Sitting date: 10 December 2024

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. 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 traditional caveats.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Would the Prime Minister agree that Nicola Willis was not up to the job, which is why he's had to give it to the person who first signed off on the original ferries?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Those are, seriously, laughable questions. Of course, to answer the second question first: the Minister who originally signed off, he signed off to a total purchase price of $400.1 million, which blew out to $3.2 billion on the way to $4 billion according to the Treasurer in both cases. Minister Willis made the most compelling and brilliant decision when she cancelled the contract.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just wait till your own side settles down. And I'd ask people to ask themselves just what their interjection adds to the answer.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did David Seymour's public disclosure of indicative costings for the new ferries contradict the wishes of the Prime Minister, the finance Minister, and the Minister for Rail; if so, will he now be open with New Zealand taxpayers, given the cat is out of the bag thanks to Seymour's indiscretion?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Words matter in politics, and no more when you were acting as a Prime Minister, and Mr Seymour was very careful to point out to the media of this country that he used the word "approximate" and how wide that approximation could be.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Nicola Willis, who said last year that she wants to "look taxpayers in the eye and say this is a good deal; we're doing this right'"; if so, how does delivering inferior, smaller vessels at far greater cost at least three years later represent a good deal?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If you start by turning back a deal that began at $401 million, blew out to $3.2 billion and is heading for $4 billion and where the actual cost of the ferries would be then about 14 percent of the total plan that was announced as being a plan for ferries, you'll get the drift of things. That's why we are able to say to those people—

Hon Member: Drift is right.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You are adrift!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —well, to use the shipping expression, yes. As an old saying: if you leave port with no port to go to for that boat, no wind's a white wind. We know where we're going. We're going into Christmas and people will know that they can look forward to a bright new announcement in the new year whilst they're worried about that more than anything else.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the CEO of Mainfreight that David Seymour's aspiration to privatise interisland ferries makes him "a bit off the planet"; if so, what measures will he take to ensure the ACT Party can't act on their impulse to pawn off vital national infrastructure to their mates at bargain basement prices?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, I'm certain that when that member was getting ready for leadership at Celebrity Treasure Island, she would have learnt on the way through—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, come on!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I know I'm hearing a leadership bid now. But the fact is Mr Seymour was very careful about his words. And all of a sudden, now that the project is—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: We're talking about the man who did Dancing with the Stars.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Beg your pardon?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You're talking about the man who did Dancing with the Stars. Keep going.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Hang on—hang on. Well, I thought that member came to ask a serious question, but the reality is surely they did not think that the public could accept $4 billion of expenditure, particularly when there was so much wasteful expenditure of the period 2020-23. So we've got things back now where by the end of March or before, we'll be able to announce what the New Zealand people want, which is the appropriate vessels for the appropriate passage across the Cook Strait or elsewhere and have it all ready in time—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Elsewhere?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and having also—well, of course elsewhere. Have you ever thought—I mean, this is a person who used to belong to a party called Labour who knew what they were doing because they are understood workers. I bet they've never talked to the maritime unions or anybody else, but we are—all in space at the end of this week.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he confident that Winston Peters will be able to follow through with his assurance that "That's not the way. If I was in charge of it, I'd have done it anyway." when looking back at Nicola Willis' inability to make any meaningful progress in securing new ferries?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the Minister of Finance was left with an awful prospect of something that we did not need and could not afford. And what happened downtown was they were asked to get two ferries and they decided, "Here's a chance to add every other feel-good thing we want and make the taxpayer pay." And then, coming to Government was a group of rational, sane, and experienced people in politics who understand the very character and nature of business. And that's why some questions cannot be answered now and some will have to wait. But what I can promise is the turnaround and restoration of rail circa 2017 and 2020 is going to be very shortly back on track.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It's really important at times like this—a point that I've made previously—that when a Minister is acting as Prime Minister, they make that clear. So just for the record, was that Chris Luxon complimenting the Labour Government between 2017 and 2020 for the work they did on rail?

SPEAKER: I doubt it, but the point you make is that whoever is here answering questions for the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why was he unable to commit to the ferries being rail-enabled and what does rail compatibility mean instead?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What was being told to the media and the country yesterday was that all matters are on the table in terms of consideration. And we've got to ensure that we speak to everybody who can possibly help here. We were the inheritors of a disaster. Can anyone seriously believe that $4 billion or worse was what the project should have been about and what was needed to ensure rail, which is all over this country—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What's compatible? What's enabled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Beg your pardon?

Hon Willie Jackson: We didn't agree to that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, you didn't agree to it. Oh, so, "We didn't agree to it." Well, that shows how impotent he was. He didn't agree. He's a frontbencher but they went ahead regardless. Now—

Hon Chris Bishop: You were a senior Minister.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Willie was a senior Minister. He was the head of the Māori wing of the Labour Party, and now he tells me they weren't consulting with him and they never asked him and never listened to him. Now, I'm not surprised that's a fact—I always suspected that. But back to my original point. The reality of it all is that constraining ourselves on the answers that are dependent on future discussions and future negotiations is a critical part of being a responsible Minister. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: It is perfectly reasonable for a Minister answering a question to respond to an interjection. And when that happens, then the place turns into something that is in the nature of a debate, but somewhat one-sided because only the Minister has the mike. I suggest that people wanting to make interjections think about that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will more of Nicola Willis' catastrophes be passed on to Winston Peters—

SPEAKER: No, I'm sorry. That's not a reasonable way to ask a question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, OK.

