Sitting date: 13 May 2025

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (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 CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is it OK for the Prime Minister to have his pay set by an authority that compares his job to different jobs in different industries with different employers when he has removed that ability—under urgency—for low-paid women workers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we haven't. This is a Government that continues to support pay equity and eliminating sex-based discrimination. All that we have done is fix the labour law that was unworkable—and also unaffordable—and that compared librarians to fisheries officers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister saying that he did not remove—under urgency—the ability for those low-paid women workers to compare their jobs to different jobs in different industries with different employers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we did was we passed a law to make sure that it was much more workable, robust, and sustainable; that's what we did last week. We did it under urgency so that we actually have one system, not two systems, and it gives certainty and fairness to everybody.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If we are to believe the Prime Minster when he says that these pay equity changes were not about saving money, why did the Government rush them through on the same day that they were announced, preventing public and expert input and usual, good lawmaking practice?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I mean, there's a couple of choices there: one is you can do it quickly, or you can do it slowly. We felt a lengthy process, for people who have had their claims in the system for a long period of time, was just going to put them into limbo. Importantly, they can now actually resubmit, under the new law, and advance their claims.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Did the Government request any analysis on whether cutting off hundreds of thousands of our lowest-paid working women from pay equity claims would contribute to the record number of New Zealanders who are leaving this country under his administration?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I wouldn't conflate those two issues, and I reject the characterisation of that question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Would the Prime Minister take up the offer of any of the many hard-working women that he has cut off from pay equity claims to spend a day in their shoes changing nappies, delivering babies, or educating young children, or does he plan to ignore them, as he has ignored good lawmaking practice?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'd just say to that member: we are not cutting off pay equity claims. We are committed to pay equity. Under the new law, individuals, unions can apply for pay equity claims. But it's wrong to characterise it that way, and I think, in many ways, it's been very disingenuous from the Opposition, with a lot of scaremongering, about what this is and what this isn't. We are committed to pay equity, but we are fixing something that was unworkable and unaffordable, to make sure that we don't have fisheries officers and librarians, and administration workers and civil engineers, all being compared.

SPEAKER: That is the last lot of barracking for today. People raising their hand to their mouth to make their voice louder—it is completely unacceptable.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

SPEAKER: Question No. 2—the Rt Hon Christopher Hipkins.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. "Chris" is normally fine.

SPEAKER: I wasn't inquiring as to your health. Just ask your question.

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 CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did workplace relations Minister Brooke van Velden suggest changes to the laws around pay equity right at the start of the Government's term; if so, why have they never been mentioned in any of his quarterly plans, in any Government Minister's speeches, or in any public announcements until the law change was introduced last week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm well aware the Minister has been focused on pay equity on from day one, and what I would say is that we made a decision. We had a choice: do you do it fast or do you do it slow? We watched Labour do it over three years, introduced the bill under urgency with massive amounts of flaws, and we decided to give people certainty.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why didn't the quarterly plan he released on 7 April say anything about the fact that the Government had decided just one week earlier to scrap the existing pay equity process and extinguish all active claims?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we didn't want to create a situation where there was uncertainty, and that's why we moved under urgency.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How would it have created uncertainty to tell people that you were going to change the law before you changed the law?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that's the point; we didn't want to signal that we were going to do that, because we don't want to create uncertainty in the system.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did Nicola Willis state, on behalf of the Government, in May last year, "The Government remains committed to pay equity and to meeting its obligations under the Equal Pay Act 1972" given the Government had already, at that point, agreed to explore changes to the law to reduce those obligations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the statement is true, and it's correct; this is a Government committed to pay equity. It's a Government that is committed to equal pay, is committed to collective bargaining—I've seen a lot of disinformation, misinformation, and scaremongering out there, but we're committed to pay equity and we're committed to equal pay.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why were National MPs briefed on the changes to the Equal Pay Act on Sunday, 4 May but the following the day, at his post-Cabinet press conference, he didn't tell the New Zealand public, leaving them to find out the very same day the Government intended to push the law change through all stages under urgency in Parliament?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'd just say to the member: there are two choices we had to make. One was that we could move with speed to give people certainty and clarity about the system. The alternative was to take a long time and put people into limbo. We wanted to move with speed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government agree to backdate pay equity settlements as part of a range of collective employment agreement negotiations over the past year despite having already agreed to repeal the law and extinguish those very same pay equity claims they had agreed to backdate, and is that what his Government regards as good faith?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have said to you from the beginning—day one—we have been concerned about the pay equity legislation being unworkable. The Minister has had that on her workplan from the beginning. We are making sure we are fixing Labour's law, which was unworkable, increasingly unaffordable, and when it starts to compare librarians with fisheries officers, admin workers with civil engineers, there's a problem.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about why the Government had agreed in the settlements that it reached through collective agreement negotiations to backdate pay even though it had already decided that it was going to extinguish the pay equity claims that that promise of backdating were based on; he didn't address that issue at all.

