Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his appointment of Richard Prebble to the Waitangi Tribunal in light of Prebble’s comments on his resignation; if so, why?

Ki te wāhanga tuatahi o tēnei pātai, āna, āna. Ki te wāhanga tuarua, i whai whakaaro mātou i ngā rārangi kōrero i raro i te ture mō Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1975, me te mea nei me āta whakaarohia, me āta tirohia hoki te hononga i waenga i te Karauna me te iwi Māori, tae atu rā ki ngā pūmanawa me ngā pūkenga o ngā mema. Nā Mr Prebble hoki i tuku mai i tāna reta rihaina. E mihi ana ki a ia me tēnā reta, ā, hoki ora atu, e Rīhari, ki Rotomā.

[To the first part of the question, yes, absolutely. To the second part, we considered the clauses under the legislation regarding the Treaty of Waitangi 1975, and consequently the relationship between the Crown and the Māori people must be carefully considered and examined, including the talents and skills of members. Mr Prebble sent me his letter of resignation. I acknowledge him and that letter, and, Richard, safe travels to Rotomā.]

Hūhana Lyndon: What does the Waitangi Tribunal do?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Waitangi Tribunal’s role is set out very clearly in the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which I suggest the member reads. It is to inquire into and make recommendations on claims that the Crown has acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Hūhana Lyndon: Was he aware of Richard Prebble’s views prior to his appointment to the tribunal that there is one Treaty, despite there being both English and te reo versions which are not direct translations of each other, and, if not, why didn’t he ask him for his views before appointing him?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I was aware of some of Mr Prebble’s views prior to appointment, and he’s entitled to his own opinions and his own views.

Hūhana Lyndon: Did Māori cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we’re all aware, there are a variety of views in relations to that matter. But what I’m absolutely clear about is that there’s one thing that existed before the Treaty of Waitangi and will continue to exist after we all leave this place, is that rangatiratanga will be protected, preserved, and enhanced.

Hūhana Lyndon: How can New Zealanders, and especially Māori, trust his judgment after he appointed someone to our Waitangi Tribunal who has proven themselves historically illiterate?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I just have that question again, please? Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please repeat the question.

Hūhana Lyndon: How can New Zealanders, especially Māori, trust his judgment after he appointed someone to our Waitangi Tribunal who has proven themselves historically illiterate?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Waitangi Tribunal is not the preserve of one party, whether or not it’s the Green Party or any other party. If the use of the word “our” is to select one particular group in this House, I reject the characterisation.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Madam Speaker. We have a longstanding expectation in this House that members not use our free speech in this Chamber to potentially defame members of the public who don’t have the opportunity to defend themselves, and accusing someone of economic illiteracy—sorry, historic illiteracy—is a claim that, if used outside this Chamber, would be challengeable.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, I’ll talk to the Clerks post this and if I come up with a different view, I’ll let you know. But at this moment, the member actually gave her point of view on what had been previously said. So I accept that at this point in time. If I get a different view post this, I’ll let you know.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If 103 years ago, a brilliant scholar in law, who got a law degree in two years flat—Sir Apirana Ngata—said that the Māori ceded sovereignty, then who in this House is so historically illiterate now?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not sure that that’s actually an appropriate question. The Minister does not need to answer it.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m happy to respond to it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I do have a point—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: My point was it was a totally out-of-order question and inappropriate that it be attempted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I don’t think it’s something the Minister needs to answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. With the greatest of respect, Madam Chair, did I name anyone? No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which is a qualifier for your kind of judgment which was improperly made, and therefore I’m asking you to review your decision.