SPEAKER: So try—yeah, well, I'm very pleased the member knew that. So please ask it again.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: OK. Will more of Nicola Willis' responsibilities be passed on to Winston Peters to clean up; perhaps some of the responsibilities like the rising unemployment rate, record company liquidations, and an anaemic economy ravaged by austerity?

SPEAKER: Well, I would point out that none of those things are direct responsibilities of the Minister.

Hon Damien O'Connor: They could be, though.

SPEAKER: Well, maybe under some other Government.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, could I just say that the three examples that the questioner used are all examples which were part of the inheritance the present Government received, and now we're being blamed for it. The reality is the Minister of Finance is doing a fine job at the moment. I want to make it very clear: she shows all the signs of doing a fine job in the future in the most difficult of circumstances. And the last thing I want to say is I don't want to have a duel of wits with a whole lot of unarmed opponents.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: When will the next Budget Policy Statement be released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I will release—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, wait on—a bit of reasonable behaviour would be a good thing.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I will release the Budget Policy Statement this coming Tuesday, 17 December. The Budget Policy Statement is my document as Minister of Finance. It previews the next Budget and is a check-in on the Government's fiscal strategy. At the same time, Treasury will release its half-year update. This will contain updated economic and fiscal forecasts.

Catherine Wedd: Will these documents show any changes to the economic outlook?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There are always changes to the economic outlook. Forecasts are inherently uncertain and rely on assumptions that change. I have learnt that it doesn't pay to get too attached to a particular set of numbers in the forecasts. In recent updates, the economic outlook has been progressively revised downwards, independent of Government policy. That is because Treasury has been winding back some assumptions made when the previous Government was in office that, in hindsight, were far too optimistic about future economic growth. At some point, the series of downside revisions will end, and I look forward to that day.

Catherine Wedd: Will there be any changes to the fiscal outlook?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, downward revisions to the economic outlook will flow through to the fiscal outlook. Forecasts of GDP, for example, affect tax forecasts. Taxes by far—

Hon David Parker: It's called softening up the public for more bad news.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I'm being interrupted by a member who sat around a Cabinet table that spent so much they fuelled inflation, left New Zealand with the burden of rising interest rates and a prolonged recession, debt that grew by more than $100 billion, and yet he sits there interjecting. Forecasts of GDP, for example, affect tax forecasts. Tax is by far the Government's largest source of revenue, and revenue is one half of the Government's operating balance. So changes in the economic outlook matter for fiscal variables and fiscal targets. Next week's changes to fiscal forecasts are almost entirely driven by changes to revenue and expense forecasts—they are not driven by discretionary fiscal decisions. Relatively few fiscal decisions have been made since Budget 2024, outside those managed within existing allowances and contingencies.

Catherine Wedd: Will there be any changes to the Government's fiscal strategy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Fiscal Strategy Report released in May set out the Government's fiscal strategy. It also stated there would be two reviews, and these could result in minor changes to the strategy. One was of the multi-year capital allowance introduced by the previous Government—another tool that was used to fuel gross amounts of spending. The other was of operating balance indicators used in setting the Government's short-term fiscal intentions. As noted in the Fiscal Strategy Report, having Crown entity deficits in the current operating balance before gains and losses - measure risks undesirable fiscal policy responses. This is because some entities like ACC are set up to be self-funded and financially sustainable over the long run, even when running large deficits in particular years.

Question No. 3—Rail

3. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Rail: Does he stand by his statement regarding the new Cook Strait ferries that "It will be, and can be, rail-enabled"; if so, is he confident that he can deliver them for less than the $551 million that was under contract with Hyundai Mipo Dockyard?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): I want to thank the member for that question because, with all the controversy going on about this issue, the facts, after all this time, are still not out there. The $551 million the member refers to relates solely to the cost of the two ferries contracted under the iReX project. It does not take into account the extra landside cost required to accommodate the ferries, which pushed the total cost of the project, according to Treasury, past $3 billion and potentially up to $4 billion. We are very confident that this Government will deliver a safe, reliable, and resilient service for much less than the previous Government signed New Zealand up to. But going back to the point, two ferries were ordered. When the whole thing was over in terms of their contracting ability, the ferries were barely 20 percent of the total project. Which part of that did those guys up there miss?

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Mr Speaker, this is a primary question. The Minister, I accept, has addressed the second leg, but he has not referenced whether or not he stands by the specific statement that is on notice.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but if you look at the question, it's requiring a Minister to speculate, and that's not something a Minister will often want to do or can do, so I think the answer the Minister gave sets out some parameters. I think it's a reasonable answer.

Tangi Utikere: Supplementary.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sorry, I apologise; point of order. With respect, he was referring to the part of the question that asked the Minister if he stood by his statement, and that's not requesting that the Minister speculate on anything. The Minister made the statement this morning. He should be able to respond to that pretty clearly.

SPEAKER: Well, that was the first part of it, and that would be something the Minister can address, but the second part, "is he confident that he can deliver"—well, give me a crystal ball. Would the Minister like to respond to the first part about the rail-enabled—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My answer is it's hugely axiomatic. To get up and talk about the total project being $551 million is being wantonly—hopefully, in this case, innocently—misleading.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Just before we go into that, I think the issue is the first part of the question, "Does he stand by his statement regarding the new Cook Strait ferries that 'It will be, and can be, rail-enabled;' ".