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister might care to elucidate slightly.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I'm just not aware of the detail of that, in order to answer that question, but what I would say to that member is that we are determined to make sure that we have workable pay equity legislation in this country. Labour's law had massive amounts of flaws in it. You had people from lots of different occupations and multiple employers being compared to a sector. You had a situation, as I said, where you've got librarians being compared to fisheries officers. We are making sure that we fix our pay equity legislation. We have put a huge amount of money aside to deal with future pay equity claims. Anyone that's had their claim discontinued can submit under the new law.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he telling New Zealanders that, when the Government agreed to extinguish 33 existing pay equity claims, he was not aware that his Government had already agreed to backdate the payment of those claims through collective employment agreement settlements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I am aware of that, but what I am saying to the member is that we have decided to change and fix the pay equity legislation in this country. Labour rushed it through. Labour left a lot of flaws in it. We are fixing it, because it's unworkable and unaffordable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to regain its composure.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who is correct: Christopher Luxon when he said the decision to take billions of dollars from working Kiwi women had nothing to do with the Budget, or David Seymour, who said the decision to do so had saved the Budget?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our primary motivation for the legislation that we passed last week was to make sure that we have pay equity legislation in this country that is focused on the core intention of the legislation, which is to eliminate sex-based discrimination. I can also say that that legislation had a number of flaws, which, I think, if the member was honest about it, he would say that actually he admits there were flaws in that legislation. We are fixing it; that's what we do in this Government. We fix Labour's messes, we make sure that it's workable and affordable, and we make sure that pay equity claims are there for people in the future.

SPEAKER: I'll just make it very clear that you can't question another member's honesty in this House. That is inappropriate.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made on the Government's fiscal position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): This morning I announced that Budget forecasts will show, for the first time, a withdrawal from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. In recent years, annual contributions to the super fund have been between $1.5 and $2.5 billion a year. We are now approaching the time when the super fund is big enough to ensure that withdrawals, rather than contributions, are the normal outcome each year. This is not a Government decision; it is driven by a formula in the relevant Act. It is something of a milestone event. The first withdrawal is forecast to be in the 2027-2028 fiscal year, a very modest withdrawal of $32 million. This is earlier than previously anticipated, mainly because the super fund's investment returns have been better than expected.

Ryan Hamilton: What is expected after 2027-28?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In the short term, there will be some bouncing around between withdrawals and contributions, but from 2031 onwards, projections show that withdrawals from the super fund are expected in every year. Withdrawals help cover the costs of New Zealand's superannuation so taxpayers don't face the full cost each year. This does not mean that the super fund will get smaller—far from it. The fund currently has $80 billion worth of investments, and on reasonable assumptions, super fund returns will outstrip withdrawals, and the fund will continue to get bigger every year. The Leader of the Opposition says, "Thank you, Labour.". I say, "Thank you, taxpayers."

Ryan Hamilton: What other announcements did she make about the super fund?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I also announced that, next year, the $61 million contribution that would ordinarily have been made to the super fund, together with $39 million from the Budget 2025 capital allowance, will go into the Elevate NZ Venture Fund. Diverting super fund contributions to Elevate is not a new approach. The previous Government did the same in Budget 2019. Elevate invests in other venture capital funds alongside the private sector. These funds provide capital to potentially high-growth New Zealand businesses at an early stage in their development. Elevate was established in 2020 and is administered by the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. It is the Government's intention that realisations from Elevate's investments will ultimately be used to fund superannuation.

