Sitting date: 21 November 2024

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Infrastructure

1. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made on the National Infrastructure Plan?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Earlier this month, I welcomed the release of the Infrastructure Commission's discussion document on the National Infrastructure Plan. It gives everyone an opportunity, including Government agencies, local government, private sector, iwi, and NGOs, to have their say on what the plan should include. It's got four components: an infrastructure needs assessment, a strengthened national infrastructure pipeline, an infrastructure priorities programme, and recommendations for priority system reforms.

Miles Anderson: What is the role of the needs assessment as part of the National Infrastructure Plan?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the country broadly agrees that we need to do a better job of long-term planning, particularly over the near- and long-term horizon. So the infrastructure needs assessment is about looking at our needs over the next five to 30 years and looking at demand drivers, including population growth, renewals, inflation, resilience, and increasing living standards. The needs analysis will set a benchmark so that we can look at what we have against that need and then what we need to do to close that infrastructure deficit over the long term.

Miles Anderson: How does the infrastructure priorities programme work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We're picking up some ideas that have been used overseas, most notably in parts of Australia where independent agencies take a structured, independent assessment of priority problems and projects. I want the independent experts at the commission to give us their best estimates and assessments of what projects are worth doing. Anyone can submit a proposal through the Infrastructure Commission website into the Infrastructure Priorities Programme—the IPP—and then that will go to the Government, and it will be, ultimately, over to the decision makers to make investment decisions. But we need to be well informed by good data and good evidence around that.

Miles Anderson: So what are the next steps for the National Infrastructure Plan?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The commission's been running plan workshops around the country with experts, and after the feedback closes on the discussion document towards the end of this next month, the commission will work on drafting a plan. There will be formal public consultation next year. It is something that I would like to see the whole of Parliament get behind and so I'm encouraging all political parties to meet with the Infrastructure Commission to be briefed on the plan. I know some political parties have taken up that opportunity already and I really welcome that and encourage them to do that. And then it is the Government's intention to hold a debate in Parliament on the plan once it's presented to the Government later next year.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, with the usual caveats.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: David Seymour, who thinks Treaty principles should be unilaterally rewritten by the Crown; Winston Peters, who thinks they don't even exist; or Christopher Luxon, who thinks they are "Partnership, protection, and other things"?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That's a case of what I might call "res ipsa loquitur"—the thing speaks for itself.

Hon Member: Shouldn't that be "on behalf of"?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary. Did Shane Jones—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, just a moment. Just a clarification: this is on behalf of the Prime Minister, is that—just clarifying the Minister's position.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I'm certain that Prime Minister Luxon understands a bit of Latin, as well.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did Shane Jones push to allow commercial ring-net fishing in the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill, overriding conservation Minister Tama Potaka's push to protect that area reflect Potaka's self-described lowly position in the food chain; if not, why was he overruled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the difference between some political parties and ones on this side of the House is that we treat every member as an equal. We don't think we're superior. So to describe Minister Potaka that way I think is so unmeritorious of that usually generous member over there. The second thing is: by a process of consultation, they came to a conclusion together.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Casey Costello that "We know we want to deliver. We need some clear, logical conversations about what we're trying to achieve, which is smoke-free."; if so, is he concerned that the number of daily smokers has risen by 16,000 people year on year, the first such jump in recent history?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are so pleased that member asked that question. First of all, the results are a retentive survey looking at the trend, rather then year on year. Over the last five years, the Māori smoking rate has halved, while smoking rates are lowest in our young people, signalling a generational shift away from cigarettes. The smoking rate for 18- to 24-year-olds is now down to 4.2 percent, 15- and 17-year-olds is down now to less than 1 percent, and daily smoking rates have declined amongst all people. But here's the point: we're in the first three in the world, and we got there with legislation—not Labour's, but designed by New Zealand First. That's why it's a five-year survey. Every change that Labour made between 2020 and 2023 was never coming into effect until 2027, so they can take no credit whatsoever. New Zealand First—with Action on Smoking and Health, I might add—can take all the credit.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he expect Winston Peters to engage with Nicola Willis during the next Budget process, or will the foreign affairs Minister defy convention and go over the finance Minister's head once again?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, that'll be news to Nicola Willis because no one goes over their head, and everyone on this side of the House knows that. The second thing is that when you are presenting policy and plans that are bespoke wisdom, it usually is quite persuasive.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why is he considering non – rail-enabled ferries when the National – New Zealand First coalition agreement says they must "facilitate the development and efficiency of ports and strengthen international supply networks.", and his Deputy Prime Minister has stated "Rail is vital national infrastructure"?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, I'm very grateful for that question, because, first of all, it's based on some experience in rail, where we turned it around between '17 and '20, and we saved rail in this country. The second thing is that there's decision that's going to be made by this Government before 11 December—

