Sitting date: 19 November 2024

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) 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?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Tamatha Paul: How can he say that this Government represents all New Zealanders when he refuses to go outside and front the tens of thousands of New Zealanders gathered here today?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position is very clear. We had a delegation from the National Party representing our position, receiving the hīkoi, and making clear our point of view, which is that we're not supporting the bill beyond first reading, therefore it won't become law.

Tamatha Paul: Why is that crowd of tens of thousands of people not good enough for him to go out there and front the decision that he just made?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question. As I said, the National Party sent a delegation out, representing our position, to receive the hīkoi. I've also met with iwi leaders up and down the country and will continue to do so.

Tamatha Paul: What's the point of meeting with iwi leaders across the country when their clear demand is for the Government to kill the bill and he has not done that, with all of the opportunities that he has had to abandon this bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of your question, the reason I meet with iwi leaders is because we want to improve outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. When we see 12 percent of Māori getting to high school at the standard they need to be for on mathematics because of the previous Government, that's not great. When we see the number of Māori young kids in emergency motel accommodation and the work that we've done subsequently since coming to Government to take them out of there to put them into a proper house, that's the stuff that we talk about. When we work with Waikato-Tainui to make sure we're working on social housing, that's the work that we're interested in—making sure we improve outcomes for Māori, not this stuff.

SPEAKER: This is this is not going to be a day where there's a great deal of tolerance for repeated interjections that are more of an insult than anything else.

Tamatha Paul: Why would he give false hope to New Zealanders that their voice matters when he has said that the bill will be killed at second reading?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it's been a longstanding position of the National Party. We came to a compromise under an MMP environment in forming a coalition Government. We agree on many, many things between the three parties in this coalition Government; we don't agree on this. We came to a compromise. We're not supporting it beyond first reading. It won't become law.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister tell the House which of the following two organisations is most supportive of charter schools, kura hourua: is it (a) the Green Party or (b) the Iwi Chairs Forum?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It's the Iwi Chairs Forum, but they're also very supportive—many iwi—about what we're doing around fast-track legislation, which is actually getting things built in this country. And I would really ask the member to actually get her party to support the fast-track legislation. If you care about climate change, end the oil and gas ban, support fast-track legislation, and get in behind that agenda.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order! Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speakers' rulings make it quite clear that Ministers are not to introduce new material into the answers. The question was quite clear—and, in my view, it was questionable, but, nevertheless, we don't dispute that. It was allowed in, and so we go with it. But the question was about charter schools. It wasn't about fast track, it wasn't about deep-sea mining or anything else that the Prime Minister introduced. He shouldn't have been allowed to carry on with that.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be your view, but when the primary question says "all statements and actions", I think it's a fair game for anything that gets introduced.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether it's a fact that in the classical Māori way of former times—and, around the country, still of late—if they want someone to speak to them, they usually invite you to come along, and they didn't because the Māori Party told them they didn't want to see anybody else?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I think in both the last questions we have seen patsy questions being asked very much attacking parties of the Opposition in the very specific line of questioning, including naming them. So I just wanted to check with you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance around whether that's an adequate use of patsies.

SPEAKER: You've got to be kidding! The opening supplementary was about why the Prime Minister didn't turn up to speak to the hīkoi today. Now, we're still on the same question. The member who just asked the question hasn't had a supplementary to that point. The Rt Hon Winston Peters—ask it again.

Ricardo Menéndez March: It's a patsy question and you know it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not the case that in classical Māori behaviour in former times and around the rohe of late is to, when they want to speak to someone, ask them to come and speak, but in this case they did not ask political party leaders to speak; more importantly, Te Pāti Māori told them not to come?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It's true—I wasn't invited to speak. But my message to the general audience at the hīkoi is the same: we will not support the bill beyond first reading, and therefore it won't become law.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. I did not want to interrupt the question or the answer to that last supplementary, but as you concluded your ruling, a member—I think Ricardo Menéndez March—called out—

SPEAKER: Sorry. Can you just say that again? I just missed that.

