Oral Questions

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

I understand that a short time ago, the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee announced a 50 basis-point reduction—[Interruption]—in the official cash rate (OCR)—

SPEAKER: I might just suggest that applauding that sort of activity is not wise.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —taking the official cash rate to 3.75 percent. For context, members, just over five months ago, the OCR was at 5.5 percent. Official cash rate reductions, and expectations about future changes, affect market interest rates and therefore have a direct impact on New Zealand families and businesses, providing a boost to the economy.

Grant McCallum: What did the Reserve Bank say about future OCR changes?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This is where it gets interesting, because today’s 50-point reduction was widely anticipated. Probably of more interest to economists and financial markets is the bank’s revised track for the official cash rate going forward. In today’s release, the bank is signalling faster reductions than it has previously—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Because she’s tanking the economy.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and its forward track for the official cash rate is consistent with further reductions of up to 50 basis points by the middle of this year, and for the official cash rate to be at 3 percent by the end of the year. And just in case you’re wondering, Mr Hipkins, this is good news for every family with a mortgage, and the fact that you’re interjecting about it tells me you’re out of touch with that.

Grant McCallum: What does this mean for ordinary New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Falling mortgage rates boost household budgets when borrowers are on floating rates or when they come to refinance a fixed mortgage. Currently, 55 percent of mortgage lending is either floating or is fixed for six months or less, so that means that many people are set to benefit when the official cash rate falls. Infometrics has previously estimated that by the end of this year, as a result of lower mortgage rates, households will have another $45 million to spend every week. That is, of course, good news for families who, in recent years, have suffered a protracted cost of living crisis.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: There are near-term risks to the economic outlook.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the Labour Opposition acting finance spokesperson, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, to ask that as a question.

SPEAKER: No, we’ve had enough of that.