Hūhana Lyndon: Does he acknowledge that his appointment of Prebble to the tribunal, only for him to immediately resign and make a political stunt, makes a mockery of the institution itself?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The appointment of the Hon Richard Prebble followed due process. Mr Prebble has resigned. I have accepted his resignation and I wish him well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just have a note in front of me that said the public do have a right of response—Standing Order 160/1. Public figures are subject to criticism in the House. Thank you.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: I thank the member for that very, very, very clever question. The answer is yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Thank you. Does he agree with Nicola Willis that she delivered new Cook Strait ferries on 11 December 2024; if so, why was Winston Peters subsequently dispatched on a global search for replacements, including meeting with the company who was contracted to build those ferries in the first place?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality of the matter is that the Minister of Finance inherited an absolute mess. What was meant to be $401 million for two ferries and then a total infrastructure cost under $1.4 billion, all up with the ferries, had gone from there to over $4 billion, which was a warning that Treasury gave the previous Government. So, having dealt with that, the job happened to be by chance passed on to me, and I’ve sought to rectify the matter, at a massive saving to the New Zealand people.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree that Nicola Willis was too hasty in cancelling the ferries, as reported by the New Zealand Herald?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that we will all have those sorts of criticisms being made, but the New Zealand Herald today got it massively wrong in the editorial in the second to last paragraph. I’d ask them, for goodness’ sake, to start getting their facts right for a change by reading the full story, which was told not by me, not by Nicola Willis, but by Treasury itself to Grant Robertson.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will Winston Peters prioritise negotiating the break fee with Hyundai before he enters into another contract with them, or will he pursue both negotiations concurrently?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I appreciate what the member is asking, but the so-called break fee lies as a matter between KiwiRail and Hyundai; the new issue that we’re dealing on is separate. However, in our representations, it was made very, very clear to me that, while that matter is separate, if there were to be a new deal, there would be a reconsideration of the prior settlement, to which we are not a party at the moment.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many millions of healthy school lunches could Nicola Willis’ ferry break-fee have paid for?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, all I do know is that we’ve got a sort of parallel circumstance here: the Government inherited a school lunch programme unfunded, and we inherited a ferry programme unfunded as well.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many Kiwis are now out of a job thanks to the Government giving the school lunches contract to multinational corporation Compass?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I don’t think anyone can answer that question on speculation, but, if the member wants to write a note or put it in written form, we’ll get an answer.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When Nicola Willis said she has delivered, did she mean delivering 31,000 more people to Work and Income New Zealand, delivering 72,000 New Zealanders overseas, or delivering thousands of inedible meals into rubbish bins in schools across the country?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I think when the Minister of Finance was saying, “I have delivered”, she meant the answer that came in the quarterly update this morning. We have turned the circumstances of this country’s economy around. It’s the first bright news we’ve had, and, like a big vessel out at sea, it is hard to stop. It is hard to turn an economy around—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What vessel? There’s no vessels.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, we know where there is a stack of empty vessels—yes, I’m looking at them.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Today, the interim financial statements of the Government for the first seven months of the financial year were released by Treasury, as referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister. The statements show Crown revenue and expenditure for the financial year up to 31 January, and they also update both the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC—that is OBEGALx—and the Crown’s debt position.

Nancy Lu: What do the financial statements show about revenue and expenses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Core Crown tax revenue for the seven months was $600 million higher than forecast in the half-year update in December, while core Crown expenses were $600 million lower than forecast. Some of that is likely to do with timing across the year, but it is interesting to compare growth and expenses in this set of accounts with a year ago. Over the seven months to January, core Crown expenses were only 2 percent higher than they were in the corresponding period a year earlier. That shows the Government’s commitment to spending constraint and turning around the poor fiscal position we inherited.

Nancy Lu: What do the financial statements show about the operating balance and debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OBEGALx deficit at seven months is $3.7 billion, which is $1.4 billion better than expected at the half-year update. Let’s see how that pans out at year end, but the improvement is a positive sign so far. Net core Crown debt is in line with forecasts, at an estimated 42.8 percent of GDP. The Government’s intention remains, in the short term, to get net debt trending down towards 40 percent of GDP, and that will involve reprioritising spending over the next few years.

Nancy Lu: What else would help get the books back in balance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The economic growth is good for wages. It is good for jobs. It is good for opportunities and living standards. It is also good for the books. Additional growth of even a quarter of a percent of nominal GDP each year would boost tax revenue by $2 billion a year by the end of the forecast period. That is why the Government is committed to removing unnecessary obstacles from the path of businesses and creating an environment in which people are rewarded for investing, for innovating, for taking risks, for employing others. We do not view business as the enemy, because we know it is not the Government that ultimately creates jobs. It is business, not Government, that generates the revenue that funds public services.

