Sitting date: 27 March 2025

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Justice

1. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Why is this Government adjusting the funding criteria for the Proceeds of Crime Fund?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): On Monday, the Government announced a new funding round for the proceeds of crime fund, introducing revised criteria focusing on reducing violent crime. From 31 March, any new initiative seeking funding must contribute to the Government's goal of reducing violent crime. This change reflects the Government's commitment to prioritising victims over criminals and ensuring public funds are used responsibly. By refining the funding criteria, we are directing resources towards initiatives that actively support the reduction of violent crime and make New Zealand safer.

Todd Stephenson: How is she ensuring that funding initiatives deliver outcomes for New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Under the previous administration, the proceeds of crime fund lacked clear direction and accountability. One example is the $2.7 million meth rehabilitation programme run by patched Mongrel Mob members in the Hawke's Bay, which ended nine months ago but is yet to produce an outcomes report. To prevent such misuse, this Government has introduced a rigorous ratings process to ensure funding proposals are complete, outcomes-focused, and fully aligned to the objective of the fund. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, we wait until the questioner's had a chance to ask some questions first.

Todd Stephenson: Thank you. How will these changes contribute to the Government's target of 20,000 fewer victims of crime by December 2029?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The updated funding criteria recognises that the drivers of violent crime are complex and often require targeted interventions to break offending cycles. This allows Government agencies to apply for funding for short-term initiatives. These must either prevent crime from escalating to violent crime, or disrupt organised crime. This Government is reinforcing its commitment to the 20,000 fewer victims of crime by 2029.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can community initiatives still be funded through the proceeds of crime fund?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you to my colleague for such an excellent question, because the answer is yes. But community groups must now have the backing of an eligible Government agency to support their proposal. This ensures that initiatives are properly vetted and directly contribute to reducing violent crime. We will not allow public money to be funnelled into gangs such as Harry Tam's Mongrel Mob to run boondoggle meth rehab programmes as seen previously. This Government is strengthening oversight and accountability to ensure that the proceeds of crime fund is used to make communities safer and prevent further victimisation.

Question No. 2—Rail

2. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Minister for Rail: Is the Cook Strait ferry replacement programme on track?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): We said on 11 December that we would provide an update on this programme by the end of March this year. This means outlining, first, the type of ferries and the infrastructure plan that we will be pursuing; second, an update following our worldwide engagement with ship builders; and, third, an update following an alternative proposals process. There is a performance indicator in the freight world called a DIFOT—in short: delivered in full, on time. We're on track to deliver the goods in full and on time.

Tanya Unkovich: What has the Minister learnt from his engagement with key stakeholders involved in this programme?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There is no shortage of good, pragmatic, sensible ideas when one is willing to listen and discuss. We have met unions representing Cook Strait mariners, engineers, masters, and crews. We have met on site with CentrePort to hear their views and see the infrastructure that has served our country for decades. We've met with the Mayor of Marlborough, Nadine Taylor, and enjoyed hearing the priorities of her community, and her council's 100 percent commitment to practical, sensible solutions. The small but effective team at Ferry Holdings has met with KiwiRail, both ports' officials, councils, and many other interested parties, and they have done an extremely good job in the service of us all in this House, and in the service of our country.

Tanya Unkovich: How is work on the infrastructure programme tracking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is just stunning to see the no-nonsense thinking that comes from people when the Government is disciplined—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —in its objectives and firm on its spending limits. Now, that's not a laughable matter. The pragmatic, thoughtful, and sensible people at both ports and KiwiRail have come to the fore in recent months. An excellent idea has been put forward for Ferry Holdings on the job of assessing and assisting Ministers on this matter. This contrasts sharply with the cancelled iReX project, then valued at $3.1 billion in 2023, with a $4 billion warning given to the previous Government. All of this happened between 2021 and 2023—a vast departure from our expectations in May 2020 for a $1.4 billion total cost, with a taxpayer cost of $400.1 million for the ferries.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Lecture.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As for the details for our new solution, the House will have to wait just four more sleeps—or in his case, 12 more.