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the reality is that we have said that all options are now on the table. But it goes on to say, "is he confident that he can deliver them for less than $551 million?". Well, if the total project was $551 million all up—landside ferries and all—then there's a question to be asked. But it was never that; it was $4 billion when we got there.

Tangi Utikere: Can he guarantee that he will announce the actual procurement of new ferries in March next year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is we are working with all the speed we possibly can put behind this so that sometime by the end of March or before, we'll be telling the public with great transparency what we're going to do.

Tangi Utikere: Can he guarantee that the new ferries will arrive in 2029, and how much more are KiwiRail having to spend to nurse the current Interislander fleet along until new ferries arrive?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, they're not nursing anything to do with the current fleet. They are going to be required to do their job with the utmost profession and not have the kind of thing that happened recently when it ran aground in the Sounds. That's when the member should've been asking those questions, right back then. What they're going to do is ensure that we can perhaps answer those questions well before, in terms of delivery, 2029 as a possibility.

Tangi Utikere: Why did the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, say today that the Government has a solution but did not mention the solution yesterday at the Government's announcement?

Hon Shane Jones: Judiciousness.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well put. Well, for a start, I didn't hear the Prime Minister say that, and I'll check it out with him because he may have meant that as part of the all-up considerations there is a solution in there, and that, really, is obvious as well.

Tangi Utikere: So is the Prime Minister correct when he said today, "But, for right now, we've got a good solution, and if we can improve on it, great, and if not, we move forward with that solution."; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, again, I have to confess that I did not hear the Prime Minister say that, and until I do, I will not confirm what I should make of it, other than to say the Prime Minister's in the best possible space at this point in time, because he has got the main solution, a united Government that is setting out to correct a grievous fiscal wrong.

Tangi Utikere: Has Cabinet already confirmed a preferred replacement option for the Cook Strait ferries; if so, what is it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to the question is no.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will the total potential impact on the viability of our rail network in the South Island be taken into account when making the decision to go with rail-enabled ferries versus rail-capable ferries?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to make stalking an illegal and jailable offence?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government's introduced the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill, which will make stalking an illegal and jailable offence for up to five years. Stalking and harassment pose a threat of serious harm to victims and can be a precursor to more serious and violent crime. We want to ensure that the harm victims experience is recognised and prosecuted effectively, as the current settings do not adequately respond.

David MacLeod: What does the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill do?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the amendment bill principally combines stalking and harassment into one offence whereby if a perpetrator engages in a pattern of specified acts to another person on three separate occasions within a 12-month period that is known or likely to cause fear and distress, they will be liable for convictions of up to five years' imprisonment.

David MacLeod: What specified acts or behaviours are covered by the stalking bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the new offence of stalking and harassment will capture acts that include a stalker watching and loitering around their victims, tracking or communicating via the use of technology, damaging or interfering with property, and other less tangible harms like undermining the reputation or relationships of victims. The current criminal system does not adequately respond to modern stalking methods, and this legislation will.

David MacLeod: What are the consequences of a stalking offence as proposed in the new stalking bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, those convicted of stalking and harassment will be liable for up to five years' imprisonment, as opposed to the current three years for harassment. Two new aggravating factors at sentencing will be introduced to strengthen consequences for stalkers in certain circumstances. We're also making changes to prevent a defendant charged with stalking from cross-examining an alleged victim. There's been a lot of talk about this for a number of years, and I'm very pleased that tonight the House will be having the first reading of this important legislation.

Question No. 5—Māori Development

5. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) to the Minister for Māori Development: What measures, if any, has the Government taken to ensure the financial sustainability of Whakaata Māori, and have these measures been adequate?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Whakaata Māori has received nearly $48 million in Budget 2024. The Minister of Finance and I, as shareholding Ministers, have issued a letter of expectation to the Whakaata Māori board. The board chief executive and management of Whakaata Māori are responsible for its financial sustainability, and it's important to understand that the sustainability of any media organisation is dependent on its ability to meet audience needs and providing relevant content on platforms that can be accessed by anyone anywhere at any time.

Hūhana Lyndon: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the Crown's relationship with Māori is "probably worse" than a year ago, and is the Whakaata Māori news bulletin ending tomorrow after 20 years going to improve or worsen that relationship?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that pātai. The selection or the choice of moving content online is one that is at the discretion of the Whakaata Māori board and/or management, and we'll leave that discretion with them. But I tautoko and have great confidence that the board and management will make those decisions very carefully.

Hūhana Lyndon: Why couldn't the Minister find a few million dollars for Whakaata Māori's budget, like the last Government did, or are the only broadcast te reo channel and te ao Māori evening news just the acceptable casualties of the Government's cost-cutting drive?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I won't be trifling today with the chicanery of financial conjecture. Funding for broadcasting is a challenge that Minister Metekōura—Goldsmith—and I share, and as I said earlier, media organisations need to meet audience needs in providing relevant content on platforms that can be accessed by anyone anywhere at any time, and my sincere hope is that there is more content generation in te reo Māori, ensuring across platforms, as we've seen quite regularly, from people such as Te Aorere Pewhairangi and his magnificent effort at the Olympics.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don't make a habit of doing a point of order when parties are asking questions. However, it is the second time I have heard that Minister use the word "chicanery" in this House—

SPEAKER: Used the word—sorry?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Chicanery. The first time, I didn't know what it meant, so I looked it up. And I looked it up again just to make sure that I'm clear, but it means "deception". Now, surely accusing a member of deception is unparliamentary. There are clear rules around other versions of that word to suggest the same thing. I'm not asking to make this a big deal, but if we're wanting to hold up the standards, some guidance as to whether that is an appropriate term.