Question No. 4—Māori Development

4. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he believe the Waitangi Tribunal plays a critical role in holding the Government accountable for its actions or omissions that breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal is empowered to inquire into and make recommendations on claims by Māori that the Crown has acted in a manner or omitted to act in a manner inconsistent with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi. As an independent commission of inquiry, the tribunal provides a platform for claims to be heard, ensures historical—and herstorical—and contemporary grievances are examined, and offers recommendations to help guide the Crown in upholding its Treaty obligations. As such, I disagree with the member’s characterisation of the Waitangi Tribunal as holding the Government accountable.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with the late Moana Jackson, one of the most profound contemporary contributors to Tiriti understanding, that the Treaty is to be honoured, not settled, and, if so, does he agree that the tribunal’s work must be ongoing and, for the sake of clarity for the nation, have its power strengthened, not diminished?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I absolutely agree with the sentiment that the Crown and the Government—and, actually, everyone in this House—need to ensure that historical Treaty claims and grievances are resolved and settled. That’s why I want to mihi to Minister Goldsmith, who led the settlement of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua claims today through legislation.

Tākuta Ferris: Is it appropriate that New Zealand First are leading a Government review of the function and purpose of the Waitangi Tribunal, given their senior Ministers have been publicly hostile towards the role of the tribunal, which already has limited powers?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Ministers in this House are not responsible for individual party policies, and that member should know that. If he spent more time here and learnt the Standing Orders, he would not have asked the question in the first place.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order or are you responding to the point of order?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Responding to the point of order. Speaker’s ruling 197/5 clarifies the whole idea of supplementary questions is to make a range of political statements about an issue, not to sit there and qualify New Zealand First’s response. So what was the supplementary question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the Minister is not responsible for New Zealand First, unless it’s a Government review, and then, if it’s been decided by Government, the Minister is responsible. But he’s not responsible for a New Zealand First position.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order, as I recall, it was agreed in this House—and has been agreed in this House before—that party policies which are reflected in a coalition agreement are properly able to be questioned in this House. It’s well known that the question it referred to, and the New Zealand First policy referred to, appears in the coalition agreement, and therefore the question is in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I’ll ask Tākuta Ferris to ask that same question again. If that’s the case—and I’ll take Dr Duncan Webb’s word for it—we’ll take the question. Thank you.

Tākuta Ferris: Is it appropriate that New Zealand First are leading a Government review of the function and purpose of the Waitangi Tribunal, given their senior Ministers have been publicly hostile towards the role of the tribunal, which already has limited powers as it is?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The review of the Waitangi Tribunal that’s articulated and set out in the coalition arrangement between New Zealand First and National is one that will be undertaken in due course. As to the allocation of responsibilities in regards to that review, that’s something that the member clearly knows more about than I do.

Tākuta Ferris: Pātai anō? [Another question?]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. You’ve got one more.

Tākuta Ferris: Ah, ka pai. What is he doing to uphold the tribunal’s recommendation that this Government abandon its coalition policy to review and potentially remove Treaty clauses from 28 pieces of legislation, as promoted by Matua Shane and “Koro Winnie”?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. With great respect, the member cannot come and have contempt for the procedures of this House or the plain and common sense and manners that’s required. That conclusion of his question should have ruled his question out straight away.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, what—

Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, speaking to the point of order.

Stuart Smith: In that question, the member referred to someone not by their proper name and it’s quite disrespectful.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, yeah, he omitted the last name of the person. So, look, if you—

Stuart Smith: Well, more than that, Madam Speaker—more than that, it was a nickname. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. Look, I understand the rules of this House are that we call people by their first and last name and give them their proper titles. I don’t think this member is the first person that has actually broken that rule. So I’m going to give that member a chance to ask that question, using the correct name of the person he’s referring to.

