Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Climate Change: What was the rationale behind the decision to give Tīwai Point aluminium smelter an extra $37 million per year subsidy of carbon credits?

Many of Tīwai Point’s competitors overseas do not face a carbon price, which makes the smelter less competitive. To address this, the Government compensates firms through allocations of emissions units. Without this decision, the smelter would have automatically received over $150 million a year. This compares with the $37 million as a result of this Government’s decision. This reflects savings of over $100 million per year to the Crown. Alongside these savings, the benefit of this decision is that Tīwai Point stays in New Zealand and provides jobs and economic growth to our regions.

Scott Willis: What advice did he receive that supported Cabinet’s chosen allocation rate, considering the Ministry for the Environment, Treasury, and a third-party reviewer all found a lower allocation of carbon credits would be better?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, it is fair to say that decisions such as this are highly complex, with no right answers. They depend on a number of assumptions and judgments about the broader economy, but also, importantly, how the electricity sector will develop over the next 20 years. Cabinet considered options from different experts and made a decision. But I think it is important to step back and reflect on the benefits of this decision: Tīwai Point employs hundreds of New Zealanders, it produces the most pure aluminium in the world, and it supports the Southland economy.

Scott Willis: Does he think it’s fair to give Rio Tinto an extra $37 million a year power bill subsidy, via free carbon credits, in the same week that households across the country are set to get a double-digit rise to their power bills?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, there you go again: the degrowth Greens would be happy to see jobs go offshore and aluminium produced in coal boilers overseas. This side of the House backs jobs and growth in our regions.

Scott Willis: Does he agree with the Climate Change Commission that free allocation of carbon credits weakens price incentives for emissions reduction and that the current approach to allocation is not aligned with our climate change targets?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I’ll reflect back on my answer to the primary question. Without the decision that Cabinet took, the smelter would have automatically received $150 million of credits per year, and this compares to the $37 million as a result of this Government’s decision. You don’t need to be an accountant to work out the difference between 150 and 37 is more than $100 million of savings to the Crown and the taxpayer.

Scott Willis: Mr Speaker—[Gestures for quiet]

SPEAKER: That’s my job; just ask your question.

Scott Willis: Was the Minister aware that Cabinet’s decision will cost $300 million more to the public than the officials’ preferred option, and does he consider this consistent with the least-cost approach to emissions reduction?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I’ve answered that point in the answer that I replied in the last aspect in terms of the automatic position of $150 million versus $37 million that this Government has taken. But, again, I will reflect on the fact that Tīwai Point is a benefit of the decision—not only the fiscals that I’ve outlined but the benefit of this decision is to those hundreds of employees that work for the smelter in the Southland region. And, importantly, we should be very proud as New Zealanders that our aluminium plant produces the most pure aluminium in the world, and that is an important aspect in terms of broader climate change.

Scott Willis: Will he commit to reviewing the industrial allocation scheme as supported by the Climate Change Commission, or is he happy to continue with corporate welfare to emission-intensive industries at huge expense to our public?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I reject the premise of the question. Oh, how rich it is for the Greens—the degrowth Greens—to talk about the components around being de-competitive or anti-competitive. This decision benefits the Southland economy, it protects jobs, it keeps those jobs in New Zealand, and that is important for our regions, and it supports the economic growth that this country so badly needs.

Question No. 2—Health

2. to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he seen on the Government’s health targets?

