Sitting date: 17 September 2024

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to crack down on serious offending. I was out in Auckland on Saturday night, seeing the fantastic results from having more cops out on the beat. We know that visible policing can have a real impact, with serious assaults down 22 percent in the last year in the Auckland CBD. But this week's data on our violent crime confirms what many Kiwis already know: violent crime has risen in recent years and we need a much more aggressive response. That's why we're giving police more tools to go after gangs and why we're bringing in tougher sentences for violent and repeat offenders. So I'd encourage that member, if he's serious about restoring law and order and keeping communities safe, to back our gang laws so we can get on with the job and clean up the mess that he left behind.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many jobs in the building and construction sector were affected by the Government's decision to cut $2 billion from school building and maintenance projects?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: If the member would like to direct a specific question to the Minister, I'm sure we can come back with the numbers. But what I would just say to that member is that there is no doubt about it, it is a tough time for New Zealanders at the moment and people are losing their jobs. And that member has to ask the question: why is that? It is because the economy is in recession. The economy is in recession because interest rates are sky-high. Interest rates are sky-high because inflation went through the roof. And why did inflation go through the roof? Because of wasteful Government spending. And yet we hear from that member that he wants to borrow more and he wants to tax more. You don't tax your way out of a recession.

SPEAKER: Good—OK, well, that was question one. It was incredibly rowdy, so we'll just moderate from this point on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could attempt to answer the question that I asked him, rather than just a general diatribe about—

SPEAKER: I think he was—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —how mean and nasty he thinks the Labour Party is.

SPEAKER: Yeah. Good. He most definitely attempted to answer it. Do you have another supplementary?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Sure. How many jobs in the building and construction sector were affected by the Government's decision to cut $1.5 billion from the State house build and maintenance programme, including thousands of already consented new homes for vulnerable New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I disagree with the characterisation of that question. I'd just say in answer to his further question, there's actually been more money put into school buildings—that's what we're doing. But, I just say again, we are in a tough time because of the economic mess that the Labour Government left behind. You have to take some responsibility for that as a former Prime Minister and as a former Government, and you're not.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Could the $530 million plummet in building activity between the June 2023 and June 2024 quarters be due to his Government cutting $2 billion from school build and maintenance projects, $1.5 billion dollars from State house building and maintenance projects, and funding from hospital rebuilds?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We did not cut anything from school buildings. But I'd just say to that member, we are where we are in the economic cycle by virtue of the decisions that your Government made. Businesses have hung on through a recession, businesses have hung on through high interest rates, they've hung on through high levels of inflation, and now they're having to lay off workers. That is the consequence in the history of economics. I hope that you learn something about economics on the UK trip.

SPEAKER: I didn't want to interrupt the answer, but that exchange is unacceptable. It's not a screaming match from one side of the House to the answers; it's questions and answers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, point of order!

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, I think you'll find the crowd noise on both sides of the House is directly related to the quality of the answers being given. Where the Prime Minister decides to start attacking the questioner personally, that is going to provoke a certain sort of response.

SPEAKER: Look, the member is absolutely right. It is about the quality of the question and the quality of the answer, and both sides will have different opinions on that—they can keep them to themselves.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe his Government's decision to cut billions of dollars from infrastructure projects like schools, State houses, and hospitals has contributed in any way to the fact that there are over 8,000 fewer people employed in building and construction today compared to when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'd just say to that member: we are seeing the lag effects of a woeful economic management of the previous administration. How does it start? You have an 84 percent increase in spending, it drives record levels of inflation, that drives high levels of interest rates, that puts the economy into recession, that drives unemployment. That is the history of economics that we've been trying to articulate to that member and also his former Government about why they got it so wrong. Take some responsibility. We are where we are today because of woeful, uneducated economic management.

SPEAKER: The last part of the Prime Minister's answer doesn't help order of the House. The answer's for the Government; he doesn't question the Opposition.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister: does he not think he should contact the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer about a visitor soon to come to his conference and warn him that sliding polls are contagious?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to that—

SPEAKER: No, that question is not going to proceed. If you think about the primary, then there's been no action by the Prime Minister in that regard. You can't call for it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many of the 55,000 New Zealand citizens who have left the country since he became Prime Minister—1 percent of the population—worked in the construction sector?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I just say direct your questions to the building and construction Minister if you want a specific answer. But what I do know is that our economy has been in trouble because of economic mismanagement on a scale we haven't seen before. We didn't need to have high inflation if you controlled spending. We didn't need to have high interest rates; we didn't need to have a recession and, therefore, rising levels of unemployment. This is the history of economics. I appreciate the Labour Government didn't understand economics. We do. We're fixing it. We're sorting it out.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of the best reflects his so-called laser-like focus on outcomes: fewer homes being built, fewer classrooms being upgraded, fewer jobs in building and construction, or record numbers of Kiwis simply giving up and leaving the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that is focused on rebuilding the economy, fixing the mess that we've inherited so that people can get ahead. You see lower levels of inflation, you've seen interest rate cuts, you've seen the highest level of business confidence we've had in 10 years—then we'll get economic growth, then we'll keep people in employment. But that's the programme that we're working through economically. I wish the member understood economics. I hope that he can learn about financial discipline in the UK.

Question No. 2—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order. Mr Speaker, if you look very carefully at question No. 2—and it's rightly so—it begins the question in Māori, and then there's the English translation and it goes straight back to Māori. So what is it to be?

SPEAKER: Sorry, you're going to have to explain that to me a bit better than that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The question is in Māori. Fine—that's good. Then it's explained in English, but it's not: it ends up in Māori. So what's it to be in terms of this House, and going forward?

SPEAKER: OK, then I'll ask all members in the House to amend their question sheet, if they've got one, to change the word "te" into "the".

Tākuta Ferris: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, hang on a minute. It's an interpretation. Nothing—

Tākuta Ferris: No, no—it's not. It's a title.

SPEAKER: Well, I would just advise not to have an argument with me on this one.

Tākuta Ferris: Well, it's not with you; it's with him.

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?

Tākuta Ferris: The point is with the member over there.

SPEAKER: No, it's not, because I've ruled, so it can't be.

2. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Taku pātai ki te reo Māori. E whakapono ana ia kei te hāpai tēnei Kāwanatanga i ōna herenga me āna mahi ki te iwi Māori i raro i te Tiriti o Waitangi?

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question will be in the Māori language. Does he believe this Government is upholding its obligations and duties to Māori under te Tiriti o Waitangi?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare, ehara i te whakapono noa iho. Tūturu taku whakapae, e mōhio ana au e kaha ana tēnei Kāwanatanga haumi ki te whakapūāwai i ngā wawata o ngā tūpuna i tāmokohia te kāwenata tapu reorua, a te Tiriti o Waitangi. He paku whakatauira hoki, tirohia tō mātou Manu Pūtea, te tautoko i ngā whakahaeretanga a Te Matatini mō ngā tau e toru kei te heke mai.