Tākuta Ferris: Ka pai. Tēnā koe. Back to the Minister: what is he doing to uphold the tribunal’s recommendation that this Government abandon its coalition policy to review and potentially remove Treaty clauses from 28 pieces of legislation, as promoted by New Zealand First?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We have received a number of recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal, as Ministers, over the last 15 months, and those matters remain for active review.

Question No. 5—Rail

5. to the Minister for Rail: What recent announcements has he made on the Cook Strait ferries programme?

On 4 February, the Government opened the door to alternative proposals from the market, as we leave no stone unturned in getting value for taxpayers. We’ll have much more to say about this process after Cabinet meets at the end of March.

Jenny Marcroft: How does this approach differ from the previous project, iReX?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the previous project was commissioned at $401 million for two ferries, and then there was an infrastructure cost contained in the forward proposal, which was promptly abandoned, and it went from just over $1 billion to, as Treasury forecast, over $4 billion. In this case, we’re announcing a worldwide search for shipyard partners, but we cannot speak for specific shipyards’ interest. But the reality is that commercial shipbuilders all around the world are showing an interest now, and we should be able to give the country far greater detail in a matter of weeks now.

Jenny Marcroft: What does the Government expect to announce on the ferries after Cabinet next discusses the topic?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We were very clear on 11 December 2024 that Cabinet will be considering two firm options: cost-effective infrastructure with vessels taking vehicles and passengers—that’s one—and cost-effective infrastructure with vehicles taking vehicles, passengers, and rail wagons. The second one hasn’t been worked on—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Rail-enabled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and that’s what we’re working on at—I beg your pardon?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Rail-enabled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, if it’s got, as a possibility, rail wagons and passengers and vehicles, quite possibly it’s rail-enabled.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “Recent data releases are consistent with a growing New Zealand economy”; if so, what impact does inflation in international economies have on New Zealand’s growth?

Yes, and to the second part of the question, it depends. For example, an increase in world dairy prices would likely be good for the New Zealand economy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is 31,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there are two parts that we need to consider there. The first is that unemployment is running at exactly the rate that it was forecast to be when that member’s party was leading the Government prior to the election. The second part is what has changed is we now have a Minister who is dedicated to putting incentives in place so that as many people as possible who can work do work—an active welfare system. Because I am looking at members—and I’m looking at Carmel Sepuloni—who, despite record low unemployment, allowed the number of jobseeker beneficiaries to increase dramatically. What a failure.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is consumer credit defaults increasing by 42 percent consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am always concerned by New Zealanders being under financial stress, and obviously consumer credit defaults are evidence of that. But what we need to be clear about is that we had a Government that allowed inflation to be driven to 7.3 percent, that saw successive years of high inflation outside New Zealand’s target band, that saw the Reserve Bank left alone while they sprayed the money hose around to crank up interest rates at a rapid rate. That has then had a very chilling effect on the economy, and it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with economic literacy that it takes some time to turn a mess of that magnitude around.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is a 35 percent increase in liquidations for the North Island and a 67 percent rise in the South Island consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to see New Zealand businesses thrive. That’s why, from day one in office, this Government has leaned into the actions a Government can take to make this a better place to invest and grow. That is why we are better educating New Zealand kids. That is why we are reducing red tape and regulation. That’s why we’re investing in productivity-enhancing infrastructure. That’s why we’re making sure our science system actually delivers commercially realisable opportunities. What I would say to any New Zealand business who is struggling is this: you’ve gone through a really tough few years, but you’ve now got a Government that’s on your side.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is building consents being down 7.2 percent consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I want to see construction improving and increasing, and that’s why we are taking steps across the board to support that, including liberalising land markets, improving infrastructure funding and financing, reducing the complexity of getting a building consent, allowing people to import more easily. But fundamentally, the construction industry responds badly when interest rates are high, because they need to borrow for their construction projects. So Governments that allow inflation to get out of control so that interest rates are ratcheted up tend to find that construction drops off. That member, Barbara Edmonds, is sitting next to members of a Cabinet who allowed a historic level of damage to be delivered to the New Zealand economy, and now she has the cheek to blame us for fixing it. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. That’s quite enough.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the growing number of people on the benefit, growing company liquidations, growing numbers of New Zealanders leaving for Australia, growing consumer credit defaults, fewer homes being built, the green shoots of a growing economy or, like the ferry contract, an example of her delivery?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, they are the remnants of a failed regime, a Labour-led Government that did all it could to destroy this economy, and we on this side of the House are fixing it up.

