Question No. 1—Child Poverty Reduction

1. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Will the Government's policies and actions ensure Aotearoa meets the long-term target of reducing child material hardship to 6 percent by 2028; if not, will it change its policies to do so?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister for Pacific Peoples) on behalf of the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Child poverty statistics released today show that, although there was no significant change to child poverty rates, lifting children out of material hardship will be an ongoing challenge. Since 2017, there are now around 17,000 more children in material hardship. By not meeting the previously set second intermediate targets, the highly ambitious 10-year targets will be that much more challenging. We know we have more work to do, which is why this Government has a target to lift 17,000 more children out of material hardship by 2027. We are relentlessly focused on growing the economy, to enable us to invest in reducing child poverty.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned about multiple reports that show that kids won't have food on the table because of funding expiring for food banks, parents won't be able to afford the basics because of cuts to benefit indexation, and the working poor are seeing the minimum wage fall behind inflation; if so, what about this Government's record should give New Zealanders any confidence that they will reduce child poverty?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: On behalf of the Minister, we are concerned with all of the measures for material hardship, which is why we have introduced tax relief, FamilyBoost, and increased the in-work tax credit.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it correct that the changes to benefit indexation will mean benefits will now rise at a lower rate than previously set by other Governments?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Mr Speaker, that's a specific question—happy to take that in writing.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh no, he should know the answer to that.

SPEAKER: Just wait for a bit of quiet.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is the Government on track to meet its child poverty targets, given the failure to reduce material hardship to 9 percent in the 2023-24 year; if not, what will she do about it?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We set the intermediate target in around June last year—11 percent for material hardship is the intermediate target we have set. We are encouraged by Treasury modelling that shows that our investments in Budget 2024 will lift 17,000 children out of poverty, on the after-housing cost measures by 2026-27.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why did she set these interim targets that can be met with, according to Treasury's forecasts, zero further action from this Government, and does that highlight just how little ambition she has for the thousands of kids who will stay in poverty as a result?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: On behalf of the Minister, these targets are ambitious. In a challenging environment, they will take quite a bit of effort to reach, and we're very encouraged by the targets that we have set and the investment that we've made, particularly through Budget 2024, and other investments we will make.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept these interim targets, that her own Government set, require zero further action from this Government to address child poverty?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: On behalf of the Minister, no.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of material hardship, what impact do questions from woke-riddled—

SPEAKER: No—no further. Thank you.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yesterday's Monetary Policy Statement confirmed annual Consumers Price Index inflation is sustainably within the 1 to 3 percent target range, giving the Reserve Bank confidence to continue lowering the official cash rate (OCR). In other words, the era of high inflation is over, and, of course, New Zealander was hurt a lot between 2021 and 2023, when inflation went over 7 percent, eroding people's wages and savings. Spending constraint and price stability is back.

Dan Bidois: How is the Government helping to keep inflation under control?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, of course, the Reserve Bank has primary responsibility for controlling inflation, but the Government of the day can either help that task or hinder it through decisions around tax and spending. This is a Government that is helping. We've introduced discipline to Government spending after years of largesse, and the Reserve Bank says, in the Monetary Policy Statement, that Government expenditure is still assumed to decline as a share of the economy over the medium term, reducing inflationary pressure.

Dan Bidois: By how much will households benefit from lower interest rates?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, people's circumstances vary, so there is no one exact answer, but to give an illustration that helps demonstrate the point, for someone with a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years, a 1 percentage point drop in their interest rate reduces their required repayments by around $150 a fortnight. That is a significant reduction that could be used elsewhere in the household budget. So a decline in the OCR has a real, material impact on households' budgets and helps New Zealanders get ahead.

Dan Bidois: What is the Reserve Bank's forecast for economic growth in the next year?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, more good news: the Reserve Bank expects economic growth to have returned in the December quarter of last year, then forecasts growth of 2.4 percent over 2025. This is in line with other forecasts, including Westpac, which expects growth of 2.5 percent this year. BNZ expects 2.6 percent, and ANZ expects 2.7 percent. This economy is back in growth, and we need to accelerate that from this point on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In confirming that the era of high inflation is over, can he also confirm that the era of borrow and hope, which we inherited, is also over?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister, the Government will be borrowing for some time to come, but we are working as hard as possible to get off the trajectory of endless, debt-fuelled consumption that pushes up prices and pushes up inflation and, inevitably, pushes up interest rates—and going for sustainable growth based on sound principles of price stability and a market-led economy.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Sir, last week—last Thursday—you committed to the House that you would go away and consider the requirements of Ministers answering questions on behalf of the Prime Minister. I would have hoped that we might get that clarity before this question.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I apologise for not having come back to you, but there have been one or two other things that have caused a bit of a distraction today.

