the reference to flip-flops from “Mr Jandals” is probably inappropriate, but our position has been well articulated. I have spoken to it ad nauseam over a number of months, and I’m focused on the things that matter most to New Zealanders, which is actually working out how we navigate choppier waters in a global trading environment.

Hon Chris Bishop: With reference to divisive debates in our past, does he remember that—

SPEAKER: No, don’t start a question like that. Start with a question word.

Hon Chris Bishop: Does he remember the Prime Minister of the day saying that she would rather address Shrek the sheep than hundreds of thousands of people who marched down Lambton Quay when the foreshore and seabed nationalisation went through from the previous Labour Government?

SPEAKER: Good, that’s fine—no responsibility there.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made about Melling transport improvements?

Excellent news: last week, I was proud to announce as transport Minister that the Melling Road of Regional Significance will begin construction this year. I signed a delivery contract with AECOM and Fletcher Construction to get on with delivering this very important project—40,000 vehicles drive through this bottleneck on State Highway 2 right now. It is an important project for the Hutt Valley and the wider Wellington region.

Tom Rutherford: How do the Melling transport improvements fit in with the wider RiverLink project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Lower Hutt, as a city, as many members will know, is on a flood plain, and when the Hutt River floods, it is at serious risk of flooding. So for 20 years or so, there has been a plan to improve flood resilience along the Hutt River, and the Melling interchange project fits into that. Overall, it is a $1.5 billion investment in better roading transport, better public transport, better walking and cycling, and better flood resilience for the Hutt Valley.

Tom Rutherford: How much money is the Government contributing to this vital project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s a billion dollars from the transport agency, $295 million from the Greater Wellington Regional Council, and $180 million from the Hutt City Council. The project has been challenging from a cost point of view, but it is a very important project for the wider Wellington region and, indeed, the Hutt Valley. We’re proud to make that contribution.

Tom Rutherford: How important is this project for the Hutt Valley?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Many people in the Hutt Valley have been dreaming of construction on Melling starting for many, many years. There have been years of delay to the project. We are now able to get on with it—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He delayed it!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —and over the next 20 years it will be transformational. You cancelled it in 2017, my friend—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —and over the next 20 to 30 years it will be transformational for the Hutt Valley.

Hon Nicola Willis: What community response has he received in relation to the Government’s wisdom in ensuring spades get in the ground on this project, and has that response included any congratulatory messages from the former MP for Hutt South?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The response from the community has been voluminous and overwhelming; and, no, I haven’t had any messages in that regard.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “we are witnessing a historically significant global economic event”; if so, what new policies, if any, has she announced in response?

Yes, and in answer to the second part of the question, the member will see policies in the Budget to drive economic growth forward, which will complement the extensive Going For Growth plan we already have under way. I note, also, that monetary policy may also play a role, in that the Reserve Bank still has plenty of room to move. I have noted that some members of this House have already proposed a radically different approach of more borrowing, more debt, and more taxes. I have decided not to pursue those policies. We’ve seen that playbook before, and it does not end well for New Zealanders.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she rule out income-testing the Best Start payment for new parents in response to the potential reduction in Crown revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Having gone through my first Budget last year, and now being on the verge of announcing my second, I have made a decision that I will not be ruling things in and out, because that’s a game that gets very boring very quickly.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she rule out income-testing the winter energy payment for superannuitants?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I say, I’m not going to play the “rule in, rule out” game, so you might need to redraft your supps—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’ll just wait for a bit of silence.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can she assure the New Zealand public that she will not cut Government contributions to KiwiSaver?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s a tried and true thing in this House that if you want to get good answers to questions, you have to adapt on your feet.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Should New Zealanders pay the price for her Government’s inaction in the face of this “historically significant global economic event”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I utterly reject the assertion in that question. This is a Government that has been vigorously pursuing better trading relationships around the world, that has secured new free-trade arrangements, and that is working very hard to deliver maximum market access for our exporters. This is a Government that is reducing regulatory barriers and red tape and that is firmly on the side of businesses who wish to invest, employ people, and grow. Those are the right policies to be pursuing. This is a country that needs to show the world we have stable macroeconomic policies and that we are pro-trade and pro-growth. That is the way forward for this country, and we’re going to keep pursuing it.

Question No. 6—Police

6. to the Minister of Police: What reports has he seen on public perceptions of safety in relation to the Community Beat Teams?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning it was reported that not only do 66 percent of New Zealanders feel more safe with police out on the beat, 66 percent of Wellingtonians feel more safe and 48 percent of Green voters feel more safe. This stands in stark contrast to reports from members of this House that Wellingtonians don’t want to see police everywhere and that it makes them feel less safe. The evidence is very clear: the police do a world-class job. The people are with the police on this.