Ryan Hamilton: What are the benefits of investing in Elevate?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Innovative businesses begin as start-ups, and those start-ups require investment. That is usually risky, although it potentially has a high pay-off in the future. Few investors have the appetite to invest in firms at this stage of development, and New Zealand's early-stage capital markets are typically short of funding. Elevate aims to close that funding gap by co-investing alongside private venture capital, resulting in more technologies being commercialised and exported. This is expected to stimulate the development of venture capital in New Zealand so the market eventually becomes self-sustaining, and to support many more start-ups and entrepreneurial ventures to flourish and help grow our economy.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fikse'ea, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement this morning that "we need to keep pay equity claims able to be lodged and able to be progressed where they are claims genuinely based on gender-based discrimination"; if so, which of the 33 cancelled pay equity claims does she not think are genuine, if any?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. In answer to the second part of the question, it is not for me to make a legal judgment to determine which claims are genuine. It is a legal question that will be considered by those negotiating the settlement or, ultimately, the Employment Relations Authority. Under the Act, claims with merit will be progressed.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If the Government pays several billion dollars less in pay equity payments, does that mean women will receive several billion dollars less?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. I am grateful for the question because the member misunderstands the nature of contingencies. It is good budgeting practice for the Treasury to forecast potential costs that on the basis of probabilities may occur. Therefore, under the last Government, it was the practice that money was being put in the forecast, not revealed to New Zealanders, allowing for the fact that there could be significant future settlements. Whether or not those settlements would occur and the size thereof was still a matter to be determined through negotiations. I'd note that a number of the claims that were in progress had become bogged down due to the lack of clarity in the pay equity regime and the different approaches that employers and employees were taking to negotiating those claims. We now have a clear system, a transparent system, and we fully accept there will be future pay equity settlements.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If the system was so bogged down, how were there 10 equity pay settlements done under the last term?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is the case that in the first instance, there were a number of claims where the Government was the employer and where the Government was therefore at the negotiating table with public sector unions. Those settlements stand. For the benefit of those opposite who seem to be ignorant of the fact, that has resulted in pay increases for nurses, for social workers, for teacher aides, for librarians, for a number of women-dominated professions, and our Government has retained every single dollar of funding needed to honour those settlements.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she call advocates for women being paid enough a "grievance industry"?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What I referred to was the fact that the pay equity regime should be used and was intended to be used for settling claims that relate to sex-based discrimination. It is absolutely the case that significant groups of workers in the New Zealand economy, not just those dominated by women but a number of groups, wish to see their pay increased. We have a number of mechanisms for achieving this. The principal one is through negotiation between employers and employees. It is appropriate that unions and others use those mechanisms to argue for further pay. But here's the other thing: the best way to ensure that all New Zealanders can look forward to growing wages is to have a strong, growing economy in which employers—

SPEAKER: Good. That's enough. It's beyond the answer.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —can afford to pay their people more, and that's what we're doing.

SPEAKER: You've got to keep the answers concise, as the questions should be.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are underpaid Plunket nurses or underpaid hospice nurses a grievance industry?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If groups of workers have had their work undervalued and underpaid as a consequence of gender-based discrimination, then it is appropriate that they make pay equity claims and that their claims be judged according to whether or not there has been sex-based discrimination. It is self-evident that there are a number of issues in an economy which can lead to pay levels. They relate to where people work, the industry in which they work, the qualifications required, the skills required. There are all number of factors that are brought to bear on the pay that people receive. To ignorantly claim it's all down to pay equity is just wrong.

