Sitting date: 20 August 2024

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially this Government's action to improve road safety by going after drugged and drunk drivers. Our Government is absolutely committed to building great roads and Kiwis deserve to be safe when they drive on them, and alcohol and drugs are the number one cause of fatal crashes on New Zealand roads; in fact, around 30 percent of deaths on our roads involve drug-drivers. So our Government is taking action, with more funding for roadside tests as part of a package of $1.3 billion for road policing in the next three years. But we know funding isn't enough, which is why we're setting targets for alcohol and drug tests so we see better results for where the money is spent.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, "Part of the history of modern New Zealand has been our struggle to understand the intentions and expectations of those who signed the Treaty. … That work is still happening and will keep going.", and, if so, can he set out his understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by telling the House whether he believes that Māori ceded sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister believe that Māori ceded sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position is that the Crown is sovereign.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that 102 years ago, in a major thesis, Sir Āpirana Ngata set out the very circumstances of the Treaty and he said that Māori ceded sovereignty—far closer to the action he was, as were other Māori leaders of that time?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I've said, our position is that the Crown is sovereign, and also—importantly—the Treaty of Waitangi has protections in there for both Crown and Māori interests.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we to take it from that answer that the Prime Minister believes that Māori ceded sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't know how I can be clearer in answer to the first question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When did Māori cede sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'd just say to the member that we have the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand; in there is protection for both Crown and Māori interests. But, as I've said to you, the position is very clear: Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does his Government's Treaty Principles Bill consider the Waitangi Tribunal's finding from 10 years ago that "The rangatira who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede [their] sovereignty to Britain," or does he continue or intend to continue to sideline the Waitangi Tribunal?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We haven't seen a Treaty principles bill yet.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to rein in inflation and to reduce the cost of living as part of our plan to rebuild the economy. We had a plan to fight inflation and we started work on day one: stopping the wasteful spending, removing costs on businesses, and returning the Reserve Bank to a single focus on inflation. Now, we see inflation is tracking down to 3.3 percent and heading lower, and last week brought more good news for every Kiwi with a mortgage, with the first cut to the official cash rate in 4½ years. We know life is tough out there, but there are encouraging early signs that our plan is working to get New Zealand back on track.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What responsibility does he take for the fact that since he became Prime Minister, the monthly number of new building consents has dropped 26 percent, 6,000 jobs have gone from the building and construction sector, and 57 percent of construction businesses now report difficulties with Government procurement and work consent conditions, up from 36 percent last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is a function of bad economic mismanagement and vandalism from the previous administration that created something called inflation, and inflation works because if you have an 84 percent increase in spending—wasteful spending, much of it—you increase debt from $5 billion to $100 billion, and you hire 18,000 more public servants, you get high levels of domestic inflation. That then leads to high levels of interest rates. When interest rates go up, that leads to recession, which is what we've been experiencing—thank you to the previous Labour Government—and, in turn, that leads to rising unemployment. That's why this Government is working incredibly hard on the root causes of the problem, which is actually getting inflation down so we can get interest rates down, and so we get the economy growing and we keep people in work.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, is the Civil Contractors association—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on, just—sorry. Please don't talk while someone is asking a question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is Civil Contractors New Zealand CEO Alan Pollard wrong when he said, "We have this strange situation where there's a mountain of infrastructure work that the country needs, and it's coming"—but then goes on to say—"but since the election, everything has stopped, effectively."

