Sitting date: 13 February 2025

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Māori Development

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Taku pātai—

Hon Shane Jones: Tell the truth.

SPEAKER: Hang on—just a minute. Normally, if we were in the middle of yesterday, the member who just called out would be going. Do not speak while a question is being asked, and restrain any interjections that people might think are necessary.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Hang on. We've got a point of order. Sorry, Tākuta. We'll just hear the point of order from the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Apologies to the member. Is it the case that your clear directions to the House are cleared at the start of each sitting day so that they don't apply with the same weight that they were given? My concern is that you made it very clear to the House yesterday that, if members were going to disregard your clear decisions and instructions and call out during questions and points of orders, you would be forced to take action. My concern in this instance is that not only was that disregarded, the content of the interruption, accusing a member of being untruthful, is surely in itself unparliamentary.

SPEAKER: To be quite honest with you, I didn't pick up that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It was, "Tell the truth."

SPEAKER: OK. Well, that makes it somewhat difficult. I'm not going to retrospectively look at things but will most certainly be very much vigilant from this point.

1. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he believe this Government is upholding its obligations to Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Āna, yes. In the past week alone, we've seen many examples of this Government upholding the responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi—for example, Minister Goldsmith attending Kororipo Pā to encourage the return of Kororipo Pā to Ngāti Rēhia as a catalyst for the Ngāpuhi settlement; Minister Stanford announcing structured literacy and numeracy materials in te reo Māori out at Panguru; Minister Mitchell and Minister Watts attending Mātihetihe Marae, out at Mitimiti, to activate further funding for a climate change pilot project; Minister Jones announcing various Regional Infrastructure Fund support for marae up in Northland; Minister Seymour and other Ministers, old and new, from many sides of this House, attending the reopening of Tipene in Bombay and announcing it as a charter school. As kāwana, we won't always agree with rangatira throughout the motu. We could all do better. But the key is to keep engaging respectfully, in the same waka, in a timely manner, to uphold the responsibilities of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

SPEAKER: Just let me be clear that interjection from the Government side is not immune to the same response that would come should it become excessive from the other side of the House.

Tākuta Ferris: Does the Minister believe that we would be having the current debate around the Treaty principles bill if elected members of Parliament were required to undergo elementary, basic history, and Te Tiriti training?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am absolutely encouraging of all members, and in fact all New Zealanders, to have a very basic and fundamental understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, a bilingual and bicultural document, which is the founding document of this great nation.

Tākuta Ferris: If the Minister's party is truly opposed to the Treaty principles bill, why are his colleagues questioning and badgering submitters who oppose the bill during the select committee process?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. This member is asking by way of a question a challenge to the select committee process, and he should be stopped in his tracks and asked to inform himself how this House and select committees are properly run.

SPEAKER: Look, I was about to say something when the member leapt to his feet, quite rightly. The point I would make is that the Minister is not responsible for what happens in select committee, nor is he responsible to the House for activities of his party; he is part of a coalition Government. You might want, without loss, to rephrase the question.

Tākuta Ferris: OK, tēnā koe. If the Minister's party is opposed—

SPEAKER: No, no, you can't start like that. He's got no responsibility in this House for his party.

Tākuta Ferris: Kei te pai, ka haere tonu. [That's OK, I'll continue.] Can he guarantee te iwi Māori that the proposed changes to the Public Works Act won't result in more Māori land being confiscated by the Crown?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I have announced in this Whare on many occasions, I can guarantee that my quest, and my parliamentary experiences now and into the future, is to ensure equality of opportunity and equal citizenship and to ensure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is recognised as the founding document of this nation.

Tākuta Ferris: Would he support the establishment of a parliamentary commissioner for Te Tiriti o Waitangi to ensure that all future legislation is compliant with Te Tiriti o Waitangi; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am absolutely committed to ensure I support Minister Goldsmith and others in this House to progress the settlements for various many historical Treaty claims. That is what I am absolutely supportive of.

Question No. 2—Infrastructure

2. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made about going for growth in infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): On Monday, the Prime Minister and I announced we'll be hosting an international investment summit in March, with about a hundred of the world's highest-profile investors in super funds, construction companies, engineers, and business leaders are coming. At the summit we will be showing that New Zealand is a country worth partnering with and is indeed open for business.

Ryan Hamilton: What is the purpose of the investment summit?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As has been a theme this year so far, we have to go for growth, because it's growth that provides the higher living standards that New Zealanders need. That means investment. That means being welcoming of foreign investment into New Zealand. It means saying yesto investment, innovation, ambition, and growth. We will be showcasing upcoming infrastructure opportunities for partnership and investment, as well as the Government's long-term infrastructure pipeline, and that pipeline is very important to give stability and certainty so that people have confidence in investing in New Zealand. And we'll also be highlighting some changes to policies, regulation, and legislation to make it easier to invest here. And we've already seen some of the changes under way by my good colleague Erica Stanford and other Ministers already, and there's more to come.

Ryan Hamilton: What other sectors will be involved in the summit?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It's not all about the Government. Actually, it's ambitious Kiwi businesses and iwi who are looking for better opportunities for them and New Zealanders. So the summit will be covering some growth sectors that the Government is excited about: renewable energy, advanced transportation, cleantech future fuels, and, of course—and Minister Jones will be pleased about this—the resources sector and the aquaculture sector, which, unlike other members in this House, the Government sees as real areas for potential future growth. We're also very excited that there will be a real feature on the Māori economy at the summit, and we have some exciting opportunities lined up there as well.