Hon David Seymour: Yes. As you concluded your ruling before that supplementary, an Opposition member—I think Ricardo Menéndez March—called out in response to your ruling "embarrassing". Now, I think if we're going to uphold standards in the House, then that sort of thing—contesting a Speaker's ruling like that—should be called out.

SPEAKER: No, I think it was self-admonishment. He was embarrassed that he didn't realise we're on the same question.

Tamatha Paul: How are people supposed to trust him when he's willing to compromise on the founding document of our country in his coalition agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, New Zealanders can trust us that we're going to deliver for improving outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. That is why this Government is working so incredibly hard to rebuild the economy, because Māori want higher incomes, Māori want better quality housing, Māori want much better quality education outcomes, and they want access to timely quality healthcare as well. That's what this Government's focused on.

Question No. 2—Justice

2. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he seen regarding the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice): Two of note in the last few days: one being that the bill was read a first time, agreed to by the House, and referred to the Justice Committee. The second announcement was just this morning, that the Justice Committee is now seeking public submissions from all New Zealanders on their views on the bill. This is the first time in our history that all New Zealanders have been offered an equal chance to have a say on what our constitutional future means under the Treaty of Waitangi, and I'd encourage people to get along to the Justice Committee website and have their voice heard.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What reports has he seen on the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I have to say there's been quite a lot of reportage on the topic, but if I was to try and boil it down it would be a contrast between people who want to have a respectful and rational debate about our constitutional future and the way the principles of the Treaty have evolved in recent years, versus people who resort to name calling, abuse, and theatrics but not actually engaging with the argument, and I think that contrast is perfectly clear for New Zealanders, and I think there'll be some people in this House who want to review which side of that divide they'd like to be on.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How can New Zealanders have their say on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, as I mentioned, from now until 11.59 p.m. on 7 January the Justice Committee will be accepting submissions, and I think it's very important that people have a view on this bill and the issues surrounding it; actually have their say, and make sure that they do it in a respectful and constructive way with a view to how our country can work together under this Treaty principles bill, perhaps with improvements suggested by people at select committee. Having this kind of debate and reflection is healthy for New Zealand, and I invite people to make those submissions to the Justice Committee.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has the Government made about improving capital infrastructure investment?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Last week, the Minister for Infrastructure and under-secretary Simon Court announced a refresh of the Government's public-private partnership (PPP) framework to improve investment practice by utilising private sector expertise and discipline, which will help the Government lift our game in how we plan, deliver, and maintain significant assets. We've made six targeted changes to the framework, involving smarter allocation of risk, recognising, and in some cases reimbursing bid costs, stronger collaboration between the Crown and bidders in the tendering phase, and ensuring the upcoming National Infrastructure Agency provides robust and centralised PPP expertise and improvements to the dispute resolution process.

David MacLeod: How will PPPs support better investment discipline and infrastructure outcomes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: When done well, public-private partnerships drive better performance compared to other approaches. This is because PPPs have strong contractual incentives for on time and on budget delivery, agreed levels of service, and ensuring assets are maintained through their lifespan. With a PPP, taxpayers know what they're getting, and they get what they pay for. When private capital is on the line, private partners are fiercely driven to deliver contractually defined outcomes in a way that optimises the project across its life, ensuring it is planned and designed well from the start. In short, this is about getting the incentives aligned and getting them right.

David MacLeod: When will the Government consider using PPPs?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, PPPs will not be the best model for all projects. All procurement and delivery models have pros and cons, and the best model will depend on the characteristics of each project. But we know that PPPs are likely to be more successful where a project is large and complex, and where the desired outcomes are well defined, enabling clear contractual obligations. These are the types of projects where there's risk transfer, whole of life project optimisation, innovation, and strong contractual incentives. PPPs in New Zealand are not new; there have been eight since 2011, including three bundles of primary and secondary schools that were carried on through the previous Government.