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What is happening is there's no doubt that is a sector experiencing the impacts of inflation, which is a gift from the previous administration. But, importantly, this is a Government that wants to get things built, and I really appreciate the member's interest in the area of infrastructure and I'd ask him to come on board and support our fast-track legislation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the latest Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' global monitor survey report that New Zealand's construction sector is now the most depressed since that survey started and is the most depressed in the world, with more than half of respondents citing as a reason the change in Government in October 2023, which resulted in cuts, delays, and policy change?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, my goodness—oh, my goodness. I just don't know where to start—what a gift. What I'd just say to that member is—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just—hold on. You can't ask a question, from your leader, and then just barrack like crazy so you don't get the answer. Please. Perhaps we'll ask the question again, and then we'll have the answer reasonably presented.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Very happy to, Mr Speaker. Why does the latest Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' global monitor survey report that New Zealand's construction sector is now the most depressed since the survey started and is the most depressed in the world, with more than half of respondents citing as the major reason the change in Government in October 2023, which resulted in cuts, delays, and policy change?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The reason that that sector is feeling it pretty tough is because of something called inflation, high interest rates, and recession, which was a gift from the previous administration. We have a Government here that wants to invest in infrastructure; make sure it's modern and reliable infrastructure that drives economic productivity in this country. We've taken the genius idea from David Parker about fast-track provisions; we're putting it in and expanding it further. I'd ask him to come on board and support the rule, if he's serious about building infrastructure.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yeah, could I just make the point that all the barracking and interjection doesn't make an answer turn into the answer that someone might be wanting to hear. By all means, carry on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What's the total value in dollar terms of the infrastructure projects that have been cancelled or delayed since his Government took office, including school rebuilds and expansions, roading projects, rail upgrades, hospital rebuilds, State house upgrades and new builds, and public transport projects?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'm sure if the member gives a specific question, we can get him a specific answer, but what I would say is that there is $68 billion in this year's Budget for infrastructure. I would also point to the member that having projects with names doesn't mean they are actually projects, so spending six years on Auckland light rail and spending $250 to $300 million doesn't make it happen; it's just a Post-it note slogan bumper sticker—that's what that is. The same thing happened on Lake Onslow—just another bumper sticker. There's a difference between real projects that improve productivity and phantom projects that just actually are Post-it notes.

SPEAKER: I'd just make the point that while barracking against an answer that you don't like doesn't make it change, nor does barracking in favour of an answer you like make it any better—so just a bit of calm.

Hon David Seymour: When the Prime Minister eventually leaves office, does he anticipate spending his first year out combing the world for statistics to show how badly he buggered the economy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'd just say to the member, on this side, in the Government, as he well knows, he's part of, actually, a Government that wants to get things done. We think there are five things that we need to grow this country: a world-class education system—we didn't inherit that from the previous Government—we've got to embrace science, technology, and innovation; we need to get rid of the red tape, green tape, and bureaucracy; we need to make sure we've got modern, reliable infrastructure; and, importantly, international connections. That's what will drive economic growth.

SPEAKER: It may surprise the member to know that the Prime Minister has no responsibility to this House for his future. Good question; well answered, but we'll go now to the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he take responsibility for the construction sector business confidence collapsing under his Government's watch, from one in three business having a confident outlook to only one in five now?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'd take responsibility for is rebuilding the economy in the hell of a mess that we inherited, and you're starting to see that. We have stopped the wasteful spending, we've stopped loading costs up on businesses, and we're getting spending under control. That's driving inflation down, thankfully—and I would hope the member is joining us in great celebration with the lower interest rates that came through last week—and from that will flow economic growth and, ultimately, more employment opportunities for people.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think the 6,000 people who've lost their jobs in the building and construction sector and the firms who are closing because they have a shortage of work because of his Government's decisions think that this is what getting back on track looks like?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think those 6,000 workers understand that a Government that had six years, mucked around, and actually drove the economy into a hole is a reason why they're doing it pretty tough. But they know that on this side, the Government wants to actually to make sure we build infrastructure and we get things done, and that's going to happen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister, has he got any plans to assign $54 million, for example, for a cycleway over the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and when it's all over, nothing is done with it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There was a lot of phantom projects from the previous Government; we can go through them if you'd like. There was the cycle pathway over the Auckland Harbour Bridge. That was a lovely idea for about a week and a half or so—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It's the general approach, as you've suggested, to try and leave you to deal with that, but that immediate response from the Prime Minister was to have a crack at the previous Government, and it should have been ruled out right then. The question wasn't about that, but the Prime Minister made the answer about that, and it was out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be something that I'll need to look at the Hansard to reconsider.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Over the past few years, New Zealand has endured a cost of living crisis, with rampant inflation eating away at New Zealanders' incomes and savings. In response, interest rates were lifted very sharply, imposing additional costs on Kiwi households and businesses. I was delighted to see that last week marked a significant turning point, with the Reserve Bank's monetary policy committee deciding to cut the official cash rate (OCR) by 25 basis points, to 5.25 percent. What's more, the bank has set out a forecast track for the official cash rate which shows a steady decline over the next few years, back down to 3 percent in 2027.

Stuart Smith: What does an OCR cut mean for New Zealand families and businesses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Lowering the official cash rate will lead to lower interest rates across the economy; in fact, this process has already started. It means Kiwis will pay less interest on their mortgages and on their personal loans, easing the cost of living for families. It also improves the conditions for businesses, making it easier for them to borrow to expand, hire people, and grow. Lower interest rates will be a breath of fresh air for the economy. Coupled with the tax relief package we introduced on 31 July, this is an important milestone in beating the cost of living crisis.