SPEAKER: There used to be a thing called the "Blue Book" of words that were unparliamentary. It went missing some time in the early 2000s. I think Speakers ever since have been reluctant to rule specific words out, although Speaker Mallard did rule out some combinations of words. I would just suggest to the Minister that perhaps he find another way to suggest it, but I think the term "chicanery" does imply something far greater than just the intention of his commentary.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: was the questioner right when she said in her supplementary question that there was only one te reo Māori station?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Of course, there has been Te Reo as one of the Māori television channels that has also moved online, or will move online shortly, at the choice and selection, discretion, of the Whakaata Māori board and management.

Hūhana Lyndon: Does the Minister accept the Wai 11 claim that the Māori language is an essential part of Māori culture and must be regarded as a taonga, a valued possession, and, if so, the loss of the broadcast Te Reo channel being of the Government's underfunding—is it acceptable to the Minister?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We continue to commit to the funding track that was provided by the previous Government and, in addition to that, we have also provided new money for te reo Māori revitalisation through the form of kapa haka.

Hūhana Lyndon: Did he make any effort as the Minister for Māori Development to find funding for Whakaata Māori to avoid the savage funding cuts to Māori media, or was it all out of his hands?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I continue to work very diligently and professionally with my colleagues to ensure that we have prudent fiscal spending across all things Budget, but also to recognise the importance of te reo Māori as a taonga in our communities and also within the Maihi Karauna and Maihi Māori.

Question No. 6—Police

6. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Police: Does he accept the findings of the New Zealand Police in their Understanding Policing Delivery report that Māori men are stopped, tasered, and prosecuted by the Police at disproportionately higher rates than any other group as a result of structural racism?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Police: That was not the finding of the New Zealand Police.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he accept that this same structural racism impacts how the police enforce the gang—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the Minister's answer, I want to know whether or not, when that question was put in, there was any evidence to back it up, rather than just make a claim which we are now about to find out is false?

SPEAKER: Thank you. I'll just—[Clerk hands report to the Speaker] Is this it? This was what was supplied?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: It's the Understanding Policing Delivery (UPD) report.

SPEAKER: Sorry? [Seeks advice from Clerk] The Rt Hon Winston Peters makes a good point and asks a fair question. The question has been allowed, but the answer has made it clear that that is not a Police document. Is that correct?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: If I can clarify, it was not the finding of the New Zealand Police. It was an independent panel that made findings, not the New Zealand Police that made the findings.

SPEAKER: OK. I now understand.

Tamatha Paul: Point of order, Mr Speaker. So the report in question is the Understanding Policing Delivery report that was conducted by an independent panel, however, with the consent of the Police, who opened up their processes and everything so that that panel could investigate it. So that point doesn't stand, because the Police were fully involved in the Understanding Policing Delivery report, and the Police Commissioner said that too.

SPEAKER: No, I don't think that actually was the point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: We don't want to carry on with this too long.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, but I just want it very, very clear. The question reads: "Does he accept the findings of the New Zealand Police [Force]". That's what that question is caught by—no evidence to back it up and this question should be ruled out.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. There is a reliance when we come to the House that these questions have been qualified. There was nothing that came back to suggest that there was anything wrong with it. The report, again, to emphasise, is the Understanding Policing Delivery report. That is the report that is at question here. If there was a problem with the question, that should have been brought to our attention before we came to the House.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. There's nothing really to be done here. The point is the question's been accepted, it's on notice, it's been asked. The Minister disagrees that that is the finding of the report—that is an answer. That addresses the question. She says that is not what the report says. There's plenty of opportunity to investigate whether or not that's actually true, or various different things. The question should just proceed.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Last call on this one.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I'm more than happy to answer the questions; I was just clarifying the position of the Police.

SPEAKER: Yep. And it's just been pointed out to me that while I do intervene if there is controversy about a question at the time of its lodgment, that was not the case today, and this report is on the Police website and has been there since March of this year.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he accept that this same structure impacts how the Police enforce the gang legislation, as we have seen recently in Wellington and Auckland where rangatahi Māori have been profiled and arrested at gunpoint on suspicion of gang affiliations that were never proven?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: What I will say is that the UPD report was commissioned under the previous Government by the former commissioner. As stated, it was an independent panel and the findings of the report are not the Police's. However, the authors of the report have said themselves that the report is not indicative of structural racism or bias in the Police. The research states that the findings show that the age of an offender, prior convictions, recent and long-term history of proceedings, and gang membership were significant factors that influence the likelihood of prosecution. We have a world-class police force, who do an outstanding job, and it is a disservice to them to have a narrative that suggests our police are anything but the consummate professionals they are—the 14 percent of New Zealand police that are themselves Māori, the enormous initiatives that invest in Māori across this motu. We continue to provide the services. What is ignored in this narrative is the 60 percent of victims who are themselves Māori. What is ignored in this House is the fact that Māori are twice as likely to be the victims of crime, and that is the narrative that that member should be considering. Thank you. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to settle itself.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he think that it is appropriate for armed police to barricade the road and intimidate and harass whānau attending the tangi of a loved one, to enforce the gang patch ban?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think that is a very wrong and flawed reflection of the response of police at Māori tangi. They work tirelessly to engage directly with the whānau, directly with the marae, directly with the kaumātua to ensure sensitivities are maintained. But what they will not ignore is the fact that the rest of the community need to be able to go about their business without the fear of intimidation, and they will continue to police in that manner.