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: As I have said over 300 times, yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: Winston Peters, who said "The name of this country is New Zealand. This person who came here in 2006—you're not going to change it.", or David Seymour, who said that "while I prefer to use New Zealand, I'm not here to stop other people saying Aotearoa.", or will he maintain his silence on this issue?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As an answer that's based on intellectual and academic integrity, the name of this country was always New Zealand, until Pember Reeves decided in the 1880s that he would call it Aotearoa, which is a massive insult to the people of Ngāi Tahu—that's not their name—and we are going to not make a name change for this country until, in the democratic conventions of this great nation, we first consult and get the agreement of the New Zealand people.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Do Winston Peters' comments suggest that New Zealanders who were born overseas should have fewer rights than those who were born here, and, if so, will he condemn that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, it is very, very clear that Mr Peters made no such suggestion at all, but he paralleled the fact that in 2006, an application was made to a country called New Zealand, and that is still the same country that that person came to. Now, that's not an attack on any immigrant, at all.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he stick up for migrant communities by disciplining Winston Peters and Shane Jones for their repeated attacks on members of Parliament based entirely on their country of origin, or will he continue to keep his head down by pretending that his Ministers' comments are not his problem?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The simple answer to that is that if you get a fallacious statement like that, it doesn't bear a response at all.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How will he achieve the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to train no fewer than 500 new front-line police by 27 November 2025 when there are now 72 fewer police officers than when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I thank the member for that question. The current police planning is for up to 650 recruits to commence training in the first half of 2025. This is 75 more than in the entirety of the 2023-23 year, which the previous Government was responsible for. We, in short, are on track.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Winston Peters that the target of 500 additional police by 27 November 2025 would magically be met if police officials would merely read the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, or does he agree with the Commissioner of Police, who has all but admitted that the target won't be met until 2026 at the earliest?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Given the very, very remarkable record of Mr Peters on this matter, where the last tranche of such training was a commitment for 1,800 but it ended up being successfully 2,338 in that tranche, we are setting out for the same performance this time around. So that's why we've got confidence that on this matter, we're on track.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is Winston Peters actually accomplishing anything for Aotearoa when he tells members of migrant communities that their views are worth less than people born in Aotearoa and he instructs officials that they can meet political targets just by reading a coalition agreement, or will he acknowledge that this is a divisive and counter-productive way to run a Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That member will get an answer when she asks the question about a country called New Zealand, for which I'm responsible.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'd be concerned if the requirements on Ministers to answer questions falls into a debate as to whether the use of te reo Māori is appropriate in this House. Yesterday, you said that you would go back and consider two pretty important things: one, whether the application of the convention in this House that te reo and English can be interchangeable, regardless of the word; and, two, whether it is appropriate for members to question the legitimacy of other members given where they came from. Now, that response there to that question, albeit political, was simply about that very thing, and if we don't get clarity from you on to this issue, then I suspect we're going to be hearing that a lot, and it will lead to disorder, which, of course, is your job to maintain.

SPEAKER: Well, the clarity point is—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, are you speaking to the point of order?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, this country has hard-working taxpayers who have spent billions of dollars over the years in an export-dependent nation to try and sell a name of a country called New Zealand, and this has all been changed without any mandate or access to the people of this country, which is our democratic responsibility.

Hūhana Lyndon: Speaking to the point of order.

Hon Willie Jackson: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: So two points—OK, we'll go with the Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, we need some direction from you on this—

SPEAKER: I'm trying to give it.

Hon Willie Jackson: —and I ask that very respectfully—given how precious the language is in this House, and I think you acknowledged that. But it is, sadly, being dumped on by two of the most senior Māori members in this Parliament, who are questioning the legitimacy. I ask you to make a ruling on this—yes or no—in terms of the legitimacy of te reo Māori.

