ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Rail

1. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Minister for Rail: Does he stand by his statements and actions regarding the Cook Strait ferries?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): Yes, and by my statement that a project in 2020 with $400.1 million in Government funding and the balance coming from KiwiRail and the ports somehow blew out by billions by 2023 and the Treasury warning the last Government it was on track to go above $4 billion. We are hard at work on a cost-effective solution. It's possible to bring new ships to New Zealand and take a pragmatic approach to infrastructure, so watch this space.

Jamie Arbuckle: What feedback has the Government had in its engagement with commercial shipyards?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are in a worldwide search for a good commercial deal. Good business people seek multiple quotes towards a competitive price, and also treat prospective partners with the utmost respect. That's why we met with Hyundai and it's why we directly approached many shipyards around the world. We intend to narrow our list very shortly to a selection of capable shipbuilders, and the final cost will be a massive saving to the New Zealand people.

Jamie Arbuckle: How is the work on the infrastructure element of this programme tracking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As former Labour Minister, Maharey, would say, more good news. Extremely well; we have been to see CentrePort, we're in contact with Port Marlborough and we'll visit them directly soon, and are regularly working with KiwiRail and our new company Ferry Holdings Limited. It was curious to see reports in the media yesterday suggesting that ports were reluctant to work with KiwiRail. In our experience, both ports and KiwiRail have worked constructively, collaboratively, and collegially to focus on cost-effective infrastructure. In a few weeks' time, this House will see just how productive work can be when the Government is disciplined in its objectives.

Jamie Arbuckle: Who has the Government appointed to the Ferry Holdings Limited board?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, more good news. Chris Mackenzie, with a deep operational knowledge of rail and ferries; Heather Simpson—

Hon Willie Jackson: One of your good mates.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, not Willie Jackson. No, no, no. Don't be alarmed. It's Heather Simpson, with strong competence in economics and the workings of Government; Greg Lowe, a qualified marine engineer and former global head of Beca; Katherine Rich, an industry body chief executive with a firm understanding of the freight supply chain and customer needs; and Captain Iain MacLeod, an experienced mariner and shipmaster who has driven ships on the Cook Strait and across the Pacific.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, "We don't want a globalised sell-out of New Zealand, which is what many of the neo-liberals have recommended", or is his disagreement with Winston Peters the reason the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been barred from speaking at his international investor summit?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—the Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to be here tomorrow, ensuring that the Government maintains control of this House. Then, in the evening, he will be on a plane to the United States to ensure that the best representation possible in our country's interests—hopefully in a bipartisan way—is put to the American people.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Prime Minister be indicating to international investors tomorrow that his Government is open to the privatisation of school and hospital buildings?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the Prime Minister is giving a speech today setting out the coverage and span of the two days—the 13th and 14th—will be. That should be asked of the Prime Minister because that's covered in his speech—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I just did.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I just say, yes, but the timing is later today. And unlike an undisciplined party, we stick to form, we stick in our lane, and we make sure that things are done chronologically and sequentially.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When the Prime Minister said on Monday that there's $6 billion of hospital building work in the pipeline he'd be presenting to international investors tomorrow, was he indicating that the Government is open to private investors owning those hospital buildings?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister was indicating that he inherited a wrecked economy where the main mantra was borrow and hope, and that if we're to turn this around, we need international investment and we need it now. Our job is to provide the international investors with the answers as to why New Zealand is the right place to invest. That's why we hope to have agreement across political parties on the essentialities now brought upon us by an infrugal, wasteful, spendthrift Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does health Minister Simeon Brown's statement that he wants as much elective surgery as possible to be done in private hospitals reflect Government policy?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The wisdom of Simeon Brown is that he understands one thing: the patient's everything—the patient's everything. How they get the operation is not helped by blind stupid ideology.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with David Seymour, "If you partially privatise corporations and allow private shareholders to own part of them, the company is much more accountable"; if so, how does he explain the mixed-ownership - model power companies decreasing their investment in new generation, increasing power prices, and withdrawing record profits following that partial privatisation?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If one has a grasp on this country's political history, going all the way back to Dick Seddon, that was always understood to be the case.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government considering relaxing the foreign home-buyer ban as part of its bid to attract more wealthy foreign investors; if so, what happened to putting New Zealanders first?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But that's not what the Government's doing. So why is he speculating on something that his party was prepared to do? His party, for example, is the only one that in 2002 signed a deal with Singapore and sold that right down the drain. And I had to go across there and try and change it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister and his Government had a "good look" at my Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill, as he promised me that he would do in response to my questions in this House on 11 December last year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I believe the Prime Minister's kept his word on that matter. And we're also waiting for a good look at that member's response to the 7 October violent terrorist attack that saw so many thousands of people be killed or abducted at the same time. I'm still waiting to see that member's response to that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by Aotearoa's vote at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2024, which called on all States to implement sanctions in response to Israel's unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory, and, if so, what is he doing about it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No such vote at the United Nations in that country's name has ever been given. That's what we're doing about it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You made a ruling in this House that "Aotearoa" and "New Zealand" could be used interchangeably, so I would expect an answer to that question from the acting Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If we go to the record of the United Nations, no such country was recorded as casting a vote.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister join the Greens, Labour, and Te Pāti Māori in supporting my member's bill to implement sanctions and trade measures against Israel for their continued, ceaseless, and violent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, just like we did against Russia for its unlawful occupation of Ukraine?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This side of the House has always believed in a two-State solution and is awaiting that member's petition regarding the terrorist atrocity that happened in October so many years ago and until this time has only been responded to by members on this side of the House and some members of the Opposition but not by the Green Party or that member.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister commit to retaining our nuclear-free status under this Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I've got no idea where that question is coming from, because nowhere and anywhere in this House has a comment been made about that. [Interruption] Beg your pardon?