Shanan Halbert: You keep pushing the dates out.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon?

Shanan Halbert: You keep pushing the dates out.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: How long have you been here? Yeah, it shows—it shows. It was always—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I guess the member asked for that response. I think we'll go back to the question, thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It was always on 11 December, or before. So we haven't pushed any date out at all. Wait and you'll see a plan emerge. There will be some certainty in time; in time, that member will be proud.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What is the point of Shane Jones' Regional Infrastructure Fund when communities are crumbling due to the collapse of industries, like timber mills and meat works?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that we inherited a seriously failing economy, much worse than many people thought, and a power system that was the most costly in the world. All these things are staggering. I understand what the member's saying, but what is the purpose of Shane Jones' mission? It is to do what so many Governments have not done, and that is to invest seriously in the provinces and return us to where the country once was: in the top three in the world. Mr Jones is quite different from a lot of people in this Parliament; he's an action man. Some talk and some act. Mr Jones is an action man. If you don't know that, go down to Ōpōtiki, go down to Hawke's Bay—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. Enough noise.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —go down to Invercargill. All over this country, they are seeing a revival of action politics from somebody who knows what he's doing.

Question No. 3—Regional Development

3. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What announcements has he made about regional summits?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): It is best that this answer is heard in silence. I have announced a series of 15 nationwide summits, where the audiences have applauded the fact that, at long last, after three years of absence, a regional development Minister willing to be bold and make allocative decisions has arrived. Over 150 applications for the Regional Infrastructure Fund have been received, and in those regions, work is already taking place on fixing up the neglected flood management systems as a consequence of the Budget allocation of $100 million initially, up possibly to $200 million. That is what the regional summits reflect.

Tanya Unkovich: What can he report regarding last week's Southland regional summit?

Hon SHANE JONES: Last Thursday, sadly for the dignity of the House, I was absent. We engaged with Ngāi Tahu and the civic leadership of Southland Murihiku. We shared the occasion with Ngāi Tahu, where the many thousands of hectares of aquaculture space, as a consequence of the historic aquaculture settlement, was announced. We also visited a host of developments, and I can say that in Bluff we saw pāua being grown, and it was a day in Murihiku where I celebrated whitebait. Yet, in other parts of the country, white were being baited.

Tanya Unkovich: What did he plan to discuss at the Taranaki regional summit tomorrow?

Hon SHANE JONES: I'm looking forward to going to Taranaki, as we have already allocated a $5.8 million grant at historic site Parihaka. But I am also proud we're going to Taranaki, because I'm going to extol the virtues of ironsand mining. I'm going to remind the audience that vanadium and other minerals are essential for the climate change journey. Unlike other MPs, we're prepared to make the hard trade-off decisions. I'm also going to share with the Taranaki audience that soon the oil and gas ban, which destroyed the oil and gas industry, by the last Government will pass through Parliament.

Tanya Unkovich: Why does the Minister think it is important to visit the regions and hold these summits?