David MacLeod: What reports has she seen on the market's reaction to the PPP model refresh?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The market reaction's been very positive. Quoting Nick Leggett, Chief Executive of Infrastructure in New Zealand, he said it "sets out the right incentives and accountability mechanisms to enable PPPs to play an important role in meeting [our] infrastructure needs." I would also like to note for the House that the document we launched last week contains a foreword from the Prime Minister and myself and the under-secretary, and I would like to publicly thank Barbara Edmonds from the Labour Party on behalf of the Opposition for putting forward a foreword to the document. The Government is keen to work on getting the foundations of our infrastructure system right, and making sure that we are best placed to go forward into the 2030s and beyond where we have a strong system. Getting our PPP framework right is part and parcel of that, so I'd like to thank Barbara Edmonds for that contribution.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Acting Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, "We know that to be successful in driving growth we need you and your colleagues in the business community on board"; if so, is the business community on board with the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, to the first part of the question, yes. To the second part of the question, I don't have responsibility for either the business community or, indeed, the bill, but what I will say is that my sense from the business community is that, much like the rest of the country, there are a variety of opinions on the bill.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she received any advice about the impact of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and associated divisiveness on New Zealand's sovereign risk rating?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, no.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Morrison & Co CEO Paul Newfield that "We need to move away from small-minded divisive issues and focus on building a better New Zealand together"?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I generally agree with what Mr Newfield has to say. He's a very smart man. What I would say is that this Government is intensely focused on building a New Zealand that is more productive, smarter around how it uses capital, and drives economic growth for the future. I know Mr Newfield shares those ambitions.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Foodstuffs North Island CEO Chris Quin: "If Seymour is really focused on long-term economic growth and productivity, that would be fine, but his obsession with divisive social issues that energise people on the fringes of the New Zealand political debate make him the wrong person to wear that badge"?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and while the National Party has a different view to one of the governing parties in the coalition on the Treaty principles bill—that's been well canvassed—what I can say in a ministerial context is that Minister Seymour is intensely focused on productivity and is leading the charge on foreign investment reform inside the Government and on a range of red-tape - busting initiatives to get Government off the back of businesses, who are just trying to make an honest buck in the world and grow this economy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can her Government claim to be focused on supporting the economy and growth when it is distracted with the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, the only person who, I think, has got very excited about it and distracted is members of the Labour Party, including herself. This Government's driving mission—this Government's driving ambition and mission—in politics, and the reason why it was elected almost a year or so ago, is to lift our ambitions as a country, get out of the mire of low-growth both in growth and productivity, get this economy growing again, because, ultimately, the only way to build a prosperous and ambitious country that New Zealanders want to stay in and not leave and to build the types of public services that New Zealanders demand—the only sustainable way to create that—is economic growth and getting this joint going again, and that's what we're focused on.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about contactless payments on Auckland's public transport network?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): On Thursday, I announced alongside the Mayor of Auckland, Wayne Brown, that the Government and Auckland Council have delivered contactless payments on Auckland's public transport network, to enable commuters to tag on and off public buses, trains, and fairies travelling across the region. The New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Council have jointly funded the delivery of contactless payments on the Auckland transport network, which provides Aucklanders with more travel choices to get where they need to go.

Greg Fleming: Excellent. What options do Aucklanders now have to pay on public transport?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: From Sunday, Aucklanders have more ways to pay on Auckland's buses, trains, and ferries. In addition to HOP Cards, Aucklanders and visitors to the city are now able to tag on and off using contactless debit cards, credit cards, as well as Apple Pay and Google Pay on their smartphones or smartwatches. This is fantastic news for Aucklanders and it takes away the hassle of needing cash or a HOP card.

Greg Fleming: How will the roll-out of contactless payments benefit Aucklanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Rolling out contactless debit and credit card payments for public transport users will be a game-changer. Not only will it make public transport services more convenient and easier to use but it will also help give Aucklanders more transport choices. It's all part of our Government's plan to increase travel choices and help people get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Greg Fleming: What plans does the Government have to roll out contactless payments across the country?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good question. The roll-out of contactless payments in Auckland's public transport network is the first step delivering New Zealand's one National Ticketing Solution. Contactless payments on public transport are common elsewhere around the world and this will ensure New Zealanders have the same standard of service. The roll-out of contactless payments will expand to Timaru and Christchurch in early 2025 and it will reach other regions by the end of 2026.