Chlöe Swarbrick: It's a question. It's about your trip to the States.

SPEAKER: Yeah, the primary question is statements and actions. If the acting Prime Minister is saying there has been no statement, there is no action, then the question doesn't stand. You can ask another question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, can I have a point of order? There is a certain rudimentary training required for members of Parliament, that they understand the Standing Orders and know what the parameters are. We've seen somebody being ruled out today bringing a request for an urgent debate—no evidence to back it up. All the fundamentals that are laid out in the Speakers' rulings are not even observed. That was a classic question there: no evidence to bring the question up and she just expects to get an answer.

SPEAKER: Well, I just ruled that way.

Chlöe Swarbrick: A further supplementary, Mr Speaker, as you offered me another: is the Government committed to our status as a nuclear-free Aotearoa New Zealand and a nuclear-free Pacific, and does he support Pacific efforts to revitalise the Treaty of Rarotonga to close the loopholes left for the United States to pilot nuclear submarines through the Pacific?

SPEAKER: So here is the problem with that question as well. There has to be an action or a statement by the Government to bring it back to the primary question. I did give the member another chance, but we'll move on to Laura McClure.

Question No. 3—Agriculture

3. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcements has he made about positive health outcomes for pets?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Yesterday, I announced a regulatory change to allow non-veterinarians to carry out certain dental procedures on cats and dogs when authorised by a vet. As a farmer, I know how busy vets are around the country and that we have talented vet nurses who are capable of doing subgingival procedures like teeth scaling. This change will give them the legal protection to do that. Animals' dental health is a really good marker for overall health and so expanding the number of people that can provide this service will lead to really positive outcomes for pets. And we actually give a toss about pets over here.

SPEAKER: There are two members having a conversation that would be better carried out out of the House, and I will facilitate that for them if it continues.

Laura McClure: Why was this change necessary?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, these changes were necessary because of an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act made by the previous Government that was nothing short of a "cat-tastrophe". It meant that surgical procedures can only be provided by a vet. Vet nurses were routinely conducting subgingival dental procedures prior to the law change. These regulations will restore that right and mean that pets who have potentially serious health concerns don't have to wait for a vet and can be seen more quickly.

