Sitting date: 19 September 2024

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Biosecurity

1. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent reports has he seen about the value of New Zealand's robust biosecurity system?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this month, the Government released an independent economic assessment that underlines the magnitude of the economic risk we face from an incursion of foot-and-mouth disease and how important it is that we respond quickly and decisively. The analysis found that if even a minor incursion of foot-and-mouth disease was found here, our access to foreign markets for animal products would stop, and that the cost to our economy would be $1.5 billion in export revenue per month, demonstrating just how important the primary sector is to this country. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research estimated that if we did nothing to return to normal trade, nominal GDP would fall by 11 percent.

Mark Cameron: What has the Government done in response to receiving this analysis?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: This analysis informed Cabinet's decision to confirm that stamping out foot-and-mouth disease, if it ever gets here, is the most economically viable option, despite the significant cost of a response to both the Crown and the livestock industry. We have assured farmers and the wider economy that there won't be any mucking around; we will just get down to work to get rid of it and to get back to normal production and trade as soon as possible.

Mark Cameron: What other key insights does the Minister take from this analysis?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: First of all, that the best way to respond to an incursion of any significant disease is to keep it out in the first place. So the Government will continue to invest in a robust biosecurity system with the highest border standards in the world. It's also occurred to me that I've heard some members of this House minimise the primary sector's contribution to the economy, but with a total projected annual loss of $14.3 billion—

Mark Cameron: How much?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —per year for the disease—that's right, $14.3 billion per year—that will directly affect only part of the sector, what this analysis shows is that farmers and rural businesses continue to underpin the living standards of all New Zealanders. On this side of the House, as we can hear, we obviously recognise that.

Question No. 2—Transport

2. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā koutou e te Whare. Ka takahuri noa tāna ture whakatau pae tere (2024), e whakaarohia nei, i ngā whakahekenga pae tere anake "where it is safe to do so"?

[Will his proposed setting of speed limits rule (2024) only reverse speed limit reductions "where it is safe to do so"?]

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: The Government is reversing Labour's blanket speed limit reductions on local streets, arterial roads, and State highways that have had their speed limits reduced since 1 January 2020, and restoring their speed limits to what was in place on 31 December 2019. The draft rule will also require slower speeds around all schools during pick-up and drop-off times to keep young New Zealanders safe. As the member will be aware, section 164(2)(c) of the Land Transport Act 1998 requires the Minister to have regard to the level of risk existing to land transport safety in New Zealand when finalising the Government's new speed limit rule. As the member will also be aware, the new rule has not yet been signed, but I can assure the member that the Minister will be taking safety into account as part of the process of signing the new rule.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why is the Government continuing with this policy after receiving a letter from over 100 road safety experts, including former Ministry of Transport Chief Science Adviser Simon Kingham, who said in the letter, "We strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed blanket speed limit increases. Should this rule be adopted, the tragic consequence will"—

SPEAKER: Just ask a question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: —"be more New Zealanders losing their lives"—

SPEAKER: Just ask a question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: —"or suffering severe injury,"?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, we welcome feedback. That's why we went out for consultation. Up to two-thirds of New Zealanders supported the direction of travel. That's why the Minister is required to consider safety under section 164 of the Land Transport Act. Safety outcomes have, and will be, continued to be considered before the rule is finalised.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he listen to the many local councils who opposed these rule changes, like Kāpiti Coast District Council, who stated in their submission, "we believe the changes proposed are illogical and irresponsible." and "reduce the safety of our roads, place yet another unfunded mandate on councils, and puts business and economics above the safety of our children."?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, we have to remind ourselves here, we are only returning the speed setting rule back to 2019. Up to two-thirds of New Zealanders supported that direction of travel, and, as said in the answer to the primary question, as the member will be aware, the Minister has to take regard of the level of risk existing to land transport safety in New Zealand when finalising the Government's new speed limit rule, as set out under section 164(2)(c).

Hon Julie Anne Genter: What does he say to Hamilton City Council, who in their submission stated, "none of the proposals for reversing speed limit reductions have a safety assessment associated with them. International evidence is very conclusive that increasing speed limits exponentially increases [the] safety risk."?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, if we want to talk about international comparison, we can look at how our approach aligns with those of other high-income countries that have the lowest rates of road deaths—including Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, where these six countries all have default speed limits of 50 kilometres per hour or more on urban roads, with exceptions for lower speeds. That's what we're doing.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister deny that the chance of a pedestrian surviving when hit by a car at 30 kilometres an hour is around 90 percent, whereas the chance of surviving at 50 kilometres an hour drops to only 20 percent, and will he acknowledge that the reversals of speed limit reductions that were determined by local communities and councils will jeopardise community safety?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, the Ministry of Transport undertook an interim regulatory impact analysis to support the new speed rule. The Ministry of Transport advised that reversing reduced speed limits would likely result in an increase in the average speeds of these roads. Where the average speed increases, the risk of fatal and serious crashes also increases. The ministry was unable to quantify the overall impacts, due to a range of uncertainties that dictate actual operating speeds on individual roads.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he commit to listening to the feedback from city councils, from road safety experts here in Aotearoa and around the world, to police, and to schools and communities, and change the final rule to allow communities to keep safer speeds where they wish to have them, particularly all day around schools?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, this Government will commit, as the member asked, to improving road safety on New Zealand's roads. We'll be focused on areas that cause the greatest fatalities, and we have already made changes to target road-policing funding and to implement legislation to support new oral-fluid testing on the side of the road. Later this year, the Government will be announcing its new road safety objectives. It is committed to safer roads in New Zealand.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. I'd like to table this document I received under the Official Information Act (OIA) from the New Zealand Transport Agency. It's crash data, which isn't publicly available, that shows speed—

SPEAKER: Well, hang on—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: —is one of the primary factors—

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: —in fatal and serious crashes.