Hon David Seymour: What are some of the factors that lead to growing wages in any economy and do they include a Byzantine arrangement for setting pay through overly complex labour laws?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member makes a good point. There are two things happening here. One is about gender-based discrimination and how we make sure there is a clear process for negotiating settlements to amend for that. The other is how we grow wages in this economy. And the way to do that is to have more productivity, more growth, and employers who are better able to pay their people more. Because while others would like to labour under the illusion, the truth is there is no magic pot of money available to wipe every tear from every eye. Actually, a country must always live within its means.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she continuing to gaslight the estimated 150,000 women who are saving her Budget or, like always—

SPEAKER: I think, if the member just thinks about the ruling that I read out at the start of question time today, she might, in considering that, like to rephrase that question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is she continuing to downplay the very real concerns of hundreds of thousands of women to save her Budget or, like always, everyone else is wrong but Nicola Willis is right?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am simply making it clear to those who have been misled by many claims made in the past few days that our Government is upholding protections for equal pay in law, that we are upholding pay equity settlements, and that we are both funding and putting in place a good system for resolving future pay equity claims. Beyond that, it is rich for the member opposite to talk about saving Budgets. I'll tell you the biggest constraint on this Government's Budget is this: we believe in responsible fiscal management and don't believe that simply spending more, taxing more, and borrowing more is the path to economic nirvana. That way lies terror.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government's decision to disestablish the Māori Health Authority, amend pay equity legislation, and remove Treaty clauses from legislation, and how does he reconcile these decisions with a commitment to governing all New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in part, to the first leg of that question: yes, and for very good reasons.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister believe that $30,000 compensation for a lifetime of trauma suffered by State care survivors—many of whom are Māori—matches the recommendations of the survivors?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I would acknowledge up front is that no amount of money, frankly, will deal with the harm that those survivors have experienced, but what you have is a Government that is taking very seriously its responsibility to correct the abuse that took place under State care, under successive Governments past and up to the present, and we're doing that job as well as we can. We are lifting average payments up 60 percent, from $19,000 to $30,000 average payment, and I know there will be people who will be disappointed with that but there are also survivors that have been waiting a very long time and will appreciate that certainty.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. While I appreciate the Prime Minister's discussion about money, the question, actually, was specifically about matching the recommendations of the survivors, which wasn't about money.

SPEAKER: The question is: has the question been addressed, and I think it certainly has.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why has this Government, for the first time in history, barred the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) and other unions from attending next week's Budget lock-up when they represent hundreds of thousands of workers who will be significantly impacted by the Budget's decisions, including the decision to cut or gut pay equity claims?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, look, those are questions that you'd need to put to the Minister of Finance.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The relevance and responsibilities Standing Orders 388 to 390 outlines that questions—

Hon David Seymour: Urgh!

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: —must relate to public affairs—ka pai, David; can I carry on?—the Minister is officially responsible for. The Prime Minister is responsible for a whole-of-Government policy, so questions about the union's approach, questions about the Budget are indeed under the Prime Minister's mantle.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for who attends the Budget lock-up.

SPEAKER: Well, that is an interesting point except that the Budget is an exceptionally important presentation, and the member himself knows how important it is to ensure that aspects of the Budget are reported as accurately as possible, therefore I'm sure the Government at some point would have an interest across the finance Ministers in who attends that lock-up. I would expect the Prime Minister might have a better answer than the one that was given. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is going to give another answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, look, Treasury sets the guidelines as to who is in the lock-up, but ultimately that's a question that I would encourage you to ask the Minister of Finance.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does this decision reflect a wider pattern for the Government in excluding Māori, unions, and community voices from their key policy decisions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, I don't understand the point of the question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Do you want me to clarify, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Ask the question again.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: OK. My supplementary question to the Prime Minister is: is the decision to lock out the NZCTU and unions reflecting a wider pattern of the Government to exclude Māori, unions, and community voices from their key policy decisions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. We want Māori and non-Māori in this country to do better. That's why we are working incredibly hard to rebuild our economy, restore law and order, and deliver better public services.

Hon Chris Bishop: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of political parties being elected to Parliament and then not even participating in the Budget debate?