Ryan Hamilton: Why does New Zealand so desperately need this summit?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, saying no is easy. Actually, what New Zealand needs to do is say yes to more things. Our 30-year failure to embrace opportunities has produced anaemic levels of growth and lower productivity growth than we need to drive higher living standards. So this summit is about putting down a marker to the rest of the world and saying that New Zealand is here, we have fantastic opportunities here across infrastructure, across energy, across aquaculture, across resources, and we are here and ready to do business with the rest of the world, and we're going to start saying yes to these opportunities so we can grow our economy.

Simon Court: What are the benefits of allowing public-private partnerships (PPPs) to finance infrastructure, as set out in the ACT-National coalition agreement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there's quite a lot of myth making about PPPs. PPPs are run of the mill procurement methods that help attract smart capital, discipline, and expertise to New Zealand projects. And I note that despite a bit of criticism from members opposite in the past, they very quietly rolled over a few education and school public-private partnerships during their time in Government because they were working so successfully. And that's the point, is that they drive better performance from our assets and they have strong contractual incentives and requirements for on-time delivery service levels and asset maintenance. They're not always the answer. They won't always be the right thing to do but they're a part of a procurement tool kit and we're determined to use them when appropriate.

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: With the usual caveats, providing the premise is made in the same and providing the facts were made in the same, yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does driving a car up the steps of Parliament, after repeatedly being told that was prohibited, meet the standards that are expected of an incoming Deputy Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I think the answer to that question lies with the person three over to your right in the Speaker's Chair.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Mr Speaker—point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: It's OK. It's one of those days. I forgot what I was doing before, too. So, yeah, by all means, point of order.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I actually think that, as Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has responsibility for all of his Cabinet Ministers, including his Deputy Prime Minister and including his incoming Deputy Prime Minister. My question was to the Prime Minister on whether or not he thought it was an acceptable standard.

SPEAKER: Yes, OK. Ask the question again. We did establish that boundary yesterday. Please, ask the question again.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does driving a car up the steps of Parliament, after repeatedly being told that was prohibited, meet the standards that are expected of an incoming Deputy Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All the comments the Prime Minister wishes to make on this matter have been made. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: We'll have silence for the question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does advocating for a potential suspect in a murder investigation, thereby undermining the justice system's independence, meet the standards that are expected of an incoming Deputy Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the judgment being made on that standard is set against the actions of a sworn Minister of the Crown. In this case, they weren't; they were made by a backbench member of Parliament, and the standards and criteria are massively different. I suggest you ask Willie Jackson about that because he'd be very knowledgeable about it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does directing a child sexual abuse survivor to speak with the ACT Party's lawyer, rather than the police, after being abused by the ACT Party's then president, meet the standards that are expected of an incoming Deputy Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It has been pointed out that the proper place of complaint lay elsewhere. But, you know, people have their own experience, they all learn, and not everybody's a lawyer.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he loosen the rules to allow foreign non-residents to buy existing homes in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that that is not a matter that's currently on the present agenda. The last time that happened, of course, was in 2002, when the Labour Party did precisely that in their pre-trade deal with Singapore.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Winston Peters that "English should be a basic requirement of anyone coming into the country, unless they are genuine refugees", or does he agree with Erica Stanford that it's insulting to expect that of migrants who are "worth millions of dollars" and that "we don't need them to speak English"?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the reality is that those two Ministers were making statements about different matters. It's an awful conflict when you have to choose between two geniuses!

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is New Zealand's worst ever rating on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index a result of perceived interference from the tobacco industry, the mining industry, the fishing industry, the real estate industry, the childcare industry, the pharmaceutical industry, or all of the above?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest respect, and this is a more personal answer, the reality is that over many years the New Zealand rating was unjustified. Smack in the middle of the wine-box inquiry and the BNZ inquiry and every other fraud I saw, we were still rating number one and we've only slipped to number four.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you, sir. Quite regularly on a Thursday, I raise the point of order about the requirement for Ministers answering on behalf of other Ministers to make that clear in their answers. Now, that hasn't always been appreciated, and it certainly hasn't always been followed. But when the Deputy Prime Minister is answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, and then includes content which is quite clearly related to him personally—in fact, he stated that himself—this is where it becomes unclear. So, moving forward, I think, for the benefit of the House, it should be a requirement for Ministers, when answering on behalf of others, to state that clearly in their answers.

SPEAKER: Look, I think that's a fair thing. I think, though, that, as I understand it, the position has been, and I've been in that position, that when someone is answering questions in the House addressed to the Prime Minister, they answer those as the Prime Minister. I think the confusion comes here where there was a step away from that, in that last answer. Do you want to hear the answer again or rephrase it a different way, perhaps?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir, it's my understanding that when the Prime Minister is out of the country and when the Deputy Prime Minister is answering questions, they are then the Acting Prime Minister. But when the Prime Minister is still in the country, they are answering on the Prime Minister's behalf. Clearly, there's some misunderstanding there, and any clarity you could provide next week would be appreciated.

SPEAKER: Most certainly. I speak from my own experience of some years back, but I'll certainly clarify that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.