Stuart Smith: What is the Reserve Bank's forecast for inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: During the cost of living crisis, annual Consumers Price Index inflation got to 7.3 percent and was over 7 percent for most of 2022. The Reserve Bank's latest forecast is for inflation in this quarter—that is, the September quarter of 2024—to be well within the target band, at 2.3 percent. That is a very considerable drop. The Reserve Bank clearly has confidence that inflation is under control and that the age of extreme price increases is over, after four years where the only way for interest rates was up.

Stuart Smith: What has been the contribution of fiscal policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Fiscal policy can either get in the way of monetary policy, as we saw with big spending over the last few years, or it can be helpful. This Government has been helpful, as the Budget demonstrates. New Zealanders benefited from long-overdue tax relief, and this tax relief was delivered in a way that was fiscally neutral and did not add to inflationary pressure, with every single dollar accounted for. More importantly, Government spending as a proportion of the economy is forecast to fall over the next few years, as the Monetary Policy Statement shows. As the Treasury said in the Budget update, "The decisions taken through Budget 2024 will on balance reduce the contribution fiscal policy is making to inflation pressure."

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Mālō 'aupito, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement, "We've acted swiftly to root-out waste, reduce bureaucracy and move resources from the back-office to the front line"; if so, is she confident New Zealanders have gained more from the tax cuts than they lost from the Budget 2024 baseline savings exercise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, and yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why has Oranga Tamariki ended contracts with 190 front-line social service providers and a further 142 providers have had their funding reduced, or are these contracts wasteful spending, as described by the Prime Minister?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the member wants detailed answers on specific contract decisions by Oranga Tamariki, I would encourage her to put those questions to the relevant Minister. I will make two points: first, overall funding for Oranga Tamariki in the Budget increased; and, second, if that member thinks that the position of a Government should be that every single contract signed up needs to be stuck in stone and never changed, then she's delusional. In fact, what our Government has committed to do is drive better services. We want New Zealand children to be safe, we want there to be good and effective service delivery, and Oranga Tamariki is expected to deliver on that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it reasonable, as part of her Budget 2024 baseline savings exercise, for front-line social service providers to provide 100 percent of their contracted Government services with only 70 percent of the Government funding, and is this consistent with the social services commissioning model?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Our expectation is that we will drive better results for the taxpayers' money we invest in social service provision. We are particularly conscious that in recent years, social service providers have watched while Wellington grew, the dollars that went into Government agencies expanded, and the number of policy analysts and managers hired grew, and yet those front-line service providers often only saw in return more contracting requirements, more compliance, and, actually, weren't able to deliver better results. Our Government is focused on ensuring the dollars actually make it to the front line.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to providers like Taeaomanino Trust, Wesley Community Action, Porirua Whānau Centre, Barnardos Aotearoa, Wairere Care Services, North Shore Women's Centre, WELLfed New Zealand Trust, E Tipu E Rea, and the Salvation Army, who have all had reductions in funding and lost front-line staff as a result of her Budget 2024 baseline savings exercise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I'd say to each of those social service providers that the Government values what you do. You play a significant role in helping New Zealanders in need, and our Government wants to work with you to ensure we can make the maximum impact for the people you serve.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was making funding cuts for Oranga Tamariki providers, who serve our most vulnerable children, worth it to pay for her tax cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I completely reject the accusation in the member's question. We invested every single dollar gained from savings at Oranga Tamariki back into Oranga Tamariki, which, overall, had increased funding in the Budget.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the banking sector?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Today, the Commerce Commission released its final competition report into personal banking services. The report provides substantial evidence that New Zealand's banking sector is uncompetitive and that Kiwis are not well served by a two-tier oligopoly. The report makes it clear that our banks are highly profitable compared with international peers, they lack innovation, and do not aggressively compete for market share. Instead, competition resembles a cozy pillow fight, with greater focus given to maintaining profit margins than serving New Zealanders well. We are concerned that New Zealand customers are missing out and that as a result of this imperfect competition, they are facing higher prices, limited choices, and poorer service, even when compared to customers of the same parent banks in Australia.

Katie Nimon: What recommendations did the Commerce Commission make?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The commission has made 14 recommendations aimed at encouraging more disruptive players into the market, increasing the level of competition between existing players, and empowering consumers to get a better deal from their banking services. In the short term, the commission found that providing Kiwibank with access to more capital has the greatest potential to disrupt and deliver more competitive services to New Zealanders. In the medium to long term, the commission finds that open banking has the greatest potential to promote ongoing disruptive competition by allowing innovative new players such as fintech firms to enter the market and offer banking services to Kiwi consumers that compete with the traditional banks.