Question No. 7—Agriculture

7. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Agriculture: What reports has he seen on export revenue forecasts for the primary sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Today, along with Ministers Jones, Hoggard, Patterson, and Grigg, I released the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries report, which shows that the hard work and innovation of our world-leading farmers, growers, and foresters is paying off. Today's report shows New Zealand's high quality, sustainable, and environmentally food and fibre exports are forecast to hit $56.9 billion by 30 June 2025 and climb to a record $58.3 billion the following year, demonstrating the farming and primary sector's significant contribution to the New Zealand economy.

Mark Cameron: What growth is driving this rebound in export revenue?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Export growth in 2024-25 is expected to be driven by strong global demand, tight global supply for high quality, safe, and sustainable food and fibre products, and the hard work of our farmers. I'm pleased to share with the House that dairy exports are forecast to grow 10 percent to $25.5 billion by mid-2025. Meat and wool revenues are expected to rise to $11.4 billion. Horticulture has had a fantastic year following last year's cyclones and surges to a projected record of $8 billion. Kiwifruit alone is set to exceed $3 billion for the first time. Foresty is expected to rebound by 4 percent to $6 billion, and seafood export revenue is forecast to increase to $2.2 billion in the year to 30 June 2025.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What actions has the Government taken in the past 12 months to support the growth of primary exports?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The primary sector is the backbone of our economy, responsible for over 80 percent of our goods exports, and it will continue to play a key role in the Government's ambitious target to double exports by value over 10 years. We've ended the war on farming and are focused on unlocking opportunity, including the new free-trade agreement into force many months earlier than expected.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. For the second time this week, this Minister has used a question from his own side to make a statement about the previous Government that is totally inaccurate. To accuse any Government of being on a war with any industry surely cannot be in order.

SPEAKER: That is correct, and I didn't hear that. If that was the case, then I think a withdrawal and apology is appropriate.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Speaking to the point of order, I said we've ended the war on farming; I didn't say who had conducted the war.

SPEAKER: Every day there is a concern about questions from the Opposition that might have some sort of supposition in them that might lead to a conclusion—and there's another word I'm searching for but I can't quite get into my head. But, in any event, the mirrored conditions apply to answering questions as well. I think it would be appropriate to withdraw and apologise for the remark about being at war with farmers—or ending the war with farmers. It implies there was a war and we all know what that means.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, all over the world in sound democracies, debates are often very, very heated, and they are sometimes very, very personal, but it's been part and parcel of the theatre of debate and the essentiality of getting to the truth of things. With the greatest respect, sir, I've never seen so many people who can't take any criticism at all or any question on their past performance, and that's not the way this Parliament should be in future, it's not the way it should be now, and it never was the way it used to be in the past. If members can't take the heat of this place, then get out of the parliamentary kitchen.

SPEAKER: Thank you; that's an interesting point. Before I hear anything else, let me just say this. The question that is often being asked by the Opposition is: is it appropriate for the Government to use its own questions to attack the previous Government? Quite clearly, it's not. When it comes to answers, you will have found over time that I have ruled that if Ministers in their answer talk about situations they've inherited, talk about situations they are changing from a previous Government, they are fine. It's the nature of debate and question answers that causes the problem.

Hon Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, this has become a theme from Mr McAnulty—that he wishes that we should not discuss the context prior to the 2023 election in any way, shape, or form. There has become a verboten period of history—the six years of the last Labour-led Government—which, if described in this House in accurate terms, is somehow too much for Mr McAnulty, who becomes very sensitive and issues multiple points of order. That cannot be the basis of debate in this House. This is a robust place where we talk about facts, history, and reality.

Hon Chris Bishop: I just want to make the point, sir, that question time is partly about seeking answers from the Opposition, and it's always been a place with a bit of flamboyance and a bit of political theatre. I've been around this place long enough to have sat through the last six years, in which members opposite who were then Minsters said over and over again things like, "Nine years of neglect. Nine years of this, nine years of that.", all of which we obviously disagreed with, but you let it go through to the keeper because it's a bit of political rhetoric, and that is part and parcel of question time. So I'm just saying, quite clearly there has to be a bit of a balance. We don't want to make this place so sterile that it's just about facts back and forward and there's no rhetoric and no fun to the place.

SPEAKER: OK, I get the point.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that—

SPEAKER: Just give me a moment. The first point I want to make is that it's not appropriate to make personal references in general debate, in answers to questions, or in points of order. While people might want to make an observation about the content of points of order, it's not appropriate to personalise that in the way that we've just seen, and I don't want any more of that. I have ruled on this matter, but if you want to add to that—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, Mr Speaker, it's important to note that there is a clear distinction between questions from the Opposition and questions by the Government. You made that point. Now we've had two points of order which are questioning that and turning it into a broader debate. This is not about the Opposition not wanting a robust exchange in this House; it's about following the clear guidance that you have given everyone. I would like to think, in fairness, we only raise points of order when we deem it appropriate. If we wanted to make a political point, we'd be doing it all day.