Today, Health New Zealand announced the quarter two results for the Government’s health targets. By measuring what matters most and holding the system accountable, we’ve seen improvements across three of the five health targets this quarter, compared to the previous quarter, but there is still more to do. Our Government’s record investment into health, alongside our focus on targets, will continue to drive improvement against these five targets. We are putting patients first and focusing our health system on ensuring that Kiwis get the care that they need.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What progress has been made for the shorter stays at emergency department targets?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Ensuring all Kiwis have access to timely, quality healthcare is a priority for this Government. That’s why I’m encouraged to see that wait-times in emergency departments have continued to reduce. The latest results show that 72.1 percent of patients were admitted or discharged within six hours, a significant improvement from 67.5 percent in the previous quarter and an improvement from 69.7 percent in the same quarter of the previous year. This is the progress we want to see, and I thank the hard-working medical staff in our hospitals up and down the country.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What progress is being seen for the faster cancer treatment and immunisation targets?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our faster cancer treatment and immunisation targets show stability, but there is still room for improvement. Access to faster cancer care continues to improve, with 85.9 percent of patients receiving treatment within 31 days—just 0.1 percent away from the yearly milestone—and 77 percent of two-year-olds were immunised in the second quarter of this year, up from 75.7 percent in the previous quarter. Both of these targets show a need for continued improvement to ensure more Kiwis have access to faster cancer care and more children get the immunisations that they need.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What actions are being taken to improve wait-times for elective treatment and first specialist assessments?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The data released today confirms that more work is needed to get on top of the wait-lists for elective treatment and first specialist assessments. Delivering more treatments and assessments at a faster rate than patients are being added is the key to reducing these targets. That’s why I’ve recently announced the elective boost, partnering with private hospitals to maximise operating capacity and expand procedures. This initiative will deliver 10,579 additional procedures by mid-2025. Patients are already seeing the benefits of this announcement, with 2,000 elective procedures already completed, including cataracts, and hip and knee replacements.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: In the context in which the statements were made and while the facts on which they were made remain the same, yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon that “We’ve got to look after our seniors”; if so, why did he cut the number of beds for older patients by 50 percent in the downgraded new Dunedin Hospital?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We agree entirely with the Prime Minister’s comments about looking after our seniors—after all, we invented the phrase “Looking after our seniors”, and that’s why we’ve done so much in the past. And we will fix up any need there is, not just in the Dunedin Hospital but elsewhere, as we get going and fix up the old people’s futures in this country.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can older Kiwis in Tairāwhiti have any confidence that they will receive the care they need and deserve, given that almost half of the roles for senior medical officers at Gisborne Hospital remain unfilled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the issue with respect to older people is manifold in its contribution to the way they might live in the future. Just to name one little thing like that and think that that’s going to solve the situation is a very narrow—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: But they don’t need a hospital?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon? Oh, no, no—well, if you were over here, then the answer would be precisely what you said: they don’t need a hospital. In our case, we’re going to fix all the hospitals up, man and woman them, empower them, get all the resources, and turn these disastrous results around that we inherited.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What is his response to a senior citizen of Upper Clutha who said, “It is frightening to see how access to medical services has diminished”, and will his Government take any action to alleviate such fears?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’d tell that senior citizen to write to Winston Peters and Simeon Brown on this matter because they’re more likely to do something about it than the Labour Party, who just manufacture complaints.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Given the potential closure of Dargaville Hospital due to staffing shortages, will he admit that reductions in rural hospitals disproportionately affect Northland’s 42,000 older citizens, who are heavily reliant on local healthcare services?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, as a former Dargaville boy, I’m very concerned about that as well, and I’m going to be talking to my colleague Simeon Brown about what we might do in the future. But there’s been a massive decline, over the last six decades, in medical services in the North. If you want to know something about it, Pāpāmoa had one, Paparoa had one—

Hon Shane Jones: Te Kōpuru.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —Te Kōpuru had a maternity unit, Dargaville had a successful hospital; at the same time, they had Air New Zealand calling there. A lot’s been downgraded, but the Provincial Growth Fund is turning that around.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Aged Care Association CEO Tracey Martin that “this Government has tightened up on funding” and that there’s “no indication the minister is making a Budget bid.”, and, if so, will he urge Minister Costello to prioritise older Kiwis and work with the sector to increase the number of aged-care beds?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To question one, no. To question two, no. To question three, I’ve already done that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will he demonstrate some urgency in meeting the health needs of our regions and older Kiwis, or will he continue to allow scaremongering about the rainbow community, climate change, and water fluoridation to eclipse caring for our regions and our seniors?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are definitely going to stop the scaremongering about the rainbow community—and they’re writing to me right now in their thousands about the way they’ve been miscast by members of the Green Party. Oh, yes, most definitely going to do that. And we know why they’re resigning in massive numbers from the Green Party right now—because of the very same thing that that member mentioned. And on the other concerns she expressed, the answers are: yes, yes, yes. [Interruption]

Would we like to take a bit of a discussion break, because it’s just breaking up too much.

Question No. 4—Children

4. to the Minister for Children: What action is the Government taking to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children is at the forefront of decision making for Oranga Tamariki?

The Government has continued to take action to ensure Oranga Tamariki is focused on their core purpose, which is the care and protection of children and young people. This week, the Government has been progressing the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill to deliver on the ACT-National coalition agreement. Children deserve to know that the people making important decisions about their lives are putting their needs and safety before anything else.