Laura McClure: How will this be "paws-itive" for pet owners? [Interruption]

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Sorry, end of the puns, I promise. The hope is that over time we will see a reduction in cost for this sort of procedure. It will still be done by trained, capable, professional, clinical staff, but not necessarily by a registered vet. But most of all, it'll go some way to freeing up vets' time so that they can be more available to pet owners who need them for more complex procedures. The overall ability of vets to provide services to their clients will therefore improve.

Laura McClure: How will this change support vets and vet nurses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: This will be welcome news to vets and vet nurses. I would like to acknowledge the work of the New Zealand Veterinary Association and the New Zealand Veterinary Nurses Association who have been advocating for their sector in this area since 2021. In addition to freeing up vets' time, I'm sure that vet nurses will be relishing the opportunity to use their skills to care for even more animals when this regulation comes into force on 10 April this year.

Question No. 4—Energy

4. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Energy: Is he concerned that two international offshore wind investors have now withdrawn or paused their New Zealand projects, citing current Government policy as their reason; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy): No, I am confident in the work this Government is doing to enable offshore wind. When we came into office, there was no regime or legislation to enable offshore wind, but thanks to this Government, we will soon have both.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is he concerned that international investors are telling his Government that their investment is at risk because of his Government's policies that could cost New Zealand, by PricewaterhouseCoopers' estimations, between 5,000 and 30,000 highly skilled, well-paid jobs?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No, I'm not. We've actually got over 100 of those investors currently in the country telling us and telling this Government that they want to invest in this country, and we are a Government that's going to ensure that the red and green tape that is currently in place is out of the way so that they can invest in our country and make Kiwis' lives better.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he, the Prime Minister, or any other Minister met with Sumitomo Corporation following their letter on 11 October to the Prime Minister and other Ministers seeking reconsideration of Government policies, and, if not, why has the Government not worked to ensure international investment in New Zealand has not been paused because of their policies?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I've been the Minister for Energy for just under four weeks, and I haven't had a request from that organisation to meet. But I do meet regularly with a large number of investors who are looking at opportunities to build renewable generation in this country. That is one of the single-biggest things that this country can do in order to improve livelihoods and our economy. More renewable generation will aid energy security and affordability, and grow our economy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether his job has been exacerbated by the closure of Marsden Point, and who was responsible for doing that?

SPEAKER: That's probably just a little bit wide of the wicket.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no—

SPEAKER: It's got to relate to the primary—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Just a minute—when I'm ready. I can't knock out a question because it doesn't relate to the primary, only to allow a question that also is very, very far wide of the wicket from the primary.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who, in question time yesterday, said, "We know we need the investment, because it's actually capital to grow our businesses, which actually creates higher-income jobs and more jobs for people.", and has he had a conversation with the Prime Minister to say, actually, in the case of offshore wind, it's his Government's policy settings that are driving away international investment that would lead to well-paid jobs in New Zealand?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I obviously always agree with our Prime Minister, but what I also agree with is the fact that this country needs more abundant and affordable energy, and this is a Government who is taking the steps to put in place the legislative regime to make that a reality. I will reinforce: we had no legislative framework in place when we came into Government, but we will do by the end of this year, and that is good for New Zealand and it's good for the New Zealand economy.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with Infrastructure New Zealand, who has pointed out the delays from this Government and the work that the previous Government had under way to establish a regulatory regime for offshore wind?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I only go back to what I noted in my primary response, which is: when we came in, that regulatory regime was not in place. You cannot build offshore wind in this country today, because the regulations are not in place. This Government is taking the action to make sure it is in place, and this Government will deliver upon that promise.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on increasing penalties for illicit drug use?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Yesterday, I announced that Cabinet has agreed to progress with stronger drug classifications to crack down on harmful substances and protect New Zealanders from the devastating impact of illicit drugs. Proposed changes include classifying three fentanyl analogues as class A drugs as part of stronger controls on 23 harmful substances, which will lead to tougher penalties for offenders. Peddlers of illicit drugs cause significant harm in our communities and inflict misery on our streets. Our Government is committed to keeping Kiwis safe from dangerous substances.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is the Government proposing to increase controls on 23 illicit drugs?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Government is responding to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which recommended to limit the risk of harmful and potential misuse of drugs to include these classifications. This will enable police and Customs to take preventative action and allow harsher penalties for those caught making or possessing these drugs.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What substances besides fentanyl analogues are being more tightly controlled?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is proposing to impose stricter controls on a number of illicit substances. This includes synthetic cathinones, often marketed as bath salts; synthetic cannabinoids; and amphetamine precursors, used in the manufacture of meth. We know how important it is to reduce the impact of drug harm. Ensuring there are stronger controls in place for these harmful substances is a step towards our goal.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: When will these new drug laws come into effect?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, good news. The process to strengthen drug controls is already under way. The planned changes have been approved by Cabinet, and will now be drafted as an Order in Council, tabled in Parliament, and considered by the Health Committee before again being referred back to Cabinet. If agreed, these changes will come into force by mid-year, ensuring stronger protections against harmful substances as soon as possible.