Hūhana Lyndon: Speaking to the point of order, I too support clarity from you, Mr Speaker, in terms of the use of te reo Māori in the House. When thinking about the way that we do promote ourselves as Aotearoa New Zealand on the international stage, it's in all of our strategic documents and it's on our passports, so why can we not celebrate te reo Māori in this House?

SPEAKER: Well, the first point is we mostly certainly can, and there is no question that the Standing Orders make it appropriate for either language to be used in an interchangeable way. I don't think that Standing Orders should become confused over a viewpoint that one person might have on the use of the word "Aotearoa" compared to another person's view on the use of that word. When it comes to the answering of—

Hon Shane Jones: Just a minute, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Oh, I'm in the middle of a ruling, and you've broken my flow. When it comes to the answering of a question, as was raised there, I think it becomes very hard for the Speaker to determine that a question has not been addressed if the question is, in the first place—in the answer—rejected, and I think that's the difficulty that we face here. But let me be very clear: Standing Order 109, I think it is—and someone can check that if that they like—makes the use of either the English language or te reo Māori perfectly acceptable, and there's no question about that.

Hon Shane Jones: Mr Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to an important point.

SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

Hon Shane Jones: Whilst it is correct that you're something of an auditor of parliamentary conduct, the member from Labour is asking you to audit political narrative. That is not your role—

SPEAKER: That's what I just said.

Hon Shane Jones: —but, sir, day after day, when different political perspectives are being issued on controversial issues, you're getting dragged into it. That is not how Parliament should work.

SPEAKER: Well, that's true. But I'd have to say, from my own point of view, I'd be completely naive if I thought that political matters were never going to be discussed in this House and that there wasn't somehow a number of occasions where people have differences. That's the point of having a Parliament, and all sides need to get a little less sensitive about some of the things that are said quite safely in this room, because we do have a safe democracy. Ricardo Menéndez March.

Ricardo Menéndez March: This is the new point of order.

SPEAKER: Yep.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. I wanted to wait until the end of the question, particularly as the Prime Minister was answering questions to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. I noted something yesterday, but it has been repeated again, and that has been the delegitimisation of people's contributions by using the time of arrival of someone who is a citizen to this country. I'm asking you to reflect as to the appropriateness of that, particularly because of the ramifications that that has for people outside of this Chamber. When people are utilising someone's later arrival, it does seem like it delegitimises someone's standing in this House.

SPEAKER: Well, it's all very well to say that the Speaker should become the interferer and run interference on all sorts of things on this House. The reality is that the Standing Orders provide a remedy for people who have been offended in this House.

Ricardo Menéndez March: I'm not offended.

SPEAKER: Well, then, what is the point? And I'm sorry to ask it because I don't want to have a discussion about that here—

Ricardo Menéndez March: OK.

SPEAKER: —but you're welcome to come and talk to me about that. I think the general public make up their own minds about these things, and I don't think that some of the claims, and some of the extraordinary communications I've had on this, bear out the way in which New Zealanders generally think.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That last point of order was grossly out of time. The member, if he was going to make that point of order, had to raise it at the right time, but we've moved on, and, coming late to the party and not knowing what the rules are, he got away with it. You should have stopped him on that basis that he was out of time.

SPEAKER: Oh well, you know, my failings are many in all of this stuff, which I freely admit. We'll move now to question No. 4—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I had attempted to seek a point of order, but there were two prior—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I realise that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —so I don't want to be accused of being out of time. As you point out, Standing Order 109, which you have clarified today, allows members of this House to address you in either English, te reo Māori, or Sign Language. My point, however, was that yesterday, you made a suggestion that when it came to geographical terms, it might be reasonable to expect members to use the English version alongside the te reo Māori version, and I think that's the point that the House needs clarity on. Given what you've just said now, is it no longer your view that that is required, and if members want to say Aotearoa—or, indeed, for example, Whakaoriori instead of Masterton—you are not requiring us to follow it up with an English version?

SPEAKER: Look, I said yesterday that I wanted to bring to the House a sound ruling on this, so I don't want to make it up from this seat—I didn't yesterday; I'm not doing it today. I certainly wanted to find out where the New Zealand Geographic Board is on all of these things, so let's do it absolutely properly. But the other thing is the point I just made before: it's a debating House. People say things that others don't like, and—

Hon Shane Jones: Exactly.