Question No. 6—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

6. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: How does he assess the impact of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill on the Crown's ability to honour its Treaty obligations with Treaty settlements that have been completed, particularly regarding partnership, protection, and participation?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): With great care, although I should note that ministerial responsibility for post-Treaty settlement issues lies with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, which I'm sure the Opposition spokesperson's well aware of.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What steps is he taking to ensure that the proposed Treaty principles bill does not undermine the trust and goodwill between the Crown and iwi, who are currently engaged in Treaty negotiations?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The steps we're taking are carrying on the in-depth conversations, with goodwill, with many Treaty groups that are wanting to advance their settlements, and they are scattered all about the country. I can inform the House that we are making steady progress on those issues.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with former Treaty of Waitangi negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson, who has said that National is risking damaging its relationship with Māori by agreeing for the Treaty principles bill to go through a select committee process; and, if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I always take the comments of former colleagues with great interest but also with a grain of salt, because things have sometimes moved on from where they were when they were in the House. But that former Minister has a lot to say on many issues, and it's always very entertaining to hear what he has to say.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When he stated, "some former MPs sometimes feel they can chip in and tell the current ones what to do", was he referring to Christopher Finlayson, Jenny Shipley, or is it just all former National MPs who are pointing out this Government's mistakes?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, of course, on this side of the House, we have a long tradition of robust debate within the National Party. We're not sort of all having to believe the same thing at the same moment at the same time, and I think that's what we're seeing across the country. There are a wide variety of views on these things, but the most important thing is that we conduct ourselves with good grace, listen to the other side, and have a good, honest conversation, and that's what we're about.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to why he would have regard to someone who has his shingles up acting for Treaty of Waitangi claimants and claiming to be independent on this matter?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I wouldn't really want to comment on that.

Question No. 7—Education

7. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her absolute commitment to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi and support Māori-Crown relationships, as set out in the purpose of the Education and Training Act 2020; if so, how?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, we are putting student achievement at the heart of every single thing that we do. If we want to honour the Treaty, it means closing the equity gap so that decades of disparity that have pervaded our system and the disproportionate representation of tamariki Māori and rangatahi Māori in the lower quartiles of our education and achievement system is closed. It is my utmost belief that education can and should be the primary protective factor for our kids and the way that they can break through intergenerational cycles of poverty and disadvantage and live the life they want.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can she explain how Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been embedded and authentically reflected in the refreshed curriculum following the outright removal and erasure of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the curriculum framework Te Mātaiaho and dismissal of Māori advisers on the curriculum refresh working group?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to the first part of the question, I answered this last week, and I'll repeat myself: Te Mātaiaho has not been developed yet. There are only two learning areas—English and maths—that have been put out. What has been put out in terms of the framework which is Te Mātaiaho is only a shell. We are working on that framework and it will be consulted on in the same way that all of the learning areas are being consulted on. But I'll reiterate, it hasn't been written yet, so the member needs to understand that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why has she taken the unprecedented move to mandate an unrecognised concept for science of learning as the teaching and learning approach for all, ignoring Māori ways of knowing, teaching, and learning?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That's why we have the New Zealand Curriculum and also Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. Te Marautanga is also being refreshed, as well as the New Zealand Curriculum. The science of learning is a well-known, well-documented, and well-evidenced way to improve the outcomes of our students. If that member wants to see some evidence of that, she should go and look at the structured literacy Better Start Literacy Approach results for tamariki Māori, because they are outstanding.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What will she do to ensure that Māori learners and other children from minority cultures are safe from racism and discrimination when she plans to scrap the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs)?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There are many things that boards of trustees need to take into account when it comes to keeping children safe at school. One of those things is section 127 of the Education Act. We will be developing more guidance for boards in the future, but the NELPs are something that only need to be given regard to and they are cluttering up the things that school boards need to pay attention to.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why do tamariki have to attend a hīkoi today instead of relying on an education Minister to live up to her promise to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said today, all schools should be open for instruction, and the most important thing for our tamariki Māori is that they are in front of a teacher, learning, every single day that they possibly can if we're going to close the equity gap.