Ryan Hamilton: How many people feel less safe with police on the beat?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Nationwide: 10 percent. Wellington was even lower than that at 9 percent. There is simply no truth to the claim that Wellingtonians feel less safe with police on the beat.

Ryan Hamilton: Has he seen the public response to the beat police first hand?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. Last week, the Prime Minister and I were out with our beat team, on the beat in Wellington central, and we were both extremely proud to see members of the public approaching our police officers and thanking them for the outstanding job that they’re doing keeping our community safe.

Ryan Hamilton: What message does he have for MPs who think that the community feels less safe with police being more visible?

SPEAKER: No, you can try that question again. It’s going down the same line that I warned the House about earlier in question time today.

Ryan Hamilton: What message does he have for MPs regarding the latest police reports?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The message is very simple: get real.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions on learning support?

Yes, in the context in which they’re given. Targeting effective learning support interventions for students with additional needs is part of my six priorities. It’s our intention to have a system that delivers the right service to the right child at the right time. I’ve heard what the sector has been asking for, and I look very much forward to outlining my plans in the space in the coming months. But in the meantime, our Government’s already delivering the knowledge-rich curriculum, the 836,000 high-quality maths resources being delivered to students, thousands of students now benefiting from targeted maths acceleration tutoring, and almost 1,000 primary schools benefiting from trained structured literacy teachers to accelerate achievement for year 0 to 2 students.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is she proposing to cut the resource teachers who work most intensively with the kids who need the most additional support?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The member consistently conflates spend and outcomes for children. As a Minister, we are responsible for taxpayers’ money to make sure that the children in our classes receive the support that they need. What we are looking at in system reform is making sure that the supports and resources that that we have are optimised for the children on the ground, which is why we have invested in 1,000 schools with Tier 2 intervention teachers for literacy. What I will not do is stand by and have resources that are not optimised, that are not consistently applied across the country, and that are not equitable, which is why we are looking at reoptimising this service to front-line supports for children.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many of the 2,000 completed submissions on the consultation to cut resource teachers were in support of her proposed changes and how many weren’t?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t have that in front of me, but if the member would like to put something to me in writing, I’ll supply that to her.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Don’t talk while a question’s being asked.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she concerned that her cuts to resource teachers who help the children who need it most will also have an impact on teachers and the entire class?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Again, the member was not listening last night when we had the annual review debates—that a cut is not what’s happening in this instance. What we have clearly outlined is a taking of a resource that is not optimised and is not working and reinvesting it elsewhere—front-line support to children in classes to make sure that they are getting the support that they need to raise achievement and close the equity gap. It is making sure that we are optimising the services that we have to get outcomes for children. It’s a shame that the previous Government didn’t learn that lesson.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why should the kids who need the most support pay the price for tax cuts?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I can assure that member that the children in our schools who need literacy support are (a) already receiving it, and (b) if she waits till the Budget, she’ll learn more. A thousand primary schools are now receiving structured literacy interventions for those children who are being left behind. Not only that, but those Tier 2 intervention teachers will be given the very best professional learning and development that is available in structured literacy, making sure that they are specialist teachers.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Government’s decision to defund contracts with 190 social service providers, including those providing support on family violence, all while police simultaneously step back family violence call outs, make our communities more or less safe?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just say to the member, again, that we are focusing on improving outcomes, and if we can redeploy resources with better providers that get better outcomes, if we can think about the roles that mental health professionals play alongside police, we’re going to do things differently.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Government’s decision to defund Youth One Stop Shops to support young people with addiction, mental health, housing, employment, and education in Rotorua, Taupō, and Christchurch make our communities more or less safe?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: These are operational decisions for the agencies to make, to make sure that they’ve got the best set of social service providers in order to deliver the best possible outcomes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Government’s decision to defund food banks while demand reaches record levels of more than half a million New Zealanders needing those food banks every single month make our communities more or less safe?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m proud of the investment that the Government provides for people that need assistance with food. We have not historically always supported food banks. Over the COVID period we have, with time-limited funding, but, actually, we have money available through the Ministry of Social Development for people who need hardship grants and food support.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking of defunding, is the Prime Minister in favour of defunding “da Police”?

SPEAKER: Defunding whom? Sorry, I didn’t hear that. What was it?