Grant McCallum: What do the Reserve Bank’s latest economic forecasts show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Obviously, that was an extremely astute interjection, because, yes, there are always risks to the economic outlook—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She’s one of them.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: But the forecasts—well, Mr Hipkins, it would pay you to listen because the forecasts tell a positive story. They show economic growth returning in the last quarter of 2024 and picking up this year. The bank expects unemployment to peak at 5.2 percent, which is, of course, just a shade above where it is now—but very importantly, members, lower than what it was forecast to reach when the last people were in charge. And members, there is also a forecast for employment to increase over the course of this year. I note that in the August 2023 Monetary Policy Statement, when another group of people were leading the country, the Reserve Bank was expecting unemployment to peak at 5.3 percent. So today’s forecast is a modest improvement on that and, clearly, the bank considers inflation’s under control, creating space for further interest rate reductions.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially our action to take pressure off inflation and interest rates and to support working Kiwis with the cost of living. The last few years have been incredibly tough with all the wasteful spending, the high inflation, the high interest rates, the low economic growth and the rising unemployment—thanks to the last Labour Government. We are working hard to take sensible economic action, sensible spending, personal tax relief—which Labour never supported—inflation relief, interest rate relief, and I just wish the Leader of the Opposition would celebrate with us the great news for working New Zealanders today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “We’ve got to get the right leaders into these big agencies and big departments. They’re big organisations and when you get the right leader at the top, it makes all the difference through the organisation.”; if so, is he confident that the Health Commissioner he appointed is the right person at the top of the health system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his decision to appoint Health Commissioner Lester Levy, given that, only six months later, a task force has reportedly been established to rewrite the turn-around plan that the commissioner himself was appointed to come up with?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say this Government inherited a botched merger of the healthcare system. Health outcomes went backwards under the last Government and we are doing everything we can to turn it around. You know, Labour voted against us putting $17 billion more—a record investment—into healthcare. Are you saying you don’t want us to tackle the bureaucracy so that we can get better outcomes for New Zealanders? We do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s tirade about the previous Government or what the Labour Party has decided didn’t actually address the question, which is whether or not he stands by the decision to appoint Lester Levy as commissioner, given that there is now supposedly a task force rewriting the plan that the commissioner was appointed to come up with.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for informing the House what the question was. The Prime Minister might like to respond very, very briefly to that question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can anyone in a leadership role in our health system have confidence that he’ll back them, after Shane Reti was sacked as Minister of Health, the chief executive of Health New Zealand went, the director-general of our health system went, the Director of Public Health went, Health New Zealand’s entire health board went, and most of the remaining senior leadership in the health system have all fallen victim to his culture of deflection and blame?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, New Zealanders can have confidence that we actually are here to improve the healthcare system with a record investment of $17 billion; dealing with a $2 billion fiscal cliff under Pharmac; by funding $604 million for cancer drugs; putting more money into the healthcare system than has ever happened in the history of New Zealand; and being determined to fix the bureaucracy so that we improve health outcomes for New Zealanders, which went backwards under that last Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did he indicate he didn’t have confidence in the Director-General of Health prior to her resignation; if so, to whom did he express that lack of confidence?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, those are issues for Health New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Lester Levy has been struggling with a health framework that the last Labour Government was advised not to adopt?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can. What I can also confirm is that this is a Labour Government that added thousands of extra management into the system, created massive layers between chairmen and patients, and built a massive bureaucracy that failed to deliver for New Zealanders. We are spending more, we are fixing the bureaucracy, and we will get better health outcomes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How frequently has he met with—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just—no. Everyone will be quiet while the question is asked.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How frequently has he met with or communicated with the Health Commissioner?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Probably—I’ll go back to my diary and tell you, but several times last year. Several times last year.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence that the latest turn-around plan for the turn-around plan will work, given so far all his Government has delivered is chaos in health system leadership, a hiring freeze on front-line roles, hospital rebuild delays and cutbacks, and worsening health outcomes for New Zealand patients?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Labour Party used to say that health was one of their core equities, and they ended up running the healthcare system into the ground. How do you botch a merger of 20 DHBs for a whole bunch of management on top? We’re putting more money in, we’re fixing the system, and we will deliver health outcomes that you failed to do in six years, including three years with an absolute majority.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes, and especially our action to deliver affordable housing to help Kiwis with the cost of living. For many, the cost of housing is incredibly difficult; it’s their biggest expense—whether it’s their mortgage payments each week or whether it’s their weekly rent. The good news is: whichever way you look at housing, we’re actually making sure we’re bringing interest rates down so that Kiwis have more money in their pockets, we have stable rents, we have a reduction in people on the social housing wait-list, and, most importantly, we have 2,000 kids out of emergency housing in good, safe, dry homes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How, if at all, will the Prime Minister ensure that this growth that his Government is chasing will be fairly distributed among New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we’re not going to do is run the economy into the ground like the Labour-Greens Government did in the last administration. That’s why we are working hard to give tax relief to everyday working New Zealanders. But I don’t remember the Labour and Green Government supporting that. I don’t remember the Labour-Green Opposition supporting an increase of $17 billion into our healthcare system. I don’t remember the Labour-Greens Government fixing emergency housing, and saying it’s OK to have 3,200 households raising their kids in motels. We find that unacceptable.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll put it simply: does the Prime Minister think that it is the job of Government to reduce inequality?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It is the job of Government to lift incomes for every New Zealander, and that’s what we are doing. We are offering them tax relief, inflation relief, and interest rate relief. We are managing the books well because if you care about vulnerable people, if you care about low and middle income, working New Zealanders, you run the economy well—not into the ground like you lot did.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister telling Chlöe Swarbrick that we will not be following the Marxist model of wealth redistribution that she advocates?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m just saying that we are not going to make the great leap backwards to socialism.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, after years of increases in economic growth, do the top 10 percent in this country hold almost 60 percent of the wealth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I mean, again in that question, what you see is not celebrating people who have been successful, you know? That is good. We want more ambition in this country. We want more aspiration. We want people to be successful; we want to celebrate that. That is a good thing. We have a fair tax system, as has been said before. But I’m telling you, what’s interesting is: what’s the one policy idea we’ve had from the Opposition? We actually haven’t had one. What we’ve got is a conversation about a capital gains tax or a wealth tax, and Chris Hipkins won’t make a decision on it, but that’s all that they want to talk about. I tell you, that’s not going to work for New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, in the face of the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on—hang on. It’s your own side—

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’m in the Greens, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, you are quite right, too. But none the less, some of your members are noisy, as well. So, please, wait for quiet and then ask your question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, in the face of the OECD stating—and I quote—“Focusing exclusively on growth and assuming that its benefits will automatically trickle down, may undermine growth in the long run.”, is the Prime Minister convinced, somehow, that, this time, it will all just trickle down?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m convinced of is that running the economy like Labour-Greens did over six years, into the ground—we need growth in this economy. That is not a conversation point any more. We need to grow so that we can actually create higher-income jobs, more jobs, put more money into people’s pockets so they can deal with the cost of living. That’s what we’re focused on each and every day in this Government. That member may not believe in growth, but growth is actually what helps low and middle income vulnerable New Zealanders get ahead.