Laura McClure: How will the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act help ensure the safety and wellbeing of children?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: While section 7AA was well intended, it has created uncertainty for social workers when making decisions about the best interests and wellbeing of a child, as it puts a child’s ethnicity first and their wellbeing second. Section 7AA created a conflict in legislation with section 4 of the Act, which makes it clear that the wellbeing and best interests of a child or a young person are the first and paramount consideration. Repealing section 7AA reinforces this message: that safety must always come first.

Laura McClure: How will the repeal of section 7AA affect Oranga Tamariki’s existing strategic partnerships?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have consistently said that nothing about this repeal will stop Oranga Tamariki’s existing strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations or prevent them from entering into new ones. During the select committee process, it was recommended that the part of section 7AA relating to the strategic partnerships should be retained in legislation. We considered this recommendation and agreed with the committee. I want to thank the select committee for their careful consideration of the bill and reiterate that where these strategic partnerships are working, Oranga Tamariki should seek and continue to strengthen them.

Laura McClure: What will the repeal of section 7AA mean for public reporting on the impacts Oranga Tamariki is having on improving outcomes for children, young people, including Māori?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The repeal of section 7AA does remove the requirement for the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki to report to the public at least once a year on the impact of measures on improving outcomes for Māori. This is something that was considered carefully by both the Government and the select committee. The select committee decided by majority—and I agree—that there is a number of existing mechanisms for reporting, produced by both Oranga Tamariki and the Independent Children’s Monitor, for example. These include Oranga Tamariki quarterly and annual reports, the Safety of Children in Care annual report, and the Independent Children’s Monitor’s state of the Oranga Tamariki system report. The Independent Children’s Monitor can also request any information that it deems relevant from Oranga Tamariki, and the chief executive must provide it.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: I was wondering if there was going to be one. I thought there were several during the answer to that previous question.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why has she spent so much time pushing her hōhā, harmful political ideology on to our most vulnerable Māori children while, under her watch, reports of concern have increased by a massive—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no—just a minute. I’m getting there. How on earth does that meet the requirements of the Standing Orders? You cannot start a question the way you have, so ask a question that is compliant with the Standing Orders. That question was not.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why has she spent so much time on the repeal of section 7AA while, under her watch, reports of concern have increased by a massive 35 percent?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m actually grateful that reports of concern have increased—that means that people trust that Oranga Tamariki are going to do something when children are at risk. I have spent much of my time on 7AA because I believe safety and wellbeing should always come first.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: Is the primary healthcare sector structured to serve the public good; if not, why not?

Yes, the hundreds of GP clinics across New Zealand serve the public. Every day, around 55,000 Kiwis have doctors appointments. However, we acknowledge the long wait-times patients are facing in accessing their GPs. That’s why the Government is taking action to strengthen primary care and grow the workforce, by creating 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors in primary care, providing incentives to recruit up to 400 graduate nurses per year into primary care, and investing an additional $285 million over three years to support GP clinics. By doing so, we put patients first to ensure Kiwis can get the timely, quality access that they need.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he accept that the current funding model for GPs incentivises practices to be set up in wealthier communities instead of where GP services would serve the greatest need?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As the member will be aware, there is a range of different funding tools used. There’s capitation; there are also subsidies for people with community services cards. There are subsidies to ensure those under the age of 13 are able to access free GP clinics. There are also other subsidies to ensure that people can get the care they need. Is the system requiring improvement? Yes, and that’s why this Government has released a number of actions to ensure we strengthen primary care across New Zealand, for all New Zealanders.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What actions, if any, has he taken to prevent more GP practices from being bought by large corporations who prioritise shareholder profits over health outcomes?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government is focused on supporting primary care to be able to care for patients. There are a number of business models which deliver that. Primary care is, ultimately, supported both by the Government, through capitation, but also by users who pay to see their doctor, and the Government continues to support initiatives to ensure primary care can get the support it needs from the Government.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Who is more likely to be in touch with the health needs of their communities: corporations or GP-owned health practices?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government wants to ensure people can see their doctor. They want to have appointments, and what we’re focused on is ensuring they have the funding and the support they need. That’s why we’re increasing funding by $285 million over three years for general practice. That’s why we’re supporting additional clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors in primary care. That’s why we’re supporting incentives for more nurses in primary care. It’s all about making sure that Kiwis can get the access they need to primary care.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he take responsibility for the higher doctors fees and the reduced access to general, urgent, and mental care because this Government continues to underfund community GP care, and, if so, does he commit to increasing funding for community care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: If the member had listened to my answers, he would have heard that we are increasing funding for primary care. He’s trying to find a conspiracy here. The degrowth Greens are trying to find a conspiracy here. The reality is we are putting more money into primary care, we are supporting more training for doctors and nurses, we want to increase access, and there is a range of subsidies in place to ensure that those who need to be able to have that support get that support to see their doctor.