Katie Nimon: What recommendations does the report make about Kiwibank?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, one of the key recommendations is for the Government to support Kiwibank to become a real competitor to the major banks. At the moment, Kiwibank is only just nipping at the heels of the big Australian-owned banks, with just 5 percent of the market. To compete more aggressively with the Aussie banks, Kiwibank needs significantly more capital. I have asked the Treasury to engage with Kiwibank's owner, Kiwi Group Capital, to understand the best options for providing Kiwibank with the capital it needs. The Government will explore all the options for where that additional capital might come from. Possibilities include KiwiSaver funds, New Zealand investment funds, and everyday New Zealanders themselves looking for home-grown places in which to put their money and invest in New Zealand's future. I will take proposals to Cabinet no later than December this year.

Katie Nimon: What other actions is the Government taking in response?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A number of the Commerce Commission's recommendations relate to existing work that is already being progressed by this Government. For example, the Government, led by Minister Bayly, is progressing work to create a consumer data right—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, great bill—we did that.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —to give customers greater control over how their data is accessed and used. While those members chuff themselves, I remember they talked a lot about open banking; they didn't deliver it. For sectors like banking, this change will make it easier for consumers to switch providers or for innovative and disruptive new players like fintechs to enter the market and compete. The Government has already scrapped the overly prescriptive Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Regulations and we've updated the Responsible Lending Code to ensure loan application processes are fair and flexible. Later this year, I will issue a revised financial policy remit for the Reserve Bank outlining the Government's view that improving competition in the banking sector should be a stronger factor in the Reserve Bank's decision making. This is in line with the Commerce Commission's recommendation. This Government is committed to delivering a more competitive banking sector so New Zealanders can get a better deal. That's why we are taking action to address all 14 of the commission's recommendations.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Has she read the analysis in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's 2019 report that "There is little evidence in support of using obligations and sanctions (as in the current system) to change behaviour; rather, there is research indicating that they compound social harm and disconnectedness"; if so, what specific evidence, if any, has she seen that benefit sanctions support people into employment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I did read that in 2019, and I've also looked into the empirical evidence in New Zealand between 2017 and 2023. During this time, the number of people on the jobseeker benefit increased by 70,000, or 57 percent, which included periods of prolonged labour shortages. During the same time, the use of sanctions nosedived from 60,588 to 25,329, or a decrease of 58 percent. Our Government believes this demonstrates that sanctions are a necessary part of the tools needed, including more proactive support, to motivate people to take the steps needed to shift into work. Sanctions are also about enforcing the basic responsibility to fulfil obligations if you are being supported by taxpayers.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is she choosing to ignore the research that shows sanctions do not support people into employment and, instead, conflating correlation with causation when it comes to the so-called empirical evidence she quoted?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This side of the House is clear that there must be mutual obligations, rights, and responsibilities. Just as the Ministry of Social Development will provide support and assistance, job seekers who fail to hold up their end of the bargain should face some consequences.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it easier or harder for someone to find suitable employment when they have lost half of their benefit and fall behind on rent, food, debts, and bills?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That's why we've introduced a traffic light system. We want people to be really clear about where they are, whether they're at green, orange, or red, so they don't lose any entitlement.

Mike Butterick: What recent commentary has the Minister seen on the use of benefit sanctions to change behaviour?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I did agree with the comments made on Newstalk ZB in Wellington on 15 August, that were "When it comes to sanctions, I'll tell you what, especially for the younger ones, particularly the [under 20s and for] teenagers hitting the workforce, I think those sanctions straight out of school … are a good idea." I would like to thank Labour MP Greg O'Connor for his endorsement and for confirming that common sense hasn't been completely extinguished from the Labour Party.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why has she been unable to—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no—no, hold on. Thank you.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why has she been unable to substantiate and produce evidence that sanctions support people into employment, and instead continues referring to contributions on talkback radio and conflating correlation with causation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It's really simple, and that's why I was pleased to support another colleague's common-sense approach to this. This side of the House believes that there should be rights and responsibilities, obligations—and those obligations are pretty simple work obligations to be available for work and to look for work—and consequences when they don't. I would add that we have seen in July an increase in the number of work exits from a year ago, so I'm confident that what we're doing is working.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she stand by her answers to supplementary questions last sitting week when she said that caregiving is work, and, if so, will she guarantee that caregivers will not be subject to work obligations and sanctions under the traffic light system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There will be work obligations for those on the jobseeker benefit. There may be some conditions or capacity that is assessed for those with health conditions and disabilities. But where there are work obligations, our expectation is that they are fulfilled.