SPEAKER: Well, no, that's—look, I'll tell you what. We're getting quite a few of these sorts of questions that are interesting to the people who are asking them, and perhaps their supporters, but not conducive to the wellbeing of the House. [Interruption] No, sorry—you know that it's inappropriate for any member to talk about the absence of any other member. Therefore, to ask the Prime Minister to breach the Standing Orders seems to me a pretty risky sort of thing to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, it had better be a new one.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a new one, because it requires me to correct what I've just heard said by the Speaker. Now, when someone alleges non-participation, it does not infer absence; just non-participation. Words matter.

SPEAKER: You're quite right, and I'm a very, very foolish man. I should have understood that right at the start. None the less, my ruling stands.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Was this decision made to avoid scrutiny of the Budget—that will disproportionately impact Māori, women, and low-income earners?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just think it's a bit rich. The member hasn't even seen the Budget, and there's a leading assumption in the question. This is a Government that has picked up an economy that was wrecked by the Labour Government because of the illiteracy that sits on the other side. It created things—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker's ruling 205/4—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know—I know what you're going to say.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —is really clear. And with the greatest respect, sir, if it's that obvious, the Prime Minister, or any Minister, should be made to stop the minute they breach that—not wait until the end of the answer to bring it up.

SPEAKER: Within seconds of the Prime Minister going down that track, you were on your feet.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I'm good like that.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, some people would say you're fast; others would have a different view.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please, Mr Speaker. The question was in relevance to the decision to lock out the unions. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with seeing the Budget.

SPEAKER: No, I think the best way to handle this would be for you to ask the question again.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Was the decision by the Government to lock out the unions made to avoid scrutiny of Budget decisions that will disproportionately impact Māori, women, and low-income earners?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with the characterisation of the question, because you've got an assumption that our Budget—our Budget is being designed to make sure that we lift all New Zealanders up, Māori or non-Māori. We want to make sure we grow this economy—that's why it's the growth Budget. That's why you'll see more investment in health, more investment in education, more investment in transport and infrastructure, and more investment in business growth. That helps Māori and non-Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Government reviewing the "scope, purpose, and nature of [the Waitangi Tribunal]" because they believe the Waitangi Tribunal is not fit to determine the meaning, relevance, and limits of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There is a legitimate question that commentators on all sides with different views of the Waitangi Tribunal say is a legitimate question, which is: in a post - Treaty settlement world, what exactly is the role of the Waitangi Tribunal—what it is and what it isn't, and what it will be going forward? That is a legitimate question, and that's what Minister Potaka is leading.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister believe that the Crown alone should define the meaning, relevance, and limits of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and not the tribunal?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We've kicked off this piece of work, as I've said, to make sure that we have clarity about the role of the Waitangi Tribunal going forward. It was set up in a context pre - Treaty settlements. We're now increasingly in a post - Treaty settlement world. There's a legitimate question that commentators on all sides of this debate would ask.

Question No. 6—Customs

6. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) on behalf of ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister of Customs: What recent funding announcements has she made?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): On Saturday, I announced that this Government will be doing even more to strengthen our borders, prevent drug smuggling, and fight organised crime by investing $35 million over four years to bolster the New Zealand Customs Service's efforts to stop illicit drugs from entering New Zealand. Customs already does an exceptional job protecting our borders, but this funding will boost their front-line capacity and deliver the tools they need to keep ahead of organised crime.

Jamie Arbuckle: How will this additional investment be used?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This investment will provide Customs with up to 60 additional roles over the next four years, growing their capacity to gather intelligence and investigate and prosecute criminal actors. This additional capacity will support greater targeting of criminals involved in low quantity, high volume drug smuggling through channels like our mail and airports. It will also focus on improving supply chain security and targeting trusted insiders who use their links within the supply chain to help smuggle drugs. Customs will also extend its presence overseas where an additional liaison officer will support investigations and information sharing with our global enforcement and border partners such as the Australian Border Force, the US Department of Homeland Security, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Jamie Arbuckle: How does this investment support combating transnational and serious organised crime?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We know that organised crime runs on money and that these groups are targeting New Zealand and the Pacific because we have some of the world's highest prices for illicit drugs like meth and cocaine. Put simply, the risk is worth the reward. We also know that organised crime groups are sophisticated and will exploit any vulnerability they can in the pursuit of profits. That makes it critical that Customs has the right tools and capacity to respond to the threat and sophistication of organised crime groups, making New Zealand a harder place for the business of organised crimes to operate, striking at their core vulnerability: their need for profit.