SPEAKER: Well, it goes for two sides. If people are getting upset about the use of a word here or there—and unless it is grossly offensive, I don't think that the Speaker should be interrupting. But I certainly have not stopped and will not stop people using an appropriate expression for whatever they're talking about in debate.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir—

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —this is not a case of being sensitive; it's not a case of disagreeing with other members. This is a case of getting clarity from you—

SPEAKER: Yes, I know, and that's what I've said I'll do.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —as to how you're interpreting the rules, and I actually, frankly, don't think the suggestion that members seeking clarity from you—as is our right—by applying Speakers' rulings and the Standing Orders is anything to do with political debate or the sensitivity of members.

SPEAKER: Well, look, if it wasn't, it wouldn't have led to this discussion. But I will bring out a ruling on the first day back after the next recess.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, speaking to this point of order, I appreciate that it's a tough position for you, but the angst in terms of, particularly, our Māori language community is high because we have an expert in the Māori language in Mr Jones—and we all acknowledge that and concede that—who is questioning the legitimacy of the usage of te reo Māori in the House. That's why we need clear clarification from you on its usage, because I appreciate that it's tough when you have an expert, for some reason, coming out with the nonsense he's coming out with, and we need some clarity, because it's very clear you can use English or Māori. We just want some direction, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, for the third time today, can I say that Standing Order 109 stands. It hasn't changed and I'm not changing it, and I doubt that any Standing Orders Committee is going to change it. So there is no question that either language of the three options people have can be used in this House.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding resilient transport connections in Hawke's Bay?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Last week, I travelled to the mighty Hawke's Bay—thrilled to confirm the Government has approved funding to deliver the Waikare Gorge realignment project, a cost of between $350 million and $425 million. This will deliver 4 kilometres of State Highway 2 realignment between Wairoa and Napier, including a 160 metre long arch bridge over the top of the Waikare Gorge. It was actually two years to the day since Cyclone Gabrielle, and I know it's been a tough grind for the people of Wairoa and the East Coast. We are committed to this region and its recovery, and I want to acknowledge the strong advocacy of its fine local MPs.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is this project so important for the people of the East Coast?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, well, as the as the member knows, currently the State highway travels through Putorino and down into Waikare Gorge. This has been prone to slips in the past, and the gorge bridge was destroyed in Cyclone Gabrielle, severing the connection between Hawke's Bay and Wairoa for a number of months. State Highway 2 connection is critical for the thousands of road users and freight operators who use this corridor every day, and local communities and businesses who've been looking forward to this keenly anticipated project going ahead.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What feedback has the Minister received on this announcement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It's been outstanding feedback. I want to particularly quote Wairoa Mayor Craig Little: "Wairoa will be happy. No one knows what this means to us. It's a big one." Mr Little, His Worship, has been a staunch advocate for this project alongside local MPs, and I do want to acknowledge the persistence and patience of those living, working, and travelling through the East Coast. We're looking forward to construction starting on this project as soon as possible.

Question No. 5—Children

5. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to serious youth offenders and the military-style academies?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes, in the context in which they were made at the time. I especially stand by my actions to provide funding of $30.6 million over four years to continue the fast-track youth offending programme and extend the programme to 14- to 17-year-olds, which will contribute to this Government's target rate of a 15 percent reduction in the total number of children and young people who are serious and persistent youth offenders.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are there currently military-style academy pilot participants missing from the in-community stage of the pilot?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have said this in the House many times that I will not be speaking to these young peoples' day-to-day life activities, that they're a small cohort of young people, and that we must respect their privacy.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is there currently a matter of public safety concerning the military-style academy pilot?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: It wouldn't be for me to say whether something is or is not a matter of public safety. This would be a matter for the police, who would make the call on that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with the expert clinical psychologist Brian Dixon's testimony to the select committee, who said, "Contrary to popular beliefs in some circles that military-style academy training are an untested panacea, the actual science shows that such approaches are an abject failure, and, furthermore, they lead to more and more serious offending. Quite frankly, such experiments are a colossal waste of money and legislating for more of those is throwing good money after bad.", and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Once again, I think we need to get off the fixation of the name "boot camps" and actually understand what we're trying to achieve here. These are young people who have repeat serious offences who continue to come to youth justice residence, and then when their sentence is over, whip back into the community into the same environment that they came from. What we are doing now is making sure we're going to put legislation in place that will allow us to have a more intensive, holistic approach to dealing with these young people.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen in terms of independent evaluation feedback from whānau—that's family—"My son learnt a lot from being part of the MSA programme. In the past when my son had offended, he did not show any accountability for his actions. However, this time my son showed remorse for what he had done … I am thankful to Oranga Tamariki and thankful to the boot camp"—has she seen that evidence?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would have to say and to add to that that I would like to thank every staff member and every person involved that allowed what the Deputy Prime Minister has spoken about just now. These young people need people behind them to support them to be the best that they can be.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she confident that any reoffending occurring during the in-community stage of the military-style academy pilot is not more serious reoffending?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would just like to put this in context. What we were doing before was letting these kids go in and out of these youth justice residences without any support. For young people who received a supervision of residence order in 2022, where a young person is ordered to spend time in a secure youth justice residence, the one-year offending rate was 75 percent—75 percent. If we can help some of that 75 percent be better than what they are now, then I'm all for it.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an interesting, long answer, but my question was: "Is she confident that the reoffending since the pilot in in-community phase is more serious reoffending?" She didn't answer that.