Question No. 6—Police

6. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen on the public’s perception of safety?

Today, Radio New Zealand released the results of a poll asking if people feel safer in their own home and local community than they did 12 months ago—38.3 percent of respondents said they were not concerned about their safety, and 26.9 percent said they felt safer. The fact that 65 percent of New Zealanders feel safe or safer than they did 12 months ago is a reflection of the hard work of our police officers.

Carl Bates: Are there any other reports on public perceptions of safety worth acknowledging?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The 27th Ipsos Issues Monitor, released last month, showed that law and order continues to drop as a concern for New Zealanders. After peaking as the second most important issue to Kiwis in May 2023, it is now the fifth most important issue in the monitor to voters. Trust and confidence in police, as I mentioned on Tuesday, has also increased for the first time in four years. This is not just sloganeering, as other members have said; it is a Government that backs our police to get out there and keep Kiwis safe. Our record on public safety beats alternatives like defunding or abolishing the police, any day of the week.

Carl Bates: What has the Government done to restore law and order?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: We’ve implemented a gang patch ban we were told would never work; we’ve stopped gangs taking over towns; delivered a new 24/7 station in the Auckland CBD; got police back out on the beat, with 40 percent more foot patrols; and seen violent crime drop by 2 percent. We’ve done all that after inheriting a police force that was understaffed and underfunded.

Carl Bates: Who has been part of this work?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I want to thank and acknowledge our police and corrections officers, who do outstanding work in a challenging environment, for their tireless dedication to duty. I also want to acknowledge Community Patrols of New Zealand, our Māori wardens, residents’ and ratepayers’ groups, business associations, and the various social service providers throughout the country who make a big contribution towards making our country safer. We have a long way to go, but working together we can continue to achieve a lot.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he consider that his failure to deliver 500 more front-line police in two years has contributed to the 31 percent of New Zealanders who now feel less safe?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I consider that a survey that shows that 38.3 percent of the respondents said they were not concerned about their safety, and 26.9 percent said that they felt safer, a sign of success.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he consider that having 607 more gang members and Police’s top detective saying gangs are making “double the meth” and “double the money” has contributed to the 31 percent of New Zealanders who now feel less safe?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, at the end of last year, as police Minister, I signed off two more gangs going on to the gang register. This Government has shown that we’re determined and we’re focused on making sure that we clamp down on organised crime and gangs, and our results have shown that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Has he seen the recent perception of public safety from the chair of Te Rūnanga-Ā-Iwi-O-Ngāpuhi, who called for urgent action from the Government to respond to the tide of violent crime and methamphetamine use in Northland; if so, what action is he taking to address reports of young people openly smoking methamphetamine in the main streets of Kaikohe?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, yes, I have seen a report, and I have had a letter asking for a meeting, which I will accommodate. I have spent the last 12 months going around the country meeting with iwi, tidying up the mess that we inherited.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What’s more likely to make progress against methamphetamine’s baleful impact on our community: either toughening up gang laws so that the police have more tools to deal with gangs, or giving money to Sonny Tau to do rehabilitation programmes in the Hawke’s Bay?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think, clearly—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s it—sorry. We’re going to be quiet.

Hon Willie Jackson: Stupid, stupid question.

SPEAKER: Did you not hear me?

Hon Willie Jackson: What a stupid question.

SPEAKER: Is the member deaf? I’m just asking for silence—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Sit down.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. A very good point. The first one is: yes, hitting the gangs hard does make a difference in terms of methamphetamine. We can clearly see that in the latest waste-water testing in Ōpōtiki, where the police were very effective in taking down the entire Mongrel Mob Barbarians gang. And no—do I think the previous Government funding the Mongrel Mob $3 million for a meth programme worked? Absolutely not.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order.

SPEAKER: The Hon Ginny Andersen.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: It’s a point of order.

SPEAKER: Oh, it’s a point of order?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes.

SPEAKER: Well, you should be a little clearer when you call. Sorry, I didn’t hear that the first time.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I just wanted to make a correction. I said the wrong name.