SPEAKER: If it's not publicly available, why is it published on the internet?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Sorry, this table was released to me under the OIA. It is not available on the internet. This is a table that shows crash factors from 2014 to 2024, including alcohol and drugs—

SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: —and speed—

SPEAKER: —can the member just—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: —and a—

SPEAKER: That's fine—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: —number of other factors.

SPEAKER: Good. It's a great description, but why is that not available on the internet? I understood that such data is published by the ministry.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: I assure you, Mr Speaker, that we looked for this data. It wasn't available broken down in this way, and we asked for the information from the New Zealand Transport Agency. They provided us a very comprehensive table, which has crash data, including alcohol and drugs—

SPEAKER: Is it your analysis or theirs?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: —and speed as contributing factors. No, this is a table that was given to us by the New Zealand Transport Agency.

SPEAKER: I'll put the leave. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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, but with the usual caveats.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that today's GDP figures confirm that the economy has shrunk under his watch?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that is a stunning statement, because the reality is, what it confirms is that we inherited a horrible economy and it's going to take us some time to turn it around. Of course, some of us said that all the way through 2023 when they were borrowing money and tossing it around like an eight-armed octopus, which didn't save us at all; it made the situation so much worse. The journey back to recovery would be harder, but we're going to do it. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I'll just say to the Government backbench that the loud noise while the answer is being given actually deprives the public of the answer that they might like to hear.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much. Just for the clarity of the House, is the Rt Hon Winston Peters answering on behalf of the Prime Minister today?

SPEAKER: When he's here and the question is addressed to the Prime Minister, he answers as the Prime Minister.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that Kiwis do not see a future under his Government and are leaving in record numbers, with net 55,800 New Zealanders having left the country for the year ending July 2024?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of course, New Zealand is very concerned and the Government is concerned as well, but, of course, many of those people left because of the climate that was engaged without their permission or knowledge by November 2023, when 133,000 net had come into the country with no warning to the people of New Zealand about hospitals, schools, roads, or any infrastructure required to accommodate them. It's those circumstances that makes our battle so much more difficult to keep New Zealanders in New Zealand.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How does he reconcile the Government's target to reduce job seeker beneficiaries by 50,000 with an increase of 26,000 more beneficiaries since he took office?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you've got to look at the facts because a lot of facts, when they are put through the mind of a statistician, can be confusing. The reality is, we've seen a massive drop off of those people dependent upon the State, as a consequence of this Government, and we're out there now, all over the country, creating jobs with all sorts of policies, and we expect that the tide will turn. But we inherited a very, very sad economy and it wasn't going to be able to turn around overnight.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he acknowledge that the declining economy and widespread job losses under his watch have led to more people being on the benefit now than what Treasury had forecast to peak in January 2025?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Treasury getting the forecast wrong is not unusual. It's happened time and time again, including the state of the economy, and they were writing the books for the Labour Party. The moment the election was over, we found that the books were not accurate. It was so much worse. Many of us suspected that, and here's the point, really: the economy will be turned around. All the long-term forecasts now, by those in the know, including a number of economists, is that New Zealand is going to come right. But we're on a difficult trajectory. It'll be a hard battle, but, to quote a famous song, "help is on its way".

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that due to the declining economy and widespread job losses under his watch, the forecast is now far more grim, with jobseeker numbers forecast to rise to 214,000 in January 2025 instead of the previous Treasury forecast of 202,000?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If any of the inferences in that question were correct, why is business confidence going up? Why is confidence in the Prime Minister going up? Why is confidence in Ministers going up, and, over there, confidence going down, if any of her inferences in that question were remotely correct?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't feel like there was a correlation between the answer by the acting Prime Minister and the question asked, so I'm just questioning whether or not he actually addressed the question I put.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he did, but why don't you ask the question again and he can address it the same way?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that due to the declining economy and widespread job losses under his watch, the forecast is now far more grim with jobseeker numbers forecast to rise to 214,000 in January 2025 instead of the previous Treasury forecast of 202,000?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To quote someone who said this countless times, I reject the premises of that question. If any of it was true, then why is business confidence out there going that way [Points hand upwards], confidence in the Government going that way, confidence in the Prime Minister going that way, confidence in the Minister of Finance going that way, if any of the statements made then, in that question, on the premises I reject, were remotely true?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will he take responsibility for more Kiwis losing jobs, more Kiwis leaving New Zealand, and thousands more Kiwis needing welfare support instead of blaming others for what is clearly his fault?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I don't know what happened on Celebrity Treasure Island, but maybe it was a flight from reality. Though I do notice that what's very clearly from that programme is that this member is becoming very good—she's becoming very good—

Hon Willie Jackson: You wanted an invitation.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I turned it down. I've never done any of those things. Never been on women's magazines, never done all the kind of things that those members do.