SPEAKER: Well, she certainly addressed the question. I didn't hear all of it, of course, because there were people to my left who were at some audible volume saying, "Answer the question." So I didn't get the entire answer. I can assume only that the Minister addressed the question.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she say that her military-style academy pilot is a success and continue to push through legislation when she is not being transparent about what is really going on?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I don't believe I've ever said that the pilot is a success. I've constantly stood here and said it's too early to state whether it's a success or not. It is still a pilot.

Question No. 6—Defence

6. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Associate Minister of Defence: What announcements has the Government made about Defence housing?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recently had the pleasure of cutting the ribbon on new soldiers flats at Papakura Military Camp—by happy coincidence, within the electorate of the Minister of Defence. The project was delivered in an impressive time frame of six months and constructed offsite with modular technology. This offers an exciting insight into the future of being able to deliver more Defence housing and accommodation options on base, and mirrors the work of other ministerial colleagues to more efficiently and affordably procure more classrooms, social housing, and so on, in the same manner.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why did the Government choose to invest in upgrading the soldiers flat at Papakura Military Camp?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Defence housing is an essential way to support our personnel wearing uniform who serve our country so well—they are posted across New Zealand. Some 1,900 Defence homes, many of which—in fact, most of which—are more than 60 years old. We know that our soldiers, sailors, and aviators deserve better than they have had for very many years in this regard, and I'm sure that the member are asking the question, ex-Major Weenink, having experienced those facilities herself, would share my view in that regard.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the benefit of improving housing for New Zealand's Defence personnel?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Improving Defence housing isn't just placing a roof over the head of our Defence Force personnel and their families, important as that is. It's a crucial element in maintaining morale and discipline, which in turn leads to positive outcomes in terms of recruitment and retention that are going to be essential as we ensure that our personnel are well equipped to provide the national security aims, and other ways in which our Defence Force is a force for good for New Zealand.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Is this the last Defence estate project the Government will be investing in?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Far from it. In fact, it's not even the last Defence investment in housing at Papakura Military Camp. We have an ambitious programme to deliver through the Defence Estate Regeneration Plan. For example, in the next year alone, $180 million worth of procurement of capital projects—again, better housing for our personnel and their families, modernised shared spaces like dining halls, and maintenance, of course, for the facilities that we already do have. On top of this, Budget 2024 delivered an extra $7 million of new operating funding for leasing of Defence housing so that at Devonport Naval Base, an additional 35 new houses will support those personnel. I thank all those who've worked hard on these projects over the year—they are coming to fruition under this Government.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What changes is the Government making in phase one of its anti-money laundering and countering finance of terrorism reform, and how will these changes cut red tape to boost the economy, if at all?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Phase one focuses on cutting red tape to reduce compliance costs and grow the economy. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill will together streamline outdated anti - money-laundering (AML) requirements, remove duplication, and reduce compliance costs, with the aim of increasing productivity.

Todd Stephenson: What specific changes are being made through the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill to cut red tape and grow the economy?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: We are removing mandatory enhanced customer due diligence for low-risk trusts such as family trusts. Currently, businesses are required to apply the same enhanced customer due diligence processes to all trusts regardless of the risk. This change will provide relief for reporting entities that will no longer have to collect information for low-risk trusts.