Question No. 7—Disability Issues

7. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements made during the Disability Issues Estimates hearing at the Social Services and Community Committee on 19 June 2024?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes, but since then the independent review has found that the disability support system was in a much worse state than we first understood. Access to disability support services is a postcode lottery based on where someone lives, not their level of need, and Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People lacks the capabilities necessary to deliver disability support services effectively, partly due to their rushed establishment under the last Government. The independent review recommended that the initially planned phase two not proceed, as stabilising the disability support system was urgent. That's why last week our Government announced a series of measures to ensure that the increased budget of $2.6 billion is distributed in a fairer, more consistent way, based on need.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by her statement that "Our Government remains committed to the Enabling Good Lives approach", and, if so, how does she reconcile this with her decision to pause Enabling Good Lives?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our Government of course is committed to the vision and principles of Enabling Good Lives, particularly the principle that talks about mainstream first and ensuring that disabled people are supported to access mainstream services before specialist disability services. The independent review highlighted dire issues with a disability support service that required urgent action. Our Government is taking that urgent action.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by her statement that "The most critical thing we do is for people who are already accessing and in need of disability support services, that we stabilise the system and give them certainty"; if so, how can she justify uprooting and transferring disability support services from Whaikaha to the Ministry of Social Development, a process for which the cost and time frame is unknown?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The report that came from the independent review panel, unfortunately, was bleak. That was on top of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet stocktake that was undertaken for the previous Government and released before the election, as well as an independent assurance report that also showed poor financial controls. That is why in order to stabilise and ensure services that are delivered to disabled people are stabilised, we've taken urgent action. That is why we are prioritising disabled people, their families, and carers by making these changes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by her statement that the review into disability support services engaged "with a number of organisations and groups and individuals—disabled and non-disabled."; if so, how does she reconcile this with the comments made by New Zealand Disability Support Network chief executive, Peter Reynolds, who said, "The Government's bombshell decision to cut disability support funding in real terms, while gutting the Ministry designed by and for disabled people without even deigning to talk with the people affected first is heart-breaking"?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The state of the books and the rapid decline of the ministry's ability to maintain within its appropriation meant that changes were required. That's why an independent review panel was set up at pace and over that time that the independent review panel was doing its work, I met with disabled people, with families, with carers, with organisations, with the Disabled People's Organisations Coalition, with providers—including the organisation that that member referred to—to understand exactly how they saw the disability support service and what their experience was. It's fair to say it was bleak; that's why urgent action has been taken.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can the disabled community trust a Minister who said her Government was committed to Enabling Good Lives, then paused it; said they would stabilise disability support services, then uprooted it; and said they would engage with the disabled community when she didn't?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I just want to reconfirm what this review was about and the actions that were taken. Over many, many weeks and the discussions with disabled people, families, carers, and providers, it is very clear. It is very clear that the system we have today is unfair, it is inconsistent, and it is a postcode lottery that delivers to disabled people depending on where they live. That is not sustainable, and that is why, with an increased budget of $1.1 billion, we want to ensure that those with the highest needs get their needs met.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with the mounting evidence that his Government's policies and actions are worsening race relations in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that his Government's actions and policies are changing the constitution of this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does our constitution allow for three Prime Ministers at the same time?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does Parliament's constitution grant supremacy to a coalition agreement over Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have a very clear coalition agreement. We honour our coalition agreements.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can the Prime Minister describe the distribution of constitutional power created by the agreement of te iwi Māori to Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I've said before, the Treaty of Waitangi is a foundational document of New Zealand. It protects both Crown and Māori interests.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has the Prime Minister given total control of his Government to ACT and New Zealand First, or is he using the coalition agreement as an excuse to pursue his own anti-Māori agenda?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I'm really proud of this coalition Government because we are united on the things that New Zealanders—Māori or non-Māori—care about, and I would just say to that member that I hope she cares as deeply about Māori achievement and education, Māori health outcomes, Māori housing outcomes, Māori economic outcomes. Those are the things that this Government is fixated on fixing.