[To the Speaker of the House, it is not merely a belief. Truly it is an assertion, I know that this coalition Government is consistent in its endeavours that the aspirations of the ancestors that signed the sacred bilingual covenant, the Treaty of Waitangi, flourish. As a small example, look to our Minister of Finance, who has supported the undertakings of Te Matatini for the next three years.]

Tākuta Ferris: He aha tana kupu whakahoki ki tā te Taraipiunara mō Te Ture Takutai Moana, me te kī a te Taraipiunara, "the Crown's actions are such a gross breach of the Treaty that, if it proceeds, it would be an illegitimate exercise of kāwanatanga"?

[What is his response to the tribunal's statement about the Takutai Moana Act, the tribunal's statement, "the Crown's actions are such a gross breach of the Treaty that, if it proceeds, it would be an illegitimate exercise of kāwanatanga"?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, hei whakahoki i te pakirehua i tae mai ki aku taringa whakarongo, kua rangona hoki ngā kōrero a te Taraipiunara. Hei ākuanei ka whiwhi ngā whakaaro me ngā tohutohu a ngā āpiha me ngā kaitohutohu o te Kāwanatanga, ka taea hoki te whakautu.

[To the Speaker of the House, in response to the question that has come to my attentive ears, the statement of the tribunal has indeed been heard. Soon we will receive the thoughts and advice of the officials and advisers of the Government, and we will be able to respond.]

Tākuta Ferris: Does he stand by the Crown's actions regarding the Takutai Moana Act, which the tribunal has found will "significantly endanger the [Crown-Māori] relationship."?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, kāore anō kia whakarurehia te pire e kīia nei e te mema. Tāria te wā, ka mōhio ka riro mā te Pāremata e whakamana.

[To the Speaker of the House, the bill that the member has referred to has yet to be enacted. At the appropriate time, we know that it will be up to Parliament to enact it.]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, I was just listening to the last of the translation. Where a Government Minister is being questioned on a Government bill, I don't think they can give an answer like the one the Minister just gave. It is a Government piece of legislation, and they have to be able to answer for it.

SPEAKER: That's a reasonable point, so we'll just have the question again.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he stand by the Crown's actions regarding the Takutai Moana Act, which the tribunal has found will "significantly endanger the [Crown-Māori] relationship."?

SPEAKER: Well, it's a bill at this point, but—some response.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The reference is to an Act, and we have not got to an Act yet, which has to be enacted by this Parliament.

SPEAKER: Yes, I realise that, and I've just corrected him. We can get incredibly pedantic. It becomes more difficult when we're working in two languages. I'd ask you, just as we asked the questioner, to show some leniency with the ruling around the translation into English, that you accept that he didn't say "bill"—he said "Act" but meant "bill". Therefore, I'd ask for a response.

Hon Simeon Brown: Speaking to the point of order, the question is in relation to a particular bill. The Minister who is being questioned about it is not the responsible Minister for that bill, and so I would just ask consideration as to whether or not that question is in order.

SPEAKER: Well, that's very interesting. But the Government, of course, always chooses who answers any particular question on any matter. And the Minister has started to answer these questions, so he'll keep it up.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, can I please ask that that question be read out again?

Tākuta Ferris: Tēnā tātou. Does he stand by the Crown's actions regarding the takutai Moana bill, which the tribunal has found will "significantly endanger the Crown-Māori relationship"?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, āna. Tāria te wā ka riro mā tō mātou Hoa Minita Mete-koura e kawe ki mua i te aroaro o tēnā, o tēnā raiona o tēnei Whare.

[To the Speaker of the House, absolutely. At the appropriate time, it will be up to our ministerial colleague Minister Goldsmith to bring it before each of the members of this House.]

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. I might be able to be of some use here.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon, sorry. What did you say?

Hon Shane Jones: I roto i te reo Māori. Ko te kaituku i te pātai e ui ana mēnā e tautoko ana tēnei Minita i tētahi pire. Kāore anō tēnā pire kia whakakaupapatia, kāhore anō tēnā pire kia tuhituhi mārikatia, tukuna ki te Whare. He kaupapa noa iho i tēnei wā. Kei te whiriwhiringia e mātou, ngā Minita, engari kāhore anō kia whakapūmautia i runga i te kapu o te pepa hei pire.

[In the Māori language. The person who posed the question is asking if this Minister supports this bill. The bill has yet to be formulated. That bill has yet to be completely drafted and brought before the House. It is merely an initiative at this time. We, the Ministers, are still discussing it, but it has yet to be realised on to paper as a bill.]

SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I think that's what the Minister actually said.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the honourable Shane—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Ha, ha! No one's ever made that mistake before, Mr Speaker!

SPEAKER: No, well, I could have gone through 120 names and still got it wrong.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That's right. I think, first of all, Ministers can be questioned on bills that are currently being considered by the Government—that's always been the case. But, more importantly, if you look at the primary question, the primary question is about whether the Government's holding its obligations and duties to Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Government have chosen which Minister is going to answer that question; therefore, all of the actions that the Government takes to uphold or otherwise Te Tiriti o Waitangi can be within the scope of the question, and the Minister should be coming to the House prepared to answer those.

SPEAKER: And that was the essence of what I've had in response to Mr Brown's point of order.

Tākuta Ferris: He pātai anō tāku. [I have another question.] Does he support the tribunal's recommendation that the Crown cease all efforts to amend te takutai Moana bill and make a genuine effort to meaningfully engage with Māori, and, if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, kei te tautoko au i te anga whakamua a tō tātou Pirīmia, me taku hoa, te Minita Mete-koura, kia kawea atu ngā kōrero kia whakarurehia tētahi pire, whakakaupapatia, whakatakotoria ki mua i te aroaro o ngā raiona me ngā taika me ngā kererū o tēnei Whare.

[To the Speaker of the House, I support the direction of our Prime Minister and my colleague Minister Goldsmith to continue the discussions that the bill be enacted, formulated, and laid before the brave, strong, and considerate Ministers of this House.]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether it's a fact that the tribunal came down with a finding after having a hearing on a bill that they hadn't even read—that that is the actual chronological fact here, that they were talking about a bill, the contents of which they had never seen and hadn't read?

SPEAKER: Well, I don't know that the Minister can actually answer—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can.