Todd Stephenson: How will changes introduced through the Statutes Amendment Bill tackle unnecessary regulation and encourage growth?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The Statutes Amendment Bill will remove address verification requirements in most cases. Many New Zealanders and businesses are currently required to have their addresses repeatedly verified due to the AML requirements, even if they've used the same bank for many years. This unnecessary regulation wastes time and money, and creates barriers for people trying to access basic financial services. Removing these requirements will also help those without a formal address, like dependent children or persons with intellectual disabilities, to open bank accounts more easily.

Todd Stephenson: Can the Minister provide other examples of red tape that's being removed in phase one of her reforms?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: One example is the requirement for people to submit a Border Cash Report if they receive cash from someone who has already declared it when entering New Zealand. This is unnecessary red tape, adding no value but creating more work for businesses and individuals. Phase one of my reforms will remove outdated requirements like this one to save New Zealanders both time and money.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement about speed limit increases that it is "safe to do these changes"; if so, what specific evidence has he received, if any, on the impact of reversing speed limit reductions on deaths and serious injuries?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Yes. I'm advised the Ministry of Transport undertook an interim regulatory impact analysis to support the new speed rule, which has been released publicly. The ministry advised it is difficult to accurately model the impact of the rule on deaths and serious injuries.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept the findings from Waka Kotahi's speed monitoring economic assessment undertaken in 2024 that found corridors which had speed limits reduced prevented an average of 27 deaths and serious injuries per quarter each year, with travel time increases of between 12 seconds and four minutes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm not overly familiar with the document the member is referring to. All I would say is that the Government is reversing the blanket speed limit reductions advocated and pushed forward by the previous Government. We sought a mandate for that at the election. We are carrying that out, and it's been broadly popular around the country.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: What does he say to a Waitaki Bridge resident who said about the reduced speed limit that, "The speed limit change was community-driven from the very beginning. It was fantastic that the community had managed to see the change happen, and it just seems that it's now become a political issue rather than an actual safety issue."?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as the member knows, there are around 50 State highways around the country that are out for further consultation, so that particular resident potentially is able to have their say. We've actually improved the consultation requirements for ongoing speed limit changes as part of the new rule that was set last year, and community voice as part of the process is important.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he then allow road-controlling authorities, including local councils, to retain safe speed limits where strong community support has already been demonstrated, without having to automatically reverse and then consult again?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There's new consultation requirements as part of the new rule, but as the member knows, we are setting a rule, particularly around schools, that I know the member's been very concerned about, and that is an important change that we're making.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he aware that in places like New Plymouth, for example, they've been told that they have to automatically reverse speed limits by July in places where the reductions had 89 percent community support, and will they have to reverse the speed limits, then spend money consulting again in order to have a speed limit that actually delivers for their communities?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I've seen the comments from the Mayor of New Plymouth.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It wasn't a question about whether he'd seen the comments; it was a question about whether that road-controlling authority will have to reverse speed limits and then consult again, or whether he will consider allowing the community voice to be heard.

Hon Chris Bishop: Well, that's not what the question was.

SPEAKER: I agree.

Hon Chris Bishop: The question was: was I aware of the of the statement, and the answer is yes.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he have any idea how much it will cost councils to automatically reverse all of the speed limits, then consult again should they wish to prioritise road safety instead of following his Government's direction, described by the New Plymouth mayor as "ideologically-driven nonsense [with] no scientific basis"?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The only person who generally advocates for that ideologically-driven nonsense is that member and her comrades in the Green Party.

SPEAKER: The member's allocation of questions has expired.

Question No. 9—Women

9. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister for Women: Does she have confidence that the Government is advocating on behalf of, and prioritising issues pertaining to, women?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister for Women: Yes.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How can she have confidence that the Government is prioritising issues pertaining to women when the Minister of Police, Mark Mitchell, joked in an interview, "I don't know if a gang member wants to deal with a perimenopausal woman"?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well—

SPEAKER: The look would probably give us an answer, actually!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Let me just say this: we women have put up with a lot. And I know this: Minister Mitchell is the strongest advocate against the violence that gangs mete out to women that I have seen, and I fully support him in standing up against the gangs. As for his little statement, I'll deal with that later!

Hon Jan Tinetti: Would abolishing the Ministry for Women, as per the next Deputy Prime Minister's campaign wish, help advocate for issues pertaining to women?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Could the member ask that again, please?