Hon David Seymour: Will the Prime Minister be pleased to learn that amongst the 78 initial applicants to run kura hourua charter schools are a large contingent of kura kaupapa Māori operators, and that there is going to be an iwi leaders appointee on the authorisation board that chooses those schools, because the iwi leaders group has written to me strongly supporting charter schools kura hourua?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just want to say thank you to that member for bringing charter schools together in such a comprehensive way. It's going to be a fantastic feature of the education system of New Zealand, and I also have heard from iwi leaders saying how much they appreciate the charter schools initiative.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which recommendations, if any, will he adopt from the Waitangi Tribunal's report on his Government's Treaty principles bill and Treaty clause review policies, which included abandoning the Treaty principles bill policy before it's introduced into the House, as well as working with Māori to reverse the damage his Government's actions have caused to Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I will continue to engage with the Waitangi Tribunal in good faith, but there is no Treaty principles bill that is before this House at this time.

Question No. 9—Children

9. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: How many Oranga Tamariki community service providers, if any, have had their funding increased, and by how much, if anything, as a result of the Budget 2024 Reduction in Contracting Service Costs?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I'm advised that 34 services across 25 providers will have their funding increased, with a total increase of at least $18.7 million. On top of that, Oranga Tamariki (OT) will be procuring at least 50 new services, and this will include additional services for high and complex needs, and the expansion of the Fast Track programme by $7.6 million. I've asked OT to make sure that there's a more rigorous approach to contracting to ensure the $500 million worth of services it funds each year gets to where it will have the greatest impact. Under the last Government, OT was allowing providers who were under-delivering on their contracts to keep unused funding, they were funding services that weren't core business, and they were duplicating services in various parts of New Zealand. If the last Government had taken this same approach to contracting now, at least $132 million more could have gone to the children, rather than letting some bank accounts build up.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can she confirm that the Independent Children's Monitor and the Chief Children's Commissioner have written to Oranga Tamariki stating that they had continued concerns on a range of aspects of the current change process, given its potential detrimental impact for tamariki and whānau, and, if so, what is she doing to reassure them?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: It is the same amount of funding—no cuts have been made to funding. What we are doing is reprioritising that funding to where it will make the biggest impact. Oranga Tamariki needs to go back to its core purpose. We can't keep the status quo, and those organisations you're speaking to have said that over and over, over the years, Oranga Tamariki is not performing and needs to get back to what they should be doing: looking after our children's safety.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about whether she could confirm that the Independent Children's Monitor and the Chief Children's Commissioner have written to Oranga Tamariki about their concerns with the process and detrimental impacts on children, and, if so, what is she doing to reassure them—the Independent Children's Monitor and the Chief Children's Commissioner. She didn't answer that.

SPEAKER: Well, I would have thought that the answer was her reassurance, quite bluntly, because you'd stated Government policy and stated that there were no funding cuts. Do you have another question?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure. Can she provide an assurance that any funding changes to community service providers are, in fact, like for like and that there will be no gaps in service provision for all communities across the country, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nobody has ever said it would be like-to-like services; what we've said is we are going to realign the money where it's going to make the greatest impact and where it is focusing on the core purpose of Oranga Tamariki, which is the care and protection of children in their care.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she share the concerns of the Chief Children's Commissioner and Independent Children's Monitor, who have said, "Oranga Tamariki could not guarantee that transitional arrangements were in place, but hoped they would be", and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have been advised that for services that will be discontinued, provisions have been made to support partners and providers to wind down the services and to safely transition tamariki, rangatahi, and whānau receiving the services to another service. These provisions also allow for either a three-month or a six-month wind down, depending on the terms of their contract.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How do shambolic cuts to service providers, poor communication with providers about their contracts, and having no assurance about transitioning children and family to alternative services fit with her stated commitment that child safety is her priority?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I actually refuse to stand here and be lectured by a member of that previous Government, which made absolutely no progress when it came to the safety of the wellbeing of our young people. The state of Oranga Tamariki when I took over was absolutely disgusting, and I'm not going to allow that to continue.

Tākuta Ferris: Can the Minister explain why 10 percent of the rangatahi who are now involved in her new boot camp initiative left the programme, and can she guarantee us that the other 90 percent won't?

SPEAKER: Well, look, the Minister may choose to answer, but that's very broad of the wickets on the primary question. But the Minister might want to make a comment.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have been assured that that young person has been supported to complete their sentence at another youth justice residence. I've also been advised that there is one other young person who will be joining the programme, so now there will be 10 young people within that programme, and all of them are doing well.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can the Minister please explain why there are 790 Māori tamariki who have entered Oranga Tamariki in the last eight months—a record amount of tamariki?

Hon Shane Jones: Ask the whānau.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I'm asking the Minister—it's her role.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ask your cousins.

SPEAKER: That was—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, hang on. That was a supplementary question.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Can you ask that question again?