Question No. 7—Tourism and Hospitality

7. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made about boosting tourism in New Zealand?

I have recently announced a range of investments and initiatives to boost tourism in New Zealand. This includes a new $3 million Regional Tourism Boost Fund that will be used to attract more international visitors to regional destinations, and a $9 million boost for infrastructure upgrades and replacements on our Great Rides cycle trails. Tourism is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth, and these investments are part of our tourism boost package to bring international visitor numbers back to pre-COVID levels.

Joseph Mooney: Why are these investments important?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Together, the 23 Great Rides receive about a million visitors a year; of whom, around 20 percent are international visitors. With those numbers expected to continue growing, maintaining and improving these trails is a must. That’s why the $9 million boost for our Great Rides cycle trails is important, so visitors can keep enjoying the unique experience of pedalling through New Zealand’s beautiful landscapes. The Regional Tourism Boost is a chance for regional tourism organisations to secure funding for activities that boost international visitation, helping local businesses and communities thrive.

Joseph Mooney: What benefits does she expect to see as a result of these investments?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The benefits of these investments will reach beyond our cities and into our regions. Our Government’s tourism boost package is part of a bigger plan to create a thriving, resilient economy. By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth, as tourism supports almost 200,000 jobs and contributes $44 billion to the economy. Ninety-three percent of New Zealanders agree that tourism is good for our country, and more visitors means more income for local businesses, more job opportunities for Kiwis, and a stronger, more resilient economy for all.

Joseph Mooney: What feedback has she seen on these announcements?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The feedback has been fantastic. Everyone has been talking about tourism. Regional Tourism New Zealand and the Restaurant Association have welcomed the Regional Tourism Boost announcement, with the latter saying, “it’s positive to see targeted efforts to boost regional tourism,”. Inside Tourism said the $9 million Great Rides boost was crucial in maximising the Great Rides’ potential to deliver ongoing regional economic benefits. There will be more to come: 2025 is our chance to reinforce the value of tourism to a humming, vibrant country where we welcome anyone from anywhere at any time.

Question No. 8—Rail

8. to the Minister for Rail: Does he stand by his statement regarding the new Cook Strait ferries that by the end of March 2025, “We’re going to be able to announce who’s in the game, what they’re aiming for, and what the cost will be”; if so, is he on track to do so?

I thank that very sensible member for his sensible two questions, and the answers are yes and yes.

Tangi Utikere: Has he actually received any bids yet from shipbuilders for the new Cook Strait ferries; if so, how many?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No bids have been received yet.

Tangi Utikere: Did he provide Hyundai with any assurances that a new contract signed with his Government would not fall through again; if so, what were those assurances that he gave?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I reminded Hyundai that in 1950, when their country was under attack, my country came to their aid. When their currency collapsed in 1997 under the Asian financial crisis, my country was one of the nine that underwrote its currency. It’s a thing called respect and gratitude, and that he could go forward in the future and trust my country and me.

Tangi Utikere: Is the Government currently in a formal contract dispute resolution with Hyundai, such as arbitration, and, if not, why is it taking so long to exit the existing ferries contract that Nicola Willis cancelled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question lies with KiwiRail—that’s in charge of the process, not the Government.

Tangi Utikere: Does he have confidence that the total cost of ferries and infrastructure will come in under $2 billion?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What we have enormous confidence in is that the Treasury forecast that was given to the Labour Party and us of it passing $4 billion is not going to happen. In short, hang on, help’s on its way, and I’ll give the details shortly.