SPEAKER: Are you comfortable with those answers? Do you have another question?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is New Zealand's worst ever rating on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index a result of perceived interference from the tobacco industry, the mining industry, the fishing industry, the real estate industry, the childcare industry, the pharmaceutical industry, or all of the above?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that New Zealand is at number four at the present moment. The fishing industry has had the most comprehensive control regime set around it, announced the other day, and I'm shocked it got so little publicity, being the most comprehensive plan, and supported massively by people of this country who are concerned about the fishing industry. As for the tobacco industry, if they're complaining massively about the changes, then they can hardly be guilty of any corruption—only someone who doesn't understand how the world works would make those allegations now. The other thing I want to say is, when we were at the top of the so-called index, then the sharemarket crashed, of course—a period that member might remember—and of the world's worst 10 we had the sixth, and of the world's worst, we had all four. So here we go again with a judgment that was artificial all along, and rather than make these proud boasts, I think our country should be doing better to be a more corruption-free land.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just seeking some guidance from you, I waited till the end of the line of questioning so as not to interrupt my colleague. But given one of the answers that we heard on behalf of the Prime Minister referencing the wine box, I'm just seeking your guidance: does this mean that the Prime Minister is now subject to a line of questioning in this House around the wine box, given he has, essentially, given an answer that was about the wine-box inquiry.

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister can be asked about anything that occurs during his time here. I think the problem today is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters should have said at the start that he was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, and then I'd make the point that Ministers can't make personal statements—it's probably a choice of words and sort of a pedantic point, but not something I'd get too hung up on. But I would say the Opposition is never constrained in putting questions down on the sheet, other than by what is accepted by the Clerk's office.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Just a further point of clarification on the point of order, Mr Speaker. Absolutely accept your ruling, and not challenging that, but in terms of ministerial responsibility, it would be hard to say that our current Prime Minister had any ministerial responsibility for the wine-box inquiry, but now he is on record in this House giving an answer that references that inquiry. My question is: does that now mean that that is a line of questioning the Opposition can take with the Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: Look, that would be for the Opposition to decide whether they wanted to start talking about something that happened in the 1980s. It's their choice. But what I can—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Well, it's just a strange situation—

SPEAKER: Excuse me, I'm in the middle of speaking. Those statements were made on behalf of the Prime Minister in reference to a question about Transparency International's view of New Zealand. It's not unreasonable for a Minister, or the Prime Minister, or anyone acting for him, to reference historical events in support of their claim. Now, if the Opposition think that that means they should spend some of their questions in the weeks ahead digging into the depths of the wine-box inquiry, then that's something that they are welcome to.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has she made about the new traffic light system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week, I announced the addition of two non-financial sanctions to the traffic light system. Non-financial sanctions allow job seekers who fail to meet obligations for the first time to continue receiving their full benefit payments while still being required to complete activities such as the new Report Job Search, where job seekers must perform a minimum of three job-search activities every week for four weeks and report this to the Ministry of Social Development, and upskilling, where job seekers must attend and participate in employment-related training for at least five hours a week over a four-week period. It's important that beneficiaries who can work are taking reasonable steps to re-enter the workforce or remain work-ready and that consequences exist for those who don't.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is the Government introducing these sanctions?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This Government believes that a stronger economy depends on more people being employed. By introducing these sanctions, we aim to reduce welfare dependency and increase the number of Kiwis entering the workforce and then sharing in the benefits of economic growth.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the goal of adding these sanctions?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The goal is to hold beneficiaries accountable and ensure that they are making reasonable efforts to seek employment. The sanctions also aim to help individuals gain skills that will improve their chances of finding work so that they can be part of New Zealand's economic growth. It also means, and I remind the House, that job seekers can retain the full amount of their benefit instead of it being reduced.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How has the traffic light system been tracking?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There have been some really positive early results. Between July and December, more than 33,000 people moved off the jobseeker benefit into work, a 22 percent increase compared to the same period in 2023. It's also positive to see that 98.6 percent of clients are complying with their obligations, while only 0.4 percent are in orange and 1 percent in red.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Salvation Army's State of the Nation 2025 report that "During 2024, access to hardship grants was reducing as Work and Income tightened eligibility for assistance, at the same time as the number of children living in families needing this assistance was increasing"; if not, what are her expectations for how applications for hardship assistance are assessed and granted?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Eligibility requirements for food and other special needs grants haven't changed, and I have no plans to change them. As I said in the House yesterday, we have seen a reduction in applications, so I would encourage people who need help to get in touch with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), as there is assistance available. Times remain tough due to the cost of living crisis we inherited, and while we've worked hard to reduce inflation from 7.3 percent to 2.2 percent and that's helping to bring costs down and put more money in people's pockets, we do recognise that some are still feeling the pain of the cost of living and high inflation. As interest rates continue to reduce and the benefits of this start to flow through, more New Zealanders will feel the positive impact of the hard work we are putting in. This will grow the economy and help more people into work.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she disagree with the Salvation Army, who, in their report, stated that "access to hardship assistance was [decreasing]"?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my primary answer, eligibility requirements have not changed, but I recognise that demand and the number of applications has declined.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it acceptable for any family in need of immediate emergency assistance to be declined a hardship grant at the time they need it; if so, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I recognise that these times are incredibly challenging for some families, whether they're in work or whether they are on welfare, but the eligibility requirements for food and other special needs grants have not changed.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she expect Work and Income to adhere to case law that special needs grants can be provided for situations of ongoing need and not just one-off situations?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The front-line MSD staff do an incredible job, and they have been responding to people in need. As I said, the eligibility requirements haven't changed, and where there is the need for flexibility, they apply that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the explanation for the increase in declines of hardship assistance?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I don't have details on the declines. As I said in the House yesterday, I am concerned about the fact that the number of applications for hardship has gone down. And I would say, as I said in the House yesterday, to anyone who is finding it incredibly difficult in this tail end of the cost of living crisis, I would encourage them to go into MSD and seek assistance.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What does she say to Sonya Cameron, the food security manager at the Salvation Army, who said that "The Government's turning down people for food. They're sending them to foodbanks. Now, they're not funding foodbanks. Foodbanks around the country are either overstretched, like ourselves, or they're starting to close down."?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'll reiterate to the House that the direct funding of food banks only came into effect during the COVID period. So, despite there being time-limited funding that would have meant there would be no ongoing funding for food banks, our Government decided to extend that in recognition of the fact that many households were very challenged by the cost of living crisis that we had inherited, and that is why there is funding available today.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many people are currently unemployed compared to this time last year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Unemployment has been rising since 2021. In December 2023, 123,000 people were unemployed in New Zealand, and in December 2024, this figure sat at 156,000, in line with Treasury forecasts. Unemployment is always one of the last things to come after a recession, and, unfortunately, we've inherited a low-growth economy where unemployment was always forecast to increase above 5 percent. That's why we have created a more active, proactive welfare system to support more job seekers into work, and it's also why our Government is relentlessly focused on growth, so that the economy allows for businesses to have the confidence to hire staff and create better-paying jobs so that New Zealanders can share in the benefits of growth.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can I ask the Minister: has she discussed with Minister Paul Goldsmith why there is still no plan to support the media sector when hundreds of jobs have been lost in the sector in the past 12 months, and, if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As that member will be aware, in a recession, unfortunately, there are jobs that are lost across a range of industries, and I'm very confident in the Minister for Media and Communications' plan in that sector.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific to the Minister in terms of has she spoken with Minister Goldsmith about a plan with regards to the media. She's in charge of employment. I would expect an answer, or even addressing the question, rather than just a waffle.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, I think it was addressed.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the point of order, I just would have thought that if the member wanted to ask a question about the media portfolio, he should ask a question to me, rather than to my colleague.