Question No. 8—Police

8. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made about crime statistics?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yesterday, I announced some of the progress that we have made as a coalition Government in our first year. I highlighted a 3 percent reduction in victimisations, an increase of over 30 percent in foot patrols, ram raids dropping by 60 percent, and aggravated robberies down by 11 percent. As I said, there is a lot more work to do to make New Zealand the safest country in the world and to restore law and order, but this coalition Government is committed to deliver on that promise.

Rima Nakhle: How does gang membership growth compare this year to last year?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Gang membership recorded on the National Gang List grew 1 percent to October this year. Last year for the same period, it grew by 10 percent. Under this coalition Government, gang membership growth has slowed tenfold.

Rima Nakhle: What does a reduction in overall victimisations mean?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Victimisations reducing across the board by 3 percent this year is a significant early sign that things are getting better. While there are still areas of improvement, and the job is by no means done, to see a reduction in total victimisations by 3 percent is a sign that we are becoming a safer country.

Rima Nakhle: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold off until the House goes quiet. OK, now you've probably got it.

Rima Nakhle: Thank you. Is the job done in restoring law and order?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No. Despite the progress that has been made, we must remain relentlessly focused on some growth areas like retail crime. I was appointed police Minister to help restore law and order. That job is not yet done, but I'm firmly committed to seeing it through with my ministerial colleagues inside our coalition Government and with our combined desire to make New Zealand the safest country in the world.

Question No. 9—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

9. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 11 on 7 November 2024 that "There are a number of matters that ... have strengthened the Māori-Crown relationship"; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) on behalf of the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Yes.

Hon Peeni Henare: If he is confident that the Māori-Crown relationship has been "strengthened" by this Government, is he able to explain why there are tens of thousands of people outside on the forecourt?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I'd say, on behalf of the Minister, there is a very large population of Māori—900,000—and I'm sure there is a wide variety of views amongst them as to progress or otherwise. There'll be some who are particularly focused on constitutional matters, and they will be included amongst some of the people in front of Parliament, and that's absolutely appropriate, and we'll listen to those conversations. There'll be others who are more focused on economic opportunities and the chance for their family, their hapū, their whānau, their iwi to advance, and those will be seeing many opportunities through pieces of legislation that this Government is advancing.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he believe that the Māori-Crown relationship is as strong as it needs to be, and, if not, how can Māori trust that it will get better when the Minister responsible is "too far down the food chain" to have any impact on the decision making of this Government and its anti-Māori policy agenda?

SPEAKER: The last part of that question's not acceptable. Withdraw, apologise, and start again.

Hon Peeni Henare: I withdraw and apologise. Does he believe that the Māori-Crown relationship is as strong as it needs to be, and, if not, how can Māori trust that it will get better when the Minister responsible is "too far down the food chain" to have any impact on the decisions of this Government?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, to the first part of the question, on behalf of the Minister, there's always room for improvement. To the second part, it's a snide and unhelpful comment, and this is a Government that is absolutely determined to ensure that we work collaboratively with Māori on all sides of the House, recognising that when he talks about Māori as if they all think alike and have the same view on any given topic, it's completely nuts. There is a wide variety of views, and there are many, many opportunities to collaborate, and that's what this Government's focused on.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he stand by his answer in oral questions last week, "It is absolutely clear to us that the Treaty responsibilities and obligations, whether they come from a settlement arrangement or otherwise, need to be upheld and pursued by agencies across this Government and future Governments."; if so, will he direct the Associate Minister of Health to instruct Pharmac to resume considering Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its decision making?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the Minister, yes, I agree to the first comment. And exactly how that is done in any particular instance across Government, in the many multitudinous variety of issues that are dealt with across Government, it falls on the Government to be clear about what it does and it doesn't mean by those comments.