SPEAKER: And quite possibly you just have, but that's a reasonable position. I accept that, but I did not take those points of order as being in any way a reflection in this direction. I made the point that it can't be personalised and won't be taken in the future. We'll go back to the question that was asked, for a start, and then we'll politely answer it.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What actions have the Government taken in the past 12 months to support the growth of primary exports?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the primary sector is the backbone of our economy, responsible for over 80 percent of our goods exports, and will continue to play a key role in achieving our ambitious target of doubling exports by value over 10 years. So far this year, we've brought the EU free-trade agreement into force many months earlier than expected, saving horticulture $46 million in tariffs; completed the trade deals with the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Cooperation Council, meaning, from day one over 10 years, 99 percent of exports entering tariff-free; and eliminated $733 million in non-tariff barriers. As a farmer in the South Island said to me last week, it feels like when a war is over.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What has contributed to this result?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, today's positive outlook is a direct result of the 360,000 hard-working men and women who get up every day and go to work in New Zealand's food and fibre sectors. Our rural workforce leads the world in innovation and adaptability, out-competing larger economies and international players. Our farmers, growers, fishers, and foresters are the best in the world, and on behalf of every member of this House, may I thank them for their hard work and their commitment this year and wish them a merry Christmas.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister, how does—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order—point of order. Just before we went into the previous point of order exchange, I do remember hearing the Minister actually withdraw and apologise for his comments—comments that he literally repeated in subsequent answers to supplementary questions. I do want to bring to your attention the point of withdrawing and apologising for something you're just going to basically repeat immediately after.

SPEAKER: Well, I have to inform the member that a past member in this House made it very clear, in both document form and contribution in the House, that words matter. The way in which the words were used by the Hon McClay may have referred to the comment made earlier, but were in an entirely different context. That is the difficulty for the Chair in these matters. Look, the member should read the Hansard and he'll understand what I said.

Hon Shane Jones: In relation to export revenue forecasts, how have matters improved since significant natural areas have been taken away, unworkable water regulations, other impediments imposed by the last regime on the viability of farming, how has the stripping away of those impediments improved revenue forecasts?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, farmers tell me they no longer have to spend up to 30 percent of their time in the office filling out paperwork. They can innovate; they can work hard; they can continue to care about their environmental obligations; and they can produce the world's highest-quality, safest food, fisheries, and forestry product to sell to the world. Consumers around the world are willing to pay New Zealand farmers more for what they produce. That's why they have a coalition Government that backs them.

Hon Shane Jones: In relation to revenue forecasts and the $600 million of earnings associated with aquaculture, how does the extension of all resource management permits for marine farming until 2050 improve the viability of the aquaculture sector, as opposed to being embroiled in red tape, as was the case in the last regime?

SPEAKER: That question was all good—it would have had a great answer—until the last part, which I can't sit here and know about red tape. All I can assume is that it is a dig at some other party—and in the context of today, not helpful.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I can answer without the last bit—I didn't hear it.

SPEAKER: The Minister should answer.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Thank you very much. Well, I know Minister Jones is a champion of many things rural, and particularly the fisheries sector. Can I say that certainty is now being given to aquaculture in New Zealand so they can get on and do what we need them to do, which is produce high quality products, continue to care about the environment, and produce high quality food that we can send around the world for consumers as well as Mr Jones to enjoy.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The reference in a robust chamber of debate during question time to the existence of red rape is beyond cavil; it's beyond dispute. It's not unreasonable to state that this Government has passed laws liberating the rules and regulations pertaining to a key sector. The fact that we're liberalising is evidence that there was red tape—it's a fact.

SPEAKER: Thank you for that.

Question No. 8—Children

8. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: To what extent does she accept responsibility for the outcomes of Oranga Tamariki's actions in relation to community provider funding cuts and military-style academies?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I refer the member to the Cabinet Manual. I am accountable to this House for ensuring that Oranga Tamariki carries out its functions properly and efficiently. In terms of the actions of individual public servants, this may be a matter for the chief executive, or in the case of the chief executive, the Public Service Commissioner. To be clear, there have not been funding cuts overall. Oranga Tamariki received more money in Budget 2024 than it returned. Some provider contracts have expired and not been renewed. Some other contracts have been reduced and others have been increased. Oranga Tamariki allocated over $500 million in contracted funding last year, and I'm advised they will do so again this year.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she responsible for making sure that Oranga Tamariki meets her expectation "that there will be no gaps in service provision" for children in care or who have come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: My expectations are that we are focusing where there are gaps and trying to make sure that we plug those gaps, which was the whole point of relooking at how we contract so that we do it better, not like it used to be done where we actually accepted the fact that money was sitting in bank accounts and not being spent on our kids. Contracts were underutilised, contracts were not being delivered properly, and we're making sure that that is better.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she take responsibility for the thousands of highly vulnerable children and their families, 70 percent of whom are known to Oranga Tamariki, who will in just a few weeks lose Stand Tū Māia's specialised trauma treatment and intensive wraparound family support and alternative to statutory care because Oranga Tamariki has suddenly cut their funding mid-contract due to her budget decisions; and if not, why?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst I disagree with the assertions that have been made in that question, I understand this matter is currently before the courts, so I'm not going to comment on that specific contract.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is it correct that she received a letter from Stand Tū Māia's chief executive Fiona Inkpen that told her that Stand Tū Māia acts as a fence as a top of the cliff, and that "The impact of removing the fence will be that these children and families are failed once again, trust will die, and I do not say this lightly, but potentially so will some of them."; and if so, why is she not taking control of the situation?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have said in the previous answer that this matter is before the courts, so I'm not going to comment on that specific contract. Yes, I did receive a letter, but the reality is that what we were doing was not working. There needed to be changes within Oranga Tamariki to reset their focus to make sure that we are getting the best results for our young people. This will mean sometimes contracts won't stay the same and this will mean that it will upset some contractors. But does it mean it's not the right thing to do? No, it doesn't.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she take responsibility for the situation described by a front-line social worker who says, "People are becoming more disheartened and looking more exhausted as we try to do more with less under the cuts. Our sector is at risk of major burnout. I have never in the 18 years of being a social worker seen things this bad. I have become completely disillusioned and disheartened with what this Government is not only doing but getting away with."; if not, why?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I don't know who that comment came from and I can't speak to how they're feeling, but what I would say is we have been given something that was incredibly shambolic to try and fix. This has been a problem for many, many years within Oranga Tamariki. It couldn't continue the way it was. Report after report after report was telling us we were not meeting the national care standards for our young people. I am determined to make sure that all young people in the care of Oranga Tamariki are as safe as possible and I'm going to continue to do that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is there anything new, to her knowledge, since I last asked in the House, regarding how many military-style academy pilot participants in total have allegedly reoffended, including offending not involving the police, or breached the conditions of their in-community transition plan?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No. But what I would say is it is incredibly disappointing that the Opposition is so eager to exploit these young people and the work that they're trying to do to better themselves. They conveniently forget that these are young people that have volunteered to be part of a programme to try and turn their lives around. Singling out these nine young men and making a soap opera out of their lives for political gain is disgusting. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: We'll all just calm down.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: What update can he provide on the coalition Government's progress?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): on behalf of the Prime Minister: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, yesterday, I was pleased to announce the Rt Hon Winston Peters as the new Minister for Rail, someone of great experience, knowledge, and an all-round humble and good guy to work with. He said he would take on the role and told me, in the words of the Little River Band, "Hang on, help is on its way". This new ministerial role shows how important rail is in our country and how seriously we take its future. However, rail is just one example of the Government's focus on infrastructure and building our economy all around this country.