Question No. 6—Education

6. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I absolutely stand by actions to build a world-leading education system that delivers equitable and excellent outcomes for every child—in particular, this Government's introduction of phonics checks in English and te reo Māori. So far this year, more than 800 teachers have already completed their training module, and feedback I've received from teachers has been extraordinarily positive. One wrote that "The phonics check is an easy-to-administer assessment that provides teachers with valuable information about a child's phonics knowledge and their ability to blend sounds and read words. It enables teachers to target their instructions to meet their children's needs."

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Did the Government receive official advice that its changes to the school lunch programme weren't going to work, and, if so, why did she agree to them?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: While I am kept up to date on the broad direction of this area, this area of school lunches, as you know, is delegated to Minister Seymour, and detailed questions should be directed to Mr Seymour.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Did she put in place a contingency plan in case something went wrong, such as a provider going into liquidation, and, if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I will respond to that question by reiterating the previous answer: while I'm kept up to date on the broad direction of this area, those questions need to be directed to Minister Seymour.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: When did she first find out about issues with Libelle, and when did she tell Minister Seymour, if at all?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to that question, Minister Seymour informed me of some high-level supply challenges relating to Libelle on 11 February.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that yesterday, when one subcontractor, Libelle, went into liquidation, the on-time, in-full delivery for the school lunch programme was 99.96 percent, and if that's not a contingency plan to deal with a subcontractor—

SPEAKER: Just a question.

Hon David Seymour: —going into liquidation, I'm not sure what is.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The answer to that question is yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why didn't she, as Minister of Education, act when she found out that hundreds of thousands of school lunches were at risk due to Libelle's issues?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I only found out about these issues recently. This is a delegation for Minister Seymour, and I know that these are very challenging and complex issues that he is working through, and I've offered him my full support in anything that he might need.

Question No. 7—Immigration

7. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent changes have been made to the Accredited Employer Work Visa to support businesses to access the skills and experience they need?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): This week, we've implemented a number of changes to the Accredited Employer Work Visa to help support businesses access the skills and experience they need to help us grow the economy. These changes include removing the median wage threshold, reducing the minimum experience required for level 4 and 5 roles to two years, and increasing the visa duration for new applicants in level 4 to 5 roles from two to three years. This Government has listened to businesses and stakeholders from around the country, and these changes will support businesses to grow the economy so that all New Zealanders can thrive.

Carl Bates: Supplementary. [Pauses]

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Carl Bates: Why were these changes made?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: These changes were made because the success of New Zealand's businesses is critical to growing our economy. Removing the median wage was a Government coalition agreement as it has distorted the labour market and meant that in some instances New Zealanders were being paid less than their migrant colleagues doing the same job. As Minister, it was also clear to me that some of the settings around relevant work experience and visa lengths could be improved. Our focus remains on attracting higher-skilled workers while managing migration responsibly to help Kiwi businesses expand and help grow the economy.

Carl Bates: Supplementary. [Pauses]

SPEAKER: Yeah. Just—hang on. You're not going to have your name called. You've called it once. Don't do that. Just get on with your question.