SPEAKER: Well, that may well be the Minister's opinion, but it's not a point of order. The question was addressed. Ask another question.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister: what is her plan for the sacked Te Whatu Ora worker—Health New Zealand—who has been reported to have said that "The public sector has been gutted, so every job that I apply for has hundreds if not thousands of applicants."?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I've said previously, for any individuals who loses their job as a result of the economic conditions that we have inherited, it's incredibly challenging. In order to address the cost of living and to get inflation down, we had to address excessive Government spending, so a rebalancing has been required, and that means that working Kiwis aren't suffering on a daily basis in the struggle to put food on their tables. So I accept that it's challenging for any New Zealander who's lost their job, which is why our Government is focused on going for growth and ensuring that there are more jobs created across New Zealand for them to move into.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: As background on this question and for the public information, is unemployment—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That's not a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if you waited for five seconds, you'll find it is a question, all right.

SPEAKER: The member does know the rules about not speaking while a question is being asked.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, precisely. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: We were talking to each other, sir.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know—and the rest of the room. Carry on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is unemployment lower today than Treasury was forecasting when Labour left office, or is it higher?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is bang on what the forecast said.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can I ask the Minister: why did she scrap targeted population employment plans when Māori and Pacific unemployment is double that of the general unemployment rate?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I've got good news for that member. When I referred to the 33,000 people that have cancelled their jobseeker benefit because they found work, disproportionately, in a positive way, Pasifika job seekers exited at a rate of 30 percent higher than the same time a year ago. So our work and our welfare reactivation is having great results for Pasifika job seekers.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—[Interruption] Wait, excuse me! Mr Peters, just please wait until the House goes quiet. And there you have it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister, is it not a fact that the Treasury forecast was, as Labour left office, that this unemployment rate right now would be 5.3 percent, when in fact it's down to 5.1 percent.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The employment forecasts by Treasury had always anticipated the unemployment rate would continue to rise, unfortunately, and they expected it would rise beyond where it is right now. Although it would be nice to say the pain has ended, it hasn't. Unfortunately, we have inherited a path and a forecast of higher unemployment and that affects every New Zealander.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can I ask the Minister: does she agree with Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, who told workers at the Kinleith Mill last year that Kinleith Mill is the lifeblood of the Waikato and that targeted Government intervention is sometimes necessary to ensure the survival of a business and a community, and, if so, can the workers of Kinleith Mill have confidence that their jobs and livelihoods are secure, and, if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I always agree with the Deputy Prime Minister. And I know very well how important the Kinleith employment is in that community, and that is why, as a Government, we are looking at options.

Question No. 7—Agriculture

7. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What is the Government doing to support the New Zealand red meat sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Agriculture is the backbone of our economy, and this week for National Lamb Day, we celebrated 143 years since the first shipment of lamb left New Zealand shores. The Government acknowledges the hard work and resilience of our farmers, processors, and exporters, whose dedication ensures that New Zealand's red meat sector remains world leading and ready to grow. You see, our farmers are world best with food and fibre records set to reach $56.9 billion this year, with sheep and beef farmers alone contributing the equivalent of $3,300 for every Kiwi household. I'd like to invite all members of the House to join me in thanking sheep and beef farmers for their significant contribution to New Zealand.

Suze Redmayne: What else is the Government doing to make it easier to farm?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The Government and the team of agricultural Ministers are laser focused on getting costs down and returning more value to the farm gate. We're committed to supporting farmers, and already we've begun reforming freshwater regulations to ensure they're practical and deliver results. We've slashed red tape that burdens farmers and just adds cost to their businesses. We addressed land use changes, including rules around full farm to forest conversions. We've invested $400 million over four years in emissions reduction technology that will increase production, not decrease it. We've passed legislation to remove agriculture from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) so that we can work constructively with the rural community.