SPEAKER: And I think you've made the point. But I don't think the Minister can answer that.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he support the legal action taken by Te Ohu Kaimoana against the Crown's intent to increase the total allowable commercial catch for snapper, which is a direct violation of the Treaty of Waitangi fisheries settlement that could lead to a 20 to 29 percent loss of the Māori fisheries quota?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, kua kitea hoki ki ētehi wāhi kei te mimiti te haere o te mau o te moana, pērā ki te tāmure e kōrerotia nei, engari kei ia tangata tana piki amokura. Nōna anō tōna piki amokura; kei au anō, nōku ake tōku piki amokura. Nā reira kia riro atu mā Te Ohu Kaimoana e whiriwhiri te huarahi tōtika mōna anō.

[To the Speaker of the House, it has been seen in some areas that the catch of the sea is reducing, like the snapper that has already been mentioned, but each person has their own autonomy. They have their own autonomy; I do too, I have my own autonomy. And so it is up to Te Ohu Kaimoana to come up with the right path for themselves.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. How does he justify his place in the Government that, according to the Waitangi Tribunal, is seeking to erase any duty of the Crown to act with honour and assert parliamentary dominance over Māori without any justification?

SPEAKER: The Hon Tama Potaka—in so far as he has ministerial responsibility.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, ehara māku te tuku whakapāha ki tēnā pakirehua. Nōku anō te hūmārie me te hōnore ki te tautoko i tō tātou Pirīmia i tēnei wā, me te anga whakamua o tēnei Kāwanatanga haumi.

[To the Speaker of the House, it is not for me to apologise to that question. It is my humility and my honour to support our Prime Minister at this time and the direction of this coalition Government.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he accept the findings of the tribunal that this Government has breached the Te Tiriti o Waitangi at every stage of their Treaty Principles Bill, Māori wards policy, the removal of section 7AA, and now the takutai Moana bill?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, ka nui hoki ngā whakaaro me ngā tuhituhinga a Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi. Na reira e mihi ana ki ērā momo tuhituhinga, engari kāore anō ētehi o ngā pire kua kōrerotia nei e te mema kia tau ki mua i te aroaro o tēnei Whare Pāremata. Taihoa te wā ka mōhio hoki ki te ngako o ēnei kōrero, me te mea nei kaua e riro mā te kakī hōhonu o Kāwanatanga kē, engari kua kite hoki i ngā hua kei te whakarurehia e tō tātou Pirīmia me ēnei, aku hoa, e kaha nei ki te whakapakari i te ōhanga, te hauora, me te mātauranga o ngā hapori Māori puta noa i te motu. Tēnā tātou.

[To the Speaker of the House, the Waitangi Tribunal has many opinions and documents. And so I acknowledge those types of documents, but some of the bills that the member has spoken about have yet to come before this House of Parliament. In time, we will have an awareness of the gist of these discussions, and also it should not be left to other Governments who have contributed little but discourse, but we have also seen the results of our Prime Minister and these, my colleagues, that consistently strengthen the economy, health, and education of the Māori communities all across the country. Thanks to us all.]

Question No. 3—Finance

3. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about support for families?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): This morning I announced that from today, low to middle income families with young children will be able to register with Inland Revenue for FamilyBoost. As members know, this is a new payment to help parents and caregivers meet the costs of early childhood education (ECE). FamilyBoost will help make childcare costs more affordable, providing relief for many families struggling with the cost of living, and it will make it more worthwhile for people to enter or stay in the workforce when they have young children.

Nancy Lu: How much can people get from FamilyBoost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Parents and caregivers are eligible for a payment towards their early childhood education fees, up to a maximum fortnightly payment of $150. Payments will be made quarterly as a lump sum, so parents and caregivers can get up to $975 a quarter, up to 25 percent of their early childhood fees after the 20 hours ECE and Ministry of Social Development childcare subsidy have been taken into account, and, therefore, up to the $150 maximum.

Nancy Lu: How do parents and caregivers register for FamilyBoost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Parents and caregivers can register for FamilyBoost through MyIR, which is the online secure system for managing interactions with Inland Revenue. Many people already have a MyIR account. If they don't, don't worry; they can set one up by going to the Inland Revenue website at . The link to register with MyIR and the link to login are on the home page. I encourage all families who are eligible to register so they can get this payment direct to their bank accounts.

Nancy Lu: When will parents and caregivers be able to claim FamilyBoost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Parents and caregivers will be able to claim their first FamilyBoost payment from 1 October onwards for the three months going back to 1 July. They will do this through MyIR by uploading an invoice or invoices from their ECE provider. Inland Revenue will then calculate the payment to be paid into people's bank accounts. These payments will make a real difference to more than 100,000 Kiwi families—that's 140,000 Kiwi kids. I note that members opposite are grumbling about this. They would take that money away.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement she would "make good economic decisions so people can actually see better prospects in New Zealand, that's essentially our mission"; if so, why have a new record of net 55,800 Kiwis moved overseas in the year ended July 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do stand by that statement. I know that New Zealanders have been doing it tough, with high inflation, high interest rates, and wider cost of living pressures. The Government inherited a mess after six years of economic mismanagement by Labour and it will take time to turn that around. I think New Zealanders understand that. What they do want to see is a Government that will take decisions that will in turn bring better prospects for New Zealanders, and we are doing that. We are focused on supporting our economy to grow, and we are already seeing inflation coming back under control, interest rates decreasing, and business confidence rising. These are the green shoots of economic recovery. There is much more to do but we are optimistic and confident that brighter days are ahead.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Christopher Luxon's statement: "I think there's a lot of New Zealanders already leaving New Zealand because they don't think it's a place of sufficient opportunity.", and, if so, does she agree that the latest record of New Zealand citizen net migration is due to the lack of opportunities at home?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I just said in answer to the last question, the comment that the Prime Minister made when he was the Leader of the Opposition is an accurate one, and I think that the member opposite needs to reflect on what she thinks a Government would have changed in 10 months. We have been working at pace. We have inherited an extremely difficult economic situation. We are taking accountability for our own decisions which are moving things in the right direction. I'd note this: I'll tell you one thing that wouldn't help this economy right now, and that's more debt and more taxes, which is what that party say they stand for.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are the increasing company liquidations which are up 19 percent year on year, and insolvencies up 23 percent from the first quarter of the year and 36 percent higher than the same period a year ago contributing to the brain drain?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Can I say that any company that goes into liquidation is of concern because what that represents is someone's effort, their hope, their investment coming to a very sad end, often affecting many New Zealanders and their families. That is exactly why, as members of this House, we must never drop our focus on good economic management, because you can stamp the word "wellbeing" all over your Budgets but if what they do is drive inflation to record highs for sustained periods of time, leading to record increases in interest rates, the outcome for New Zealanders is harsh. That is the effect we are seeing in the economy right now; we're suffering the lag effects of six years of economic mismanagement, and we're cleaning it up.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Sit down.

SPEAKER: I think the member can leave those sorts of instructions to me if that's all right.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: I was only helping.