Hon SHANE JONES: So much of politics is about hope. Underlying these regional summits and the existence of the pūtea—$1.2 billion—is a demonstration on the part of our Government that we are willing to co-invest. We believe in public-private collaborative efforts, and from time to time, there will be, on the rare occasion, projects that do require a modest level of grant funding. But people have to have confidence that solutions that are discovered in the regions won't be squashed by Wellington advisers or timid politicians, far too many of whom sit on the other House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether or not his bruised shoulders have been fixed after the bumping that he's got from Labour Party members trying to push him aside as he's announcing regional projects around New Zealand?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not sure about the ministerial responsibility in that question.

Question No. 4—Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

4. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: What are the responsibilities and duties of the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): My responsibilities as the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions include: working with the 11 relevant Ministers across 17 areas to ensure that they are aware of the recommendations relevant to their portfolio; chairing the ministerial group that was established to help drive and coordinate the Crown response; and coordinating, at a high level, advice to Cabinet as to the different aspects of our response, how they fit together, and who the responsible Ministers are. The coordination role is not a specific portfolio. I am not responsible for other Minister's portfolios, their work programmes, or the decisions that they take. Those are matters for them.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she responsible for ensuring the Government's actions are consistent with the recommendations of the royal commission; and if she is not, then who is?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As the lead coordination Minister, it is my responsibility to draw Ministers' attention to the recommendations that are relevant to their portfolios. It is then the relevant Minister's or Cabinet's responsibility to take those decisions.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she responsible for meeting the royal commission's recommendation 131, which states that a response to each recommendation should be published within four months of the royal commission's report being tabled in Parliament on 24 July 2024; and will she meet this recommendation?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That is one of the recommendations that has been considered by the group that I lead, and we will report back in time.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does it say about her coordination and the Government's response when the Government is doing things contrary to the royal commission's recommendations, like repealing section 7AA and legislating for failed boot camps?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, Cabinet has taken decisions—sorry, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's OK. You focus on your answer. Don't worry about me.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Ha, ha! Cabinet has taken decisions on these matters, and I stand by their decisions. I direct the member to the Order Paper where the relevant Ministers for the bills are provided.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can survivors have any faith in a Government that has a lead coordination Minister with no responsibility for making sure other Ministers' actions are consistent with the royal commission's findings and recommendations?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, they can have confidence because there are a number of things that this Government has undertaken since the report has been tabled. I'd like to draw that member's attention to one of those, because this Government had the courage to acknowledge that the torture of young people that took place at Lake Alice was, in fact, torture—a finding that was found by the UN under the previous Government's watch and that they did nothing about.

Question No. 5—Police

5. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen about Police?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): This morning I saw reports that in Hastings, only three minutes into the insignia ban coming into effect, police took enforcement action against a gang member for displaying gang insignia on the dashboard of his car. I've also seen extensive coverage of the recent announcement of Richard Chambers as the incoming Commissioner of Police. Mr Chambers will be an outstanding leader for our police and I look forward to working closely with him to continue to restore law and order.

Catherine Wedd: Has there been any further examples of the patch ban in effect?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Apart from the enforcement action at 2.03 this morning, I'm advised that there has been a high level of compliance with the ban. I'm told that this morning a gang member was arrested in Wairoa for wearing gang insignia to the supermarket and a patched gang member was arrested standing on the street in Papakura. Both patches have been seized.

Catherine Wedd: What feedback has he seen from police officers about the new laws?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Feedback from police officers around the country is that they're happy to have new powers that enhance their ability to police organised criminal groups.

Catherine Wedd: What has the new commissioner said about enforcing the gang patch ban?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The commissioner said that much has been made of Police's response, but it is important to acknowledge that the gangs have a question to answer: what choices are they going to make? Because if they comply with the new law, then they will not feel the full force of the law.

Question No. 6—Oceans and Fisheries

6. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What advice did he provide to the Minister of Conservation about the decision to allow specific companies to commercially fish in high protection areas?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Yes, well, obviously, I'm not responsible for the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. However, I am a champion of the fishing industry. Consultation, from time to time, does take place between Ministers, but, of course, decisions are made by Cabinet, and those discussions are tapu.