Chlöe Swarbrick: By going for growth, does the Prime Minister mean growing inequality, growing poverty, growing homelessness, growing climate-changing emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It means lifting incomes for New Zealanders, which is what they care most about so they can get ahead, they can work hard in a country, get ahead, they can actually feel safe in a country, they see great education, great healthcare. That’s what we want for New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What were the departmental resourcing and clinical capacity factors that Health New Zealand said led to delays in the assessment of Daniel Walker’s cancerous lump on his testis, and what, if anything, was being done to address these factors at the time of Mr Walker’s referral to Nelson Hospital’s urology service in June 2024?

SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, the answers to this question will be heard in silence.

This case is deeply regrettable, and I acknowledge the significant distress it has caused Mr Walker and his family. I’m advised that the delay in treatment resulted from a combination of factors. Initially, the referral was triaged as urgent, but a human coding error led to it being downgraded, causing a delay. I’m also advised that Health New Zealand is investigating this incident to prevent this error from happening again. Additionally, I’m advised that Health New Zealand has identified that operational pressures in the system played a role in this situation because of the unexpected extended absence of a key clinician. As this case is currently before the Health and Disability Commissioner, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the specifics.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that Nelson Hospital was trying to source a locum urologist in June 2024, when Mr Walker was referred, and, if so, had approval been given for the vacancy to be recruited into?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that’s a specific question. I’d invite the member to put that in writing, and I’ll come back to her in regard to the specifics of that question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did Health New Zealand, in its response to Mr Walker’s ACC claim, say that the delay was due to resourcing factors if they are now saying that it is due to an administrative error?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I repeat what I said in my primary answer, which was there were two particular factors at play here. The first was a human coding error; the second was an operational pressure in relation to the unexpected extended absence of a key clinician, so there were two factors. As I’ve also said, Health New Zealand is investigating this incident to prevent this error from happening again, and it is also before the Health and Disability Commissioner, as well.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can the administrative error be involved in the delay when the fact is that it was on 19 July that the recoding of Mr Walker’s clinical condition occurred, when he was already beyond the limit for the clinically acceptable time for his condition to be seen by a specialist?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, the case is deeply regrettable. I’m advised that one of the reasons for the delay was the fact that the referral was triaged as urgent, but then a human coding error led to it being downgraded, and, of course, that took time until that was then noticed. That is deeply regrettable and I acknowledge that it is, and that is why I’ve also been advised that Health New Zealand is investigating this incident to prevent this error from happening again. There are investigations also under way by the Health and Disability Commissioner.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that while Mr Walker’s cancer care was delayed for lack of a surgeon and the lump in his testis grew and spread, the Government removed the power for Nelson Hospital to approve its own recruitment?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Sorry, can you repeat that question, please?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that while Mr Walker’s cancer care was delayed for lack of a surgeon, the lump on his testis grew and spread, and the Government removed the power for Nelson Hospital staff to approve recruitment?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, what I would say is that this situation is deeply regrettable and the delays did cause a significant impact on Mr Walker, and that is why there is now an investigation under way by Health New Zealand into this incident.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding vintage vehicles and motorhomes?

Earlier this month, I announced at the British and European Car Day in Trentham, the Government will soon consult on reducing the frequency of warrant of fitness (WoF), and certificate of fitness (CoF) inspections for vintage light vehicles, and private heavy motorhomes. There are 128,000 vintage vehicles in New Zealand and about 40,000 private motorhomes. They have to spend time and money getting a WoF or a CoF every six months. That is despite the fact that they travel less compared to modern cars. Evidence shows faults in these vehicles are half as likely to contribute to serious crashes. So we’re consulting on changing the rules to make it annually rather than every six months.

Stuart Smith: What specific changes are the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) consulting on?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: NZTA will soon begin consultation on reducing the WoF check frequency for vehicles over 40 years old, including both cars and motorcycles—I received quite a bit of correspondence about motorcycles—and they’re reducing the CoF check frequency for privately owned motorhomes from six months to one year. Our view is this is a sensible approach to making sure that vehicles continue to be safe while not going overboard on compliance.

Stuart Smith: What feedback has the Minister received on the proposal?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The feedback has been quite extraordinary. Let me quote Antonio, “Bloody brilliant. Thanks for the common sense.” Selwyn: “It’s a no-brainer.” The New Zealand Motor Caravan Association, Bruce Lochore: “It’s never made sense…these vehicles do a fraction of the mileage of normal vehicles, they have a fraction of the serious accident[s] … it’s an over-exaggeration of compliance”. Garry Jackson, president of the New Zealand Federation of Motoring Clubs, said, “We’re just delighted.”