Suze Redmayne: How is the Government increasing farm-gate returns?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, our farmers produce the safest, highest quality red meat in the world. Last year we announced a partnership with the red meat sector to co-invest $8 million in the Taste Pure Nature campaign. This campaign aims to make New Zealand beef and lamb the number one imported meat choice in the Chinese market by focusing on the superior nutritional qualities of our high-quality grass-fed red meat. We've also concluded two high-quality trade deals with the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries last year, which will eliminate 99 percent of all tariffs over time, including sheep and beef meat exports.

Suze Redmayne: How is supporting farmers key to economic growth?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Agricultural exports contribute the equivalent of $10,600 for every Kiwi. Without this contribution as a country, we would be poorer. Farmers have done it tough over the last few years, but as farm confidence is improving, there are real signs of green shoots ahead. Already we've seen a lift in sheep meat prices over recent months with December lamb prices exceeding the five-year average, record high cattle prices, and rising demand for key red meat markets that could see an additional $1 billion in export revenue for our farms this year. The way to celebrate the hard work of our sheep farmers is for everybody to eat more lamb.

Question No. 8—Environment

8. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she expect environmental protection to improve or get worse under her tenure as Minister?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: The Government's committed to improving New Zealand's economy while also improving the environment. It's possible to do both. Our current planning system is the worst of all worlds. It makes it hard to do development, it stifles growth, and it also doesn't protect the environment very well at all. We are dissatisfied with the status quo and that is why we are reforming and, in fact, replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA) based on a regime based on the enjoyment of property rights.

Lan Pham: Is she concerned about the unprecedented step her Government is taking in allowing individuals and companies to cause significant adverse effects in our most vulnerable and polluted waterways through the resource management amendment bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.

Lan Pham: Does she still stand by her statement that "the balance [has] swung too far towards environmental protection at the cost of not being able to get things done.", and, if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister, yes. If the member wants to think about a simple illustration of that, I invite the member to reflect on the attempted establishment of a McDonalds in Wānaka, which has gone to extraordinary hearings, public submissions, and has been turned down. Meanwhile there are developments up and down this country tied up in acres and acres of red and green tape who are just trying to do something quite simple—use their land to build stuff. We have a simple view on this side of the House which is that it should be easier to make use of your property to provide jobs and growth for you and your whānau.

Lan Pham: Is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment correct that in the Minister's response to an Official Information Act request, she admitted that she was "not provided any specific advice or evidence from any agency" to support her statement about so-called environmental imbalance, and that "the information requested does not exist."?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister, it's difficult for me to comment about an Official Information Act request that I haven't seen or, indeed, the response from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I can just give a general comment, which is that, on behalf of the Minister, I have great respect for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. He makes a very valuable contribution to public debate but it doesn't mean I always agree with him.

Lan Pham: How can New Zealanders expect environmental protection to improve when she has not brought one piece of legislation to this House to protect the environment, has made significant cuts to staff and funding of her agencies, and has disregarded the very evidence which could enable her to make better decisions in actually protecting the environment?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, I take issue with many of those comments. Firstly, we have the Hauraki Gulf bill, which my good colleague the Hon Tama Potaka is proceeding through the House. The second point I would make is that, yes, there have been quite substantial staff reductions at the Ministry for the Environment, but in the last year the Ministry for the Environment has managed to lead a cross-agency team and establish the fast-track regime—the one-stop shop. We have already done one RMA amendment bill and there is a second amendment bill before the Parliament right now before the select committee. So what it shows is that with some focused leadership and a clear plan of action, Government agencies can achieve an awful lot, even without bloated staff numbers. The third point I'd make is this—and it's the point I made in the debate last night—which is that wealthy countries look after the environment better. That is a simple fact. So if we can grow our economy and grow our national prosperity, we can do all sorts of amazing things for our biodiversity and for our endangered species. Countries that are poor trash the environment; wealthy countries look after it.

SPEAKER: And we'll just go for more concise answers, I think. Carry on.

Lan Pham: Does she stand by her statement that "What we do know is that an environmental problem deferred today can be both an environmental liability and a fiscal risk that will have to be faced in the future.", and, if so, what message does she have for Kiwis about the liabilities that she is leaving for the public and future generations to bear the cost?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, I mean, in a general sense I agree, of course. It's why we're very focused on growing the economy, as I said before, so that we have more resources that can be spent on protecting our natural landscapes, improving our biodiversity, and looking after our endangered species. It is more difficult to do those things when you don't have a growing economy. And it is possible to get the balance right between utilising our extraordinary, abundant plethora of natural resources that we are endowed with in New Zealand. And actually utilising those natural resources means we can look after the ones we really want to protect, like our kea and our kākāpō and our kiwi.