Tanya Unkovich: What lessons has the Minister learnt upon his review of the programme he is replacing?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We were staggered to learn that the pre-election economic and fiscal update in September 2023 did not disclose a $750 million funding decision taken before the election, because Cabinet took this decision a week after Treasury round out the numbers, but months after the cost blowout was known to the Government. And there were cliff-face disasters like this one after the other—we've counted now 21. I can't answer today because of the brevity of time in this House, but if they'll ask me a question from that side, I'll give you the full list.

Tanya Unkovich: Has the Minister ruled out any options?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me say this right here, right now: we have ruled out letting directionless, empty vessels.

Tangi Utikere: Will the required land-side infrastructure costs and funding be included in his pending ferries update, not decision; and, if not, when will those details actually be announced?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, actually—and it pays to, in this House, listen very, very carefully—we talked about that in my first answer. The types of ferries and the infrastructure plan was the first thing we were working on. So the answer is profoundly yes.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Well, obviously, in the context and with the usual caveats, yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Government preventing officials from releasing reoffending rates for boot camp pilot participants, and, if so, why?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As the Minister has said yesterday and the countless times before, the pilot programme is going on, and confidentiality until the final assessment is part of that process. It's not a matter of not—[Interruption] Look, sometimes it takes some people—because of their education, I suppose, or maybe their mental process—a long time for it to sink in, but the Minister has been going on for months about the fact that it's a pilot programme and there's a certain privacy to—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why are you passing the law, then?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, why don't you stick to the subject? She wanted to know whether we have been deliberately stopping the disclosure, and the answer is that when the final pilot programme is known, you will know all the details—right, Minister? Yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, regarding methamphetamine: "We're going to be really tough on that. I mean, we have to get to the suppliers."; if so, has that objective been achieved, given that the waste-water testing suggests a 96 percent nationwide increase in meth use in the 2024 year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Now, that's a fascinating question, because the first thing that that judgment was made about in 2024 was the COVID years, when we were locked down everywhere, and to use that as the base for comparative figures seems attractive until you realise that it had to be the pre-COVID years first, and then—

Glen Bennett: Last year.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I know it's 2024 that we're talking about. But the basis against which the comparison was made was in the lockdown years, and that's the point. Now, if you're an academic, you'd know that, but if you're a superficial politician, you'll go for the first gotcha answer and hope you're going to make it, but it's not going to work out. Look, recent reports are concerning. We know that the types of substances entering New Zealand from offshore are becoming more harmful, and this confirms how critical it is to tackle organised and transnational crime. We are intercepting more drugs offshore than ever before in our work with our international partners to stop these drugs from getting here. The problem has got worse because of international engagement, but we are more seriously and more successfully engaged in stopping it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he work with Labour to build a sustainable, bipartisan consensus on reform to the Resource Management Act (RMA) through compromise; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is—that's such great news that we were asked that question. The answer is yes, and as long as we get rational, sane cooperation—now, I know that some members on that side have got what it takes, and then there are some who are so difficult to cooperate with. But if that member is making a sincere offer, then of course we're going to take the offer up and welcome it sincerely.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Judith Collins that "our best assets are our people"; if so, why is the Government cutting hundreds of roles across the New Zealand Defence Force?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it's very wise to agree with the Hon Judith Collins—that's number one—

Hon Judith Collins: It's 80, by the way—80.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and the numbers of 300-plus are demonstrably false. It's, in fact, 80, and possibly less, even, as we work our way forward. But the real point is that the insinuation from those people up in the press gallery was immediately that we were cutting defence expenditure. That's bulldust. We're increasing it. Already we have, and we'll increase it into the future years.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement regarding immigration settings from India: "We want to make sure that we're making it as easy and as frictionless as possible"; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the answer to that is that of course we'd want to make it as easy and frictionless as possible, and for the most obvious reasons. But, remember, that does not mean we will not adopt the same sorts of strict policies, sensible policies, followed all over Asia and, dare I say it, in India itself.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why is this Government refusing to acknowledge its failings, with meth use almost doubling, unsustainable RMA reform, free-trade agreements that may not even survive coalition negotiations, and a defence force that's being stripped to the bone?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I reject all of the background ill-researched and lack-of-foresight thinking behind that question, because everything that was said there was false. The reality is that unlike the last Government, we're out to succeed. We will not always get it right, but we'll never stop trying, not like the previous group, when the then Prime Minister at the time recently confessed that they had so many policies they hadn't worked their way through. Do you remember them: $54 million for a cycleway over the Auckland Harbour Bridge—how could you get that far down? Light rail, at $1.2 million—[Interruption] And I want to thank those members—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, I—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —they want to add to the list.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, I think we've come to the end of that question. Any more questions? [Interruption] Quiet, please.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Social Development and Employment and asks: will the average jobseeker beneficiary subjected to compulsory money management be able to afford—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just—sorry to the member, but if the House would be quiet, I'd like to ask the member to ask that question again, because I don't think many people heard.

4. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Will the average jobseeker beneficiary subjected to compulsory money management be able to afford their rent and bills?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Someone getting their full benefit is financially better off than someone whose benefit has been reduced. Avoiding this or any other sanction is simple: beneficiaries must comply with the obligations they agreed to when they applied for assistance, such as to look for or to prepare for work. If someone does not comply with their obligations currently, they may be subject to a financial sanction, with their benefit reduced by either 50 percent or 100 percent. If a client cannot afford their rent and bills, a money management non-financial sanction would not be a suitable sanction for that person. An alternative and appropriate sanction would be considered by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it true that the average proportion of a jobseeker's income spent on housing costs is over 50 percent; and if not, what is the figure?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If we look at money management as a non-financial sanction, it will not be applied if it is not suitable for that particular beneficiary. MSD will have the discretion to decide what is appropriate.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she be confident that compulsory money management will be adequately applied when 41 percent of benefit entitlements aren't even assessed correctly and front-line organisations report that many sanctions are wrongly applied and subsequently overturned when a review of the decision is lodged?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because there is a very small number, which I'm proudly happy to say, of people that aren't complying with their obligations—98.6 percent of people are at green. So there's a very small number who are not complying with their obligations. I'm very confident in MSD's and the front-line case manager's ability to decide which non-financial sanction is appropriate for the client in front of them.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she be confident when 41 percent of benefit entitlements are not even assessed correctly?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I'm not sure that that figure is correct. But what I will say is that there has been recognition that MSD has room for improvement in terms of accuracy of benefit entitlements. Some are overpaid and that is equally a problem as if they are underpaid. That is a separate piece of work that is very unrelated to the work on sanctions and ensuring that beneficiaries are complying with their obligations, and that is what our focus is. We want fewer people on welfare and more people in work.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the principle that you don't get a second chance to make a first impression, what chance would a jobseeker have if they turned up for the job wearing a leather jacket?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unless it had a patch, I'm not sure that there's an answer to that. Unless the Minister's aware of something that I'm not.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yeah, so one of the requirements in jobseeker obligations is people turning up to a job interview and being serious about wanting that job. What they wear needs to be appropriate for the job they're applying for or, in this case, the job they've got.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she committing and staking her own role on no person subjected to compulsory money management being made homeless?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I will say it again: 100 percent of a benefit payment is better than 50 percent or zero percent, which is the only option available today. So someone who is getting 100 percent of their benefit has got a lot less chance of being homeless than someone who's getting zero.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it correct that if the average person on the jobseeker benefit spends over 50 percent of their income on rent, they simply won't be able to keep a roof over their head if they're subjected to compulsory money management?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Let me be clear: the economic conditions we have mean there are more New Zealanders who are facing incredibly challenging economic times. Those on benefit are no different from any other New Zealander who is confronting challenging times. MSD's front-line case managers will make decisions, based on someone's circumstances, on whether a non-financial sanction—which means a person receiving 100 percent of their benefit—is better than other options. I trust them to make that decision.