SPEAKER: I might ask her to stand up in a minute.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, which forecasts annual average GDP growth at zero percent in the year to March 2025; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There are a number of forecasts. What we are seeing consistently across those forecasts is a pattern that I wish members opposite had understood when they were in Government, which is this: if inflation is left very high for a long time, interest rates rise very high to counter it. There are impacts on businesses, who chose to invest less, some of which fail, and that has very destructive effects in the economy. We are experiencing that in New Zealand, and what parties on this side of the House campaigned on was not that we would fix it overnight but that we would take the decisions that would ensure progress in the right direction. We are doing that every week and New Zealanders should know that we've got their back on the economy. The members opposite would destroy it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why isn't one of her Government's targets reducing the number of New Zealanders leaving the country?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, this is a matter I differ to the Prime Minister on. They're his targets, he set them, and they're very good indeed. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Now, hang on—it's the Leader of the Opposition's own member who wants to ask a question here.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How would the negative GDP growth that is widely predicted by economists provide New Zealanders with confidence that there are better prospects at home?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, what New Zealanders can have confidence in is that they have a Government that is delivering what it said it would, that has delivered tax relief in a fiscally neutral way, that is getting Government spending under control so that debt can come back down, so that inflation has come down, so that interest rates are reducing, and so that business confidence can revive. What New Zealanders can also reflect on is the prescription that others in this House have offered in response to this economic situation. They've said the way out is more debt, more wasteful spending, and more taxes. I can assure you that New Zealanders know that's not the answer, as "Mr 12 Percent" can tell you.

SPEAKER: I just remind all Government Ministers that they're not responsible for anything that comes from the other side of the House; they can only talk about it in the context of their own portfolios, and that's quite limiting.

Question No. 5—Education

5. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Education: What recent changes has she made to increase the number of relief teachers available in school classrooms?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I'm proud to share that this Government is encouraging more trained teachers back into the classroom to help with relief teaching. We heard the call from the sector that cost and lengthy processes to become recertified were putting many teachers off coming back to relieve. So, in a short-term measure, the Teaching Council has agreed to allow these teachers to apply for a limited authority to teach (LAT)—a cheaper and easier way to get our amazing teachers back in the classroom to relieve. To kick start this process, we are paying for 200 LATs and 150 teacher certificate renewals to make it easier for former teachers to come back into the class, and we'll be prioritising applications from previously certified teachers. We've set up a website, paid for a navigator at the Teaching Council to help people with the process, and the ministry and the Teaching Council will start to contact out-of-service teachers to advise them of the changes and ask them to consider coming back.

SPEAKER: Good. That was a very long answer, so I hope they'll be more brief from this point.

Grant McCallum: Why did she make these changes?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We know that winter illness has increased markedly since 2019. This has been compounded by additional classroom release time and out of classroom time for professional learning and development. Even with an increase in the number of relief teachers overall, the pressures have meant that schools are rostering home classes and year groups, combining classes, and using cover from teachers who should be on classroom release time. I've heard from many teachers who want to relieve; they find the process expensive and difficult. So inaction is not an option and that's why I've asked the ministry to listen to the sector and implement an action plan. While these measures are short-term, we're working with the Teaching Council on a longer-term plan.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she heard from principals?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand president, Vaughan Couillault, said, "Right now we've got classrooms that need relief teachers in them. You're not just grabbing anyone off the street, you're grabbing people who have been trained and [who've] been registered before." One secondary school principal messaged me to say, "This is the right thing. And as you say, it's a short-term measure. It's the right one to get us all through. Thank you again for what you're doing for the sector." This good feedback is due to the fact that we listened, we consulted with principals and teachers, and we acted on their suggestions.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she heard from teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I received an email from a wonderful lady who spent 50 years in teaching and 10 years as a principal. She wrote, "After listening to the news tonight, I decided to inquire about renewing my teacher registration to perhaps help out our local school. The idea, I think, is awesome and could go some way to helping with a shortage of classroom relief teachers." And I received another email from a teacher who said, "I saw your interview this morning on Breakfast TV regarding the 350 free teacher registrations, and I'm a former teacher who subsequently did some relieving, whose registration I allowed to lapse due to the bureaucratic reasons you mentioned. I'd be interested in applying for one of these re-registrations, and can you send me a link, please?" I've had many other emails to the same effect.

SPEAKER: Those answers are probably quite interesting but far too long.

Question No. 6—Workplace Relations and Safety

6. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What changes has she recently announced about improving certainty for those in contracting relationships?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): On Sunday, I announced that this coalition Government has agreed to amend the Employment Relations Act to provide greater certainty and clarity for businesses and workers in contracting relationships. This was an ACT-National coalition commitment and it was also a priority in the Government's quarter three plan. The amendments to the Employment Relations Act will provide a gateway test that the Employment Relations Authority can consider when responding to a claim that a person is an employee and not a contractor. If the working arrangement in question meets the four factors set out in the test, then the person is considered to be a contractor. This approach provides a much clearer path to establishing who is a contractor, compared with the current test, which leaves room for ambiguity.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the gateway test work in practice?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There are four criteria for the gateway test. These criteria are that there must be a written agreement with the worker specifying they are an independent contractor, not an employee; the business does not restrict the worker from working for another business, including competitors; the business does not require the worker to be available to work on specific days or times, or the worker can subcontract the work; and the business does not terminate the contract if the worker does not accept an additional task or engagement. I want to make it clear that these changes do not change any worker's current employment agreement or their contract. Businesses that use contract arrangements will not be required to change their contracts. Any business or worker who wants to use this gateway test will need to willingly sign up to a contract of this nature. Workers who challenge their status and their contract and it does not meet these four criteria will be considered under the current full test.

SPEAKER: OK, those answers need to be much more concise. That was almost a minute—just under a minute. It's a very long time for an answer.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the changes affect workers in contracting relationships?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The changes I've announced have the potential to improve protection for contractors and enhance the benefits of contracting relationships. These changes remove the current ambiguity that can happen when there's no written agreement to begin with and a worker might genuinely not understand what they are agreeing to. Speaking to TVNZ, an employer of people with disabilities said that the criteria of the new gateway test are clear and would help workers better understand their rights in a contracting relationship and to assert those rights.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the changes affect businesses in contracting relationships?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Businesses have been suffering uncertainty for years around the boundaries between an employee and a contractor relationship, and these changes provide more certainty. I'm pleased to share that my announcement has been welcomed by a range of sectors. The chief executive of Freightways said that the Government's announcement has provided the certainty that businesses and contractors alike have been waiting for after what he called five years of ambiguity. Business New Zealand also welcomed the announcement, saying, "The government's decision to clarify those relationships in law will be particularly welcomed by all businesses that use digital platforms to contract with workers, and all businesses currently concerned that their contractors could be re-categorised to be employees in the future should they decide to take a court case."