Hon Member: They'd love you!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—no, we have a sense of pride in this political business. But my real point is, I've noticed on that programme she's showing a great acuity with numbers, which now that somebody's about to arrive in England very shortly, might come into play. I wish when she'd made those allegations she would apply it to her questions, because what she's saying is simply incorrect. To blame us for a shonky economy which we inherited is mind boggling.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Minister of Justice: E tautoko tonu ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa? Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Tēnā koe mō tō pātai. Yes, I stand by my statement on Monday that "We want to return the victims of crime to the heart of the justice system." A big part of that is denouncing illegal acts and ensuring there are real consequences for crime, which is why the Government this week introduced a sentencing reform package that does just that.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Does he stand by his post-Cabinet interview on Monday where he said he would not be comfortable with police having the power to search someone's home for a swastika, but he is comfortable with the police having the power to search someone's home for gang insignia?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I don't recall making that exact statement. I think the discussion was around a variety of other things put to me, and the answer I was saying was that this legislation—what we're talking about right here, right now—is about the Gangs Bill and the gang insignia. The desire was there to create a set of escalating consequences for people that repeatedly flouted the law. So one of those consequences would be that if you're convicted three times within five years for flouting the law about the gang patch ban, then you'll face some uncomfortable circumstances.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Why are hate symbols such as swastikas not included in the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill is about gangs and it's about gang patches, not a wide variety of signals. So that is the focus of it, and that's what we're doing, because we're concerned about the impact of gangs in our broader society. It might pay just to remind members that only about one in 400 adult New Zealanders are gang members—one in 400—yet they are associated with one in five serious violent crime offences and, actually, one in four kidnappings. So one in 400 are gang members, and roughly one in five serious violent crimes are associated with gang members.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Why are there no white supremacist gangs named in Schedule 2 of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I'm not going to get into details around what the Comancheros are and what the Mongols are in terms of their ideology. The gangs who are listed in the gang register are the gangs that are associated with the Gangs Bill. But I would encourage the member—if she's implying, like her colleague Tākuta Ferris did—that when we talk about gangs, we should not be jumping to the conclusion that we're talking about Māori in particular, of course, because the vast majority of Māori are not in gangs and the focus of this legislation is to reduce the number of victims of crime and Māori are more likely to be victims of crime. Dealing with gangs who peddle misery is in the benefit of all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Hon Tama Potaka: Mō te Minita o Te Tāhū o te Ture. Ki tō whakaaro, ka iti iho te tokomaha o ngā Māori ka tūkinotia mā tēnei pire?

[For the Minister of Justice. In your opinion, will the number of Māori being mistreated reduce due to this bill?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Āe.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, he's fluent now!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Tautoko!

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Does he agree that banning gang patches from marae and tangihanga is an invasion of mana motuhake, tikanga, and a gross breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, look, the purpose of this legislation is to ban gang patches from public places. It builds on the existing ban in relation to Government buildings, hospitals, and schools, which has been successful over the past few years, and it extends it to all public places. That includes some marae and some parts of marae, and that is because we are tired and New Zealanders are tired of the intimidation and fear caused by gangs. So we're very much focused across all of New Zealand to give people some relief.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How does he justify legislation that is a clear breach of human rights, such as freedom of association and expression, without any evidence that it will reduce harm in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, we accept that there are limits on freedom of expression, and we are limiting the freedom of expression of gang members to wear their patches in public. That's a statement of fact. But we're also concerned about the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to go about their lives without fear and without having to deal with the intimidation and the trouble and chaos and mayhem that gangs cause across our community. Like all Governments, we have to balance sometimes competing rights, and, in this case, we think it's absolutely appropriate to ban gang patches in public.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister concerned that illegal behaviour at a Manurewa marae is something that has to be addressed by the law enforcement agencies of this country?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, indeed, I am concerned.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What role does he believe Te Tiriti o Waitangi plays in the criminal justice system?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think the Treaty of Waitangi is part of our broader constitutional framework, and, as a Government, we seek to recognise commitments made in the Treaty and in Treaty settlements. We also recognise the basic human rights and expectations of all New Zealanders, particularly around equality of the law and their basic universal human rights. One of those fundamental human rights is to feel safe in the community in which you live, and this gangs legislation, alongside the sentencing reforms we're making and the many other things we're doing to restore law and order, are all focused on law-abiding citizens in this country being able to live in their communities feeling safe.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How, then, does he justify the removal of Treaty provisions from legislation that is designed to address Treaty breaches in the justice system, such as the Corrections Amendment Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: If the member is referring to the New Zealand First - National commitment in the coalition agreement around reviewing the Treaty references right across legislation, there is, I think, roughly 25 or 30 pieces of legislation that make references to the Treaty in a variety of ways—some give effect to, some have regard to, and a number of other formulations. The previous Government started a process to take stock of those and ask ourselves, as a Parliament: is that legislation fit for purpose? It's our intention to go through that in a careful and considered way and to be clear about what Parliament does and doesn't mean when references to the Treaty and Treaty principles are referred to in legislation. So that's a process that we'll be working our way through over the next few months.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This morning, Stats NZ released the GDP results for the June quarter, which ran from 1 April to 30 June this year. This showed that economic activity fell 0.2 percent compared to the previous quarter. This follows a string of mostly low and negative GDP results going back to late 2022. That was the point at which rising interest rates started to bite on economic growth.