Question No. 9—Children

9. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: How many participants in the military-style academy programme have reoffended since participating, and how many are currently in youth justice facilities?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I acknowledge the interest in the military-style academy pilot and I am also aware of the impact of the intense focus on these nine young people and their families and whānau. I have considered the fact that this is a very small group of young people and they will be identifiable within their communities and I do not believe it is in the public interest to provide constant updates on their activities. However, in considering the balance between these young people's privacy and their wellbeing and public interest, I can confirm that all nine of the young people are still engaged in the pilot. They are in a range of placements, including some in a youth justice residence. I also remind the member that there is a significant difference between alleged reoffending and proven reoffending, and that these matters could be subject to court proceedings.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is it not in the public interest that eight of the 10 pilot military-style academy participants have allegedly reoffended, and that six are apparently back in youth justice facilities?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I'm not sure where that member has got those numbers from and I can neither confirm nor deny those numbers, because I am not going to constantly drag these young people down when they have come to this programme voluntarily to make their lives better. Parliament is not here to destroy young people's lives; Parliament is here to support them and get behind them to succeed.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is it not in the public interest to provide information when she is spending over $30 million of public money on military-style academies?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We tried to be as open and transparent as possible when it came to this pilot programme, but then it became very apparent that the Opposition used that opportunity to drag these young people through the mud with venom, trying to make them be unsuccessful. Instead of asking questions that were relevant to their successes, it was always about whether they were going to fail.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The Speakers' rulings are really clear when it comes to the issue of public interest and it's spelled out really clearly that it is a high bar to meet. It is not unreasonable for a member to ask a Minister to justify their decision as to whether to use that provision not to answer a question. Given that it is a reasonable question, it shouldn't be used—like you've applied previously, with a straightforward and reasonable question—as an opportunity to make a political attack, as the answer was in that particular question.

SPEAKER: Yes, that would be fair, but I'm listening also to the questions, so I've got to say, I always get confused by the—I don't know what the correct grammatic term is, but by saying, "How is it not". I think it's a difficult way to put a construct on the rest of the question—in this case, "How is it not in the interest of the public to get particular information or use particular information?" The answer that was given by Minister Chhour was the answer you'd expect from a Minister. I don't think we've been in any particularly difficult circumstances here.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir, I agree the initial response was totally fine, but to then go on and use this to try and paint this into something that it is not—it was quite clearly a political point. I take your point about the grammatical structure. We're of the view that that makes sense, but nevertheless we can disagree on that. But the point remains that it is reasonable for a member to ask a Minister to justify their decision to withhold information on the grounds of public interest as it is a high bar. Explain that, like she did at the start. The rest of that answer shouldn't have been allowed.

SPEAKER: Yes, and one of the difficulties I've got at the moment is, despite my enhanced hearing capacity, I'm actually hearing a great deal more of the commentary that's going behind those answers. And the person asking the question was asking a lot more questions as the answer was being given, and I was actually looking to see what was being said there. So I apologise for missing that, but I make the point that answers by Ministers to questions from the Opposition should not or are not an opportunity for political attack.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she say that it isn't in the public interest to provide information when we've had 5,342 submissions on the boot camp bill and Save the Children have a petition demanding that you boot the bill?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I refer to my primary answer, especially around where there is a huge difference between alleged reoffending and proven reoffending. These matters may be before the courts, and we cannot be making these young people's identities to be available to the public. It is a small group of people that will be easily identifiable, and we don't make a habit of talking about youth who are before the courts.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can the Government push through a bill to enshrine the military-style academy in legislation when it is not working?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I actually would say it's too early to say whether the pilot has been a success or not. We are still in the middle of the pilot. That is why we are evaluating its progress and we'll be releasing the first evaluation shortly. What I would say is evidence tells us that what we were doing was not working. Evidence tells us that youth crime was at an all-time high, and something needed to happen. It would be easy to say no to these young people and say we're not going to put in the effort, but I am proud to be part of a Government that says yes, you're worth the effort that we are putting into you.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: In your own admission, just now, that you're not sure whether it's working or not, why would you then persist with such a bill?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think I just answered that. We can't afford to do nothing. The evidence tells us that youth crime was at an all-time high, and we needed to do something different. I was saddened when I heard that youth justice was being used as a holding pen before Corrections, so we need to do something better.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What steps has the Government recently announced to improve competition?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): In December last year, I launched an ambitious review of competition settings. The reason for doing this is that New Zealand lags behind many other countries when it comes to competition. This has led to low productivity, limited choice, and higher prices for Kiwis. The first component includes a fundamental review of the Commerce Act to see whether merger settings are appropriate. The second element is that I've commissioned an independent group led by Dame Paula Rebstock to look at the governance structures of the Commerce Commission to ensure it has sufficient commercial focus and is fit for purpose.

Joseph Mooney: Why is the review of competition so critical right now?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The competition settings in the Commerce Act haven't been significantly reviewed for more than 20 years. Over that time, market conditions have changed, with many sectors becoming more concentrated. We haven't kept up with the change, and Kiwis have suffered. It's vital that we review our competition laws to make sure that we don't keep doing the same thing, leading to future market concentration in other sectors.

Joseph Mooney: What will the Minister focus on?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Within the next few months, I intend to make decisions on future merger settings, new code-making powers, and anti-competitive conduct, all with the aim of giving consumers more choice and better prices. Mergers are part of the economic landscape and often lead to better outcomes. However, the balancing act is to ensure that this merger activity can occur, but there is a need to determine at what point it is appropriate for the Commerce Commission to intervene when excessive market power becomes evident or likely to occur.

Joseph Mooney: What specific sectors is the Government interested in?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: There is a comprehensive review that will look at lifting the competition across all areas of the economy, but Kiwis are well aware of where they've been hit the hardest. As the Minister for Economic Growth announced today, this Government is putting supermarkets on notice. This is an example of a sector where a handful of players have become too dominant because they haven't had the right settings in place. I look forward to working with the Minister of Economic Growth to drive competition and lower costs in these sectors that matter most to Kiwis.