Hon Jan Tinetti: Certainly. Would abolishing the Ministry for Women, as per the next Deputy Prime Minister's campaign wish, help advocate for issues pertaining to women?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, it depends whether or not the ministry has a great Minister, which they do in the Hon Nicola Grigg. And I'd also say, too, that the coalition agreements are what the Government is fulfilling, not every party's campaign promises.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she agree with ACT Party leader, David Seymour, when he said, "The gender pay gap exists when you have to be there late at night to make the sale, put in the extra hours, and do all the extra things that women are often unavailable to do because of the way gender roles work"?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think, being one of those women who is always there late at night working, and always have been in my working life, I know that sometimes women do get a very hard time and different treatment, and that is why we stand up for women. The best thing we can all do is to acknowledge women, stand up for each other no matter what, and no matter our political affiliations, which is not something I've always felt from that side of the House.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she think it's appropriate for Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court to tell women what period products to use to save money?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Do you know, I think it's amazing, because I don't need to worry about those sorts of things any more, and I'm just so grateful for the fact that this man is actually interested in it, because I sure as hell am not.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How can she have confidence the Government is advocating for women when her colleagues mock perimenopausal women, dismiss the causes for the gender pay gap, appoint an anti-abortion lobbyist as the Minister of Health, and tell women what to put in their vagina, and why has she, as the Minister for Women, stood by and done nothing?

SPEAKER: Well, I'll tell you what, that question is seriously going to affect my reading of answers that are given in the House from this point on.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a stupid question, and the last thing we need is for women in this House to be belittling other members of Parliament who are trying to do their job. Just stand up for women when they ask you to. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Thank you—we'll now wait for complete silence. I call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.

Question No. 10—Children

10. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes, in the context in which they were made at the time, especially my statement that the best interests and the safety of our children should be first and foremost in all decision making for our young people.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she stand by her decision to remove mandatory family group conferences (FGCs) for youth classified as young serious offenders, despite the fact that 80 percent of rangatahi likely to receive this classification are Māori and will be the most in need of input from whānau, hapū, and iwi?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I am a real big fan of family group conferences and the intention of why family group conferences were brought in in the first place. I want to go back to the true intention of why those FGCs were brought about in the first place, not it becoming a tick-box exercise for judges to hold up the court system and allow kids to be on remand for up to 12 months at a time because of FGCs.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Is she determined to isolate mokopuna Māori in the system for their w'akapapa—genealogy—with the removal of mandatory family group conferences and the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We will not be removing family group conferences. What we're saying is making sure that a family group conference is done right in the first place rather than having to have repeated family group conferences with no outcomes and not being done in the way that they were intended to be done.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister want to see a reduction in the number of tamariki Māori in care?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely. That's why I'm really proud of four of the nine partners that are now operationalised within this country showing positive results. For example, far fewer Tainui tamariki entered care and protection in 2023 compared to 2019, and there was a 61 percent reduction, all because we've worked together for our young people.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Would the $260,000 spent per child on these boot camps have been better spent on expanding the Ka Ora, Ka Ako - Healthy School Lunches Programme to help prevent our tamariki from offending in the first place?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The money that we are investing in these young people is to help them to be accountable for the crimes that they've committed. They have left victims behind within the community, and there needs to be accountability for that. But it is also about making sure that we rehabilitate these young people to lessen the chance of victims in our community and also give these kids a better chance at life.

Question No. 11—Mental Health

11. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcement has he made regarding funding from the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund for the Mental Health Foundation?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): I was thrilled to recently announce that the Mental Health Foundation is the latest recipient of the Government's Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund. This funding is being matched by the Mental Health Foundation to fully fund Project Wakapuāwai, an initiative that will digitise more mental health resources to allow Kiwis faster access to mental health information and support. This funding will allow for the Mental Health Foundation to redevelop and futureproof its digital platforms to improve the ways they provide crucial information about mental health, wellbeing, suicide prevention, and mental distress for all New Zealanders.

Nancy Lu: Why is it important to digitise mental health resources?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, this Government knows that access to information and support for our rural and remote communities remains a barrier, so online resources such as this is another option for those looking to support themselves or someone they care about. If you're on a farm in Northland or a tiny town in Southern New Zealand, we know your access to mental health support can be limited. We want every Kiwi to know help is close, and this goes some way to achieving that.