Lan Pham: Did he advise the Minister of Conservation that one of the largest quota owners of kahawai, trevally, and mullet—the stocks targeted with this decision—is Leigh Fisheries, a wholly owned subsidiary of Foodstuffs (NZ), who sells to supermarkets throughout the whole upper North Island?

Hon SHANE JONES: At no time have I shared the name of that company with that Minister.

Lan Pham: What assurances can the Minister give that the fish caught by commercial operators in these high protection areas will actually be sold at affordable prices to communities in South Auckland, as promised by the Minister of Conservation, and not, for example, at Ponsonby New World?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously, the price of fish is slightly beyond my grasp. However, as a consequence of quota allocation decisions, not the least of which is a massive expansion of the catchable amount of snapper in New Zealand, I imagine that the value of fish is going to shrink.

Lan Pham: Is he confident that his Cabinet colleagues, including the Prime Minister, were fully informed in making the decision to allow commercial fishing in the high protection areas despite official advice based on Fisheries New Zealand data clearly stating that the commercial operators could still catch fish in the over 90 percent of the Gulf outside of the high protection areas with "minimal impact on their businesses"?

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, these harmless refinements that were introduced at the point of which the Cabinet discussions process was taking place, as you've referred to, are like a beauty spot: they are so small. The vast majority of the Tīkapa Moana reserve areas remain as they were originally introduced. But I would say to the member: that piece of proposed legislation was not something that my party campaigned on.

Lan Pham: Does he think it's fair for community, hapū, and industry to go through more than a decade-long collaborative process to then have the Minister allow late changes by Seafood New Zealand to trump community and the unanimous select committee recommendations that supported the bill?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I've said, the vast majority of the Tīkapa Moana protected areas are going to be made available for those who wish to recreate and not see fishing there. Tiny, beauty, star, little infinitesimal points will enable four or five additional fishers to provide kaimoana during the months of winter, and it will be thoroughly appreciated by working-class families in "Strugglers' Gully" that they will have access to affordable kaimoana.

Lan Pham: What is his message to New Zealanders who love the Gulf and want to see its health and mauri restored when they hear the official advice that allowing the continuation of commercial fishing in their new marine protected areas is "incompatible with the purpose", will "undermine biodiversity outcomes", and "create significant equity issues."?

Hon SHANE JONES: There is too much hyperbole in that rendition of official advice. I couldn't imagine officials would use such imaginative and wild language.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, in arising from that series of questions, does he know that there's no New World in Ponsonby?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think the Minister actually has responsibility for that question, but if he wishes to answer it—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order! She said it in her question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No evidence whatsoever—there's no New World in Ponsonby—and she got away with it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the Minister's free to answer that question if—[Interruption] quiet! The Minister's free to answer that question if he wishes to, but there is no ministerial responsibility in that answer.

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, geographical knowledge in that part of Auckland is enjoyed by my leader—something sadly absent from the intellect of the questions offered by the Green Party.