Tangi Utikere: Is it still possible that Nicola Willis’ preferred ferry replacements will be purchased, or is her delivery finally dead in the water?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that what Nicola Willis did was see a financial crisis and take the appropriate action when her predecessors had not.

Question No. 9—Mental Health

9. to the Minister for Mental Health: What announcements has he made this week regarding the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

On Tuesday, I visited Wellington City Mission’s Crisis Café to announce they are one of the latest recipients of the Government’s Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund. The funding will allow the City Mission to scale up its Crisis Café to 24 hours a day, four days a week. Crisis Cafés provide an alternative place where people can go when they need support to alleviate demand on emergency departments. One of the criteria of the innovation fund is to increase access to mental health and addiction services, and this is exactly what this announcement does.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other announcements has he made this week regarding the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, a good question. Yesterday, I was in Rotorua to announce that the Rotorua community youth centre would be receiving funding from the mental health innovation fund. The trust provides free primary mental health and addiction services to young people. The funding will support an additional 560 young people as well as provide a range of courses and workshops to upskill people in the community to better support youth mental health. One of the criteria of the innovation fund is to develop capacity in the mental health workforce, and this is exactly what this announcement does.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other services has the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund funded?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The innovation fund provides Government funding to match, dollar for dollar, philanthropic and other funding secured by organisations, including New Zealanders, with their mental health. In addition to the Wellington City Mission and Rotorua community youth centre, it has funded Youthline to expand its youth counselling, the Sir John Kirwan Foundation to scale up Mitey, the school-based mental health programme, and to support Mates in Construction to deliver vital suicide prevention on site. One of the criteria of the innovation fund is to deliver scalable solutions for unmet need, and this is exactly what these announcements do.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How does this fund support the Government’s mental health priorities?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, this Government is laser focused on reducing mental health wait times, training more mental health workers, and investing more in prevention and early intervention. One way of achieving this is investing more in our hard-working community and NGO mental health services, who are already making a difference on the ground. This Government is committed to getting money out of Wellington to the grassroots, and that’s what we’re doing.

Question No. 10—Housing

10. to the Minister of Housing: Does he believe that State housing is important for growing the supply of affordable housing; if so, why is the Government opting for zero growth in State housing beyond next year?

on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes. However, the Opposition’s infatuation with State ownership of affordable housing is laughable. We are very comfortable and enthusiastic with community housing providers, iwi, and others providing affordable housing where suitable. This Government’s housing renaissance, led by the energetic Minister of Finance and the exemplary Minister of Housing, is focused on fixing the housing ecosystem to grow affordable housing. In relation to the second part of this question, it’s inappropriate to get ahead of the Minister of Finance’s Budget decisions.

Tamatha Paul: How many of the—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet! There’s a question being asked.

Tamatha Paul: Has the Minister seen yesterday’s poll from Public Housing Futures that shows that 72 percent of people believe the Government should address the housing crisis by building State housing at scale, and, if so, will he listen to the people and abandon their anti-growth State housing plan?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: No, but I have seen the tables that have seen nearly 3,000 children come out of emergency housing in the last 15 months and a reduction of 5,000 households from the social housing register. I have seen the absolute reduction in the million dollars a day that the previous Government was spending on emergency housing. Those are the tables I’ve seen. But I’m happy to get the member’s polls and materials through my office. Thank you.

Tamatha Paul: Does the Minister recognise that despite the tinkering to leasing and contracts, Kāinga Ora is in a much stronger position to finance new social housing at a lower cost per home than community housing providers, who face more expensive borrowing and have far smaller balance sheets than Kāinga Ora?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m not going to get into the member’s fuzzy accounting and math, but what I will say is this: that I have—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I please ask the Minister to rephrase that answer without the attack back about the member’s fuzzy question. Thank you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I will ask the member to reset the question and send it back to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. I’ll ask Tamatha Paul to please repeat the question.