Camilla Belich: Is it correct that after she met with Uber on 1 May 2024, and said, as stated in her talking points from that meeting—and I quote—"It would be great to hear more about Uber's views regarding what you would like the changes to the Employment Relations Act to achieve.", that Uber responded, suggesting the changes that she announced yesterday?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, that is not correct. What is correct here is that I did meet with Uber—yes, that's true. I did ask a range of things within our meeting. I don't always stick to the talking points that my officials provide for me. However, we did provide around 20 people that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) consulted with a draft policy. That was not the policy that we've ended up with. There were seven unions that were consulted by MBIE, and I note that some of the changes that they suggested were actually implemented in our model.

SPEAKER: Question No. 7, the Hon Ginny Andersen—and we're going to have silence for the question.

Question No. 7—Police

7. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Does he stand by his statement, "Kiwis ought to feel safe going about their daily lives, and that is why this Government is focused on restoring law and order, and putting victims first"; if so, why?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, Kiwis ought to feel safe going about their daily lives, and that has been my unrelenting focus since becoming the police Minister. I was pleased, over the weekend, to share news that there has been a reduction in serious assaults in our biggest city's CBD. Of course, we have more work to do to fix the mess that we were left, but I am committed and focused on delivering for our country. I'd also like to acknowledge our outstanding police force, who announced today the conclusion of three significant operations targeting the Comancheros: Operations Scuba, Brewer, and Avon. The operations have seen nearly every member of the Comancheros in New Zealand face charges, have seized 206 kilograms of methamphetamine, $9.2 million in assets seized, $1.275 million in cash, five properties, 14 vehicles, and 15 firearms.

SPEAKER: That was also a very long answer and somewhat unrelated.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was Radio New Zealand correct when they reported that violent crime has increased by 7 percent across Auckland between 1 January and the end of July?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, as I said to Radio New Zealand, we'll have to verify that number.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was the New Zealand Herald correct in reporting that there has been a 17 percent increase in retail crime when comparing the first five months of 2024 with the first five months of 2023?

Hon Willie Jackson: Come on, get your numbers right.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think the Hon Willie Jackson is right: get your numbers right. I'm not sure if the member has. She doesn't have a good track record of it. But I would say this: you're right for once, Willie. I'll give you that. But I would say this to the member: retail crime is a big focus for this Government, but the most immediate focus for us is dealing with the violent retail crime, and that is the crime where shopkeepers, their employees, or customers are being exposed to violent aggravated robberies. And the good news is that violent aggravated robberies in this country are down 10 percent.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the most recent Crime and Victims Survey correct when it notes that between 2018 and 2023, "there was no significant difference in the overall violent offence prevalence rate", as reported by Stuff?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, you know, we do have ambitious targets on this side of the House, and the member will be well aware from her time as justice and police Minister that the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey has up to a two-year lag time. What we're seeing is a crime hangover from her time as sole-charge Minister for public safety.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did the Government choose to base its crime reduction target on the Crime and Victims Survey rather than on Police data, as National did when in Opposition?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, we will use both datasets, but the Police stats, of course, inform me, and we're using the Crime and Victims Survey to make sure that across Government we're setting targets, which is something the previous Government failed to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: talking about Willie Jackson getting it right, has he heard the saying that a stopped watch tells the time right twice a day?

SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure he has, but Greenwich Mean is not something he's responsible for.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My maths might not be that flash, but his is worse—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence. It's a very risky thing to start reacting, as some have, to a point of order.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he now need to—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. You called for a point of order.

Hon Ginny Andersen: He didn't address the question was my point. So my point of order was that his maths isn't flash, either, because—

SPEAKER: No, no, don't explain it to me. I just asked what the point of order was, and there is none, so ask another supplementary.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he now need to reduce the number of victims of violent crime by 50,000 in order to meet his Government's target, given that data from the most recent Crime and Victims Survey shows an additional 30,000 victims of violent crime?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, it amazes me that the member is standing and asking a question like that when it is the previous Government that was responsible for a large part of the lag on those figures that have been recorded. And, if they'd had a bit more focus and they'd actually applied some targets and taken it seriously, like this Government is doing, then maybe they might have actually avoided the fact that, yes, we're going to have to work hard to achieve our targets, but we're committed to doing that.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to ensure criminals face real consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yesterday, the Government introduced the sentencing reform package, delivering on a range of coalition commitments and making a number of changes to restore real consequences of crime while also putting victims at the heart of the justice system. It's got three objectives: making sure that the punishment fits the crime; restoring the principle of personal responsibility for offending; and better recognising victims, particularly those who have suffered through years of increased retail crime.

Paulo Garcia: What specific changes is the Government making as part of the sentencing reform package?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government's amending the principles of the Sentencing Act to give greater prominence to victims' interests. We're also capping the sentence discounts that judges can apply at 40 percent, preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse, and implementing a sliding scale for early guilty pleas. We've seen too many examples of people convicted of serious violent and sexual crimes having their sentences discounted away and ending up on home detention. Limits on these discounts will restore real consequences for crime.

Paulo Garcia: What new additional aggravating factors are included in the sentencing reform package?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, offending against sole charge workers and those whose homes and businesses are interconnected will become an aggravating factor at sentencing, as committed to in the National-ACT coalition agreement. The Government has also decided to introduce new aggravating factors that will address adult offenders who exploit children and young people by aiding and abetting them to offend, and those offenders who glorify their offending by live streaming and gloating about serious crime.

Paulo Garcia: What impact will these changes have?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government is concerned that in recent years, the courts have imposed fewer prison sentences and, at the same time, the prevalence of violent and serious crime in our communities has increased. Tougher sentencing will restore real consequences for crime. It will put more serious offenders in prison for longer to prevent them creating new victims. And if they spend time in prison on remand, we'll ensure that they have access to rehabilitation programmes to turn their lives around.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko tonu ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

[Does he stand by all his statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Tēnā koe i te pātai. Āe. Me tautoko ahau i āku kōrero me āku mahi katoa.

[Thank you for the question. Yes. I should stand by all my statements and actions.]

Chlöe Swarbrick: Kia ū tonu ia ki tāna kōrero "I want to encourage as many New Zealanders to learn te reo as possible."?Mēnā āe, ka pēhea tōna Kāwanatanga i te manaaki i te reo Māori?

[Does he stand by his statement "I want to encourage as many New Zealanders to learn te reo as possible."; if so, how is his Government protecting te reo Māori?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, we do. I think this week, for example, is a great opportunity for people to expand their knowledge of te reo. We encourage that. We value te reo Māori as an official language of New Zealand. I've enjoyed trying to learn. Personally, I've struggled with it, but I encourage all New Zealanders do the same.