Stuart Smith: When can Kiwis expect these changes to come into effect?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve got good news for Greg O’Connor and all other owners of vintage motor vehicles. Public consultation will begin next Monday. I encourage people to have their say. I know that the member of Parliament for the West Coast with their vintage hot rod will be submitting. Please go to nzta.govt.nz; the last day is 4 April. Once consultation has gone through and Government has made a decision, it will take place soon after that.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: Has a taskforce been established to review and potentially replace the health system reset plan put forward by Health New Zealand Commissioner Lester Levy; if so, when will it complete its work?

This Government is focused on delivering a health system that prioritises timely and quality healthcare for patients. The Public Service Commission has established the Health Assurance Unit to provide advice to me and to ensure performance across the health sector so that it can deliver upon the Government’s health priorities. The task force is established for three months. Unlike the previous Government, which prioritises restructuring during a pandemic, we’re focused on delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Hon Peeni Henare: Will Health New Zealand’s reset plan be publicly available, and, if so, on which date?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: That is a matter for the commissioner, but I understand the commissioner is continuing to work with Health New Zealand to finalise the reset plan.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister be more specific about the difference between the Health Assurance Unit he just spoke of that has been set up by the Public Service Commission and the task force that he spoke of?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Health Assurance Unit is what the Public Service Commission has set up.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he stand by his statement, “What I won’t stand by is bureaucracy, bureaucratic processes, and constant centralisation”, and, if so, why are people being appointed to a new task force to fix the Government’s failing plan when this money could have been better spent hiring doctors and nurses to staff New Zealand’s struggling emergency departments (EDs)?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Public Service Commission has set the health assurance team up to provide advice to me over three months. I would also note that in 2020, the last Government established the health transition unit housed within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to design and advise on the health system reforms. What I would say is we’re focused on getting results and performance out of the system after years of decay by the last Government and, for example, ED wait times, which declined from 89.2 percent of people being seen within six hours when National left office to 67.5 percent when Labour left office. We’re focused on outcomes.

SPEAKER: Well wide of the question—well wide of the question.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can his Government finally admit that after firing the Health New Zealand board, overseeing a health leadership exodus, and appointing one man who has delivered nothing but cuts, running the health system is not as simple as running an aeroplane?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: What a cynical question from the Opposition. What I would say is we are focused on outcomes and delivery and results after six years of reorganising the bureaucracy and seeing decline, decline, decline. ED wait times: declined. First specialist assessments: declined. Elective surgeries: declined. Children’s immunisations declined under their watch. We’re focused on results; we increased the funding for Health New Zealand. That’s what this Government is focused on doing.

Question No. 7—Agriculture

7. to the Minister of Agriculture: What is the Government doing to restore confidence and drive growth in the primary sector?

We’re turbo-charging growth to return confidence to the primary sector through common-sense policies that are driving up productivity and driving up farm-gate returns. The latest Federated Famers confidence survey has seen rural confidence rise to the highest level in over a decade, with one of the largest one-off improvements of 68 points since the question was introduced in that survey in 2016. The Government has been reducing wasteful spending to bring down inflation, which in turn means lower interest rates for our farmers and every New Zealander.

Miles Anderson: What has the Government done to improve farmer confidence?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Farmers and growers are the backbone of the New Zealand economy, contributing over $10 billion in export revenue for New Zealand. This is why we are laser focused on better rules and getting the cost of these rules down. Already, the Government, in slightly more than 12 months, has taken over 20 actions to slash red tape and get Wellington out of farming. This includes restricting full farm-to-forest conversions, taking agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme, working to replace the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and a commitment to not close down farms or send jobs and production overseas.

Miles Anderson: What is the Government doing to further support farmers?

Hon TODD McCLAY: This year, we are going for growth in the rural sector by further slashing regulatory burden and reducing on-farm costs, boosting productivity by improving water storage and irrigation, we’re improving trade access, rebalancing the hierarchy of the obligations of Te Mana o te Wai, and strengthening support for our rural communities, because we back rural New Zealand.