Question No. 11—Health

11. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the Government's performance in the health portfolio across the motu?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes. We know that too many Kiwis are waiting too long to be seen at emergency departments, receive first specialist assessments, and have elective surgeries. Our focus is on patients and delivering timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. That's why we've reintroduced health targets, so the system can deliver for patients. Already, we are seeing that our Government's actions are putting the brakes on the steep decline in delivery seen in recent years.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is he satisfied that the majority of children with terminal illnesses in this country right now are getting no specialist palliative care, and, if not, why are the two roles working to address this being axed?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our Government's focus is on patients and ensuring access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. Our Government has invested more in health than ever before: a record investment of $16.68 billion. The question in response to children—when you look at when the last National Government was here for immunisation, there was a higher rate of immunisations than now. [Interruption]

Hon Phil Twyford: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: The Hon Phil Twyford. And can I just say, this is a pretty serious topic, so some of the screaming across the House doesn't—it just diminishes it, in my opinion.

Hon Phil Twyford: Is it true that in November, half of the shifts in Waitakere Hospital's cardiac unit and a third of the shifts in the emergency department were below the agreed safe staffing levels?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I don't have the answer to that. If the member would like to put that in writing, he'll get an answer.

Tangi Utikere: How is the Government meeting the urgent health needs of those in the MidCentral region, when 852 people have had their colonoscopies paused and more than 1,600 are waiting far longer than the recommended clinical waiting time for their referral to be considered, putting them at serious risk?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, surveillance colonoscopies are a really important tool for the prevention of bowel cancer, and I understand the distress of the community at the delays they are facing to access this procedure if they have a history which indicates they might be at risk of developing bowel cancer. I have been reassured that the initial pause has not impacted any patients who have symptoms of bowel cancer. The pause has been brought in to prioritise those who are unwell, so they can be seen quickly. Health New Zealand has advised me that surveillance colonoscopies in MidCentral will definitely recommence from Saturday, 15 February, now they have the patient pre-work issues sorted.

Reuben Davidson: How will Health New Zealand's plan to cut more than 1,000 roles and pause more than 100 projects in data and digital operations increase the efficiency of Health New Zealand given the result now means plans to automate the maternity booking system will no longer go ahead and bookings will remain in paper form?

Hon Damien O'Connor: Not in your notes.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Not in my notes—ha, ha! On behalf of the Minister of Health, I've been advised that no decisions have been made on final structures, and Health New Zealand is currently considering staff feedback to the change proposal for the data and digital team. I'm informed that Health New Zealand is working through transitional arrangements and how it plans to implement final decisions once these are made. Senior managers are discussing potential impacts and mitigating actions with clinical and regional leadership teams. Most importantly, the National Clinical Quality and Safety Commission will be asked to endorse the mitigations and transitions arrangements to be put in place to ensure patient safety, privacy, and security is not compromised.

Ingrid Leary: How can he justify cutting $1.4 billion from the health system when people are waiting longer to see their GP, paying more to see their GP, and a practice like Dunedin's Urgent Doctors and Accident Centre may have to close its day services unless more funding is provided?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, if that member wants to talk about waiting times, under the last National Government 89 percent of Kiwis were waiting six hours in emergency departments. When this coalition Government took office, that was down to 67 percent. When the last National Government saw Kiwis waiting four months for first specialist assessment, 99 percent were being seen in four months. When we took office in this coalition Government, that was down to 66 percent. If we want to look at elective surgeries, under the last National Government 97 percent of Kiwis were being seen within four months. When this coalition Government took office, that was down to 62 percent.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Speakers' rulings are really clear that Ministers cannot introduce issues that are of their choosing. The question was very specific about justifying the cuts to the health system and linking to the wait times for GPs and the cost for GPs. The Minister shouldn't use that as an opportunity to go off and make whatever point he wants outside of the issues raised in the question.

SPEAKER: Well, essentially, you're right except that there were two legs to the question. One was—I think the figure mentioned was a billion-dollar cut to the health budget. It's not unreasonable, then, that a Minister makes some comparisons between what was being achieved for a previous amount as compared to now. But I would ask the Minister to bring it back to the final part of that question, which was around access to GPs. But make it snappy because it's been going on a while.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, this Government's invested a record $16.68 billion into the health system and we would expect that to drive performance. That's why we've returned these targets—to ensure people have timely access to care, such as GP practices, and that member might want to reflect on why her last Government cancelled the health targets and everything went south.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will all of the money from the settlement between Health New Zealand and the Masterton District Council be ring-fenced solely for the Wairarapa Hospital?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I don't have that answer. If he'd like to put that in writing he'll get a response.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Whilst in normal circumstances that would be a reasonable question for Minister answering on behalf of the Minister, in this instance I don't believe it is. This very question has been posed by numerous people to the Minister and it has not been answered. The very question has been posed to the previous health Minister and it has not been answered. If we are being instructed to put this question in writing with an expectation that it be answered, how can we have faith that it will be when it hasn't been previously?

SPEAKER: All right, you're putting me at a slightly disadvantaged position. Are you telling us that the question has been asked as a question for written answer previously?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Several times, I'm informed by my colleague. I also know that there are media outlets that have asked this very question and it has not been answered. This is the opportunity for us to ask Ministers questions, and—

SPEAKER: Yes, it is. I think a slightly better answer might be forthcoming from the Minister.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. The member asking the question has a legitimate question but he himself acknowledges, in asking it, that we don't have the actual Minister of Health here. We have a Minister on behalf of the Minister. Ministers can't be expected to know every single element of the health portfolio when they are answering on behalf of the substantive Minister, or the real Minister.