Tanya Unkovich: What update can he provide on the Government's commitment to restoring law and order?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government is delivering on its promise to empower our police and courts and not our criminals. We're on the side of the victims. We focus on victims, not offenders. We focus on community safety, not cultural reports; on personal responsibility, not colonisation or victimhood. Ministers Mitchell and Goldsmith are doing a great job at restoring law and order, and recent data showed there are fewer victims of violent crimes.

Tanya Unkovich: What update can he provide on the Government's focus on Pharmac funding?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, Minister Seymour has led the work on Pharmac and medicines, a key feature in both coalition agreements. Not only have we produced Pharmac's largest ever budget, with a boost of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing up the $1.774 billion fiscal cliff which we inherited, but, more recently, we have improved access to medicines by requiring Medsafe to approve pharmaceuticals within 30 days of them being approved by at least two overseas regulatory agencies recognised by New Zealand. We are getting funding for Pharmac for the medicines that Kiwis desperately need.

Tanya Unkovich: What update can he provide on the Government's coalition commitments in the education space?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, as part of our coalition agreement, Minister Stanford has recently announced that the Relationships and Sexuality Education guidelines will be removed from schools by the end of term 1 next year. The Education Review Office report was critical of these guidelines, and these guidelines will be replaced with better, more suitable, and more appropriate material. Minister Stanford has also led the way—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What, from the Stone Age?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —in ensuring schools are focused on educational achievement and focused on the three Rs. For those people shouting out over there, who just got here five seconds ago, our kids are going to be educated again, not indoctrinated.

Tanya Unkovich: What update can he provide on the Government's achievements in regional development, customs, and foreign affairs?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Regional development Minister, Shane Jones, has established a $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund to revitalise provincial New Zealand. Progress has been rapid. Within the Regional Infrastructure Fund, there has already been $167.7 million in approved funding. He's announced 15 regional summits and held 10. The remaining five are planned for early 2025. In completing these, the Minister has been up and down the country, or in his words, "I've been everywhere, man."

Hon Paul Goldsmith: In regard to the progress on restoring law and order, does he agree that it makes more sense for a Government to focus on reducing the number of victims of crime than it is on focusing on reducing the prison population, irrespective of what's going on in our communities?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That's a superb question and it's possibly the first principle of sound criminology.

Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety

10. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that the Government is "delivering for all workers"; if so, how is reintroducing pay deductions for partial strikes delivering for workers?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity) on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Yes, the Government is delivering for all workers by setting fair rules so that businesses and workers alike can thrive and realise their full potential. It was everyday members of the public, including workers, who suffered because the previous Government removed pay deductions for partial strikes. Because of partial strikes, workers have had to face delays to their medical care, they've been left waiting on train platforms, they've had to unexpectedly miss work and take care of their kids because teachers refused to teach certain year groups. The Government is reintroducing pay deductions for partial strikes because too often it is the public who suffer as a result. If a worker turns up to work but refuses to do a key part of their job, intentionally causing disruption to customers, employers should be able to deduct their pay. It is a sensible, proportionate change that should minimise potential disruption to public services. That is fairness; something that Labour used to believe in.

SPEAKER: I think the last part of that question is not part of the spirit of question time. The other point I'd make is that was a very, very long answer. I know that the Minister himself is generally much more concise and would perhaps want to protect his reputation by editing some of the answers in front of him.

Camilla Belich: Does she stand by her statement that an employee's right to strike "should not continue without consequence", and, if so, is she comfortable with those consequences, including being paid less than the minimum wage?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: To the first part of the question, yes.