Miles Anderson: How is supporting farmers key to economic growth?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, looking ahead, we’re focused on leveraging trade opportunities, including the recently concluded United Arab Emirates and Gulf Cooperation Council agreement, and delivering more permissive regulatory conditions for farmers to be able to meet their obligations whilst growing their businesses. The primary sector generates more than 80 percent of New Zealand’s goods exports and directly employs almost 360,000 people in New Zealand. Ensuring its continued success is crucial to every Kiwi’s economic future. The positive momentum we are seeing now is just the beginning; when rural New Zealand is confident, all of New Zealand can be confident.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does standing by her statement that “I agree with everything the Deputy Prime Minister says.” mean that she agrees with her statement to Kinleith Mill workers that “Mills are closing rapidly in New Zealand and if there is not the right reaction from central government then there are many more closures to come”, and, if so, which town is next?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, it’s a very tough time for the Kinleith community, as the member well knows—very difficult time. The Ministry of Social Development is supporting the affected staff and contractors in the area to help them find employment. They are working hard alongside local employers and they will continue to do that, but it is a tough time economically and the Kinleith closure reflects that.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she stand by her statement that this Government is focused on going for growth when the only thing that has grown under her leadership is more unemployment than this time last year, which continues to rise, and all she can say is she made a few phone calls to the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, and she’s letting him do all the talking on a portfolio that she’s responsible for, and, if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the single best thing we can do for jobs and growth in this country is to go for growth. It is to say yes to our economic opportunities. It means saying yes to investment. It means saying yes to tourism. The Minister is also working hard on her other portfolio. It means saying yes to innovation. It means saying yes to infrastructure and housing investment. It means all of the things that the Government is doing, because—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Trickle down.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: More lectures from the degrowth Marxists over on the Opposition benches. If the Green Party want to have a fight about whether or not economic growth is a good thing or not, we are up for that debate and that battle, because, let there be no doubt: growth is good.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she stand by her response to my question to her last week on 13 February: “And I know very well how important Kinleith employment is in that community, and that is why, as a Government, we are looking at options.”, and, if so, can I ask what meaningful options, other than closing the mill, did she consider?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, as the member knows from his time in Government, the Government is not responsible for mill closures. Ultimately, those are economic decisions made by the owners of particular businesses. The Government cannot—I hope the member is not suggesting that the Government can go around and make business decisions on behalf of every business. What the Government can do is affect the broader macro economy such that businesses want to invest and grow jobs here. And the single best thing we can do is the Government’s Going for Growth agenda, but also allow a situation where inflation can return to band and you have price stability and interest rates can come down. That is why the official cash rate cuts from the Reserve Bank today are so good, not just for mortgage holders but also for businesses as well, so that it makes it easier for them to invest.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that the party that is uniquely able to claim to have saved Tiwai Point against a $100 million buy-off by the then Labour Party finance Minister is still trying to save Kinleith?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, it’s definitely true to say that there are some people with a close familiarity with Tiwai in this House, and they have a very proud record in relation to the Tiwai Aluminium Smelter, certainly more than other parties.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister planning to go to Tokoroa, like she did last year, to explain to workers, some who’ve been employed at that mill for 20 years, why this Government’s growth agenda doesn’t include the workers of Tokoroa and the 33,000 other workers who’ve lost their jobs in the last 12 months?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister cares about all workers in this country. That is why she is focused so much on working as part of a team to grow jobs and increase economic growth and productivity in this economy. And I’m sure she will be in the particular area that the member is talking about.

Hon Shane Jones: Has the Minister seen reports that one of the reasons why Tokoroa’s Kinleith is facing adversity is because of the closure of the gas and oil industry and the escalation of power prices?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the member makes a good point, which is that challenging energy prices have put pressure on some industrial businesses, including Kinleith and others, and that energy security is a key component of economic growth, and that is why the Government is very focused on improving that.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. to the Minister of Immigration: Does she stand by her statement that “We know the importance of family reunification in this Government”; if so, does she think it’s fair to deport people who have been born in Aotearoa, separating them from their communities and families?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, this is a very serious point of order. Why is someone who applied to come to this country in 2006 allowed to ask a question of this Parliament to change this country’s name without the referendum and sanction of the New Zealand people?

SPEAKER: Sorry, I couldn’t quite follow that entire—[Interruption] Listen to points of order in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is someone who applied to come to this country as an immigrant in 2006, when it was called New Zealand, allowed to, in this Parliament, change—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’re going to listen in silence or those people who are currently talking will be leaving. Start again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My question is a serious one. Why is someone who applied to come to a country called New Zealand as an immigrant in 2006 allowed, in this House, to change the country’s name without the mandate, the approval, or referendum of the New Zealand people?

SPEAKER: Well—sort of working through a little bit. Can I just say that the person asking the question is an elected member in this House. If he is using a name that’s not acceptable to others listening, then I can’t do much about that other than to say the point is acknowledged and, Ricardo Menéndez March, please carry on with your question.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said that “It’s just not right that people who have no connection to New Zealand are deported to New Zealand.”; and, if so, how is it right for their Government to deport people from New Zealand who only have connections to New Zealand?

Hon Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t get to answer the primary. That was—should I answer the primary and then move on?

SPEAKER: Well, to be honest with you, if I look at it, the primary was adapted to accommodate the point made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I think answer that question—he’ll have another supp.