Question No. 5—Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector)

5. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector): What recent reports has she seen on grocery competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector)): Well—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Ha! I was wondering who that was.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Really! You want it? Well, last week, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) released the final reports of its supermarkets inquiry. The findings show a highly concentrated supermarket industry across the Tasman, with significant barriers to entry and expansion at large scale. The two biggest players in the market have, according to the ACCC's report, "limited incentive to compete vigorously with each other on price." While ALDI has a 9 percent market share in Australia, it stocks a limited range of goods and does not operate at a national scale. This report is very relevant to us here in New Zealand because there are concerns about competition in our own supermarket industry. Kiwi shoppers need competition to put downward pressure on prices and ease their cost of living.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How does the Australian report compare with what is happening in New Zealand's grocery market?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there are similarities between the New Zealand and Australian grocery markets, and there are differences too. Like Australia, our market is highly concentrated, and there are significant barriers to entry and expansion at a national scale. Indeed, it's even the case that some MPs oppose the building of new supermarkets. Kiwi shoppers are being poorly served by extremely low levels of competition in our grocery sector, and the lack of competition is the result of a series of mergers that have occurred over the past 20 or 30 years. This dynamic was acknowledged by the previous Government when it made changes to the sector's regulatory framework following a 2022 market study. However, since then, in 2024, the Commerce Commission noted that despite the reforms, competition had not materially improved.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the Government doing to address supermarket competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In February, I announced my desire to see another competitor enter the supermarket scene to deliver more effective competition in New Zealand's grocery sector, because I'm interested in not just addressing the effects of poor competition but materially improving competition, because that means better prices and choices for Kiwi shoppers. And I made clear, in February, that I wanted to help remove barriers that could get in the way of a new entrant, including potentially removing a range of regulatory hurdles. Since then, my officials and I have been engaging with a range of interested parties. A new grocery competitor that is able to introduce competitive pressure, not just in one niche or one region but at a national scale, would be good for our grocery market and good for Kiwi shoppers.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the next steps the Government will take to increase competition in the New Zealand grocery market?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I note that members opposite are talking about what they did. I will repeat what I said in my earlier answer, which is that the Commerce Commission has found that the changes made by the last Government have not resulted in any material change to competition. So we have a number of strands of work under way to address that issue. The Commerce Commission is continuing its work to complete its wholesale inquiry, its analysis into land banking issues, in its second grocery report, and we can expect to hear more from the commission in the middle of the year. In addition, this weekend, Duncan, I will be outlining—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Both names, please.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sorry—Duncan Webb, the "member for opposing new supermarkets". I will be outlining the next steps that the Government intends to take to address competition in the grocery sector. We do need to move fast. However, we also need to move with due care to get this right for Kiwi shoppers who have waited too long for more competitive grocery offerings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I definitely heard the answer to that, even if some people to my left probably didn't.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that "The Treasury got its forecasts before the election plain wrong"; if so, why should the public believe future Treasury forecasts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I would note that a lot of other people were wrong, too. To the second point, it's not a matter of belief; people can be guided by economic forecasts as they are by weather forecasts, but neither of these is a guaranteed thing. They are predictions of the future, not reality.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, which is independently produced by the Treasury, was "doing all sorts of things to make the books look better than they actually were"?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Absolutely.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are the Treasury's forecasts always based on "Our observations of the economy, alongside the Government's fiscal policy decisions", as stated in every Treasury fiscal update?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. I'm not really sure what the member's point is. As I've tried to explain to her: forecasts are put together; in the case of the pre-election fiscal update, it was completely wrong, for a combination of reasons. And if the member is of the view that forecasts are somehow going to be 100 percent accurate, she's wrong.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Were her policy decisions the reason why the surplus was pushed out to 2031 in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. I think the member is missing the wood for the trees. In the recent downturn, between the September quarter of 2022 and the September quarter of 2024, real GDP per capita—so our economic output per person—fell by 4.8 percent. That is an extraordinary decline, more than the global financial crisis, and it happened across that two-year period, both when the last Government was in power and when this Government was having to clean up the mess of the decisions they made during that period. So it is ridiculous to suggest that New Zealand went into a downturn because of policy changes made in the last Budget. The member should be very aware that, in the years prior, under a National Government, per capita GDP rose. Actually, the decisions that your Government took drove up inflation, interest rates, and strangled this economy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Were her policy decisions the reason why growth forecasts fell at the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why won't she accept responsibility for her policy decisions that have seen growth forecasts fall, the surplus pushed out, and debt rise, or is she blaming Treasury for being overly optimistic again?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: She needs to listen, because what I've said is very clear. Actually, I'd encourage you to go and read the Budget documents, where the Treasury set this out in significant detail and went to great lengths to explain that, over successive updates, they've unwound assumptions because of overestimations in the past, of trends coming out of COVID to do with labour productivity, the tax-to-GDP ratio, and other things in terms of misreading the economic cycle, which they have now put into their forecasts. What I take responsibility for is being a Government that came in, did what was needed to clean up their messes, has inflation back in target, has had successive interest-rate reductions, and has got growth occurring on our watch and forecast to be much higher. The thing is, if you're a group of people who oppose fast-tracking the very developments that will create jobs and growth, you don't have an economic mantle to hang.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you. I did just manage to hear the answer to that question. Interjections are fine, but I think that was a bit of a barrage, and it didn't come from just one side. Thank you.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Justice: What actions has the Government taken to restore real consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government has continued to take action to restore real consequences for crime. Yesterday, we delivered on our promise to cap sentencing discounts so that those who commit horrific crimes are not given a slap on the wrist. We've introduced new aggravating factors to address offences against people whose homes and businesses are connected, and stopped offenders from receiving repeated discounts for remorse. Kiwis deserve to feel safer in their communities, and it's disappointing that our friends in Labour didn't support it.