SPEAKER: If the member's going to translate her own answer, I think it would probably be better that we let it come through the translation so we know where it's at.

Chlöe Swarbrick: It wasn't a translation, Mr Speaker. We provided translations to the translator for the sake of the speed of the translation.

SPEAKER: Well, that's fantastic. So we should be getting it through our earpiece. The member doesn't need to do it as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I didn't do it, Mr Speaker.

Hon Member: It was a quote—

SPEAKER: Oh, it was another part of it? Oh, well, there you go. I'm learning day by day.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Ka pēhea ia e akiaki ana ngā tāngata ki Aotearoa ki te ako i te reo Māori mēnā ka whakawātea i te reo ki roto i te rāngai tūmatanui, ahakoa koirā te wāhi ki te whakaārahi?

[How is he encouraging New Zealanders to learn te reo Māori if he is deprioritising te reo within the public sector even though that is the space in where it should be lead?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm not sure I caught the front end of it.

SPEAKER: Was there a question in that, because that hasn't—

Hon Member: Yes, there was a question in reo.

SPEAKER: No—you might think so, but I don't. It hasn't come through as a question. Can we just get perhaps another interpretation of it?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Stop showing off and just ask the question!

SPEAKER: Mr Peters?

Chlöe Swarbrick: If I may, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Are you going to do your question again—because there's no penalty.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I will give the question again.

SPEAKER: Without losing one, OK?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes. Ka pēhea ia e akiaki ana ngā tāngata ki Aotearoa ki te ako i te reo Māori mēnā ka whakawātea i te reo ki roto i te rāngai tūmatanui, ahakoa koirā te wāhi ki te whakaārahi?

[How is he encouraging New Zealanders to learn te reo Māori if he is deprioritising te reo within the public sector even though that is the space where it should be led?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'd just say is, you know, the Government is wanting to encourage people to learn te reo Māori.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, let me talk you through some of the things that we are doing. We're investing in te reo language. We're developing and resourcing structured literacy in our schools and offering te reo modification there. We've got a new phonics check, which is a world first in te reo Māori. We've got a curriculum-aligned mathematics programme, and all those resources will be free to schools and also available in te reo Māori. We've got a range of initiatives that we've got to encourage people to learn what is a taonga and a great language.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Kei te whakaae ia he taonga tuku iho i te reo Māori? Mēnā āe, he aha ia e āhei ai i tōna Kāwanatanga kia whakawātea i te reo Māori ki ngā kura, ahakoa e ai ki ngā taunakitanga ko ngā tamariki reo rua e tere ake ana ki te ako i ngā tamariki reo kotahi?

[Does he agree that te reo Māori is a taonga to be handed down to future generations? If so, why is he allowing his Government to deprioritise te reo in schools when evidence shows that bilingual children learn faster than monolingual children?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, if I understood the translation that came through, we're doing an awful lot in schools to encourage young students to adopt te reo.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Seriously?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, we've got schools that will be able to access free decodable books and other resources in reo from the ministry where they're directly receiving cash funds to actually supplement this with other materials they might need. As I said, we've got a phonics check, we've got the Māori structured literacy programme, we're accrediting providers to work across New Zealand professional development, we've got the Māori Advisory Group supporting the Minister, and we've got the Māori Education Action Plan.

Hon David Seymour: Can the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We'll just wait for a bit of quiet.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that in Budget 2024 the Government allocated an additional $12 million of capital expenditure to kōhanga reo, a form of early childhood education school choice that is actually valued by parents who want their children to learn te reo Māori whether they be Māori or non-Māori?

Tākuta Ferris: Six thousand dollars—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can confirm that and I thank the member.

SPEAKER: Sorry—

Tākuta Ferris:—to kōhanga reo.

SPEAKER: Excuse me. Questions are heard in silence. Please respect that, and we'll have the question again.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'll also just note that Tākuta Ferris has been saying that $12 million is only $6,000—

SPEAKER: That's a point of debate, not a point of order.

Hon David Seymour: Well, I just point out—

SPEAKER: No, you're not going to point it out. OK, we'll move on. Prime Minister, do you want to answer that question?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can confirm that that money was put aside in the Budget, and I'm very proud of what we're doing to build te reo across our young students.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Me pēhea te tapahi pūtea ki Whakaata Māori e whai hua ai ki te whakahauora i te reo Māori?

[How is cutting funding to Whakaata Māori a productive way to revitalise te reo Māori?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't have that number with me, but if you'd like to put that in writing, I can get an answer to you.

Hon Erica Stanford: Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Government has committed to ringfencing $100 million for kura kaupapa Māori property, and has also announced the first of those, which is Mokopuna here in Wellington?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can, and I appreciate the Minister's efforts to also make sure that, as we improve numeracy and literacy in this country, we can do that in English and te reo. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. It's going to be a very long afternoon if people just can't—[Interruption] Wait on. Just wait until the place goes quiet.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Do I need a translation?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you won't need a translation. Can the Prime Minister confirm that $12 million for kura does not equate to $6,000 per kura—

Tākuta Ferris: Kōhanga reo. Get it right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and where would he get that sort of mathematics from?

SPEAKER: No, Tākutai Ferris. You're going to be leaving the House if you do that again.

Tākuta Ferris: It's Tākuta.

SPEAKER: Do not interfere with a question. The Rt Hon Winston Peters: repeat your question, please, sir. [Interruption] OK. Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: E whakapono ana rānei ia e mahi pai ana tōna Kāwanatanga mō te iwi Māori; ki te pērā, he aha i whakatū ai te iwi Māori i ngā hīkoi ki Pāremata, te tuku take me te hanga petihana hou ia wiki, ia marama, hei whakahē i tēnei Kāwanatanga mai i tōna tīmatanga?

[Does he believe that his Government are doing good work for te iwi Māori; if so, why are they organising protests, submitting claims, and creating new petitions every week and month against this Government's inception?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm incredibly proud that this is a Government that's focused on improving outcomes for Māori and non-Māori, when you think about the efforts that we had to ensure that we're improving numeracy, literacy; when I think about the efforts that we've made moving many Māori young people out of emergency housing into dry, safe, good homes; when I actually think about what we're doing to rebuild this economy, giving tax relief for Māori families to support them in a cost of living crisis. We are a Government focused on outcomes, and we're improving them for Māori and non-Māori.

Question No. 10—Police

10. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Police: What "promising results" has he seen on the Government's plan to restore law and order?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Cherry picking.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Well, you're very good at it—I'll give you that. On Sunday, the Prime Minister and I shared that from 1 January to 31 July this year, there were 22 percent less serious assaults in the Auckland CBD than last year; within that, there were 18 percent less serious assaults resulting in injury. As I've previously informed the House, nationwide there have been 6 percent fewer serious assaults resulting in injury, 15 percent fewer burglaries, 10 percent fewer aggravated robberies, and 10 percent fewer stabbings. Auckland Council have reported 35 percent less crime in the CBD, and Heart of the City says that retail thefts have dropped by 50 percent. This has been a combined effort across Government. These are only very early signs of progress in restoring law and order, but I want to acknowledge police who've increased foot patrols nationwide by 10 percent and are getting back out there on the beat, back to their core business, and keeping people safe.