OK, so I’m answering the primary. OK. In response to the first part of the primary question: yes. I made that statement in relation to the parent boost visa that we have been working on all year to provide another pathway for New Zealand citizens and residents to have their parents visit them. In response to the second part of the question, there are always really difficult and complex individual cases within the immigration system and that is why there are a range of mechanisms through which these cases can be fairly considered, including through the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, delegated decision makers within Immigration New Zealand, and ministerial intervention. I have confidence in these avenues to appropriately consider these cases on their individual circumstances as they arise.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said that “It’s just not right that people who have no connection to New Zealand are deported to New Zealand.” and, if so, how is it right for their Government to deport people from New Zealand who only have connections to New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I always agree with the Prime Minister.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she support regularising the immigration status of people who were born and have grown up in Aotearoa, and, if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my primary answer, as individual circumstances arise, they are able to be looked at by either Immigration and Protection Tribunal or the Minister or delegated decision makers. Each of those cases are able to be seen and assessed on their individual merits. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. I think it’s probably not an unreasonable thing to perhaps use, if you want to, the two names Aotearoa New Zealand, but not just the one. Quite clearly the Minister is sworn as a Minister of a Government in New Zealand—simple as that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much. I actually think this is quite significant, what you’ve just said now.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know it is.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: In any other instance, a direct translation from English to te reo in this House is permissible because te reo Māori is an official language of this country. Are you saying that in any other instance, a word could be used—te reo instead of the English version—and ever since it’s been official and able to be used in this House, that’s OK, but now all of a sudden, members cannot use the term “Aotearoa” unless they follow it up with “New Zealand”?

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order, a key part of the contribution from the honourable member was a direct translation. Go to the Treaty: New Zealand is transliterated as “Niu Tīreni”. Pember Reeves popularised the word “Aotearoa”.

Steve Abel: Speaking to the point of order, can I just clarify: Niu Tīreni New Zealand was a name given by a Dutch person on their arrival on these shores. Aotearoa is a widely accepted name that originates from the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, in the 1880s and 1890s, a white colonist popularised that name. Before that, no Māori ever thought that was the name for this country, because it comes from French Polynesia.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He was there!

SPEAKER: All right, so that’s the—[Interruption] And any more comments like that while I—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, no, no, I’m dealing with a point of order; I’ll come back to you. Just making the point: any more interruptions like that will ensure that someone is not here much further. Look, I was trying to make it clear that for the order of question time, it might be helpful if a person was to refer to Aotearoa New Zealand. In this case, I notice both words are used at different parts of the primary question, which I think is also kind of interesting. But Standing Order 109 does make it clear that you can address the House in either te reo or English. The issue around the geographic naming of New Zealand is a slightly different thing, and I’ll take some time to think about that and come back to the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m not going to make too big a point of this, but he made a very ageist comment saying, “He was there.” Now, sir, I’m not going to take too much offence about that, other than to tell him that, like so many Labour leaders, I’ll be around long after he’s gone.

SPEAKER: Not a legitimate point, but fair.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept she’s setting a different standard—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just start again.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept she’s setting a different standard when it comes to people deported to New Zealand and people deported from New Zealand when it comes to communities that have no connection to any other country than the one they’re being deported from?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Then why does she agree with the Prime Minister when it comes to his statement that people should not be deported to New Zealand when they only have connections to those other countries, and not in the case of people who were born here, raised here, and yet are facing deportation?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s because the member is conflating two different things. It is very important in this country that we look after and maintain the integrity of our borders, and if we were in this country to change our Citizenship Act—which, by the way, does not fall under my delegation, but if we were to do that, it would mean that people who had no other pathway to residence would potentially be incentivised to have children in order to stay here. We have a reasonable balance in this country where we maintain the integrity of our borders and do not provide those incentives. However, on the other hand, when individual circumstances arise that may have circumstances of that case that require an extra look by either a delegated decision maker or the Minister of Immigration or the Associate Minister or the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, then those avenues are available to those people.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is her message to other people like Daman Kumar, who have no immigration status but have only known life in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: My message to those people is the same as I’ve already said: that the avenues to have their individual cases looked at by a delegated decision maker, an Associate Minister of Immigration, or the Immigration and Protection Tribunal are open to them to have a look at the individual circumstances of their case to make individual decisions.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. How was that last supplementary question in any way within Standing Order 390(1)(a)?

SPEAKER: I’ll have to come back to you on that. Have you got a point of order?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I do, sir, please—point of order. Thank you very much for agreeing to go away and consider the matter that was discussed through a series of points of order earlier. I think it’ll be useful for the order of the House and the functioning of Parliament to have clarity on that. Would you also be willing to consider whether it is appropriate for any member of this House to openly question the legitimacy of the presence of another member in order to make a political point?