Camilla Belich: Is she comfortable that under her proposed bill, nurses, teachers, and other front-line workers could have their pay deducted for wearing a t-shirt?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: All these situations will depend on individual situations as to what is in the employment contract. Now, I know there was an example many years ago where St John workers were penalised for refusing to wear high-vis vests over these t-shirts. That was a health and safety issue. Often, people will be required to wear certain items, for their job for health and safety reasons. So it will be in their individual contract agreements, and that will set down what is required.

Camilla Belich: Does the Minister believe that workers should have their pay docked for not completing a task that is outside the scope of their core role?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Again, this will be as part of what is in their employment agreement. What is in their employment agreement will stipulate what it is that their work requires. If they have an argument with what they're being required to do, then they are able to go to the Employment Relations Authority.

Camilla Belich: Does she accept that this bill penalises workers for exercising their freedom of speech?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: No, I don't believe it does at all—sorry, on behalf of the Minister, no, she does not. People are allowed to have free speech, but there are consequences. If you do not do your job, you do not get paid.

Camilla Belich: Would a worker, under her bill, who turned up for work—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, wait on—wait. Your own guys talking away there—unbelievable. It's like a choir.

Camilla Belich: Would a worker, under her bill, who turned up to work wearing a political pin be considered to be partially striking, and, if so, has she told David Seymour that these changes won't be retrospective?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Oh, I can recall a situation where that did occur recently, and there were consequences for that action.

SPEAKER: Question No. 11—Rima Nakhle. I should just congratulate the member who just resumed his seat on his excellent memory.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What steps has the Government recently taken to enhance competition and boost economic productivity?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It doesn't take an expert to know that competition is not working as well as it should be in New Zealand, and the effects are painful for Kiwis. Lack of competition means less choice, less innovation, and, usually, higher prices. That's why the Government is progressing an ambitious review of New Zealand's competition law to ensure we have sufficiently tough settings to deter monopolies, duopolies, and cosy oligopolies from forming in the first place.

Rima Nakhle: What are the key components of this competition review?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The review comprises two main components: first, updating the competition settings in the Commerce Act—these settings have not been reviewed for over two decades and have allowed duopolies, like we see in the grocery sector, to occur—and, second, we're reviewing the governance and effectiveness of the Commerce Commission to ensure it is a formidable, commercially savvy regulator.

Rima Nakhle: Why is a review of the competition settings in the Commerce Act necessary?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I think we can all reflect on mergers and acquisitions that, in hindsight, should not have happened. The current law failed to prevent this. The review will consider our mergers regime to prevent excessive market consolidation from happening further. Another important component is the inability for market participants to collaborate in the genuine best interests of consumers. An example of this is the inability of the banks to collaborate to provide banking services to small provincial towns.

Rima Nakhle: Why is a review of the Commerce Commission necessary?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I want to acknowledge the work of the Commerce Commission. The work that they do is very important. That's why we need to make sure that there is sufficient commercial skills to shape its decision making and it is fit for purpose, given the regulatory role has expanded significantly over recent times. We've appointed Dame Paula Rebstock to lead the review, alongside former Australian competition professor Allan Fels and David Hunt.

Question No. 12—Children

12. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Children: What changes, if any, will she consider making to ensure that tamariki and rangatahi in Aotearoa are safe?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I'll do more than just consider; I've actually done things—that is why this Government is repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. To ensure the safety and wellbeing and best interests of young children, a new Child Protection Investigation Unit is being set up to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in care, and I've introduced public reporting on key performance indicators for the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki. And we are giving Oranga Tamariki the power to search people entering youth justice facilities to prevent the introduction of harmful contraband. What I won't consider doing, because I know it won't keep young people safe, is sharing this information online about young people in attempts for political gain.

Tamatha Paul: Why does she think that some young people in the boot camp pilot have reoffended despite the highest levels of intervention and investment?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can't speak to individuals who have allegedly reoffended. But what I can say is young people who sit in a youth justice facility—the research shows us 88 percent of young people re-offend within 12 months of release from a standard youth justice facility that doesn't have this extra intensive wraparound support. I'm not willing to give up on those 88 percent, and I don't think the Opposition should too.

Tamatha Paul: Does she accept that akin to the young serious offender declarations, labelling young people as "the most serious offenders" and similar language can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and, if so, will she and her Cabinet colleagues reconsider the way that they talk about these young people publicly?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I'm actually not going to take a lecture about how we speak about these young people from that member. That member, over and over again, and the Opposition, has used this House to drag those young people through the mud every week. And so I'm not going to take that, actually.

Tamatha Paul: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question asked earnestly.

SPEAKER: It may well have been, but the answer was equally earnestly delivered. Do you have another question?

Tamatha Paul: How can we work together to make sure that Oranga Tamariki are the best that they can be and that the rights, protection, and safety of tamariki comes before everything else?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: That's what I've been doing for the past 12 months as Minister—working with Oranga Tamariki to make sure that they are doing everything that they possibly can to pull up the standards that weren't to my expectation when I took over as Minister. And we're working very hard to get better every day.

Tamatha Paul: What can we in this House, across political parties, do to uphold and protect the mana of our mokopuna, working together?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The Opposition could stop using these young people as a political tool, for starters.

SPEAKER: That's—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, you never did, did you, Minister? You've never done it, have you, Karen?

SPEAKER: Please—over there. Thank concludes oral questions. We'll now leave silently if we have to. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill.

© Scoop Media