Carl Bates: Was this negative result a surprise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, this result was not a surprise; it was well anticipated by economists and forecasters. For example, in its August Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank forecast negative 0.5 percent growth in the June quarter, considerably higher than this result. Other forecasters were also picking negative growth, and, looking ahead, the Reserve Bank is also forecasting negative 0.2 percent growth in the current September quarter.

Carl Bates: Why has economic growth been so low?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealand has endured a prolonged period of restrictive monetary policy. In response to the cost of living crisis, the Reserve Bank hiked interest rates sharply, with the official cash rate going from 0.25 percent in 2021 to 5.5 percent in mid-2023. The Reserve Bank judged that this was necessary to squeeze very high inflation out of the economy. It is of note that, at that time, interest rates were rising high even while the Government of the time continued to put cash into the inflation fire. This has meant very difficult times for many New Zealand families and businesses, and I acknowledge it is still tough for them. The good news is that inflation is coming down, and the cost of living crisis is easing. We are on the right track.

Carl Bates: What is the outlook for interest rates and economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Interest rates are still relatively high, but they are coming down earlier than forecast. The Reserve Bank reduced the official cash rate by 25 basis points last month and has set out a path for continued reductions. Lower interest rates will be a breath of fresh air for the economy. There will be a lag between interest rates reducing and growth picking up, but that will happen and the economy will start to grow again. That is good news for New Zealand families and businesses after years of low growth and high inflation.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Does she stand by her statement, "We are focused on supporting our economy to grow"; if so, how much has the economy grown since she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, absolutely, I stand by that statement. In answer to the second part of the question, GDP in the June 2024 quarter was 0.1 percent lower than in the December 2023 quarter. As I said in my earlier answer, the GDP data out today shows the impact of high interest rates. It follows a series of mostly low and negative GDP results going back to late 2022. The economy has been suffering the after-effects of a long, prolonged cost of living crisis and the Reserve Bank has kept rates high to tackle inflation. The good news is inflation is now easing, interest rates have fallen and are forecast to fall further, and, judged by business confidence surveys, difficult conditions are easing.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the fact that the economy has shrunk under her watch contributing to the record net migration loss of 55,800 New Zealand citizens?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I believe one of the very reasons the three parties on this side of the House were elected was because New Zealanders could see their economy was being terribly mismanaged. We were elected on a platform to fix it, to bring fiscal discipline back, to bring economic rigour back, to get back on the side of businesses so that they can invest and grow and hire people, to reduce red tape, and to deliver infrastructure. We are doing all of those things so that New Zealand can face better economic prospects.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, when the Government wants to take credit for inflation coming down, won't she accept responsibility for the downturn in economic activity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I've outlined in some detail in the answers to the questions I have had in the House today, New Zealand has gone through a prolonged period of restrictive monetary policy. I was not the finance Minister in the Government that chose to do record levels of increases to Government spending when inflation was at record highs. And when I reflect on that decision, I have no doubt that that contributed to the Reserve Bank lifting interest rates higher and keeping them higher for longer. On our watch, inflation has come back into band quicker than many forecast, and interest rates have come down a year earlier than had been forecast. I will take accountability for that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it the case that her decision to make significant cuts and cancel infrastructure projects is making the downturn worse than it needs to be?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. This year the New Zealand Government will oversee a record level of infrastructure investment. And I would also say to the member that it is difficult to take these questions seriously when only months ago she was warning me that tax relief would be inflationary and that our Budget was too expansionary. She cannot have it both ways, members. She cannot both claim that we spent too much in the Budget and then a couple of months later say we should have spent more. Which is it? Would the real finance spokesperson for the Opposition please stand up.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as the Hon Barbara Edmonds talked about infrastructure projects being cancelled, does she recall and understand, and has she made her colleagues aware of how serious it was to have spent $1.2 billion on an infrastructure project called light rail in Auckland and not build one metre?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy Prime Minister raises a very good point. It is something that I lament often when I think of the hundreds of millions and billions that were wasted on go-nowhere projects: light rail, three waters, the list goes on. And, on this side of the House, when we talk about investing in infrastructure, we don't mean putting visualisations of trains on the front page of the Herald; we mean building things. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Stop! Everyone just calm down.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. We've discussed a number of times in question time the use of patsy questions from Government parties to Government Ministers for the purpose of making a political point, and you have agreed previously that that sort of behaviour is not good for the decorum of the House. It comes as no surprise to me that some members were reacting to that question and that answer.