SPEAKER: OK, I’ll think about that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Because it’s quite serious.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I agree.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order, I do think that is worthwhile considering, for two different reasons: (a) I’m not the only person in this House who actually was born overseas; secondly, those comments actually reflect outside of the chambers of this place into broader communities, disincentivising people who may have been born overseas from participating in our democracy.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, can you also contemplate the appropriateness of recent immigrants telling Māoris what the name of our country should be?

SPEAKER: OK, well, we’re not going to take this any further today. I’m certainly not ruling on it right now. We’ll move to question No. 10, Rima Nakhle, who will ask the question when the House is quiet.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. to the Minister for Māori Development: What recent announcements has he made about Māori development?

Last Friday, it was my pleasure to attend the launch on Tumunui land, south of Rotorua, at Te Pā Tū, the launch of the Business and Economic Research Ltd report on the value of Māori tourism. This report provides a fact-based and data-driven analysis of the economic contribution of Māori tourism to the New Zealand economy while also highlighting the unique aspects that define Māori tourism experiences. As you know, nature and culture are major drawcards for international tourists, and the report observes that Māori tourism emphasises the relationships between Māori; whenua, or land; and manuhiri, visitors.

Rima Nakhle: Why is Māori tourism so important?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Prime Minister is clear that our Government’s focus is on economic growth, and tourism makes an important contribution as New Zealand’s second-largest export earner. The Government is firmly focused on creating the right conditions for businesses, organisations to grow, to create jobs, and to lift incomes. The report identifies that, in 2023, Māori tourism contributed $1.2 billion of productive GDP to the New Zealand economy, an increase from $975 million in 2018. That 23 percent growth is a clear indicator of the great value-add of Māori tourism to the tourism sector and the wider economy.

Rima Nakhle: What is the value-add of Māori tourism?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Māori tourism boasts a rich herstory and history. Before the word “tourism” was coined, our tūpuna deployed manaakitanga, and a profound connection to the whenua—land; thank guides Sophia Hinerangi and others in Te Arawa. Māori tourism continues to thrive on manaakitanga and whenua. Māori collectors, in particular, offer a diverse range of accommodation, experiences, and events that are prominent on our tourism must-do lists and are not replicated elsewhere, like the greatest Māori show on earth Te Matatini next week in Taranaki, where I hope to see as many members of this House as possible supporting the Waikato kapa haka teams!

Rima Nakhle: How productive are Māori tourism enterprises?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Between 2010 and 2020, Māori tourism businesses generally performed better than non-Māori tourism businesses in terms of labour productivity, GDP per worker, and relevant industry groups. Contributing factors could include the higher-average salaries of employees for Māori tourism businesses and operational efficiencies in these businesses. The economic impact of Māori tourism extends beyond revenue and pax numbers. They have 15,000 jobs, often in regions where job prospects may be limited. Māori businesses often prioritise local businesses and suppliers, creating a multiply effect that directly benefits the local and regional economies.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. to the Minister of Housing: How many social houses were funded through Budget 2024?

1,500.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: In what years will that funding for those 1,500 houses be allocated in?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In terms of allocation, the funding is being allocated now and they are for delivery from 1 July 2025 through to 30 June 2027.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many of the social houses built between the 2023 general election and today were funded by this Government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, none, because, as the member knows, funding is allocated two or three years out from when the funding starts, and the Government took office on 27 November 2023, so it’s a little bit difficult to allocate funding and have a house built the day or the month afterwards. I invite the member to look at a calendar.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If that is the case, why did he stand in this House and say to members here and the country that he takes credit for the 2,000 houses that have been built up to now?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member asked me how many houses had been built since this Government came to office, and the answer is what I gave, which is over 2,000. The member might not like the fact that they lost the election and we won, but that’s what happened.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is it the position of this Government that anything that happens after the 2023 election is its doing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The simple reality is that stuff that happens in one Government often comes to fruition in another Government. For example, the National Government in 2014 started the funding for the Transmission Gully motorway. It finished in 2022, but I noticed that didn’t stop Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson riding out in the Crown limos to spend up roughly $400,000 opening Transmission Gully, even though they campaigned against it in the first place. The City Rail Link project was funded in 2014 and has taken so long we have had an entire new Government from National come around, so the fifth National Government when it started life under the fourth National Government. Another example is the SkyCity convention centre, which was funded back in 2013 and 13 years later will open. Things take a while. House building takes a while as well.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, the allocation from the party has run out, so nice try.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I know, but I thought I’d give it a crack.