SPEAKER: That's a very long answer.

Jamie Arbuckle: What other updates does she have about work to combat transnational and serious organised crime?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: At the end of April, the Ministerial Advisory Group for Transnational, Serious and Organised Crime delivered their second report to me. The report focused on the financing of organised crime, in particular the cash economy that criminals operate in. It highlights that by international standards, New Zealand has credible arrangements to control the flows of money for illicit purposes and that police do admirable work. However, the report also highlights that more needs to be done to keep pace with the threat posed in the modern world. My ministerial colleagues and I are considering the recommendations made by the advisory group. Effectively targeting the flow of money makes criminals' lives harder, and we want to make New Zealand the hardest place for criminals to do business.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: How many health workers were part of the 17 funded health pay equity claims discontinued by his Government, and what was the total estimated cost of their outstanding claims?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): I'm advised that Health New Zealand does not hold all details about pay equity claims under the previous law. Based on the limited information it does have, Health New Zealand estimates there were at least 66,000 employees covered by claims under the previous law. It would not be in the public interest to disclose estimates relating to the cost of any claims as none of them had been settled. As the member will be aware, our Government is taking a more robust approach to pay equity, ensuring outcomes are fair, backed by evidence, and deliver lasting value for both workers and taxpayers. The right to equal pay remains as it ever was; it is protected in law and will always be, under this Government.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree that the hospital nursing pay equity settlement significantly improved nurse retention in hospitals, and if so, what does he say to New Zealanders who will wait for care in the community now that his Government abolished the general practice nurses' pay equity claim?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, the right to equal pay remains as it ever was. It is protected in law and will be under this Government. Those claims are able to be put forward for them to be negotiated and settled. It's not for Ministers to make any determination as to whether those claims will be agreed. If there is a dispute, then the Employment Relations Authority can make those decisions.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What assurances did he seek that extinguishing the pay equity claim for palliative care nurses would not affect the sustainability of free hospice services, given chief executive Wayne Naylor's warning that "Dying New Zealanders and their families will fund the difference between the pay for a nurse in hospital and a nurse at a hospice,"?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, the right to equal pay remains as it ever was. It is protected in law and will always be, under this Government. Under this law, those sectors are able to put forward pay equity claims, and then they will be a matter for negotiation between employees and employers. If they cannot agree, this would become a matter for the Employment Relations Authority.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What will be the impact on women giving birth of dismissing the pay equity claims of midwives who work in privately-run birthing facilities, given that those facilities have already had to reduce capacity due to staff shortages?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, the right to equal pay remains as it ever was. It is protected in law and will always be, under this Government, and all of those sectors are able to put forward a pay equity claim under the legislation. It is then a matter for negotiation between employees and employers, and if they cannot agree, it becomes a matter for the Employment Relations Authority.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can equitable pay for over 200,000 health workers be achieved without comparing their roles to other industries when work in the health sector is overwhelmingly care-based, undervalued, and done by women?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, one of the issues with the previous legislation which we've amended is that the comparators that were being used, such as fishery officers being considered against care workers—fundamentally different roles. Ultimately, what the legislation is doing is clarifying what the comparators are, it is putting in place a clear process, and it is then a matter for negotiation. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, the Minister will stop. Yelling out like that is not going to change the answer, nor is it going to particularly change the outcome of the whole question time. So can we just have the Minister answering the question.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: And then it is a matter for negotiation between employees and employers, and if they cannot agree, then it can become a matter for the Employment Relations Authority.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding antisocial road users?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Excellent news: I announced on Sunday, alongside Minister Mark Mitchell, that the Government are turning up the heat on boy racers and fleeing drivers with a suite of stronger measures to deter antisocial driving. Penalties for antisocial or intimidating driving behaviour aren't strong enough to deter this appalling behaviour. Police reporting shows some types of antisocial road events are increasing in frequency. Kiwis are sick of these idiot drivers putting everyone around them at risk, so we're taking action.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the tougher penalties being proposed, and how will these benefit the people of Banks Peninsula?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I'm aware from talking to the member that the boy racer issue in Banks Peninsula is a real one, and the new offences and penalties will include the establishment of a presumptive sentence of vehicle destruction or forfeiture for those that flee police, street racers, intimidating convoys, and owners who fail to identify offending drivers. We're also going to give the police more powers to manage illegal vehicle gatherings by closing roads or public areas and increasing the infringement fee for making excessive noise from or within a vehicle from $50 to $300.