SPEAKER: Yeah, ask it again. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, could you just ask that question again.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can the Minister please explain why a record of 790 Māori tamariki have entered Oranga Tamariki in the last—past eight months? Sorry.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: That would be a question for Oranga Tamariki in writing, so they could give you a specific answer.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence to the Deputy Prime Minister, who referred that we should go and ask our cousins when we asked the Minister this really important question. There is a record amount of Māori tamariki going into State care—

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. You've made the point, and what I would make the point is that the member herself was very, very, I suppose you'd say, dancing around a pin the week before last, making what some could consider to be very offensive remarks. So I'd suggest we just desensitise a little bit and move on. Question No. 10—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Speaking to the point of order, I have no issues with personally being attacked. But I don't have any cousins who have children in Oranga Tamariki, and if I do, prove that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, the reality is those of us who are Māori know that before we're going to have a renaissance with respect to what's going on with young people, we have to fix our own place up first. I am saying it to every Māori, including myself, and not taking this judgmental view that she is.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I do not have any cousins—

SPEAKER: No, wait on—wait on a minute. Excuse me, I have ruled on this, and we are moving on to question No. 10.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting people on the jobseeker benefit into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week, I announced a comprehensive package of reforms to the welfare system to support more people off jobseeker support into work and to introduce tougher consequences for those who repeatedly do not meet their benefit obligations. This includes a new traffic light system to inform people what is required of them to continue receiving a benefit and warn them when they are not meeting those expectations. Our Government believes that work is the best pathway to independence and further opportunities. We continue to take action to support New Zealanders into work, and the traffic light system is an important tool to achieve this.

Joseph Mooney: Why was the traffic light system introduced?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The traffic light system was introduced to clearly communicate to job seekers what is expected of them and to ensure they comply with their obligations. It spells out if they are at risk of breaching their work obligations and what the consequences are of failing to comply. Our Government expects those receiving taxpayers' support to meet their basic obligations to become work-ready and to find work, because we believe in rights and responsibilities.

Joseph Mooney: How will the traffic light system work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The traffic light system categorises job seekers based on their compliance level, providing crystal clear steps on how to comply with their obligations. Green means a beneficiary is on track and complying with all their work obligations. Orange means a job seeker has failed an obligation and must re-comply within five days. Red means a job seeker has breached their obligations, which will result in sanctions being imposed.

Joseph Mooney: How else does the traffic light system affect job seekers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Job seekers will be required to reapply for their benefit every six months, and they must also complete a mandatory job seeker profile. This will enable the Ministry of Social Development to match people with job vacancies. There will also be new, non-financial sanctions that will be available next year, and past failures will be counted against a job seeker's record for two years, instead of one. Our Government is making our welfare system more proactive to help job seekers into work and experience the benefit of greater financial independence and further opportunities that come from work.

Question No. 11—Justice

11. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement, "Good legislation involves everybody, and bad legislation is usually when somebody goes off and does something by themselves … I'm never going to be arrogant enough to think that I have the answers to everything"; if so, why?

SPEAKER: The Hon Nicole McKee, in the context of her ministerial responsibilities.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In answer to the question, yes. That means that for example, we need to avoid the type of rushed lawmaking that led to a three-day select committee and a 10-day—total—process for the last reform of the Arms Act by the previous Government. I also stand by another statement I made in the article that the member references: "I've got to make sure it's not my personal views that go forward but rather collected views." As part of my four-phase firearms reform work programme, New Zealanders will have four opportunities to submit their views to the select committee. Furthermore, stakeholders from both sides of the debate have had the chance to participate in focused consultation on both clubs and ranges reforms and the review of the firearms registry. This Government cares about the voices of New Zealanders, and we are doing the due diligence that should have been done back in 2019.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she attempt to remove Police's comment "The stakeholder consultation is heavily weighted towards firearm licence holders and should include broader perspectives, including from groups like the Police Association." from the Cabinet paper on firearms reforms?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: As I have actually publicly said, learning about the Cabinet process and how we go about utilising the papers, I was informed that I could not remove some of the comments, and I wondered why they were there in the first place, seeing as it was my paper. I'm very pleased with the advice that I got that I should keep it there and actually respond to those comments. I'd also point out that the Police Association were never on the original list of those that should have been spoken to that was given to me, and the list that the Labour Government used beforehand. I'm quite happy with the very fulsome response I'm getting from New Zealand Police and the fact that they are being so fulsome with their responses. They represent their entire workforce; not just their union.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Police Association president, Chris Cahill, that "Without a registry, you buy as many firearms as you like. There's no controls, whether you still have them or you pass them on to someone else.", and is she concerned that without a firearms registry, A-category firearms like Alfa Carbine rifles will get into the hands of criminals who directly threaten front-line police officers' safety; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: In answer to the first part of the question, I do not agree with Mr Cahill, because legislation actually has restrictions around the legal transfer of firearms—part of the reason why we need to have people involved in the consultation that actually understand the legislation.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Police advice—not Police Association advice; Police advice—on the Government's firearms reform programme that "This should report back to at least two Ministers, as National Party supports the registry."; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I have been given the opportunity, on behalf of the Government, to lead this reform in the firearms space. What is really important is that we as a Government, as a whole, agree with the process as we move through the transparent process of four firearms reform phases. I'm really happy with the opportunity that I have been given to make New Zealand a safer place, because that side failed to do that post-2019.