Hon Chris Bishop: Defunding “da Police”.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, no, I’m not. I’m in favour of actually supporting the Police. They do a great job of serving our community and protecting us and keeping our people safe.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that it was his Government who has, in fact, defunded “da Police” by 3 percent in its most recent Budget, with a 6 percent defunding of “da Police” by 2027-28?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are not abolishing the Police.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: are food banks a nutrition matter or a security matter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, food banks are a feature from the community to help support people in need, but this Government is very proud of the support that we can offer people. If they need food, they can get food payments and help with that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister seen the independent rapid review commissioned by his Minister of Finance, that “much of the growth of Police can be attributed to increasing demands of Police in areas of family harm, mental health, money-laundering, cyber-security, and financial crime”; and, if so, how he does he reconcile this with his Government’s decision to defund much of the work and community support on precisely these issues?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m incredibly proud of our police, and I’m pretty proud of this Government’s response to crime. That member was part of a Government where crime went through the roof—violent crime, retail crime, gang membership, ram raids. Now we see crime coming down. We see ram raids down 60 percent. We see police out on the beat up 40 percent. And, importantly, people are feeling safer in their homes, their businesses, and their communities, and they will tell us that, and that is a good thing that this Government has delivered under an excellent set of justice Ministers and police Ministers getting this job done.

Question No. 9—Public Service

9. to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she stand by her statement that “Serving the public must always be our top priority”; if so, have the Government’s public sector cuts affected essential front-line public service roles?

on behalf of the Minister for the Public Service: To the first part of the question, yes; to the second part, no.

Camilla Belich: Does she agree with the 86 percent of surveyed healthcare workers who believe that the Government’s cuts will make it harder for people to access healthcare; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In terms of the Government’s focus, we have very deliberately focused on front-line services, reduced bureaucracy, and the need for backroom staff, and I’m pleased to see in the area of health an increase in the number of doctors and nurses.

Camilla Belich: Can she guarantee that Kāinga Ora will provide the same level of service to the public, given that a third of their workforce has been cut within a single year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, our Government has been very clear about the fact that there is a need to get Government spending under control. Any decisions that are made about reductions in staff and where those roles are from come from the chief executive. But at the end of the day, for every worker, it is about getting on top of the cost of living, which means reducing excessive Government spending and focusing the staff in the Public Service on the front line and on improving outcomes for New Zealanders.

Camilla Belich: How can front-line workers prioritise serving the public in their front-line roles, as the Minister has demanded, when the Government is forcing front-line workers to perform administrative tasks in, for example, health?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, our Government has been very clear about the fact that we are focused on improving front-line service delivery—whether in health, whether in education, or whether in law and order. Individual decisions that are made about staffing levels and changes are made by chief executives, but we do not shy away from the fact that we are absolutely focused on reducing excessive Government spending to get on top of the cost of living crisis, and every worker—public sector or private sector—is affected equally by that.

Camilla Belich: What steps will she take, as Minister, to support the remaining public sector workers, given that over half of public sector workers report having “too much work to do everything well” following the Government’s cuts?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I’m not sure where that member gets her information from, but the Public Service are very clear about why they come to work every day—that’s to serve the New Zealand public—and Government targets in areas in health, education, welfare reform, and keeping people safe on our streets is exactly what they come to work to do.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to support the primary sector?

This Government backs the primary sector, and today we’ve further committed our support for our hard-working sheep farmers. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Hon Nicola Willis, and the Hon Mark Patterson have today announced that Government agencies will be directed to use woollen fibre products in construction and refurbishment of Government buildings where practical and appropriate, thus fulfilling a fabulous commitment between the New Zealand First and National coalition.

Suze Redmayne: What changes will this announcement make?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Around 130 Government agencies that follow the Government Procurement Rules will be expected to use woollen fibre where practical and appropriate in Government-owned buildings. I don’t need to tell this House that wool is a wonder product. It is sustainable, it is healthy, it is biodegradable, and it is fire retardant. So these new requirements will encourage innovation in the building materials industry, which will lead to more investment and new markets opening up.

Suze Redmayne: What are the economic benefits of this announcement?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Well, the wool industry is the cornerstone to many regional economies, and this requirement will provide a much-needed boost for local farmers and producers. Last year, the sector contributed a half a billion dollars to the economy. This policy will help create jobs, drive economic growth in our rural communities, and encourage innovation in our building materials industry. And I note, Mr Speaker, how much you very much enjoy that the walls of your office are currently covered in wool.

SPEAKER: Yeah, they stink.

Suze Redmayne: What are the projections for the sheep and beef sector?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The projections for the sheep and beef sector are looking extremely positive indeed. With much growth predicted to occur in the industry, this Government will continue on its trajectory of backing the industry, as and where possible, as much as we can.

Question No. 11—Oceans and Fisheries

11. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Who will benefit from his proposed reforms of the Fisheries Act 1996?

The reforms related to fisheries will be of great benefit to every single Kiwi. Not only will the Act, when it is reformed, provide greater protections, it will also strip away red tape and enhance productivity whilst securing the opportunity for garden-variety Kiwis to catch a feed.