Question No. 7—Police

7. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement, "We've seen our police officers having to deal with more and more firearms related incidents, and we've got to do something about that. And we can't be a country that just accepts that's the way it's going to be"?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes, I do, because the previous Government accepted an increase in gang-related violence, and this Government doesn't.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he concerned that the Police Association has stated publicly that they are aware of patched gang members using shooting ranges, and that police won't be able to control that or inspect the ranges under the new arms amendment bill; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police will be able to inspect and have access to gun ranges.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he reconcile telling the House on two separate occasions that gang members were not practising on gun ranges when a police email on 9 September 2024 released under the Official Information Act states, "I've included images of those gang members shooting .50 calibre in the South Island, one being overseen by a senior NZ pistol shooter."?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because at the time the question was asked, that's the advice that I had.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Ginny Andersen. But I also just want to make the point that while the member is asking questions and making points of order, that I'd ask her team behind her to please do that in silence. Point of order.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I just want your guidance. My information is that that information was available before then. Do I do that through a point of order, or continue questioning?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Minister—just for my benefit, sorry—just repeat that. What was the Minister's answer? Could you just repeat that for my benefit? Apologies.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I was very clear that at the time of the question I hadn't seen that information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, that was the Minister's answer.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why was the information that was captured in briefings to him in both May and June in an email from police on September 9 provided to him before he answered the questions in the House on 18 September, 19 September, and again on 7 November; how does he explain not having that information when it was provided to him in briefings on those occasions?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: When the member asks me a question in the House, I'll respond with the information I've had at the time. It's very simple.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he fail to incorporate police advice into Cabinet decisions about the arms amendment bill, despite police intelligence that included images of gang members shooting .50 calibre in the South Island, overseen by a senior New Zealand pistol shooter?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police did provide advice, and I forwarded my recommendations to Cabinet. Cabinet's made a decision and that's the end of it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he seriously expect the House to believe that while police disclose they held intelligence of gangs using gun ranges, that he was not made aware of this at the time when his Government was taking decisions to weaken gun club regulations, and what is the point of banning gang patches when he is turning a blind eye to them practising their shooting skills on gun ranges?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: We're banning gang patches because for a gang member to have a gang patch, they have to have shown they have a propensity to commit violent crime. So there is a trail of tears and victims sitting behind each one of those gang patches. They're designed to intimidate the communities that they operate in, and that's why we ban them.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I seek leave to table a document that demonstrates the Minister of Police received advice from officials, and police were aware of gangs using gun ranges before he answered questions in this House on 18 and 19 September, and again on 7 November.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Question No. 8—Biosecurity

8. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made about preparing for avian influenza?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): The H5N1 strain of avian influenza, or bird flu, has been spreading around the world since 2020. Although we've never had a case and our isolation has protected us so far, we won't be able to rely on that for ever. This particular strain is well adapted to spread into wildlife. The primary risk for New Zealand is from migrating birds; they come from other parts of the world. It is not feasible to protect our border against incursion through this pathway, so we must be prepared. Last week, Minister Potaka and I announced the start of an awareness campaign that encourages New Zealanders to take steps to be ready for bird flu. We are focusing on the thousands of New Zealanders that are owners of backyard chickens and pet birds, as well as lifestyle-block owners and poultry farms.

Mark Cameron: What can poultry farmers do to prepare for avian influenza?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The best way to keep chickens safe is to take steps to reduce the risk of contact with infected birds or contaminated material. Work on that should start now before we get the bird flu in New Zealand. Poultry farmers should be taking steps to enhance on-farm biosecurity such as investing in secure enclosures to keep birds away from wildlife and from open waterways where wild birds tend to gather. Good on-farm biosecurity and animal husbandry practices like good maintenance, security of feed and water supplies, staff hygiene, and wild bird control have the potential to make a big difference in avoiding infection and limiting spread. The message is simple: don't wait. Make the effort now and it will pay off if we have to respond to a bird flu incursion.

Mark Cameron: How is the Government supporting the poultry industry to prepare for an incursion?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Early detection is the key here. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is working closely with New Zealand's wildlife hospitals, poultry industry groups, and vets to raise awareness and get people to look for the signs of bird flu. We are carrying out a nationwide surveillance of birds in New Zealand for exotic diseases and working with Fish & Game to conduct annual summer field surveillance programmes. So far this year, we have tested 30 different species of birds. Testing kits have also been provided to people in Antarctica to use when they spot deaths that look like bird flu. To make sure we're ready when it does arrive, MPI is also working in partnership with the poultry industry on business continuity and resilience planning.