SPEAKER: It’s well worthwhile. There’s nothing like an enterprising young man having a go.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, and, in particular, my actions to deliver excellent and equitable outcomes for tamariki Māori. I was really proud to launch our first nationally consistent, high-quality structured literacy and numeracy resources in te reo Māori, benefiting 27,000 ākonga across the country. I’m advised that the kura umbrella group Ngā Kura ā Iwi, at their recent hui, made comment on the high quality of the resources, the comprehensive nature of the content, and the clear link to language acquisition. Finally, I’m further advised that teachers from outstanding kura, including seven from the member’s electorate—including that member’s own former wharekura—were involved in the development of this curriculum and supporting resources.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Can the Minister explain why she believes that Māori-medium education and mainstream education should or should not receive equal treatment?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I think that the answer in the primary question answered the member’s question. There should be equitable resources and outcomes for both Māori-medium kura kaupapa and tamariki Māori in the mainstream, which is why every single thing that I have done in the English medium, we have mirrored in the Māori medium, as well. For the first time, we have nationally consistent pāngarau—or maths—resources available to every child learning in te reo Māori, no matter where they are learning, because we have a bilingual education system and we are committed to fully funding that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: The normal practice is—oh, a point of order, sorry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. When that question was asked, surely it occurred that if the question was why someone, as a Minister, should explain why something should or should not be happening with respect to funding, that was so incoherent that you can’t possibly answer it, because if you were saying why something should happen, how can you then explain why something should not happen—which was the framework, if I follow the dialogue of what she said, in her question. Did you not get that?

SPEAKER: Yes, I got it, but I’m not responsible for the way in which people construct questions in the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, amateur hour.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, you can use the term, if you like, but I would imagine you’re not applying it to me.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How does the Minister justify the allocation of $100 million to one mainstream school when the entire budget for all kura kaupapa projects is $100 million?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The member is referring to Wellington Girls’ College, and an explanation of the $100 million is that that is over a long period of time; in fact, much of that money pre-dates this Government—investment that was required for buildings that were earthquake-prone and, in fact, were rather dangerous, and that work needed to happen. Further work needs to happen in order to make that school—

Rawiri Waititi: A hundred million dollars to one school—kura kaupapa have $100 million for the nation.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If the member thinks that I am the type of Minister that is going to stand by a school that has earthquake-prone buildings and do nothing, then he underestimates my commitment to the students of this country.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does the Minister agree with her previous statement that kura kaupapa buildings “are in an extremely dilapidated state”; if so, why have kura kaupapa buildings not been prioritised for repairs?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, kura kaupapa buildings are being prioritised. We have set aside $100 million that we are continuing to top up, and—

Rawiri Waititi: Which one is getting $100 million?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, if the members would like to hear my answer, I’d suggest that they stop barracking across the House, because this is actually quite important. The answer to her question is that we are prioritising kura kaupapa buildings because they are in a dilapidated state, which is why we are continuing to top up the $100 million fund, and I would note that, actually, of all of the kura kaupapa that we have been dealing with, we haven’t even been able to spend the money yet because we haven’t had agreement in many of those cases as to exactly what’s going to happen. But I have said to those kura kaupapa to let’s get together and make sure that we spend that money as quickly as we can, so that in every single Budget, I can continue to top it up so that we can continue to build more classrooms and fix up more classrooms.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: If the Minister agrees that kura kaupapa need to be prioritised, can she explain why 20 kura kaupapa projects were deprioritised or cancelled last year?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I can exactly tell that member why things had to be put on a different train, and that is because when we turned up in Government, we had 250 projects that were unfunded—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on—hang on. I can’t hear a word that’s coming from the Minister due to the loud interjections coming from both sides of the—all parts of the House. Yeah, you may well look behind you; I would, if I were you. Please answer the question from the start, again.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we turned up in Government, we were surprised to find that we had 250 unfunded projects that had been promised by the previous Government, but had not been funded. The reason for that, as I’ve explained many times, is that so many projects were bespoke buildings that were very expensive, at the expense of building lots and lots of modular builds that cost far less to deliver. We have turned that around in 12 months. Over 80 percent of what we do are offsite-manufactured builds. We are saving money, and the Opposition would be pleased to know that in the next few weeks, we will have some announcements to make on many of the projects that we’re now able to undertake because of the savings we’ve made. And the last point I would make is that we built more classrooms last year than the Labour Government did in the year before that, despite what Mr Hipkins continues to say.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a short pause while those who have to leave the House do so quickly and quietly, and then I’ll call on a member to move that the House take note of miscellaneous business.