Rima Nakhle: How are the Government's new gang laws restoring real consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Our new gang laws have given police the extra tools they need to go after the gangs that are a scourge on our communities, to hold them accountable for the misery they inflict upon others. It has given the police the ability to disrupt gangs before they create new victims. And, again, it's incredibly disappointing that we weren't supported in this by our friends on the other side of the House.

Rima Nakhle: What commentary has he seen on the need for prisons as part of our justice system?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I have seen some commentary, some photos of the co-leader of the Green Party, Chlöe Swarbrick, wearing merchandise from People Against Prisons Aotearoa. It's this Government's view that we don't live in a utopia and that prisons are necessary to keep particularly serious violent and sexual offenders off the streets, to prevent the creation of new victims. We take public safety very seriously.

Rima Nakhle: What observations—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, I'm trying to hear the member, please.

Rima Nakhle: What observations has he made on the response to the Government's actions to restore law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I have observed the irony of Chris Hipkins' description of Tamatha Paul's view on the police and justice system being stupid. I find it ironic because the voting record of the Greens and Labour are in lock step when it comes to law and order.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Speaker. That was well out of order. That was a patsy question designed as an attack on the Opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was a patsy question, but, look, I'll ask and I'll review later. If I think I've made the wrong decision, I will come back to you and let you know, but it was actually a factual account—the Minister answered the question—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order, what ministerial responsibility is there for comments—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member makes a good point about the ministerial responsibility, but—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Speaking to the point of order, the question, and it was a very good question, was about what observations I had, and I am, as a Minister, perfectly entitled to make observations on what was going on, and that's what I did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll review the transcript and take some advice.

Question No. 8—Children

8. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement regarding the release of the rates of reoffending by participants of the military-style academy pilot that "Oranga Tamariki is of the understanding that they follow my instructions that these young people's privacy is the most important thing, and making sure that we're taking care of the wellbeing and the safety of these young people comes first and foremost before anything else"; if so, did she direct Oranga Tamariki to withhold the rates of reoffending by participants of the military-style academy pilot?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and in answer to the second part of the question, no.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has anyone in her office indicated in any way to Oranga Tamariki that information about the re-offending figures should not be released?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Last year, it was brought to my attention by Oranga Tamariki that the intense focus on this small group of young people from media and negative attention for political reasons was having a real negative effect on them, their wellbeing, and their families and whānau. Following this, in December last year, it was agreed with Oranga Tamariki that in order to balance the public interest in this matter with the need to protect the privacy and wellbeing of the young people, Oranga Tamariki would provide public updates at appropriate milestones in the programme. This position has not changed, and if one of my staff members has reiterated to Oranga Tamariki my expectation that the privacy, safety, and wellbeing of these young people comes first, then I applaud them for it.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she confident that her officer's actions are consistent with the Cabinet Manual, paragraph 3.27?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she confident that her actions are consistent with the Cabinet Manual, paragraph 3.26?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is the real reason that she is interfering with the release of the reoffending rates because it will show her military-style academy pilot is a complete failure?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oh, look, given that member's attitude to the lack of concern for the privacy and wellbeing of these young people, I'm really not surprised about the recent findings of serious privacy breaches by Oranga Tamariki under the previous Government which had put people at serious risk of harm. This is a Government that respects people's privacy and their safety, and I'm focused on giving these young people the best opportunity to be the best that they can be.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she ever make the reoffending rates public or will she continue to withhold these until she has pushed through her serious young offender legislation?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I suggest the member starts listening. I have repeated this over and over again. We will provide public updates at appropriate milestones of the pilot. This pilot is still running.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. The Minister rightly said just then that she had repeated this answer over and over again. I would ask that you look at the questions schedule of that member of Parliament, and the repetitiveness of the same question over and over again, and ask whether that is within Standing Orders, because it's not. You cannot go on ad nauseam day after day asking the same question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will commit to look at this—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Yeah, the Speaker has previously ruled that actually you are allowed to ask the same question as many times as you wish if you're not satisfied.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Thank you. I have a note here and I'm advised that it is perfectly in order to ask the same question as many times as you wish.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Just so everybody out there in TV land and radio land is certain, the Labour Party can go on asking ad nauseam—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that's not a point of order. That is a general—[Interruption] No. [Interruption] Stop! Stop before this becomes disorderly. That was not a point of order. There are only 12 primary questions and parties can use them as they like. Laura McClure, did you have a supplementary?