Todd Stephenson: What is the Minister doing to target gun crime in our communities?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government is committed to targeting violent offenders and gang members who use illegally held firearms to commit crimes in our communities. Earlier in the year, we introduced legislation to Parliament to strengthen the ability for police to search violent offenders and gang members who are subject to a firearms prohibition order for illegally held firearms. New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their communities from gang members and violent offenders who use firearms to intimidate, to threaten, and also to harm. Strengthening the firearms prohibition laws will give police the powers needed to tackle illegal firearm use head-on.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does she justify attempting to remove the power of Police to comment in a Cabinet paper when she is part of a Government that has spoken so strongly about increasing the powers of police?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I think I answered that where I had already said that I am very grateful for New Zealand Police giving me their thoughtful and fulsome advice, and I also like the opportunity that I have to be able to rebut or even comment back. I'm happy with the process. I'm happy with New Zealand Police being involved.

Question No. 12—Science, Innovation and Technology

12. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: What recent announcement has the Government made about gene technology?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology): Last week, the Prime Minister and I announced that we are overturning the nearly 30-year effective ban on gene technology, for the benefit of New Zealand. We will establish new legislation and a dedicated regulator based on the Australian regime. The science has matured, other countries have embraced gene technology, and it has potential to treat cancers, increase agricultural production, lower emissions, adapt to a changing climate, and, ultimately, grow the economy. Gene tech is already being used safely in 29 other countries, including many of our trading partners such as Australia, China, Japan, the US, Canada, and many European countries. New Zealand needs to keep up, and we will be able to do so with this new regime. I'd also point out that I've had some good conversations with colleagues across the House on this move and I'm happy to provide briefings for MPs who are interested, and if they just get in touch with my office, we'll arrange that for them.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How can gene technology support higher productivity and growth?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We're committed to building a productive and growing economy, and I'm confident that gene technologies will contribute to that goal. In the primary sector, New Zealand scientists, including those at Plant and Food—where we launched the policy—have used gene technology to increase the productivity of crops, but only in laboratories. For example, researchers are looking at how to make fruit like apples and blueberries produce year-round, meaning faster breeding and, potentially, no off-season. Ultimately, this means better returns for growers and cheaper produce for consumers. However, under existing rules, virtually none of this research ever leaves the lab in New Zealand.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How will gene technology support better health outcomes and lower greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This policy will allow many more New Zealanders to access highly effective cancer treatments, including CAR T-cell therapy developed at Wellington's Malaghan Institute, and this treatment has already successfully treated patients with cancer for the handful of those who were able to participate in its trial. This change in the gene technology regime means more New Zealanders will be able to access this advanced treatment and others like it. Gene technologies can also help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand is an agricultural nation, which is why around half of our emissions come from agriculture. Our world-class farmers are at risk of being left behind their competitors if they don't access advanced gene technologies just as our competitors are.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How will this new regime adequately manage risk?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Gene technologies have moved significantly since the current legislation passed nearly 30 years ago, and I want to assure New Zealanders and this House that risk management will be at the forefront of the new regime. The regulator will focus on risks to human health and to the environment. The regime will be risk-based, which means technologies with greater unknowns or higher risks will be subject to the most stringent rules. The regime includes public consultation, and the Ministry for Primary Industries will be responsible for enforcement. A technical advisory group will support the regulator, and a Māori advisory group will consider implications for Māori. I expect this new legislation will be in the House by the end of this year. It will have a full select committee process, and I encourage members of this House and the public to engage. I intend the new regulator to be in place by the end of 2025. I'm very confident that this regime will get New Zealand up to speed with the rest of the world.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.

© Scoop Media