Tamatha Paul: Does the Minister recognise that despite the tinkering to leasing and contracts, Kāinga Ora is in a much stronger position to finance new social housing at a lower cost per home than community housing providers, who face more expensive borrowing and have far smaller balance sheets?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We on this side of the House recognise that community housing providers and Māori and iwi housing providers often have better outcomes for provision of housing that is affordable than utilising Kāinga Ora. We are very proud of the recent announcements that we made to support and accelerate 400 or so homes amongst Māori housing providers, utilising funds. Thank you.

Tamatha Paul: Is the Minister concerned about the loss of local trade jobs and contracts across the country due to the stalling and cancellation of State housing developments, when over 10,000 construction workers lost their jobs due to that last year?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we know, we have suffered a market downturn and a cost of living crisis and an economic crisis over the last couple of years, and those are the things that the Minister of Finance is absolutely and diligently and professionally ensuring that we deal with and get housing back on track.

Tamatha Paul: How does the Government reconcile putting Kāinga Ora projects comprising of over 4,000 units under review, including over 500 in Wellington, with the overwhelming support of New Zealanders for the Government to get on with building State housing at scale?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The nature of that question demonstrates the absolute gulf between the Opposition’s view of how housing should be generated in this country. We have a view—a very strong view—that a number of players, including iwi Māori, community housing providers, and others, are in a position to activate more social and affordable housing. The Opposition, including the member who’s asked that question, has a very strong view that the Government should have a monopoly on the provision and we don’t agree with it.

Tamatha Paul: How many of those iwi Māori - led and community housing provider - led houses that he has been mentioning are a result of funding committed by this Government and not the previous Government, led by the Labour Party and the Green Party, that had already been committed to, given that Government hasn’t committed any funding to new builds beyond 2026 or the operational subsidies needed to actually run that housing?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first part of the question was a question, I think.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We’re very proud in ensuring that 1,500 additional social houses, income-related rent subsidy funded places, have been provided for community housing providers to deliver over the next couple of years. Actually, that’s something that we are really enthusiastic around.

Question No. 11—Trade and Investment

11. to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What impacts does he think the imposition of tariffs by the Trump presidency will have on New Zealand exporters and importers?

on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment: Rising tariffs between the major economies have the potential to drive global inflation, lower demand in some countries, and supress economic growth. While President Trump campaigned on a tariff agenda, there’s no suggestion the US is focused on or singling out New Zealand. The embassy in Washington, DC is gathering as much information as it can, while continuously making the case to the US that New Zealand’s trade is well balanced. We are monitoring developments, taking advice on everything available to us—everything is still on the table.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Who does the Minister agree with, the Todd McClay who stated on 31 January this year that exporters will do “very well” during Trump’s second term, or the Todd McClay who stated on 6 March 2025 that “A tariff on New Zealand exports … is not a good thing for New Zealand.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, of course, Todd McClay was the same man on both occasions, and on both occasions he was right. New Zealand exporters do have a great future ahead of them, and of course New Zealand has consistently opposed additional tariffs on our goods.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does she agree with the statement by Sir John Key that Trump will “be better for the economy”, and what should New Zealand KiwiSaver fund holders think about that?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, I don’t take responsibility for the comments of the Rt Hon John Key.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why did the Minister state that “we will face about an extra $5 million of tariffs—plus or minus” on tariffs that have already been imposed on aluminium, iron, and steel, and how does the Minister reconcile this with Statistics New Zealand figures that show a 25 percent tariff would be about $34 million a year, based on last year’s export figures?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, obviously, I take a range of advice from my officials, and that is what informs my statements. I would like to acknowledge the member asking these questions, who, alongside other members of this House, has worked hard over many years to help secure good trading relationships between New Zealand and a network of other nations around the world. I would like to remind the member that, ultimately, our exporters are resilient and will continue to find good opportunities in a range of markets.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. That was a very clear question. The Minister had indicated an estimate of costs. Statistics New Zealand have estimated a different estimate of costs for tariffs. Whilst the Minister’s reply about our great exports is pleasant, it came nowhere near actually addressing the disparity between the Minister’s opinion and Statistics New Zealand’s statistics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I think given that all of this is based on estimates, no one’s in a position to say what exactly it’s going to be, so I’m satisfied with the Minister’s answer.