SPEAKER: Well, I'm happy that you weren't surprised, but I've also said that it's not inappropriate for the Government of the day to refer to activities of a previous Government in the context of the questions being asked, and that most certainly was. Is there another question?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it the case that when there is a downturn in the economy and a growing output gap, Government action can help to smooth the troughs in the economic cycle, and does she not need to actively make it worse?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there is no doubt that Government action can contribute to an economy's fortunes. That is really clear to anyone who's had to face a huge spike in electricity prices this year who will reflect that, for example, a Government policy decision to stop oil and gas exploration has had some long-run impacts. At the same time, actions like introducing legislation which will allow for fast-track permitting and consenting of major growth-enhancing developments for New Zealand will have a material impact. This is a Government on the side of growth, on the side of development, that is removing red tape and doing everything we can to increase business confidence and investment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Going from the Hon Barbara Edmonds' question on infrastructure projects being closed down, what was the cost for the cycleway over the Harbour Bridge in Auckland costing $54 million and not one—

Shanan Halbert: What's the cost of iReX cancellation?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What'd you say?

Shanan Halbert: What's the cost of iReX cancellation?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You'll hear about iReX shortly, but in the meantime it's going to be the cycleway over the Harbour Bridge: did it not cost $54 million for not one metre being built?

SPEAKER: There's no need to answer that question, because the question actually contained its own answer. Do we have another question, the Hon Barbara Edmonds? Then we go to question No. 7.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to restore law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government is taking many actions to restore law and order. Just this week, the sentencing amendment package was announced and introduced, Minister McKee and I appointed the remaining members of the ministerial advisory group for the victims of retail crime, and today we are making further progress to pass the Gangs Bill and Sentencing Amendment Bill.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How will the sentencing reform package contribute to the restoration of law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government is concerned that in recent years, courts have imposed fewer prison sentences and, at the same time, the prevalence of violence and serious crime in our communities has increased. We 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 will ensure that they have access to rehabilitation to turn their lives around.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How will the ministerial advisory group for victims of retail crime contribute to the restoration of law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the ministerial advisory group for the victims of retail crime is moving at pace to develop specific proposals for the Government to consider as part of its plan to restore law and order, starting with options on how security guards and business owners can better protect themselves, and considering greater powers for security guards to detain thieves. The first proposals are due imminently.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: When the Minister said in oral question No. 10 yesterday, "I frequently converse with the Attorney-General.", was there actually specific consultation with the Attorney-General on the amendment inserting an offence of residing in a place where a gang patch is present into the Gangs Bill, or not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The amendment went through the Cabinet process, and the Attorney-General is part of the Cabinet and was certainly consulted as part of that.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How will the Gangs Bill contribute to the restoration of law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill are expected to pass today. When it comes into effect on 21 November, the Gangs Bill will give police additional tools to disrupt gang activity and reduce their ability to cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to law-abiding New Zealanders going about their lives. This legislation is a significant step towards making our communities safer.

Question Nos 2 and 8 to Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker. You observed question Nos 2 and 8, both from the Green Party. There seems to be something quite unusual going on here, because instead of it being in Māori and then English, or in English and then Māori, they've mixed the two up in both cases as if it's some sort of contempt for the proceedings and processes of this Parliament.

Chlöe Swarbrick: You're triggered.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, read it and have a look. Why is it in one language and then the next, but then mixed up in both cases—or are you just confused, as usual?

SPEAKER: OK, the question was raised yesterday, as well, and where there is a direct quote being used that's in te reo, you would expect it to remain in te reo in the translated language as it's a direct quote. It would be odd to have a direct quote quoted—it would no longer be a direct quote.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where's that in question No. 8—where's the exact quote in question No. 8?

SPEAKER: Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to go into a question and answer session on these. I've just said that the question is acceptable; we go through them extensively before they come into the House.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: E tautoko ana ia i tāna kōrero "one of the challenges that they clearly talked to me about—that I agree with in terms of removing the minimum wage exemption—is the fact that a group of New Zealanders, who have significant challenges and would clearly produce less in an hour than someone else, may well be shut out of employment"; mēnā āe, ka pēhea tā te āwhinatanga utu, te hoatu tāpiritanga nei ki ngā kaituku mahi, e ārahi ki te korenga mahi mā ngā tāngata?

[Does she stand by her statement that "one of the challenges that they clearly talked to me about—that I agree with in terms of removing the minimum wage exemption—is the fact that a group of New Zealanders, who have significant challenges and would clearly produce less in an hour than someone else, may well be shut out of employment"; if so, how would a wage supplement that would provide a top-up to employers lead to shutting people out of employment?]

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, the minimum wage exemption supports a small number of severely disabled people—around 900. The majority of people covered by the exemption also receive the supported living payment benefit because they are deemed to be unable to work in the open employment market. The Labour Inspectorate grants these limited exemptions only if reasonable and appropriate, the wage is fair, and the employee agrees. The social enterprises who employ people on this exemption do so to give disabled people social connection and confidence through employment. Many have said publicly that the proposed wage supplement scheme would pressure their operating models and reduce their ability to hire disabled New Zealanders. As I said, these are social enterprises—they deliver a social service.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can the Minister run through, step by step, how the Government topping up wages so that employers are no worse off put jobs at risk for disabled people?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Let me quote from the 2019 Cabinet paper where the wage supplement was proposed, to explain this to the member further: "A submission made by the MoreAble Network noted 'Additional funding for a wage supplement would substantially alter their financial model and risk some employers already under financial pressure due to a lack of funding being forced to close'. They also highlighted the perceived risk of a wage supplement resulting in some disabled employees being worse off due to losing benefit eligibility."