Laura McClure: A supplementary, not a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Laura McClure: What recent reports has she seen regarding Oranga Tamariki and young people's privacy?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have seen an independent report commissioned by Oranga Tamariki that they had experienced a high number of serious notifiable privacy breaches—35 since 2020—and that in more than one case it led to people's lives being put at risk of actual physical harm. This review found that the privacy culture at Oranga Tamariki was one of low maturity and a fundamental culture shift led from the top was required. While these issues pre-date this Government, they could not be allowed to continue under our watch. This has reinforced my expectations that privacy is taken very seriously.

Question No. 9—Public Service

9. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for the Public Service: What recent reports has she seen from the Public Service Commission?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service): I have received a report on progress on the Government's target to cut spending on consultants and contractors by $400 million by the end of June. I can tell the House that not only will we meet this target, but we're on track to double it. That's $800 million of taxpayer funding that will now be able to be spent on areas like healthcare, law enforcement, and education.

Greg Fleming: What is happening to contractor and consultant spend by the Public Service?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, we are seeing a clear and sustained reduction in spending on contractors and consultants. Spending by agencies fell a further 48 percent in the six months to 31 December 2024. On current forecasts, we anticipate there will be a reduction of over $500 million for the full financial year and well over $800 million from the 2022-23 baseline. This is more than twice the targeted reduction of $400 million. I'd like to thank the chief executives of those agencies for their effort and focus on reducing spending in this area.

Greg Fleming: What is happening to the size of the core Public Service workforce?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, of course, the core Public Service workforce does not include teachers, police, and other front-line staff. Official data shows the core Public Service workforce decreased by 4 percent in the 12 months to December. This reduction was largely in back-office roles, with an increase in the number of front-line staff offsetting this. We simply could not continue to support the staggering 72 percent increase in salary costs that occurred before our Government. Our Government will continue to focus on getting delivery of front-line services out of the back office.

Greg Fleming: What other changes do you expect to see in the Public Service?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I expect the Public Service to get back to basics, sticking to its core functions, and delivering outcomes for the taxpayers that we all serve. I expect it to continue to focus on getting the best bang for the taxpayers' buck, and Government agencies need to be prudent when spending taxpayers' money. While I do expect a great deal of change to drive improvement in Public Service performance, I also want to see core principles of the Public Service maintained, like political neutrality, like appointment on merits to all positions, and professional competence.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he agree with Standard & Poor's that their ratings downgrade of 18 councils and three council-controlled organisations "reflects factors including the quick passage and repeal of several key laws governing local councils, the cancellation of various Crown grant programmes, an increase in unfunded mandates, and recent announcements about infrastructure financing options"; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I have seen Standard & Poor's report. It's not for me to agree or disagree. Rating agencies make their decisions based on a number of factors, including council performance. That is why this Government is focused on getting councils back to basics, delivering Local Water Done Well, and broadening the range of funding and financing tools available to councils.