Hon Damien O’Connor: If the Minister can’t get the maths right, why should exporters trust his advice at this uncertain time, considering no one in his office has contacted any US officials since President Trump’s election, and he hasn’t even contacted the Meat Industry Association about the proposed tariffs on agriculture, when the US is now our single largest meat market?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, I can assure the member that this Government is working hard through all of our channels, across multiple Ministers, to ensure as strong a relationship as possible with the United States is in place in order to ensure that New Zealand’s interests can be pursued, and that absolutely includes the interests of our exporters. Minister McClay has instructed New Zealand officials in Washington, DC to engage with the new administration to ensure that they remain aware that our trade is balanced and complementary, and that US exporters predominantly enjoy lower tariff rates into New Zealand than our exporters do into the US because we have a very low-tariff regime.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request received back in my office on 28 February from the Hon Todd McClay, that states, “My office does not hold correspondence between members of my office and any United States Government officials since 5 November 2024.”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The paper can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 12—Women

12. to the Minister for Women: What is the Government doing to support women?

How fitting to address this House on this matter with you in the Chair, Madam Speaker. I want to wish all women a very happy International Women’s Day this Saturday, and I’d like to send my personal thanks and appreciation to the women across the country, who deserve to be celebrated on this day and every day. To support women, last year I launched the first ever Government-backed gender pay gap tool kit. This helps businesses to calculate their pay gap and then an action plan tailored to their individual needs. It was designed alongside business to ensure sustainable and enduring change, and I thank those involved. I encourage members across the House, instead of carping and moaning, to get on board with it and visit the resources this International Women’s Day.

Catherine Wedd: Why is this work a priority?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The gender pay gap, of course, sits at 8.2 percent, and the Retirement Commission has found a 36 percent gap in the amount that men and women are putting into their KiwiSaver each year, which is primarily caused by the gender pay gap rather than contribution rates. Reducing that gap, of course, can lift women to economic empowerment, which is my number one priority as Minister.

Catherine Wedd: What has the engagement been like so far?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: It has been fantastic. I am very pleased to share with this House that since the day we launched it, there have been 16,000 hits to the site and 750 downloads of the workbook by individual businesses. It’s really great to hear all the positive feedback from the business community as I travel across the country sharing this resource with business and professional sectors.

Catherine Wedd: What else is the Government doing?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The Government is committed to supporting women. That is why we have increased paid parental leave by 6 percent, we have introduced the FamilyBoost payment to help meet the cost of early childhood education, and we have rolled out an extension to breast screening services to include 70- to 74-year-olds. We are all about action, not press releases and empty, hollow promises.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why did the Minister and her Government get rid of the mandatory pay transparency scheme that was introduced by the last Government, when BusinessNZ, unions, and Government stood together, in a tripartite agreement, to say that this would make the single-biggest difference to women’s pay?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I am so pleased the member has asked that question. Cabinet has not yet made a decision on a mandatory reporting system, and I note that the last Government announced it but did not fund or deliver it. So we are progressing—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot hear the Minister. Carry on answering—I’m just asking other people to tone down the noise.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: We are progressing a voluntary system that has been designed by the business community, including BusinessNZ, so that it works for them, and, as I’ve noted, the organic uptake has already been very encouraging.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, with respect to Jan Tinetti’s question, is it, properly, “women’s” pay or “woman’s” pay?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I thank the member for his question. Anyone who knows how to enunciate correctly in English would say “women”.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It probably depends on where you grow up.

Hon Jan Tinetti: In what ways does cutting the Pay Equity Taskforce, coalition members dismissing causes for the gender pay gap, and making derisive comments about women count as the Government supporting women?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: This Government absolutely remains committed to pay equity and meeting its obligations under the Equal Pay Act 1972. As the Minister for Women, as that member will well know, I am not responsible for pay equity legislation, but I advocate very strongly on behalf of women, and I am proudly a very squeaky wheel.

Right, that concludes oral questions, and in the tradition of the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee, I’m going to give people 30 seconds to leave the Chamber quietly.