Teanau Tuiono: Who did he develop these proposals for: the seafood industry, who spent 13 months working on the fisheries reform package, or the recreational fishers, customary fishers, and non-Government organisations, who were only given eight weeks to submit?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, the process of developing reform options and the long period of time available for consultation, which was extended by myself to enable the recreational sector to perfect their submissions, shows that it has been an opportunity for all Kiwis to contribute towards the resilience and the robustness of this sector.

Teanau Tuiono: Do New Zealanders deserve to know what is happening with our fisheries, considering fisheries are a public resource; and, if so, why is he attempting to advance deregulation of the fishing industry by reducing transparency and public participation, decreasing monitoring, and encouraging more wastage at the expense of the future resources that belong to everyone?

Hon SHANE JONES: Those dire potential outcomes are inversely related to what is actually happening. The submissions process draws to a close in a matter of days. It will be methodically worked through by officials, all of whom have great integrity, and I will seek to avoid any sort of catastrophic consequences that the member seems to be hinting at.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he believe that cameras on boats are an important tool for safeguarding the health of our oceans and species, or is it just coincidental that when cameras were introduced, reported fish discards increased by 46 percent, reported dolphin captures went up by 680 percent, and reported snapper discards increased by 1,000 percent?

Hon SHANE JONES: On the question of the snapper fisheries population, it is almost biblical in abundance, which is why the quota was lifted on the west coast of the North Island. Obviously, cameras are a feature of the fishing industry. A number of companies are very happy to have such cameras. I, however, remain very leery about those cameras turning into State surveillance of industry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister able to put the member right in respect to the claim about it being a public resource, when that all changed with the first privatisation of that resource by the Lange Labour Government in 1986?

Hon SHANE JONES: The fisheries resource was transformed in the mid-80s; however, as matters have continued on, these reform options will not only give greater certainty to industry; they will provide a greater opportunity for those who have a deep stake in the fisheries to ensure that they remain sustainable. And we will also address the ongoing litigious nature of a number of the ministerial decisions that are made, to effect better outcomes by inquiring who are the shadowy foreign forces behind a lot of the litigation currently blighting the Crown.

Teanau Tuiono: Will the 90 percent of seabirds, 80 percent of shorebirds, and 22 percent of indigenous marine mammals classified as threatened with, or at risk of, extinction benefit from his proposals?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, no member of the fishing industry deliberately goes out to do damage to wildlife, but it is a wildlife industry, which is why there is a buffer that fishers must operate within, and there are penalties in the event that there are egregious lapses of judgment or offences have been created. But we really must stop this drive to stigmatise and demonise God-fearing Kiwis out there following the law, earning a living, and boosting export results, and stop buying into this falsehood that somehow the fishing industry is a threat to the environment. It is a source of great wealth, science, and immense enjoyment.

Question No. 12—Mental Health

12. to the Minister for Mental Health: Is he confident Government decisions involving mental health being made on his watch do not compromise worker or patient safety?

My expectation is that mental health and addiction services should always strive to be delivered in a way that delivers the best mental health and addiction outcomes, and ensures patient and worker safety.

Ingrid Leary: Why are more than 700 psychologists saying his new associate psychologist role will risk patient safety, reduce clinical standards, and ruin public trust?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, if we want to talk about patient safety, how about those people who are stuck on wait-lists, unable to get access to timely mental health addiction support? I’ve always been clear that one of the biggest barriers is our workforce vacancy crisis. That’s why this Government published New Zealand’s first stand-alone mental health and addiction workforce plan and we’re going to double the amount of clinical psychologists who’ve been trained, as well as a new registration for associate psychologists that will support clinical psychologists.

Ingrid Leary: Isn’t it really the case that he, as the first mental health Minister, is ignoring mental health workers when, in recent months, first responders, nurses, unions, and patient advocates have all voiced alarm about safety?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, rather than ignoring mental health and addiction practitioners, I’ve been listening to them. They are saying they are getting burnt out because they are covering too many vacant roles. That’s why not only are we doubling the amount of clinical psychologist internship placements, we’re starting a new registration. Those students will be on campus at the start of next year and entering the workforce in 2027. That’s a lot to celebrate.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is now the right time for police to step back from mental health call outs, when there has been a 96 percent increase in methamphetamine use and he knows this increases the likelihood of acute mental distress and violent episodes within our communities?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Let’s be very clear: police will continue to respond when there is an offence being committed or there is an immediate risk to life or safety. But what this Government wants in a time of mental health crisis is a mental health response, not a criminal justice response. That member should reflect on her Government—the first thing they did in 2017 is cut the mental health co-response team pilots. We lost six years under that Government.

Ingrid Leary: When will he admit that he is over-committed, compromising worker and patient safety, and that he’s failing to deliver the mental health support he promised Kiwis?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, this Government is committed to improving access to timely mental health and addiction support. One of the biggest barriers is too many vacancy rates in our mental health and addiction services. That’s why we put a plan together to address that. In six years, they had no plan.