Hon Peeni Henare: How can he stand in this House and speak about the strengthened Māori-Crown relationship when Māori die seven years earlier than non-Māori, Māori are overrepresented in the justice system, and are overrepresented in emergency housing?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, on behalf of the Minister, that's why this Government is focused on those very issues. And in terms of the justice sector, Māori are much more likely to be victims of crime, and that's why we're very focused on restoring law and order in this country—to the benefit of all New Zealanders, including Māori—and that's what we'll continue to do.

Question No. 10—Trade

10. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister for Trade: What recent actions has the Government taken to boost New Zealand's economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): It's been a big year for New Zealand in trade negotiations. In May, the European Union free-trade agreement (FTA) entered into force many months sooner than predicted, providing $46 million of tariffs saved for Kiwi exporters this year that they would otherwise have missed out on. In September, we concluded the New Zealand - United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, our first FTA in the Middle East, giving Kiwi exporters commercial advantage in that growing market. Last month, we concluded a trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)—unfinished business for successive Governments over 18 years—with a particular focus on goods and services trade. And last week, at APEC in Peru, we signed the agreement on trade with sustainability with Costa Rica, Iceland, and Switzerland; particularly good for our sheep farmers and wood producers. Growing New Zealand's trade relationships is part of the Government's plan to grow the economy, lift incomes for all Kiwis, and create jobs.

Nancy Lu: How will these trade agreements with the Middle East benefit Kiwi exporters?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, as I said, in September—after just four months of negotiation—we concluded a trade deal with the UAE delivering 98.5 percent tariff elimination on New Zealand exports on entry into force, rising to 99 percent after three years. Just three weeks ago, in Doha, we concluded a high-quality trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council, having significantly reengaged with them in February of this year. The GCC agreement delivers duty-free access for 99 percent of New Zealand's exports over 10 years, and when combined with the UAE agreement removes tariffs on 51 percent of our exports to the Gulf on day one. These two agreements secure market access in a highly competitive market for beef, lamb, dairy, manuka honey, fish, and many, many other goods, and contribute towards their ambitious goal of doubling exports by value over 10 years.

Nancy Lu: What additional provisions are included in the Gulf Corporation Council agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The NZ-GCC FTA includes provisions that will make doing business easier, with preferential access for our primary sector exporters, streamlined customs procedures, reduced trade barriers, and commitments to level the playing field for Kiwi services businesses entering the market. The agreement also includes chapters and provisions on intellectual property; transparency and trade and sustainability of sustainable development; and includes commitments to international labour standards, climate, and women's economic empowerment, committing to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. New Zealand also secured our Treaty of Waitangi exception to allow us to meet Treaty obligations.

Nancy Lu: What additional actions has the Government taken to double export value and grow trade?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Two weeks ago I led a business delegation of over 70 companies to China—our most significant economic relationship—to attend the China International Import Expo (CIIE) in Shanghai and then on to Guangzhou. This was the largest number of companies to attend or exhibit at the CIIE, and New Zealand's largest footprint and presence there. The companies and their products were very well received and built on New Zealand's reputation for producing high-quality, safe, environmentally friendly food and fibre. Twenty-four agreements and memorandum of understandings between New Zealand and Chinese companies were signed during the visit, worth an additional $340 million in export revenue to New Zealand over the next three years. Also, earlier this year, with the Chinese Government, we announced and committed to upgrading the services we compounded of the NZ-China FTA. As I said, a big year for trade negotiations.

Question No. 11—Education

11. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) to the Minister of Education: E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

[Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?]