SPEAKER: No, hang on. It had better not be a trivial waste of the House’s time.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: No, no, no, no. I referred to an incorrect person; I was meaning to refer to Harry Tam, not Sonny Tau.

SPEAKER: I’m sure Sonny will be very happy to hear that. [Interruption]

Hon Ginny Andersen: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: We’re just waiting. [Interruption] When are we going to get the respect shown to the person asking the question? The Hon Ginny Andersen.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he stand by his commitment to resign one year into the job if New Zealanders didn’t feel more safe and we didn’t have control back of our streets, given that 31 percent of New Zealanders feel less safe, there are more gang members peddling more methamphetamine on our streets, and he has failed to deliver the 500 police he promised New Zealand in two years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, yes, I did stand by that commitment, because I watched, for six years under a previous Government, a raft of police Ministers coming through who took no responsibility. I wanted to take responsibility. I said that if people didn’t feel safer after 12 months, then I would resign. But the good news is that 38.3 percent of respondents who filled out a recent survey said that they’re not concerned about their safety, and 26.9 percent said that they felt safer.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Are workforce shortages in regional hospitals limiting access to health services; if so, when will normal services be restored?

Delivering access to timely, quality healthcare is a top priority for our Government, and a strengthened workforce is critical to achieving this. That’s why our focus has been on the front line, including increasing the number of front-line nurses at Health New Zealand by over 2,000 since we came into Government. Health target data released today also highlights that significant challenges remain, particularly when it comes to wait-lists, and there will always be districts and regions where we need more workforce and capacity. We’re stabilising the system and making record investments—an additional $16.68 billion over three Budgets—to ensure better outcomes for patients. Our focus remains on putting patients first and reducing wait-lists with initiatives like the elective boost helping to achieve this, which will see 10,579 additional procedures carried out by June, which will include cataracts, hip replacements, ear procedures, and knee surgeries.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he commit to filling the vacancies for obstetrics and gynaecology specialists in Whakatāne, and the restoration of abortion services in Whakatāne?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m advised that Health New Zealand is actively recruiting for those positions to have that service restored within 12 months.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why, when all of Whakatāne’s obstetric and gynaecology specialists departed in January, were birthing women offered financial support for travel, but support was not offered for women seeking abortion?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I appreciate the question. I’m not aware of that. I will ask for advice on that particular question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Simeon Brown that “too many abortions are occurring in New Zealand.”; if so, is that belief the reason why women in Whakatāne have to travel to access abortion care with no financial assistance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have personal views, but that is an issue that I will raise with Health New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did he say, with respect to abortion, “we’re not changing the legislation.” because his intention was to reduce services slowly through underfunding and inadequate staffing?

SPEAKER: No, no, sit down. Try again. You can’t imply improper motive to a Minister or any member of Parliament during question time. It’s quite clear.

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That had no such imputation. It was a question as to what the motivation was. That has to be within the Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: No, stop there. In that case, I’m pleased it’s me making that judgment and not you. Do you want to have another go at the question?

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’ve heard it, and I’ve ruled against it.

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, try again.

Hon David Parker: We have freedom of speech in this House. We ask questions of each other that we may not like. That question, with respect, was perfectly in order, and it is appropriate that the Opposition health spokesperson be able to inquire as to what was the reason for the lack of funding to which she referred.

SPEAKER: If it was a question that simply asked that—which was asked twice before and got an answer from the Minister that he would inquire because he didn’t have that to hand—that is, of course, in order, but to imply some other inappropriate motive is not in order.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: To the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, we’ve finished with it. I’ve dealt with it. If you’ve got another question, give it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it his view that fewer abortions should occur in New Zealand?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: My personal views are not a matter of impact when it comes to the Minister of Health. I am the Minister of Health and those issues are delegated to the Hon Casey Costello.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree that provision of surgical abortion services in regional New Zealand is important to enable safer, early abortions?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Those issues have been delegated to the Hon Casey Costello, and I encourage her to put those directly to her.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is the Minister of Health. There are previous Speakers’ rulings saying that the portfolio-holding Minister is responsible to respond to questions, even if they are delegated to associates.

SPEAKER: That is in part true. But where the House might be better served by a more specific answer, it’s not unreasonable for a Minister to suggest that an associate who has the full responsibility for that particular topic is a better person to answer it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree that abortion is healthcare?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Those issues are delegated to the Hon Casey Costello. As I have said on a number of occasions, the Government is not changing the law in that regard.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, Standing Order 390 is very clear, and I’m surprised you have not ruled out a host of the questions that came from the member on the other side of the House on the basis of Standing Order 390. We started our session this afternoon by you elaborating a ruling as to what are the conditions associated with transferring questions. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the answer that the Minister gave in terms of delegations to another Minister. Yet this person continues to trample on the Standing Orders of the House, and it brings us all into disrepute.