Mark Cameron: How will avian influenza impact New Zealand's native birds?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The potential impact on New Zealand's native species is uncertain, but certainly around the world we have seen serious impacts on wild birds, especially those that live closely together in large colonies. The Department of Conservation is undertaking vaccination trials on a targeted number of endangered birds in captivity and is asking the public to keep an eye out so we can detect bird flu early. In particular, we are asking the public to report any time you're outdoors and see several sick or dead birds in a group.

Question No. 9—Education

9. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 5 on 20 November?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes.

Hon Jan Tinetti: What public transport options, if any, are there for kids in rural communities who have had their school bus routes cancelled?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If eligible students are in fact eligible, they will be provided Ministry of Transport assistance. That may be in the form of a bus; it may be in the form of a conveyancing allowance.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she stand by her statement, "we pay families a conveyancing allowance to help them get their children to school."; if so, does she really think this allowance is sufficient for the costs parents face where the routes have been cancelled?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would note that the amount of conveyancing allowance hasn't changed since the previous Government, so that member should know.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she stand by her statement, "I would say to that mother and all parents across the motu that these decisions are operational.", and, if so, why is she refusing to take responsibility for school bus routes closing under her watch?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I do stand by my statement.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why is she allowing the cancellation of school bus routes when it means parents have no safe option to get their kids to school, given her claims that she is focused on improving attendance?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said, this is an operational matter for the Ministry of Education. I would also like to point out that in 2023, under that member's Government, 29 routes were cancelled. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Calm down! Calm down—you have expressed what you're thinking. Quiet, please.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcement has the Government recently made about combatting scams?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): To launch Fraud Awareness Week, we announced that the coalition Government will be taking a much more coordinated approach to tackling online financial scams, which cause so much distress to Kiwis. Scams are a huge problem for New Zealand—reported losses are about $200 million a year, but the estimated cost is well in excess of $1 billion. To put this issue in perspective, worldwide it is estimated that cyber-crime is the third-largest economy, after the US and China. I've been appointed as the lead Minister to tackle this problem.

Dan Bidois: What measures will the Minister be taking to combat scams?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: My plan includes three key components: first, better information sharing across Government and its agencies; second, work with telcos, social media platform providers, and banks to develop industry-led solutions; and, third, engage with ministerial counterparts in Australia and Singapore to look at regional solutions.

Dan Bidois: Why is a lead Minister needed?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Great question. [Interruption] Thank you. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's listen to the answer.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The fast-evolving nature of digital technology means that scam detection, prevention, and response has largely fallen between the cracks. The focus to date has been on closing down individual scams rather than developing systemic solutions. Further, consumers do not have a good understanding of who they should go to when they've been scammed. You should go to netsafe.org.nz if you are unfortunately in this position.

Dan Bidois: What other work is the Minister doing to tackle scams?

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, what a great question!

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Lots. I've been explicit with the banks—this is for Mr Willie Jackson. I have been explicit with the banks that they must improve their customer safety. Banks have agreed to implement confirmation of payee, which will be in place by Easter next year, and I'm working with them on a compensation scheme for scam victims. I'm also about to apply similar pressure to telcos and social media platform providers. Tackling online financial scams is part of our plan to rebuild the economy and crack down on crime by supporting Kiwis to safely transact and to do business.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I didn't want to interrupt that member's question, but I'm informed that the Hon Erica Stanford, when she resumed her seat, made a quite unparliamentary remark about the member questioning her, and it's probably appropriate for her to withdraw that comment and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I didn't hear the comments, so did the member actually make a comment?

Hon Erica Stanford: I withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 11. [Interruption] We'll have quiet now, please, for a question in the name of Ingrid Leary.

Question No. 11—Seniors

11. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Seniors: Does she stand by her commitment to "improving the lives of older New Zealanders"; if so, why?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): Yes. The Government is committing to improve the lives of all New Zealanders through rebuilding the economy, easing the cost of living, restoring law and order, and delivering better public services. These priorities have tangible impacts on the lives of older New Zealanders, and I am committed to delivering on them.