Tangi Utikere: Why, then, did Standard & Poor's downgrade the ratings of 18 councils and three council-controlled organisations?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Local Government, I am not responsible for Standard & Poor's.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Madam Speaker, that was a very specific question. The primary Minister indicated that he had no responsibility for Standard & Poor's and whether he agreed or not. The question I asked was, in light of his initial response, why, then, they made that determination. As the Minister of Local Government, he is expected to respond.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said, I'm not responsible for what their decision is. They are ultimately responsible for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think where we've got to here is that the member asked the Minister about their opinion about why, and it may not be that the member will get the answer that they want, but it was an opinion that the member asked for. The Minister did make it clear he was not responsible for Standard & Poor's.

Tangi Utikere: Does he take responsibility for the volatile policy environment that led to councils' ratings downgrades; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Local Government, what we take responsibility for is getting councils back to basics and putting in place Local Water Done Well, which will ensure that councils are able to borrow at a cheaper rate for water infrastructure than what would have happened under that Government's failed three waters.

Hon David Parker: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know what—is this a point of order?

Hon David Parker: It is a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I was just going to reprimand the Minister for attacking—was that the point of order?

Hon David Parker: No. Madam Speaker, it's long been the case in this House that questions about downgrades in ratings from standards agencies are a matter which Ministers may be asked questions about. Every time there is an upgrade of a standard, the Government crows. Every time there is a downgrade of a standard, the Minister of Finance is asked about questions relating to central government's responsibilities. The member Tangi Utikere is quite within order to ask questions as to why it is, in the opinion of the Minister of Local Government, that local government agencies have had a downgrade of rating.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I haven't ruled the member's questions out of out of order. He's quite in order to ask those questions.

Hon David Parker: No, no, Madam Speaker, you said that the Minister didn't have to answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I said the Minister actually said he was not responsible. He did answer the question, right?

Hon David Parker: Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, the member can ask about an opinion and my advice is that they may not get the answer that they want, and that's exactly what's happened here.

Hon David Parker: But they still have to address the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the Minister did address the question but not in the way that the member wanted. I invite Tangi Utikere to continue with his questions.

Tangi Utikere: Will the increased borrowing costs that local councils will now face because of the rating downgrade lead to larger rates increases in the future?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Local Government, most councils borrow through the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA). Of course, the same report from Standards & Poor's says we have affirmed our AA+ foreign currency and AAA local currency ratings on the Local Government Funding Agency on 18 March.

Tangi Utikere: Does he understand that changes made to the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency, that he just referenced, will, according to Standard & Poor's, "generally be negative for credit quality across the sector"?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Local Government, the work the Government is doing to deliver Local Water Done Well is to ensure that councils are able to borrow the funding needed to be able to deliver the water infrastructure that they need. And the advice from the Department of Internal Affairs is that the funding through Local Water Done Well, with the partnership with LGFA, will be cheaper than what it would have been under the last Government's failed three waters.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that last piece was unnecessary.

Tangi Utikere: Why won't he just take responsibility for his Government's actions, directly increasing costs for Kiwis and their households, which the international rating agency has so plainly and clearly stated?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Local Government, this Government is focused on getting councils back to basics and focused on core delivery rather than on the four wellbeings and all of the other things the last Government was focusing councils on. We want councils focusing on the basics and giving them the funding and financing tools they need to do just that.

Question No. 11—Conservation

11. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree with the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries' statement that "Locals have raised serious concerns about the decline of spiny rock lobster in the inner Hauraki Gulf, and this has been backed up by fishery-independent research. I share these concerns and ... I've decided to stop spiny rock lobster fishing in the inner Gulf"; if so, is he also committed to protections in the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Āna—yes, I agree with Minister Jones' statements and welcome the closure. Locals have raised concerns and officials have given advice on kōura decline in the majestic Hauraki Gulf—te Pataka kai Tīkapa Moana. The Government is committed to establishing additional marine protection in the gulf. The announced spatial closure to the code of fisheries by our Dalmatian matua compliments the protections under the bill in restoring the health and mauri of the gulf.