SPEAKER: Well, 390’s a very long Standing Order. It has a total of five parts to it, with three subparts. The bit that I’ve stood on this afternoon is “arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets, ironical expressions, or expressions of opinion,”. They can’t be included in an answer, and I’ve stopped two questions so far on that basis. But, I think, if you were to apply the full extent of all of the provisions under this Standing Order, there would be very few questions that could be asked in the House.

Hon Shane Jones: Well, where she’s concerned that would be a good outcome.

SPEAKER: I think it would be wise for you to let the argument go right there.

Question No. 8—Resources

8. to the Minister for Resources: What reports has he received on the resources sector?

Recently, the welcome mat was laid out in Toronto as I travelled there after a 14-year period of absence to represent our Government in advocating for the revitalisation of our mining sector and to affirm that we’re open for business. I was greeted with great enthusiasm, did a great deal of interviewing, and showed them the mineral strategy and shared with them that New Zealand now has the most permissive regime for enabling extractive sector developments in the Western world.

Jenny Marcroft: What reports has he seen on other countries adopting New Zealand’s approach to fast tracking major economic initiatives?

Hon SHANE JONES: I have had a report referred to me which reflects imitation. The new Canadian Prime Minister, not long after my trip up there, announced that his Government, in the event that he prevails, is introducing fast-track legislation designed to cut away red, green tape in relation to the bureaucratic overkill throttling the minerals sector in that part of country. Not only is it going to emulate the New Zealand experience but I have no doubt that our model has gone long and far in such an extractive economy as Canada.

Jenny Marcroft: What reports has he seen around the resources sector supporting jobs and growth in the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES: Record gold prices. We are living through a golden time, fuelling investment into Te Tai Poutini, the West Coast. Development West Coast says that for every mining job in the region, two others are created elsewhere; 100 new jobs at a mine. But it’s not only in the West Coast; in Coromandel, the Wharekirauponga Underground Mine is likely to sustain over 1,000 jobs. There have been some allegations—completely scurrilous—put around by the green groups that mining 200 metres below the subsurface will create trembling and interference with animals living on top of the land. That is not right. That is something that we will not tolerate.

Jenny Marcroft: What reports has he seen around investment in New Zealand’s mining sector?

Hon SHANE JONES: More good news. In an area that was marginalised, undermined, recently a $20 million sum of investment capital was announced from Australia, thus bringing the Aussie super fund investment into a certain project in the West Coast over $160 million. Jobs, export earnings—something that every fair-minded member of the House should be concerned with. I omitted to mention that apparently the green groups are concerned about underground mining because it interferes with the reproductive patterns of frogs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Incidentally, Minister, in the home of the formation of the New Zealand Labour Party, how many letters of congratulations or memos of thanks has he got from West Coast MPs?

Hon SHANE JONES: Heartland of New Zealand, the West Coast—hearty individuals. I have turned down a request for a bust to be made in the likeness of the leader of New Zealand First in that part of New Zealand.

SPEAKER: I believe that would be quite an achievement!

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Associate Minister of Police: Does she stand by the Minister of Police’s statement on the coalition commitment to deliver 500 front-line police by 27 November 2025, “It’s aspirational”; if not, why not?

Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Tom Rutherford, who told 95bFM that if someone is in the act of committing suicide, it is not a matter for the police, and, if so, is this change to police attending an event where there is immediate threat to life due to the increased pressure placed upon front-line police officers?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In my capacity as the Minister responsible for organised crime and recruitment, I would commend the fact that police are doing an outstanding front-line policing job. We did inherit a shortfall of recruitment numbers where our police numbers were understrength. We had no recruitment pipeline and we had no budget. We in this Government have invested $225 million to fund recruitment and equipping and training our police officers, and we are on target to deliver our 500 additional police.

Question No. 10—Children

10. to the Minister for Children: Does she think provisions in the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill allowing the use of physical force against children in State care breach the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to be protected from all forms of physical violence?