Ingrid Leary: What actions did she take, if any, when the Associate Minister of Housing, Tama Potaka, advised officials in May to progress the long-overdue Retirement Villages Act review that she'd committed to with him, with a "lighter touch"?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have engaged strongly with the Retirement Villages Association and the Retirement Villages Residents Association to ensure we achieve positive outcomes. There is a tough issue to deal with, and we have found common ground. So there is work to be done in this space. I'm confident we'll achieve a positive resolution, and I am meeting with both of the organisations in the next week.

Ingrid Leary: How does she think the time line for actual change for residents of 2029 at the earliest improves the lives of seniors?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think we can agree that legislation is not always the answer to every problem. There is common ground with both parties, and we are working to achieve those positive outcomes without the need for the legislative process. There is opportunity and definitely appetite for the groups to come together and achieve those resolutions.

Ingrid Leary: What does she say to residents who continue to struggle to pay for rest home care while waiting for the licence to occupy to sell their retirement village unit because of unfair rules?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I will continue to—and do—meet with the residents' association to identify those key issues, and when that occurs, I will of course enter into engagement. I am encouraged by the Retirement Villages Association's commitment to addressing these issues, and, on average, the sale of those occupancy rights has been within the nine-month period.

Ingrid Leary: Why has she allowed the retirement villages review to be kicked into the next parliamentary term when many of those who need it will not live long enough to benefit from the protections?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I have said, there is very good common ground. A lot of the initiatives that we're hoping will be achieved under this legislation are under way or in action. There is common ground, and I appreciate that there are discussions continuing, and that is why I'm continuing to meet with those groups and addressing those practical issues to get the job done.

Question No. 12—Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

12. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: Does she stand by her statement that the Government will ensure the Crown response to the royal commission's report is "well considered, coherent, and comprehensive"?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): Yes—the context of which was part of a joint press release on 26 June with the Minister of Internal Affairs when the Governor-General received the final report from the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care. The full statement is: "Once Ministers have the opportunity to consider the royal commission's final report and recommendations, we will take the time needed to ensure that the Crown response is well considered, coherent, and comprehensive."

Kahurangi Carter: Has the Minister raised concerns that the Government's "coherent" response may be undermined by repealing section 7AA, in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care, specifically recommendations 39, 79, 80, 115, 117, 118, 125, 126, and 127?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I've said earlier, as the lead coordination Minister, it is my responsibility to draw Ministers' attention to those recommendations that are relevant to their portfolio. It is then the Ministers' or Cabinet's responsibility to take those decisions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm going to have quiet while the member is asking this question, because there was a lot of talking during the last question that she asked. Thank you.

Kahurangi Carter: Can she reassure the House that the repealing of section 7AA does not contradict any royal commission of inquiry recommendations?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I've outlined many times, if the member wants an answer to that question, she will need to direct it to the Minister responsible.

Kahurangi Carter: Has the Minister raised concerns that the military-style boot camps and the youth serious offender category contradicts key recommendations, such as 14, 16, 27, 28, 71, 73, 79, 80, and 125 of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I've said a number of times, it is my responsibility to draw Ministers' attention to those recommendations, and it is then the relevant Ministers' or Cabinet's responsibility to take those decisions.

Kahurangi Carter: What concerns has the Minister raised with the 11 Ministers in the response group to the royal commission of inquiry about recommendations being ignored?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I've asked all of the relevant Ministers to write to me with the relevant recommendations that pertain to their portfolios and have asked them to ensure that their work programme reflects those recommendations.

Kahurangi Carter: What is the point of having her in this role when her colleagues keep introducing legislation that directly contradicts the royal commission of inquiry recommendations?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to say, before the Minister answers this question, that the Minister did not appoint herself to this role, so inasmuch as the Minister has responsibility for this question, the Minister is able to answer.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I'll say it again: it is my responsibility to draw the relevant Ministers' attention to those recommendations that are relevant to their portfolio. I am not responsible for their work programmes.

© Scoop Media