SPEAKER: It's—[Interruption] Sorry, I will read that piece of advice—I don't normally, unfortunately. Well, I don't really like that advice. [Interruption] Well, basically, the advice is that when the Minister says he doesn't have the information, that has to be accepted by the questioner. The next part is that if the questioner's not happy about that, he can complain in writing to the Speaker. So you understand my reticence. But let me just make it clear: it is a very serious topic, and it does get difficult when there are Ministers acting for someone else. I appreciate that a Minister coming in to act will be an associate health Minister and can't know all of the details. But I would hope, if there is any written question asked following this afternoon, that it's answered rapidly and with a sound answer.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. May I ask it in a different way that the Minister may be in a position to answer.

SPEAKER: Oh, all right. You might save me a bit of time—go for it, yeah.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: In exchange, I won't write to you.

SPEAKER: Oh, you're on, then.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: In the instance where Health New Zealand settled with the Masterton District Council, with the original claim being up to $90 million for the purpose of addressing the deficiencies in the Masterton hospital building, would it be his expectation that the entire settlement be spent for that purpose only?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I don't have that answer. If he'd like to put that in writing, it will be answered.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. How on earth can it be acceptable for the House that a Minister doesn't understand his own expectation and a member is invited to write to him so that he has time to understand what his expectation is? Surely, even when acting on behalf of the Minister, they should be in a position to explain to the House what their expectation would be in a clearly outlined situation.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I'd just point out the primary question around the Government's performance in the health portfolio across the country. Now, I accept individual MPs have got up and asked their questions about their respective areas, but if that member wanted to ask a specific question about Masterton, then maybe that could have been in the primary question so that the Minister could be prepared for that. And I suppose that's the risk he runs when he does such a broad primary question.

SPEAKER: I think, actually, when there is a broad question like that, the risk is on the Government, not on the asker of the question. But we're clearly not going to make any further progress on this as regards to specifics in the answer.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The general point in this instance, sir, is that when the question asks what a Minister's expectations would be, is it genuinely your ruling that saying "I don't know; write to me." is an appropriate response?

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. Sir, this is a facile debate. If members want specific answers to specific projects about specific areas in their electorates, they can either ask them as written questions or they can ask them as primary questions on notice. You cannot come down to Parliament and ask a broad, free-ranging question and expect an Associate Minister who's not the actual Minister of Health to answer very specific questions about specific hospitals. It's just simple logic, and various Speakers have made rulings to that effect. If you want a specific answer, ask a specific question—they haven't done that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir?

SPEAKER: Yep.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Which is precisely why I rephrased the question, with your permission. Asking whether something specific is going to happen—I accept that when a Minister is answering on behalf of a Minister, they may not be able to do that. That is why I asked, in an instance like this, what would the Minister's expectation be. He is a health Minister. It is entirely appropriate and reasonable to expect him to explain to the House, in the instance that I outlined, what his expectation would be if that played out.

SPEAKER: I think you answered, somewhat, your own question there. The expectation—you can't ask a Minister answering on behalf of someone else what is the expectation of the Minister, if the question is justified by the fact that it's an Associate Minister; unfortunately, the question is not addressed to the Associate Minister. So we're going around in circles here. We've got to terminate this fairly quickly. There's a course of action that you can follow, notwithstanding the suggestion that you might not—it's open to you, of course. I think we might move—is there another supplementary?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Yes, there is, sir, but just for absolute—because we have covered a bit of ground here: is it your expectation, in response to this, that the Minister, once receiving this as a written question, actually answers it?

SPEAKER: Well, that is always the expectation of any written question, insomuch as it can be answered.

Hon Peeni Henare: Thank you, sir. How can the Minister have confidence in Lester Levy, given the many shortcomings, some examples of which were provided just now by my colleagues, or will he finally take responsibility for forcing the health system into disarray by significant cuts, with no plan whatsoever to turn it around?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I have confidence in the commissioner that he knows this Government's priorities, and that's to focus on patients delivering timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What updates can she provide regarding consultation on the rewrite of the Arms Act 1983?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): The initial consultation on the much-anticipated rewrites of the Arms Act 1983 is off to a strong start, with 577 submissions received as of today, and the accompanying discussion document has been downloaded 1,758 times, showing that many New Zealanders are taking the opportunity to have their say—an opportunity which they were not afforded in 2019. This Government campaigned on ensuring New Zealanders could have their say on the future of the Arms Act, and we are delivering on that commitment.

Todd Stephenson: What is the specific focus of the consultation?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The consultation is primarily focused on gathering the perspectives of New Zealanders to inform Government policy going forward. The discussion document does not present draft policy proposals; instead it seeks input from New Zealanders before any policies are developed. It is structured around seven key themes, including responsible possession and use, firearms products, and offences and penalties, to guide submitters in sharing their thoughts.

Todd Stephenson: Where can New Zealanders find the discussion document and other resources to help them with their submissions?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The discussion document and other resources available to assist New Zealanders in making a submission are available on the Ministry of Justice website, with translations provided in several languages. The ministry can also send physical copies and documentation upon request. It is vital that New Zealanders engage with these resources to understand what it is within and beyond the scope of the review.

Todd Stephenson: Are there any specific guidelines on how submissions should be structured?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: While it is encouraged that submissions address the seven key themes outlined in the discussion document, there is no strict format required. Submitters can focus on the themes or the issues most relevant to their experience, and they are free to omit others. Alternatively, submitters may simply list their views if that is more straightforward for them to do. Submissions close on 28 February. I encourage everyone to take the opportunity to have their say by going to .

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she intend to rewrite the findings from the Arms Act review, just as she did with the findings from the Firearms Registry review?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I plan on listening to New Zealanders and making sure that their views are heard, because what we have discovered in the past is that they never got that opportunity.

© Scoop Media