It is precisely because children and young people deserve to be protected from violence that someone who is working with these young people must have the ability to prevent them from being harmed, harming themselves, or harming another person.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What assurance can the Minister offer to caregivers of tamariki in care, given that this bill will allow strangers to use force against their children?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In relation to use of reasonable force, I would have thought that instead of inciting fear, a member who themselves stated that they were the “smartest and most experienced”, as they declared themselves the other day, would understand the difference between reasonable force and physical violence.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can she clarify what is the difference between reasonable force or otherwise?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: When it comes to reasonable force, it would be used in a way where it is the last line of defence when a young person may be at risk of hurting or harming themselves and might need to be restrained so that they are not hurting or harming themselves or harming others.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I was looking for something that showed an actual definition of “reasonable force”, which is why I posed my question in that way as opposed to in some other rhetoric.

SPEAKER: Depends how you look at it, but “reasonable force” could be considered a legal definition, which is not a question that can be asked in the House. The answer that was given by the member indicated—which I think, for most people, would allow them to understand what sort of force might be used in the circumstances outlined. Have another go.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can she clarify what steps are being taken to ensure that tamariki do not internalise that use of force as an acceptable response during conflict resolution?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No young person would like the fact that reasonable force has to be used, but, at the end of the day, alongside training that has been put in place by Oranga Tamariki around de-escalation so that reasonable force is the last line of defence, I believe that this will make sure that our young people are safe.

Laura McClure: Can the Minister please explain to the House what kind of crimes these young people are actually part of this programme for?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The reason that we have had to put this provision—

Rawiri Waititi: So that gives them a reason to get a hiding, girl, like my lawns?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I actually reject the premise of what was just said there by that member. No one will be getting a hiding. It is not excessive force; it is reasonable force. So the answer to that question is: some of these members that are part of the military-style academy pilot programme have committed some pretty serious crimes. They must have committed at least two crimes of 10 years or more, if sentenced. We need to make sure that they are safe from each other and that the staff are safe, and this is the middle ground that will make sure that they are all safe.

SPEAKER: I just want to make it clear that the Māori Party have one more question under today’s allocation, if they wish to use it.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Mr Speaker, I did take three supplementary questions, as I understand.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know. One was a re-go, from me, so—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Hmm, what might I ask?

SPEAKER: Well, do you want me to help you out?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Sorry, no. [Interruption] What? OK, “Why?” That’s a great one. No, what about this: what evidence does she have to give this House confidence that reasonable force upon young people that are already vulnerable and have, as referred to in her response, a longstanding, serious, harmful life—what reasonable force would be reasonable in that case?

SPEAKER: Look, it touches on the same question. The Minister can answer it in so far as she’s able to without giving legal opinion.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Reasonable force is the last line of defence, but the evidence is that if we do not have—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was looking for evidence, which was why I posed the question. What evidence might she have? Thank you.

SPEAKER: Yes, I appreciate that, but if you think about what you’re asking for evidence for, it would require a legal opinion to be able to provide that evidence. So we’ll give the Minister the opportunity to respond, in so far as she can inside the Standing Orders.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The evidence has shown in the past that when we do not have safeguards in place for young people and staff, we end up with young people getting hurt. We need to make sure, alongside the provision of reasonable force, that training is put in place in de-escalation, and this gives our staff more tools so that they are safe and our young people are safe.

Question No. 11—Universities

11. to the Minister for Universities: Does he expect increases in tertiary sector enrolment levels, given the unemployment rate is 5.1 percent?

on behalf of the Minister for Universities: Tertiary sector enrolments happen for many reasons. I expect and welcome an increase in tertiary enrolments this year. An increase would be positive, as we know higher education contributes to higher earnings and employment rates, contributing to economic growth.

Shanan Halbert: What, if anything, has he done to address Universities New Zealand Chief Executive Chris Whelan’s concern that the Tertiary Education Commission may not have enough money to subsidise growth in domestic tertiary enrolments this year?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: All those questions regarding the Tertiary Education Commission should be directed to the Minister.

Shanan Halbert: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Well, just bear in mind what I had to say at the start of question time. The question is clearly directed to the Minister responsible for universities, so is there more you can say than “Direct it to the person I’m answering on behalf of.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, I’m speaking on behalf of the Minister for Universities, and the Minister for the Tertiary Education Commission is someone else.

SPEAKER: I was unaware there was a split in that particular portfolio.

Shanan Halbert: Given that answer, what has he, as Minister for Universities, done to alert the Minister in charge of the Tertiary Education Commission about the risk that the Tertiary Education Commission may not have enough money to subsidise all the growth in domestic tertiary enrolments this year?