SPEAKER: That's another very long answer, but some of the interjections from the other side of the House didn't make a lot of sense and would be best unsaid. Talking about holiday job aspirations is not very much parliamentary business.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What feedback has he seen from Aucklanders?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The property manager of the Queens Arcade told One News on Sunday that there has been a huge change in the CBD. He said, "Going back two years, it was dreadful in here." There is more work to do, but this feedback is encouraging.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What work has he done across Government to improve the situation in Auckland's CBD?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: In May I brought together key stakeholders, including the Auckland City Council, Government agencies, Māori wardens, Community Patrols of New Zealand, ratepayers' and residents' groups, business associations, social service providers, and the local MP to develop and implement a coordinated strategy to make Auckland the safe and vibrant city it should be. Since that first meeting, the Ministry of Social Development, Police, and Kāinga Ora have been working together to open doors for police to connect with more community providers, enabling police to find the right support for the right situation.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What results has that work brought about?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Since 1 July, 97 people have been referred by police for support with accommodation, addiction, and family wellbeing. Additionally, there has been a 68 percent drop in the number of households in emergency housing in the Auckland CBD. This has enabled the exit of two emergency housing motels in the CBD. While some trends are starting to move in the right direction, there is still an enormous amount of work to do.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): E te Māngai o te Whare, ngā mihi o Te Wiki o te Reo Māori ki a koe. [To the Speaker of the House, greetings of Māori Language Week to you.]

SPEAKER: Ka pai.

11. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Will his changes to the rules for Buy Now Pay Later make things worse for the one in five New Zealand users who forgo essential spending such as paying bills or buying food to pay off these purchases?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): No, and I'd like to thank the member for the opportunity to talk about the great consumer protections that have just recently come into force. As the member will know, from 2 September, buy now, pay later services will be regulated under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, commonly referred to as CCCFA, which means they are now operating under the same protective umbrella as other credit products such as credit cards or personal loans. The key elements are, first, buy now, pay later providers must comply with responsible lending rules, ensuring that consumers are treated fairly and ethically. Second, when consumers sign up or request an increase in their credit limit, buy now, pay later providers must undertake credit checks. Third, buy now, pay later providers must disclose their key terms, including their default fees. Fourth, buy now, pay later providers must join an external dispute resolution scheme. And, finally, buy now, pay later providers must also offer relief for those experiencing financial hardship.

SPEAKER: Another extremely long answer, well beyond the scope of the question that was asked.

Arena Williams: Given that was a long answer, may I have another to test the Minister's ability to opine?

SPEAKER: No.

Arena Williams: Does he know that one in six New Zealand users of buy now, pay later have incurred a soon to be deregulated, under his changes, default fee?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: It's an interesting comment, particularly the assertion in the primary question, which I didn't pick up on—which I will now address, given the question—but it's interesting that Afterpay report that 95 percent of their customers paid on time in the first quarter of this year. This is broadly in line with Centrix's figure. That data showed that only 8 percent of people missed the payment—i.e., 92 percent hit the payment—and that, of all of Afterpay's people, only 1 percent applied for an application for full financial hardship, and all of them were granted relief from those payments because the default fee is also capped, and if a payment is missed, then the account is suspended until the overdue payment is made. That is why these are good provisions and they will protect consumers.

SPEAKER: It's an answer to a question, not a speech to the House.

Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his long answer, but he didn't answer my question. May I ask it again?

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, I think given the brevity of your question, he did answer it but then carried on far too long and you perhaps lost it, because it could have been a cure for insomnia, the way it was being presented. If you have another supplementary, then please ask it.

Arena Williams: Does he know that Zip users, who could tap and go 10 purchases of $5, may be charged $400 in default fees over seven weeks because of his changes?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: That's not correct.

Arena Williams: Is it a good idea to loosen up on credit regulation at a time when financial hardship cases are up 27 percent, sitting at 13,850 for July?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: As I said before, 99 percent of people who use buy now, pay later actually meet all their payments, and the 1 percent who have applied for hardship have all been granted proper full relief for their situation.

Arena Williams: Is it true that he tried to protect consumers, as he says, by preventing buy now, pay later providers from charging excessive fees if he was only to be overruled by David Seymour?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The reason why we made the exception for buy now, pay later is that we wanted to protect this as an important source of finance for people, and the model did not work under the CCCFA provisions as they were currently proposed. That's why we accepted them, because we think it's important that people have access to buy now, pay later services and most people—99 percent—use it very responsibly.

Question No. 12—Māori Development

12. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) to the Minister for Māori Development: Kei te whakaae ia ki te Tumuaki o Whakaata Māori kua kī nei ko ngā panonitanga pūtea mō Whakaata Māori i hua mai i ngā "kaupapa here Kāwanatanga e huri haere ana"; mēnā āe, kei te tau ia ki te whakaaro ko ngā hua o aua kaupapa here kia huri te hongere reo Māori ki te ipurangi anake, me te whakawhāiti i te haumitanga ki ngā kaupapa Māori?

[Does he agree with the chief executive of Whakaata Māori, who said the funding changes for Whakaata Māori were the result of "shifting Government policies"; if so, is he comfortable that Government policies are resulting in te reo television channel becoming online-only and reduced investment in Māori content?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Kua kitea hoki ngā piki me ngā heke o ngā pūtea tautoko mō Whakaata Māori. Ia te Kāwanatanga ka nukunuku mai, ka nukunuku atu, ehara i te tikanga hou. Heoi anō e tautoko ana au i te poari me te kāhui kaihautū o Whakaata Māori. Ehara māku, mā rātou anō e whiriwhiri i te huarahi tika mō te whakahaere o te hōngere Te Reo Māori ki te ipurangi anake, me te mea nei koirā hoki tā rātou i wawata ai i tērā tau. Kei te ipurangi te marea.

[The rise and fall of the support funding for Māori TV has been observed. With each successive Government it shifts back and forth; this is nothing new. However, I support the board and the executive leadership of Māori TV. It is not for me; it is for them to choose the appropriate path for the administration of the reo Māori channel online-only, and that is what they aspired to last year. Everyone is on the internet.]

Hūhana Lyndon: He āwangawanga nōna mehemea te whakawhāiti ia i tēnei pūtea mō te hōtaka Māori me te whakakāhore i te hōngere Reo Māori kei raro e putu ana tēnei ture reo o Whakaata Māori nei 2004? Ki te kore, he aha i pērā ai?