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that she is quoting outdated advice and that the wage supplement that she chose to remove would have looked more like a top-up for employers so that they are no worse off?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. The unfortunate reality is the social enterprises who run these employment schemes provided advice to the previous Government that is consistent with their advice to the current Government—that they do not support the wage supplement because it would risk the opportunity for people to be in work.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she stand by that comment when she didn't consult anyone, including disabled people, as part of the Budget process to prevent disabled people from at least earning the minimum wage?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in the House yesterday, there were many opportunities, many visits over many years that I undertook with disabled people, their families, as well as the social enterprises that run these schemes. Unfortunately, the reality is that these social enterprises didn't support the previous Government and they were very pleased to see the status quo maintained.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it true that the wage supplement would not have put jobs at risk, and, rather, that cutting the wage supplement was an exercise to cut costs to pay for tax cuts?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. I don't think I can make it any clearer. This was not about saving money; this was about saving jobs.

Question No. 9—Police

9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko tāku pātai i tēnei rā ki te Minita mō ngā Pirīhimana o Aotearoa: [My question today is to the Minister for New Zealand Police:] Did he receive reports from Police on the Comancheros or any other gangs and their associates using gun ranges to practise their shooting skills; if so, what did Police report?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Police: No.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Hmm, right—[Interruption] What assessment—[Interruption] What assessment did the Minister take before he and other Ministers approved the release of a discussion document that proposes to limit Police oversight of ranges and instead move to a system of self-regulation?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I missed the first part of that question.

SPEAKER: Yes, so did I.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What risk assessment did he take before he and other Ministers approved the release of a discussion document that proposes to limit Police oversight of ranges and instead move to a system of self-regulation?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister of Police, I think we have traversed this subject in terms of the level of advice and risk assessments that have been done through the standard legislative process. But I think, to clarify or perhaps elucidate for the member, what has been proposed around the firearms ranges is to remove a duplication of reporting. The concern the member has raised repeatedly is about the sale of ammunition from firearms ranges. That will still be required to be reported, and we have total faith in Minister McKee, in terms of her knowledge in this space, and we are continuing to prioritise firearms safety.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I believe—and over to you—that the point the Minister just made was that there is still a requirement for ammunition on ranges to be reported. The Order in Council that took effect on 28 June does exactly that: it no longer requires gun ranges to report the sales of ammunition on a range. So that point, from my understanding, is incorrect.

SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Hon Ginny Andersen: That I want to know—the Minister has made a statement there that, from my understanding—

SPEAKER: Sorry, you can't stand up and make a debating point and call it a point of order. Is there a point of order?

Hon Ginny Andersen: The Minister was incorrect.

SPEAKER: Well, that's not a point of order; it's a debating statement. I'm warning the member that wasting the House's time with this stuff is not good. Ask another supplementary and we'll move on.

Hon Nicole McKee: Speaking to that point of order—

SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order. So you'd be talking just because you want to, and I don't want to hear from you. Can we have the question, please?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware—

Hon Nicole McKee: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: You've now called a point of order? Can I ask you to make sure it's a point of order and not a debating point or a rebuttal of a debating point.

Hon Nicole McKee: Certainly, Mr Speaker. The point of order that I wish to make is that the question being asked to the Associate Minister on behalf of the Minister of Police should actually be directed at a different Minister. That Minister has no responsibility for that.

SPEAKER: Well, I'm sorry, but you are a Minister in the Government, and the Government makes the decision about who answers the questions. So that is a terrible condemnation of the Government's processes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: It had better be a point of order, because, I'll tell you what, the fuse is pretty short.

Hon David Seymour: Well, funnily enough, that's precisely the topic, Mr Speaker. I think—

SPEAKER: Sorry, I didn't hear that.

Hon David Seymour: Funnily enough, that's precisely the topic. I don't think a member who in good faith stands up to raise a point of order should be told by you, "I don't want to hear from you." I think we need higher standards of respect in this House, starting from you.

SPEAKER: Well, I'll tell you what, that is not an unusual comment to be made from the Chair to members in the House.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware of Police advice on Nicole McKee's proposed gun range changes, "We need to strengthen gang, criminal, and terrorist type risks that this repeal will cause"; if not, why not?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister of Police, yes, I am aware of the advice received from Police, and, as stated repeatedly, our priority is ensuring that gun safety is at the core of all decisions that this Government makes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware of Police advice on the changes already made to gun ranges that highlight a loophole created where criminals can now purchase ammunition with no records being kept; if not, why not?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As alluded to in my previous answer, to sell ammunition from a firearms range, they have to be an incorporated society. If they are an incorporated society, they must still report.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he explain himself to front-line officers and their families when we have, potentially, guns being used by gangs on ranges, he has stood silent as Nicole McKee has removed Police oversight of gun ranges as well as ammunition sales, and has taken no action when his own Police advisers have repeatedly raised the alarm about the risks of gangs and gang members and criminals practising on gang ranges and accessing ammunition?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. The first answer that member got was "No." Then, in this question, she premises it on the basis of potential gangs on ranges. Now, if that is the very basis of her question, that is a waste of Parliament's time. Potential—it either did happen or didn't happen, and she was told on question No. 1 that it didn't happen.