Carl Bates: What was the impact of these changes?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: These changes will support the right balance of ensuring Kiwis are prioritised for job opportunities while providing a more fit for purpose visa so New Zealanders can have access to the skills they need to grow the economy. Richard McIntyre from Federated Farmers said, "These changes are a significant step forward and will be welcome news for many farming families across New Zealand". And it, "… will cut thousands of dollars in costs for farmers, but will also mean a lot less stress and uncertainty for both the farmer and the employee who just want to get on with … farming."

Carl Bates: What feedback has the Minister seen?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have seen lots of positive feedback. BusinessNZ chief executive Katherine Rich said, "The changes are a positive start to what will need to be a continuing programme of refinement to immigration settings to ensure that businesses can get the skills they need to support economic recovery and growth." And, "It is positive to see [this] Government signalling greater responsiveness to business needs…".

Question No. 8—Science, Innovation and Technology

8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: Does he agree with the Science System Advisory Group's finding, "Note the critical importance of the science and innovation workforce, and that actions will be needed at multiple levels to develop and retain a high calibre workforce of researchers, scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs"; if so, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: On behalf of the Minister, yes. That's why we are reforming the science system so that scientists can have world-class careers right here in New Zealand. Our scientists are not just employed in Crown research institutes; we are focused on creating career pathways from universities, into the broader science, innovation, and technology industry. For example, the Government has recently announced a $20 million investment over five years for an applied PhD programme to equip students with the practical skills that they need to apply their knowledge to real-world problems within ambitious businesses.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can he confirm that the 40 people in the applied technology teams at Callaghan Innovation—the very people we should be hiring more of—will still be made redundant?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I can confirm is that the priority for the Government, in terms of the science system, is the commercialisation so that we can create economic growth. Economic growth, of course, means more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What consideration has the Minister given to the flow-on effects to businesses, including start-up businesses, which rely on Callaghan Innovation support and expertise, now that they may not be able to continue operating?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON On behalf of the Minister, what we do know, unfortunately, is some of the roles that were undertaken by Callaghan Innovation that were fee-for-service were actually underutilised and highly subsidised by the Government, so clearly weren't delivering value for business.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What advice does he have for the for the scientists and support staff at Callaghan Innovation who have had their employment terminated and are now actively applying for jobs in the Netherlands and Australia?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, anyone who is in the position where their job has changed is, of course—it's challenging for them as individuals. What we have to do as a Government, though, is make sure that across every Government agency, we are getting the outcomes that taxpayers are expecting. The refocusing of the science system, as I said before, was around commercialisation so that it directly leads to business and economic growth, so that we have more jobs available and we have higher wages.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he expect to generate "world-class careers in science" when 570 jobs have gone from the science sector since this Government took office, there are no clear career pathways for scientists at Callaghan, and our best and our brightest are now applying for jobs outside of New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, I would refute the statements that that member has made. If you think about the reshaping of the science system and the ability for scientists to gain intellectual property, they financially will benefit directly. That actually provides greater opportunities, greater career opportunities, and financial opportunities for them here in New Zealand.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Āe.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister care about productivity or just growth; and if so, how exactly does relying on offshore money from big corporates attending his privatisation festival address New Zealand's productivity crisis, which is created by entrenched social inequality?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To the manifestation of a number of questions, first two questions, both the answers—tahi, rua—are āe and āe.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister agree with his statement that "We have a fair tax system"; and if so, why has the OECD consistently said that New Zealand's productivity and equity is hampered by "shares, land, and residential property being tax favoured"?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister agrees with the statement, otherwise he wouldn't have said it. On the second thing: the OECD's had a lot of suggestions for this country, but if you look at it, the former Government went through this experience and decided in the opposite and, in fact, in the bonfire of inanities, the present leader of the Labour Party got rid of them.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that people who earn their money from work pay a higher effective tax rate than those who make money off wealth?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Being the only parties in this House that give a hoot about the working man and woman in this country: yes, we most certainly do.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that wealthy New Zealanders pay 9.5 percent tax on their economic income while New Zealanders who earn a salary of $80,000 pay around 29 percent?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If one is going to do the analysis from the book Das Kapital, you'll arrive at that sort of calculation, but nobody else has.