[Is he concerned that if this funding for the Māori channel is reduced and the reo Māori channel is disestablished, this Māori TV legislation from 2004 will be defeated; if not, why not?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Me kī au i konei kei te whaiwhai haere mātou i te huarahi i whakatakotoria ai e te Minita tawhito kei tērā taha o te Whare, me te mea nei kāore mātou i te tapahi i te huarahi pūtea, engari kei te whaiwhai hoki i te tauira i whakaritea mai ai e tērā Kāwanatanga. Heoi anō māku e kī atu ki te hunga pātai, kaua e riro mā te Kāwanatanga tō tātou reo e whakaohooho, engari me riro hoki mō tō whānau, mō tō hapori, mō tō marae e whakatenatena, e whakakenakena hoki i te whirikōkō.

[I should say here that we are following the path that was laid down by the previous Minister on that side of the House, and we are not cutting the funding pathway, but instead are following the precedent that was set by that Government. However I will say to the person who asked the question, don't leave it up to the Government to awaken our language, but instead it should be up to your family, your community, your marae to encourage and inspire the songbirds.]

Hūhana Lyndon: Kei te whakaae ia, te Minita, mō ngā whakataunga kerēme WAI11 e kīia nei, "the Māori language is an essential part of Māori culture, and must be regarded as a taonga, a valued possession"? Mehemea e whakaae ana te Minita, he aha te take kei te whakaiti i ngā pūtea mō Whakaata Māori?

[Does he, the Minister, agree with the WAI11 settlement claim that says, "the Māori language is an essential part of Māori culture, and must be regarded as a taonga, a valued possession"; if the Minister is in agreement, what is the reason for the reduction in funding for Māori TV?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ehara nā mātou—

SPEAKER: Sorry; we're still getting the translation.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ka pai.

SPEAKER: Please start again.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ehara nā mātou i whakariterite mai i te huarahi pūtea nei, engari nā te Kāwana tawhito i whakarite mai ai kia iti iho te pūtea ka whakapaua ki tēnei take. Engari me mōhio hoki te Whare, te ana o te raiona nei, tēnei take, te Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Entity, he mahi moumou moni, moumou pūtea, moumou kaupapa ki te pō.

[It was not us that arranged this financial path, but instead it was the prior Government that arranged for the reduction in funding to be spent on this issue. But the House, this den of lions, should be aware that this issue, the Aotearoa New Zealand public media entity, is an endeavour that wastes money, wastes funding, and wastes initiatives in the darkness.]

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister going to stop blaming the previous Government and show some courage and make a bid for Whakaata Māori next year, or is he going to do nothing?

SPEAKER: I'll tell you what, you can reword the question. You do not question anyone's courage in this House.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister be going back next year to ask for more money for Whakaata Māori?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kei te mōhio te hunga whakarongo, te hunga mātakitaki e kaha ngana ana au ki te pātai atu, ki te tautoko atu ki te whakanui i te pūtea ki tō mātou Manu Pūtea, a Nicola Willis. Engari me mōhio hoki ka tika, ka nui te whakamoumou i te pūtea i tērā Kāwana tawhito.

[The listeners and watching audience are aware that I am trying hard to question and to support the increase in funding with our Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis. But it is appropriate to also be aware that that previous Government wasted a lot of funding.]

Hūhana Lyndon: Kei a wai te hē mō te iti rawa o te pūtea mō Whakaata Māori? Kei roto i tēnei Tahua Pūtea tonu, 2024 tonu, kei te tari Kāwanatanga, kei a ia raini?

[Who is at fault for the very small funding allotted to Māori TV; is it this Budget 2024, is it the Government department, or is it him?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kua kitea hoki neke atu i te $142 miriona ka whakapaua ki ngā ohu e whā. Kāore anō mātou kia iti ake i te pūtea i whakaritea i tērā tau, engari ko tāku e mea atu ana i tēnei wā, koinei hoki te wero mō ngā mema Pāremata o tērā taha: kaua e riro mā te Kāwanatanga me ā koutou pahupahu e whakanui te pūtea.

[It has been seen that more than $142 million has been spent on four entities. We have not yet reduced the funding that was arranged last year, but what I am saying at this time is that this is indeed the challenge for the members of Parliament on that side—don't leave increasing the funding up to the Government and your ranting.]

Hūhana Lyndon: Ko te pātai whakamutunga, e te Māngai. E te Minita, he aha te anga whakamua mō Whakaata Māori mehemea kahore te pūtea e tino piki ana i tēnei tau, me ngā tau e tū mai nei?

[The last question, Mr Speaker. To the Minister, what is the future direction for Māori TV if the funding is not to be increased this year and the years that follow?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kei te mōhio hoki te hunga whakarongo nei me te Kāwanatanga haumi ki tāku e wawata ana, ki te āta pītaritari ki tō mātou Manu Pūtea kia nui ake te pūtea, heoi anō ka riro mā te Kāpenata me te Kāwanatanga hoki e whakarite te kaute, me te mōhio hoki ahakoa ngā kōrero hōhonu, kakī hōhonu o tērā taha o te Whare, e kaikā ana mātou ko ngā tāngata pēnei i a Matua Tararā nei ki te whakatakoto i te reo Māori, ehara i te reo pahupahu.

[The listening audience and the coalition Government are aware of my aspiration to carefully encourage our Minister of Finance to increase the funding; however, it is up to Cabinet and the Government also to arrange the accounts, and we are aware that despite the deep discussions, and the hot air of that side of the House, we and people like Minister Jones here are keen to lay out the Māori language, not mere rants.]

Hon Shane Jones: Mehemea he whā kē ngā pou kia whakatairangatia ai te reo Māori, kua rite rānei te wā me whakawhāiti i aua poupou e whā kia kaua rawa atu te pūtea e moumoutia, otirā me waiho kia whakatōpūngia kātahi ka whiwhi pūtea a Pouaka Whakaata Māori, mā te whakahiato i aua poupou e whā?

[If there are indeed four pillars of revitalisation of the Māori language, has the time then come to amalgamate those four pillars so that the funding is not at all wasted; indeed should they be combined and then funding can be distributed to Māori TV, by combining the four pillars?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Tāria te wā he kaupapa tērā hei wānangatanga mā ngā ohu me ngā hapori maha e kaikā ana ki te whakanui i tō tātou reo. Engari mō tēnei wā, nau mai ki te Wiki o te Reo Māori. Kia kaha te kōrero, āke āke āke.

[At the appropriate time, that is a subject for the boards and many communities that are keen on celebrating our language to discuss. But for the time being, welcome to Māori Language Week. Speak the language, for ever and ever.]

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill.

© Scoop Media