Lan Pham: Does he consider the documented 57 percent decline in key fish stocks, 67 percent decline in sea birds, 97 percent decline in whales and dolphins, and the functional extinction of snapper and crayfish populations in some areas of the gulf to require an equally active response in establishing evidence-based marine protection from overfishing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that question, but I won't succumb to the green catastrophising of members diagonal opposite—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'd like the member to ask the question, not attack the questioner.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Environmental Defence Society have said, "Perfect can be the enemy of the good" and we are very proud that we will triple the marine protection of the gulf, something that other Governments did not achieve.

Lan Pham: What justification can the Minister provide for his decision to allow commercial fishing in the exact areas that are supposed to be set aside to allow the gulf to recover, when his own official advice stated that allowing the continuation of commercial fishing in the new high protection areas is "incompatible with the purpose" and "will undermine biodiversity outcomes"?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: For the umpteenth time, we are very committed to tripling the marine protection in the Hauraki Gulf—Tīkapa Moananui-ā-Toi-te-Huatahi [Hauraki Gulf and the Bay of Plenty]—and we have done this in a manner that will expedite the progress of the legislation to its logical dénouement that will result in seriously more protection than other Governments have achieved.

Lan Pham: Is he comfortable with potentially risking the very purpose of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill and potentially undermining his own purported biodiversity goals for the $14,000 per year that Fisheries New Zealand data demonstrated would be the commercial ring-net fishing revenue from all 12 proposed high protection areas of the gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As mentioned, we're very proud of our pragmatic approach to ensuring a balanced and increased protection in the Hauraki Gulf. And before I start quoting various points of data, can I point out: of the additional 1,500 square kilometres of the Hauraki Gulf that this marine protection will protect, the areas in question comprise around 3 percent.

Lan Pham: Why should Kiwis trust the National Party's word on ocean protection when they're failing their own commitment to "accelerate initiatives like the Hauraki Gulf marine protection and the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary bills to ensure the effective protection of marine biodiversity"?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I repeat, for the third time today: we are very proud and happy to progress the legislation to triple the marine protection of the gulf, something—between 2020 and 2023—another Government was unable to achieve.

Lan Pham: Given the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill was unanimously supported in the recent select committee process, why is the Minister prioritising industry over the wishes of iwi, hapū, and community, and his own Government's commitment to restore the health and mauri of the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We are very proud and comfortable in progressing the tripling of marine protection in the gulf. We have considered the appropriate review of the various matters regarding the ring-net fishing, and we'll undertake that in three years after we pass this legislation.

Question No. 12—Police

12. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the statement by the member for Wellington Central that people "do not want to see police officers everywhere, and, for a lot of people, it makes them feel less safe"; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): No, that is total nonsense. This Government has invested in police and part of that has been getting them back out on the beat and back to basics, building relationships with businessowners and their staff, and giving Kiwis a sense of confidence and reassurance. The country should reject any alternative that would see a serious degradation or attempted abolition of our police.

Tim Costley: By how much have foot patrols increased nationwide?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: In 2024, there were 78,830 foot patrols in New Zealand. That's an increase of 40 percent on the 56,134 recorded in 2023. In the Wellington district, this was an increase of 54 percent.

Tim Costley: Does the Minister agree that all the beat police do is pick up rubbish?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No. Police do an outstanding job. Last year, on top of responding to, investigating, and prosecuting criminal behaviour, they also conducted over 2 million prevention and service activities, including 1,295 land rescues, 1,593 water and sea rescues, 4,332 sessions educating kids on road safety, 7,653 visits to schools, 191,000 family harm investigations, 2,500 emergency disaster responses, 20,000 missing person events, and gave crime prevention advice 38,000 times.

Tim Costley: What message does the Minister have for the public about the good work that our police do?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Our police operate in a challenging environment every day and respond to the needs of the public. My message to the public is very simple: I think they should be very worried about the prospect of any Government including a party that entertains the abolition of the Police.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he's had any submissions from the people in the leafy suburbs of Khandallah, Kelburn, and Karori, now in Wellington Central with the latest boundary change, as to their opposition to having police on the beat and properly policing their suburbs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I have not personally received one submission from anyone in the country to say that they're not happy with seeing our police officers highly visible and providing reassurance on the beat; in fact, it's been quite the opposite. The feedback that I've had, both formally and anecdotally, is that people are very pleased and happy to see our police back highly visible and on the beat.

© Scoop Media