Hon Marama Davidson: Should cleaners, caterers, and security guards working on projects procured by the Government be guaranteed a living wage; if so, why did he remove paying these workers a living wage in the new Government procurement rules?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As someone who has ensured in the last 50 years to raise the minimum wage more than any other political influence in this country, the answer to that is we're working on it, but at the present time the wage rises are actually in excess of the inflation rises and the worker is still in front.

Question No. 10—Trade and Investment

10. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of State for Trade and Investment: What actions has the Government taken to support trade with South-east Asia?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): Vietnam is a valued member of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—or RCEP, as it's commonly known—and a partner for New Zealand, and this year we are celebrating 50 years of diplomatic relations. South-east Asia, of course, is home to 9 percent of the world's population and is critical to maintaining and building New Zealand's prosperity. Our Government has prioritised re-energising the relationship with Vietnam, and, recently, I joined the Prime Minister in a business delegation on a trade mission there to elevate our relationship. During that trip, the PM announced a major upgrade of the relationship to a comprehensive strategic partnership—the highest level available with Vietnam—making New Zealand just the 10th country in the world to achieve that.

Tim van de Molen: Why is this comprehensive strategic partnership with Vietnam significant?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Vietnam is our 14th-largest trading partner and the fastest-growing economy in ASEAN, therefore providing huge opportunities to us here in New Zealand. Over the last five years, two-way trade with Vietnam has grown a substantial 40 percent, and this new partnership, of course, has potential to increase it further. In New Zealand, there are great opportunities to build on partnerships with high-value sectors like premium food and beverages, agritech, technology, innovation, and renewable energy.

Tim van de Molen: What was achieved on this trade mission?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Heaps. During the trade mission to Vietnam, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has estimated that over $130 million of potential export value over the next three years was secured across 16 export deals and commercial partnerships. It's also been announced that the airline VietJet will be developing a new commercial route here to strengthen connectivity and build better people-to-people links. And, of course, finally, we have increased the number of Government scholarships available to Vietnamese students by 56 percent, further growing our education links with Vietnam.

Tim van de Molen: How does our partnership with Vietnam benefit New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Like trade partnerships with any other nation, strengthening our relationship with Vietnam is incredibly important to New Zealand's economic future, with more opportunities for businesses here. As Vietnam gets wealthier, Vietnamese people want to buy high-quality products from around the world, and we, of course, have some of the best food and beverage producers and innovative businesses around. The more we trade with the world, the more we grow our economy, which translates to more jobs, higher incomes, and more money in the back pockets of everyday New Zealanders.

Question No. 11—Health

11. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he committed to the same health outcomes for Māori as his immediate predecessor?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): My focus, as was the focus of my predecessor, is on ensuring that all New Zealanders, including Māori, have access to timely, quality healthcare. We know that too many New Zealanders are waiting too long to be seen at emergency departments, receive first specialist assessments, and have elective surgeries. Unlike the previous Government, our approach is putting patients first and backing our health system to get health back on track. This starts with bringing back our critical health targets, which the previous Government removed, to drive better outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Dr Shane Reti when he said, "I want to see iwi Māori partnership boards powered up to support the health outcomes for your whānau and your communities."; if so, what does powering up iwi Māori partnership boards mean?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, my predecessor was very clear, about independent Māori partnership boards, that they should be providing consistent advice around health needs for Māori across the country and that these partnership boards should not be commissioning agencies.

Hon Peeni Henare: Has the Minister seen the overwhelming evidence that Māori die seven years earlier, that Māori are twice as likely to die from cardiovascular disease, and that Māori are more likely to get type 2 diabetes, and if so, why do none of his health targets specifically address any of these issues?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the five health targets that this Government put back in place, which the last Government removed, are for all New Zealanders. Every New Zealander expects to be able to turn up to an emergency department and to be able to be seen in a timely manner. All New Zealanders expect that if they require elective surgery, they're able to receive that in a timely manner. This Government is focused on timely, quality access for all New Zealanders, which includes Māori.