SPEAKER: Thank you for that. Does the Minister have any response to that?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, Mr Speaker, and I think the member has highlighted to this House why our gun legislation was in such disarray. An airsoft range is not a firearms range; it is—and there has been no reporting of the fact that any Comanchero gangs—there has been no reporting of firearms ranges. And, as I have stated in the primary answer, the Minister has not received any advice on the reporting of use of firearms ranges and that the follow-on, as reported, was that private farmland was used for live firing, as that was reported in the media. Further to this, this matter is before the courts at the moment, and it would be inappropriate to expand further on the information on this matter.

Question No. 10—Women

10. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister for Women: How is the Government seeking to improve the lives of New Zealand women and girls?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Acting Minister for Women): As we celebrate New Zealand becoming the first nation in the world to give women the right to vote on this day in 1893, I'm pleased to say that, 131 years later, our Government is very focused on improving the lives of women and girls. Alongside businesses, we're prioritising the delivery of a gender pay gap calculation tool to help shine a light on equal pay, we're increasing paid parental leave, and we have introduced the FamilyBoost payment to help meet the cost of early childhood education. Other key areas of focus for this Government include economic independence, increasing representation at all levels of leadership, educational attainment, and better health outcomes.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What is the Government doing to improve health outcomes for women and girls?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Earlier this year, we have announced that free breast cancer screening will be extended to women aged 70 to 74. This will mean around 120,000 more women will be eligible for screening every two years. This change is expected to save up to 65 lives a year. This is in addition to a $6.3 billion funding boost to Pharmac over the next four years to widen access to important and lifesaving medicines.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How is the Government helping to protect women?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In addition to making New Zealand a safer place for everyone by restoring law and order, our Government is taking some specific actions to help protect women and girls. The Ministry for Women is working with Netsafe to create a support tool kit for workplaces who are supporting women in leadership positions, particularly in the public eye. We have committed to introducing legislation to criminalise stalking because we know that women are disproportionately impacted by this. It is a terrifying crime for victims that nobody should have to endure and we are sending a very clear message that it will not be tolerated in New Zealand, nor will any violence against women.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko taku pātai kei roto i te reo Māori. Ki te whakaaro tātou mō te kaupapa e kīia nei "mana wahine kaupapa inquiries" kei runga i te whārangi ipurangi o te Manatū Wahine, he aha ngā mahi a tēnei Kāwanatanga ki te whakapiki i te ora o ngā wāhine me ngā kōtiro Māori?

[Thank you to the Speaker of the House. My question is in the Māori language. If we think about the initiative known as "mana wahine kaupapa inquiries" on the webpage of the Ministry for Women, what are this Government's actions to increase the health of Māori women and girls?]

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I outlined, some of the work that the Ministry for Women is doing around protecting women, about lifting educational attainment, that is for women equally, whether they are Māori, non-Māori, or any other ethnicity.

Camilla Belich: How does shutting down the pay equity task force and stopping work on pay transparency improve the lives of New Zealand women and girls?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said very clearly, we are looking at practical solutions, like the gender pay calculation tool, that make a difference today.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What work is the Government doing to reduce the gender pay gap for women?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In June, we announced the Government is working alongside businesses to develop a gender pay gap calculation tool, which will help ensure that women are being paid fairly. Under the previous National Government, the gender pay gap decreased from 12 percent to 9.7 percent in 2017. Unfortunately, since 2017, it has only moved down to an 8.2 percent gap. We have a strong history of reducing the gender pay gap in New Zealand, and our Government's track record clearly shows that we are a party that is backing New Zealand women to succeed.

Question No. 11—Foreign Affairs

11. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does the Government believe that the Israeli deadly sabotage by remotely detonated communication devices in Lebanon was wrong; if so, is this more evidence that his Government should recognise Palestine without further delay in support of rules-based order so that a wider war in the Middle East can be avoided?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of these particular incidents while the details are still being established, but New Zealand is deeply concerned by any and all of the actions in the Middle East which contribute to an escalation of violence and instability. We repeat our call on all parties to exercise restraint to avoid a wider war.

Hon David Parker: When will the New Zealand Government recognise Palestine—not Hamas—given that many months ago he said it was a question of when, not if, and since then Israel has resisted calls for a ceasefire, perpetuating the war the Minister himself has called an utter catastrophe, which has turned Gaza into a wasteland, and many other countries, including Ireland, Spain, and Norway have recognised Palestine?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I thank the member for that question because just overnight, on the question of Palestinian recognition, New Zealand voted to support a UN General Assembly resolution affirming our longstanding position that Israel's presence in the occupied Palestine territories is unlawful.

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question wasn't about the legality or otherwise of the occupation of the West Bank; it was the recognition of Palestine.

SPEAKER: Perhaps if you could ask the question again, without losing any of your other questions.

Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When will the New Zealand Government recognise Palestine—not Hamas—given that many months ago he said it was a question of when, not if, and since then Israel has resisted calls for a ceasefire, perpetuating the war the Minister himself has called an utter catastrophe, which has turned Gaza into a wasteland, and many other countries, including Ireland, Spain, and Norway have recognised Palestine?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reason why the overnight resolution that New Zealand voted for was mentioned is because it fundamentally signals our strong support for the two-State solution and an independent Palestine. It is a matter of when, not if, New Zealand will recognise Palestine statehood, but to say, as some have said, that it must be evacuated in the space of one year—these unrealistic statements might be a sop to some people's consciences, but people out there want real help, and that's what we're trying to give them.

Hon David Parker: Will he now instruct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to intervene in the South African actions before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the war, as New Zealand did in the ICJ proceeding concerning Ukraine and Russia?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If the member had signalled that, I'd have come with a prepared answer, and I haven't. I'll get back to him on it.

Hon David Parker: Did he express any concern that US military aid is fuelling the war in Gaza when he recently met with US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I've missed one word you said there.

Hon David Parker: I apologise for that. Did he express any concern that US military aid is fuelling the war in Gaza when he recently met with US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that in this conversation, which was private, nevertheless, those who are engaging in the provision of armaments—and all manner of countries are—yes, that was part of our subject, but not just one country—what about the others that are involved as well?

Simon Court: Does the Minister accept Israel has the right to defend itself from constant rocket and drone attack by Hezbollah across its northern border with Lebanon that's displaced 60,000 civilians, killed a dozen children playing soccer, and what limits, if any, does the Minister consider should apply to small democracies like Israel defending itself from constant terror attack?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I thank the member for his question. New Zealand recognises Israel's right to defend itself, but Israel must respect international law, including international humanitarian law, and the price of defeating Hamas or others cannot be the continuous suffering of so many Palestinian civilians.

Hon David Parker: Will he undertake to this House that when he's in New York next week, he will express New Zealand's concern, either in the UN or directly to the US, that US military aid is fuelling the war in Gaza and undermining wider support for the rules-based order?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me tell the member that I've yet to write the speech, but if we were to even mention one country involved, we'd mention all those involved and not just pick on one and try and excuse our conscience that way. I don't think that in any way advances the sincerity of New Zealand's position.

Question No. 12—Mental Health

12. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made regarding the roll-out of a school-based mental health wellbeing programme in the Hawke's Bay and Tairāwhiti regions?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): I was pleased to have recently announced in Napier that the Government has committed to the sustainable funding and roll-out of school-based mental health support in the Hawke's Bay and Tairāwhiti regions. Mana Ake is a school-based mental wellbeing programme that, following Cyclone Gabrielle, will help primary and intermediate - aged school children learn skills such as coping with change, managing emotions, building positive relationships, and overcoming grief and loss.

Katie Nimon: How will this announcement benefit young people in Hawke's Bay and Tairāwhiti?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: That's a good question. I'm committed to increasing access to mental health and addiction support. I'm pleased that once this programme is fully rolled out, around 25,500 students across more than 130 primary and intermediate schools across the Hawke's Bay region will receive school-based mental health support. I'm of the opinion that one of the key barriers to accessing timely mental health support is our workforce, and that is why, as the Minister for Mental Health, I'm committed to growing the workforce. This programme offers a diverse workforce, including a mix of clinical and non-clinical staff such as psychologists, social workers, counsellors, teachers, and peer support workers.

Katie Nimon: How do programmes like Mana Ake deliver better mental health outcomes for young people in need?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Strengthening the focus on prevention and early intervention is one of my key priorities. We know that getting in early gives the best opportunity. School-based mental health programmes such as Mana Ake help our young people to build resilience and coping strategies and help set up young New Zealanders to maintain better mental wellbeing throughout their lives.

Katie Nimon: Why is the Government needing to invest in this programme when it was only set up last year?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Good question. This programme was announced in May last year without any sustainable funding, and faced being wound back and stopped by December if further funding was not found. The Government has committed to sustainable funding for the programme which will ensure these crucial services remain intact and available for young people needing mental wellbeing support. With the trauma that Cyclone Gabrielle and other weather-related events have inflicted on these communities, it beggars belief that these services were announced by the last Government with no funding.

Ingrid Leary: Why hadn't he already personally stepped in to stop the hiring freeze impacting the mental health front line, as he said he would yesterday, when there has already been widespread reporting and evidence of a hiring freeze on mental health nurses in Southland, hospital commissioning and specialist services, and in psychiatry?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, it's very clear: people shouldn't believe Ingrid Leary's communications points.

Ingrid Leary: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you probably anticipate my point of order. I think that the member—

SPEAKER: No, I can't. I'm waiting with bated breath.

Ingrid Leary: The member has implied that I have been dishonest, and I think that is, under Speaker's rulings—[Another member points to Speaker's Rulings] Thank you. Sorry, I can't read it. What is it? Ha, ha!—43/4, and I think he should withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Well, we're dealing with matters around this at the present time. I can let you know that the statement was not a direct questioning of the member. It was, effectively, an instruction to other people. But I will look at it further and I always take advice. [Receives advice] Yeah, good, well, I'm not sure what that means. So can I undertake, to the member, to have a look at it and come back on Tuesday. Thank you.

© Scoop Media