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, especially my recently announced maths pilot to lift student achievement and close the equity gap. From term 1 and 2 next year, around 2,000 year 7 and 8 students who need the most help will take part in an intensive programme to support them progress towards the required curriculum levels in mathematics.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does she believe that specific consultation with hapū and iwi on decisions affecting Māori is part of meeting obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and if so, what specific consultation did she take on removing Te Ahu o te Reo Māori and changes to section 127 of the Education and Training Act?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to the first part of the question: in certain circumstances, yes.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does she recognise the Crown's responsibility to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as established in section 9 of the Education and Training Act, and, if so, how is not consulting with Māori about any of the changes I mentioned in education consistent with this?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to the first part of the question: yes.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Will she commit to releasing the full report of the consultation that she conducted on the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a primary objective under section 127 of the Education and Training Act?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If it's required by law then yes we will.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does she agree that for ākonga to attend today's hīkoi is entirely consistent with section 5(4)(c) of the Education and Training Act objective "to instil, in each child and young person, an appreciation of the importance of … (iii) Te Tiriti o Waitangi"; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There are many things in the Education and Training Act, one of which is to make sure that students are achieving to the best of their abilities, and in order to do that, they need to be in school in front of their amazing teachers.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Why does the Minister want to deprioritise upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi in schools, despite the recommendation of Whanaketia that "The government should partner with hapū, iwi and Māori to give effect to te Tiriti"?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to the first part of the question: we're not deprioritising it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can she speak up?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. I don't think anyone was being deliberately quiet. We'll find out what's wrong with that microphone. The Minister was speaking into it and it should have picked up better than it did.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley, "I caution New Zealand - the minute you put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality, you are inviting civil war."; if so, why is his Government asking a select committee to spend the next six months attempting to do exactly that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to part of the question, no, we're not at risk of civil war in New Zealand. That's inflammatory language.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is the Government asking a select committee to spend the next six months attempting to put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because it's part of our coalition agreement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Dame Jenny Shipley—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. His own side should respect the person asking the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Dame Jenny Shipley "this sort of malicious, politically motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to politicise the Treaty in a new way should raise people's voices, because it is not in New Zealand's immediate interest."; if so, why did he prioritise the Government's political interests over the best interests of New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, I don't believe it's linked to fund-raising.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Dame Jenny Shipley, who said, when speaking about the Treaty, "this was an agreement, a contract - and you do not rip up a contract and then just say, 'Well, I'm happy to rewrite it on my terms, but you don't count.' "; if so, does he agree that the bill currently before the Justice Committee rewrites the terms of the Treaty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, what I expect is the Crown to uphold our obligations under the law and under the Treaty.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Finlayson, "there is too much division and hurt in New Zealand caused by, among other things, pernicious nonsense like the Treaty Principles Bill"; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is why the National Party won't be supporting the bill beyond first reading and it won't become law, unless the Opposition support it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with David Seymour, his future Deputy Prime Minister, that Jenny Shipley was grossly irresponsible to criticise the bill and that Christopher Finlayson is showing haughtiness and bitterness for expressing his views; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't speak for David Seymour.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister does indeed speak for David Seymour. He is David Seymour's boss. He is the Prime Minister. I asked him whether he agreed with statements made by his Minister.

SPEAKER: The sharp point was "Did the Prime Minister agree." The Prime Minister might want to reflect on that answer. It's a pretty easy answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with former Prime Minister John Key that "philosophically it's bad policy. I'll tell you why I think it's bad - if you write down the principles, if you think they're going to stay like that, you're a dreamer."; if so, why did he decide that it was worth making coalition negotiations a little easier to advance such a destructive and defective policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, I do. The reality is that Treaty issues are complex and 180 years of debate and discussion doesn't get written over with a stroke of a pen. That's why we don't support the bill and it won't become law.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters when he said he would not support the bill as "There are no principles of the Treaty of Waitangi."; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don't know how to make it any clearer to the member. We've been clear from day one. We will not support the bill beyond first reading. It won't become law unless that member and his party support it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that there are principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What does he believe the principles are?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Partnership, protection, and other things that have discussed over many years—over 184 years.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is his Government, therefore, supporting a bill that would completely rewrite those principles to remove the three Ps that he just mentioned?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are not supporting the bill. As you know, we are not supporting the bill beyond first reading and it will not become law. I've been clear from day one. That is exactly our position and it remains unchanged.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We'll take just a few seconds to allow people to leave the House quietly, without conversation on the way.

© Scoop Media