Hon Peeni Henare: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for a moment. OK.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does healthcare for all New Zealanders mean raising the life expectancy for Māori or lowering the life expectancy for non-Māori?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Government's focus is on improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, for Māori and for non-Māori, and I'd just make this point to the other side: they removed health targets, and every single one went backwards for non-Māori and for Māori. All New Zealanders were worse off because of what they did when they decided to rearrange the health system in the middle of a pandemic. Shame on them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Those are actually relatively straightforward questions from Peeni Henare on a relatively—actually, a very serious—topic about the fact that Māori have lower life expectancy than non-Māori. You'll note that there there's not any political insult in the question; it's asking for Government policy on that. Instead, we've just had a diatribe from the Minister about health targets and the actions of the previous Government. It's not unreasonable to ask that he address what are straight and serious questions.

SPEAKER: The question you suggest is serious asked if the Government's policy was to raise the life expectancy of Māori or lower the life expectancy of non-Māori. I think that, inside that, there was then enormous scope for answer. It wasn't a totally straight-up question at all, in my opinion. However, the Minister may like to address the question that was asked. If you wanted to shorten it, I'll give you the chance to shorten it, so we don't get the flick at the end.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does healthcare for all New Zealanders, for this Government, mean making the life expectancy for Māori and non-Māori the same?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister give any—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Up or down? Which one's going to move?

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Sorry, start again. Please go ahead.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, she'll be interested in this question. Does the Minister give any credence to the fact that, internationally, diet is the most important thing towards longevity, as proven by populations like Japan, and we could do far more in terms of changing the Māori health outcomes by getting serious dietary change?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as members of this House know, there is a range of factors which impact on health outcomes, and it's critically important we're focused on them, but what I would say is we are focused on improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders.

Question No.12—Whānau Ora

12. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: How many audits and reviews has Whānau Ora failed since its establishment in 2010, if any?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Whānau Ora: Whānau Ora commissioning arrangements, like other Government-funded initiatives, have been subject to a number of audits and reviews since their establishment in 2014. Audits and reviews do not issue passes or fails. They are conducted periodically to determine if settings are fit for purpose, delivering outcomes for New Zealand, and highlight where changes may be needed to improve these.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why has the Minister allowed the overhaul of Whānau Ora, given that there is unclarity on how many audits Whānau Ora has passed, 19 audits in 10 years, two including an Auditor-General audit and a ministerial review?

SPEAKER: I'm going to ask you to do that question again. There is far too much chatter on the Government side of the House.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sure. Why has the Minister allowed the overhaul of Whānau Ora, given the Minister doesn't know Whānau Ora has passed 19 audits in 10 years, two including an Auditor-General review and a ministerial review?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, this is the first time in 10 years that Te Puni Kōkiri have gone to market for the supply of Whānau Ora commissioning services. This is not an overhaul; this is a re-letting of the contracts for the commissioning agencies. It should be noted that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) recommends that all Government contracts should be reviewed and re-let every four to five years. This is a normal business process.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. We've got a member asking pointed questions about a process in which one of the major losers appears to be a prominent member of her own political party. I just wonder if there's any need to declare such a conflict of interest before asking such questions.

SPEAKER: Well, if it wasn't declared and understood, the member wouldn't have taken the point of order.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe, te Pīka.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Do you want to talk about party presidents, David?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. That doesn't help order in the House. So we'll now go into total silence. [Interruption] Someone's going to go, Willie. We'll go to total silence.

Rawiri Waititi: Hey, he should have name suppression—

SPEAKER: Don't make it hard. Total silence for Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's questioning to continue.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia ora. Why has the Minister decided to completely cut and replace the current provider, the commissioning agency, given that Whānau Ora has supported over 4 million whānau since its establishment, has delivered over a million COVID-19 vaccines during the peak of the pandemic, and has provided evidence that it can get into homes that no one else can?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, let me be very clear to the House. Our Government has supported and is very keen to see Whānau Ora progress and actually go wider and deliver more outcomes for Māori than it has. It is a very normal process to go to market with the services to see if the providers who are currently providing the service are the best ones available in the market. It's a very normal process that Te Puni Kōkiri have undertaken. And as I said at the start, this is about ensuring that we deliver even greater Whānau Ora services to Māori who need it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does a provider that has banked over $100 million in profit not suggest that the taxpayers' money has not gone for the purpose in which it was given in the first place—right?