SPEAKER: So just—

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister for Universities, the relevant Minister for the Tertiary Education Commission and I continue to undertake something called mahi tahi, or working together, and we’ll do so with the “Mana pūtea”—the Minister of Finance.

SPEAKER: Can I just indicate to the member that starting a question with a question word is a good idea—not the word “given”.

Shanan Halbert: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I’ll take that on board. Will universities still be funded to enrol students for semester two if they have already met their annual enrolment target in semester one; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister for Universities, as I’ve mentioned, there are more expected enrolments, but the final first semester numbers will come later in April—this month—and after that, there will be a process that is undertaken around further assessment.

Shanan Halbert: Will there be further workforce shortages in places like health and education as a result of this Government’s failure to adequately support the tertiary sector?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister for Universities, as this House is well aware, this Government is very committed to the going for growth agenda, which includes ensuring that there’s an increase of talent in the workforce that will contribute to getting the country back on track.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing to support tradies?

Hon Chris Penk: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: I’m sorry; the Hon Chris Penk.

Thank you, sir. Just checking you were as ready as I am.

SPEAKER: That’s all right. First-class Minister—carry on!

Hon CHRIS PENK: Oh, thank you, sir—first-class Speaker, if we come to that. This Government has made several announcements this week to strip back needless regulation getting in our tradies’ way so that they can get on with the job of delivering homes and the other infrastructure that Kiwis need. New Zealand’s economic and social prospects are literally built by tradies. Some 10 percent of the GDP of our economy and 11 percent of the workforce is in the construction sector.

Paulo Garcia: How will allowing more overseas building products to be used in New Zealand help tradies?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Legislation passed just last night with the unanimous support of the House—I’m pleased and grateful to acknowledge—will see up to 250,000 new products available to flow into New Zealand this year alone. This means that our designers, builders, and DIY Kiwis will have far more choice for the products they use. More choice means more competition, greater resilience in terms of supply chain, greater innovation, and downward pressure on prices.

Paulo Garcia: Is the building consent system a barrier for tradies, and what is the Government doing about this?

Hon CHRIS PENK: We know that bureaucratic blockages in the consenting system are forcing our tradies to battle through piles of paperwork. We are right now finalising decisions on major initiatives to speed up that process, streamlining inspections, empowering trusted builders to be able to sign off their own work, where appropriate, and adopting a more balanced approach to how we handle liability for defective work.

Paulo Garcia: How will the Government’s moves to crack down on cowboy builders back our tradies?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The vast majority of our tradies are actually highly competent, highly skilled professionals, and ethical ones at that. But I do understand that there are a minority of operators who might be characterised as cowboys, who tar the good with the bad. That’s why our Government is making it easier for Kiwis to identify the trusted professionals. So we’re strengthening the disciplinary process, including greater transparency, publishing the fact of builders having been disciplined or suspended, and establishing a new waterproofing licence pass for licensed building practitioners. These changes are being welcomed by Master Builders, because they help to bolster the reputation of the sector as a whole.

Cameron Luxton: Supplementary? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Look, just wait for quiet.

Cameron Luxton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What feedback has he received from building industry professional representatives on the self-certification proposals?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I thank the member for the question, not least of all because he’s a building professional himself. He will, hopefully, agree with me, therefore, that the sector’s been overwhelmingly positive about these changes, and I note that there’s been great advocacy over many years; for example, by Master Plumbers, Greg Wallace, and others who have pushed successive Governments to recognise the work of their members. We have listened. We’re acting on that.

Arena Williams: To the Minister for Building and Construction, how—

SPEAKER: No, stop. It’s too late now. Sorry, you’ve actually used up your allocation, but I’m going to—

Arena Williams: How does he respond to the overwhelmingly negative feedback from the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait! Just a minute. Sorry. We’ll have absolute silence when the question’s asked. It’s a Thursday. This is a bill supported widely by the House. I’m being generous.

Arena Williams: How does he respond to the overwhelmingly negative feedback of the industry to the vocational changes to the way tradies and builders will be trained?

Hon CHRIS PENK: That member would know about overwhelmingly negative feedback. I would say, in relation to vocational educational changes, my colleague and friend Penny Simmonds is consulting diligently on that. We’re very confident that we’ll end up with a model that appropriately represents industry involvement in setting standards in giving that training to our wonderful tradies in this country.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a moment while those who have to leave do so quietly and without conversations on the way.