Nancy Lu: What other contracts have been announced as a result of the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, the Mental Health Foundation is the fourth contract to be awarded so far from the first round of the mental health innovation fund. The other three recipients are Youthline, the Sir John Kirwan Foundation, and MATES in Construction. Youthline will receive funding to expand its Counselling Your Way programme. The Sir John Kirwan Foundation will receive funding to scale up Mitey, a free early intervention initiative to support children's mental health. Mates in Construction will receive funding for its community workplace - based programme. These are only the first three recipients, and I'm excited to share more recipients in the future.

Ingrid Leary: Does the Minister regret ignoring advice from his own officials that funding this initiative out of health funds would lead to workforce shortages, when thousands more people have now been locked out of specialist mental health services due to workforce shortages?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, the question is "Do I regret not following official advice?" What, advice not to spend money that was stuck in Wellington and send it out to the front line with organisations like Youthline, MATES in Construction, and the Mental Health Foundation? I know what the public wants me to do. Also, the member raised the question about the workforce. The Auditor-General, in its damning report of the last Government, said there was no mental health workforce plan. This Government's delivered New Zealand's first mental health workforce plan within baseline budget, so it shows you can actually do both.

Nancy Lu: How does the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund support New Zealanders to access timely mental health support?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, the Government is focused on not only growing and improving the performance of our existing front-line services, but we're also growing and developing new front-line mental health and addiction workforces. I think it's fantastic that the innovation fund is supporting our front-line mental health workforce and enabling more Kiwis to get faster access to timely mental health support. This fund is part of the Government's commitment of investing more in grassroots initiatives. We came into Government to say we'd get more money out of Wellington to the front line, and that's what we've done.

Hon Shane Jones: On the point of mental health, can the Minister explain to the House what happened to the $1.2 billion under Jacinda Ardern's Government?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, what I can do is—

SPEAKER: No, no. No. Question 12.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, can I ask the Minister, putting it this way, is there a present series of policies that have learnt from the fact that the $1.2 billion ended up with five hospital beds?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, I reflected, coming into Government, on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission report on the last Government that said, despite the $1.9 billion announced for mental health, it had made no material difference. Which showed it was less about just tagging money and making announcements, but actually getting money out the door to new services, and that's what we've announced today.

Question No. 12—Disability Issues

12. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement that "The Government is focused on delivering services and supports that meet the needs of disabled people, their family and carers, both now and into the future"; if not, why not?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister for Pacific Peoples) on behalf of the Minister for Disability Issues: Yes. There has been a record investment of $1.1 billion over five years to address demand and cost pressures on the support service. The Government has taken urgent steps to stabilise the disability support system. Work is well under way to implement the recommendations of the independent review. Included in this are needs assessment and service coordination centres (NASCs) that have budgets greater than their spending in the last financial year, ensuring that there continues to be places available in residential care for those with the greatest need.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How can she stand by her statement when doctors are saying that intellectually disabled people are unable to transition into residential care facilities they were approved for, because of her Government's freeze on new placements?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The residential component of NASC budgets is larger than in the previous budget, and I am advised that there is not a freeze on new entries into residential care.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How is she supporting disabled people, when psychiatrists are saying that people with severe difficulties who were admitted into hospital are no longer able to go home or into residential facilities due to the freeze and are instead stuck in psych wards?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I said in my previous question, I'm advised that there is not a freeze on new entries into residential care.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she agree with doctors and nurses who recently wrote in the New Zealand Medical Journal that her freeze is causing unnecessary, severe harm to those with an intellectual disability, and their families and carers?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I agree with is other phrases in the medical journal that said, "pending commissioning and completion of detailed and urgent review of the contract and pricing models, which is currently under way".

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How is cutting the funding package of an autistic eight-year-old child with complex needs by almost 50 percent, despite the child's needs not changing, meeting the needs of disabled people, especially when the family was told the cut was because of her Government's directive to NASCs to reduce spending?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I'm advised that NASCs need to prioritise their indicative budgets towards those in the highest need. NASCs hold responsibility for determining whether someone needs eligibility for Disability Support Services support, and secondly, what that support looks like.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How can she possibly expect New Zealanders to believe that there is no freeze, when disabled people, family, carers, doctors, and a document from her own ministry all say there is?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The $1.1 billion increase in funding over five years in Budget 2024 is a good indication of our support for the disabled sector.

© Scoop Media