SPEAKER: I don't think that's something the Minister should speculate on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I'm not speculating on that at all. That is public knowledge. I just want to know whether the Minister thinks that the money given over to that provider has got to where it was given in the first place and spent for the purpose it was given.

SPEAKER: Well, that's—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It's public knowledge.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and that is certainly a lot clearer than the implication that was in the question, which, as you know, under 371 is not allowed. But given that clarification, the Minister may make a comment.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, this is a process that Te Puni Kōkiri have run, as recommended by MBIE, that every contract that the Government has should go to market every four to five years to test the market to see if there are other providers available. They have criteria. They apply that criteria. They select those that are best positioned to deliver the service for New Zealanders.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does Minister Potaka have to say to the 1,800 kaimahi who will lose their jobs as a result of his decision?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, firstly, let me say, it is a decision that is based on criteria by Te Puni Kōkiri, and, in terms of any changes that will result from the new providers, it is too early to tell. Those contracts are being negotiated as we speak. And what I do know, having had experience with the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies, is their deep commitment to serving whānau in need, and I do know that in terms of the transition, I have every confidence that they will do their best to ensure continuity of service for those who need it the most.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the Minister ensure that the 540,000 whānau who currently access Whānau Ora services will not be negatively impacted by the sudden change in commissioning agencies?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, I do want to say that this is a process that's been under way for many, many months, as is what normally happens when the Government puts a contract out for tender. And I want to say again: it is absolutely important that the transition is managed well. That is why, at the Minister for Whānau Ora's request, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Public Service Commission are working closely with Te Puni Kōkiri to manage the transition and to ensure a smooth continuity of service for the whānau receiving services.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Minister agree with the Auditor-General's statement from February 2003 that "the public service needs clear expectations for progressing whānau-centred approaches where appropriate. [In addition] Te Puni Kōkiri needs a clearer and stronger mandate for broadening whānau-centred approaches."?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, yes, and that is why the key shifts in commissioning the next round of Whānau Ora commissioning agencies are based on a greater service reach, strength in the evidence base, a data-driven investment planning, improved front-line workforce development and retention, and strengthened risk management processes. I would say that's an improvement.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If the Minister agrees with this statement, how can he justify cutting $500,000 from Whānau Ora through last year's Budget?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, every Minister across this Government is focused on the taxpayers who get up and go to work every day and pay tax. We have a responsibility to them to ensure that the tax they pay is spent effectively, and in every area, including Whānau Ora, we want to make sure that the services reach those who have the highest needs and the money gets to them as closely as possible.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Given that Whānau Ora is a proven success and that the Auditor-General has recommended that its whānau-centred approach should be expanded, why did the Minister decide to gut and replace the current commissioning agencies instead of increasing Whānau Ora funding to incorporate new commissioning agencies alongside the already established ones?

Rawiri Waititi: Because it was political and personal.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, there is nothing in this process that Te Puni Kōkiri have undertaken that shows that we do not support Whānau Ora—quite the opposite. I have laid out what the shifts are. We are very clear about the fact that Whānau Ora is an amazing model for delivering to whānau with the most complex and challenging lives, and it is very, very successful. That's why we are continuing. That is why we are ensuring, in terms of this process for commissioning agencies, we want even better results and even greater outcomes for the whānau it serves.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. As usual, I hesitate to raise this, but we've had continual barracking from the Te Pāti Māori co-leader that the Minister's decision was quite personal and political. That's a direct reflection and an accusation that the Minister has acted improperly. I would have thought that's the sort of comment that should be withdrawn for bringing down the reputation of the House.

SPEAKER: Well, I was listening, and what I could say is that it's not unusual that there are questions raised at various times about the actions of Ministers. If we're going to get down to a point where we are so sanitised that we can't have interjections of any type—given that that is at the lower end of what might be said in this House, and, frankly, has been said by a number of people in this House—then I think we'd be in some sort of difficulty.

© Scoop Media