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 CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his Government's slashing of regulations for early childhood education (ECE) despite sector critics saying these cuts would pave the way for baby farming?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: New Zealand has one of the most expensive early childcare costs in the world. Part of that is actually making sure we get rid of regulations that are pure red tape that don't create any benefit. I think the Minister has done a good review of it, and I am pleased with the progress.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with his Associate Minister of Education that "Burdensome rules and regulations put ECE out of reach for many", or does he think early childhood education is out of reach because corporate profiteering means that New Zealanders have to fork out for the least affordable childhood in the developed world?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is it responsible fiscal management for the Government to spend $2.7 billion every year on early childhood education without knowing how much of that goes into our children's care versus inflated rent costs or profits that go offshore?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'm proud that the Minister has picked up an issue around early childcare costs, acknowledging that they are expensive. I am proud of our FamilyBoost policy, and I am proud of the work he's done on regulation to make sure that he simplifies the system and takes cost and compliance out.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he comfortable with large corporate providers bringing in millions of dollars in profit while some centres don't even have enough nappies or food?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The member is conflating a couple of thoughts in there, but, I mean, I'll just say, in general, I am comfortable with the concept of profit. People take a risk, they put a business together, they hire people, they employ people, and they create value in our economy—that's a good thing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Who benefits from cutting regulations for early childhood education: our tamariki or the private companies that profit from providing our children with subpar care?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Actually, parents benefit, because the costs get lower because the regulation is smarter.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the regulatory changes agreed to by Cabinet will increase the focus on the health and safety of young people, will improve the information for parents so that it is easier for them to select quality, and will free up early childhood educators to focus on equipping the youngest New Zealanders to navigate the world of the 21st century, instead of filling out paperwork?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely, and I commend the Minister for his work.

Question No. 10—Health

10. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What recent data has he seen on childhood immunisations?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Recent data provided to me by Health New Zealand shows that for the first time in three years, more than 80 percent of children are now fully immunised by 24 months of age—the highest rate since 2022. Just seven months ago, 75.7 percent of two-year-olds were up to date with their immunisations. Now that figure has risen to 80.2 percent. News of a measles case in Auckland this week highlights the importance of our immunisation target and the work that our Government has under way to improve childhood immunisation rates. We still have a lot of work to do, but reaching 80.2 percent is a big step forward.

Rima Nakhle: How is the Government's childhood immunisation target tracking?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: After years of decline, we're now seeing the positive impact of dedicated efforts in general practices up and down the country, alongside coordinated and targeted community-led outreach and support. By bringing back health targets, investing in community-based services, and growing our front-line workforce, our Government has enabled the health system to better protect our most vulnerable. Validated quarterly figures show an improvement for 24-month coverage, from the first quarter of 2024-25, from 75.7 percent to 77 percent in the second quarter of 2024-25. We're taking a step in the right direction and will remain focused on meeting our target of 95 percent by 2030.

Rima Nakhle: What regions have seen the greatest improvement in childhood immunisation rates?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we are seeing some excellent improvements across the country, and I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the work under way. In Tairāwhiti, coverage at 24 months is up 12.7 percent, compared to the previous quarter. The West Coast also saw a 12.7 percent increase. Taranaki is up 5.4 percent, and Auckland is also up by 4.5 percent. These improvements are promising and show that our targeted approach, backed by a record investment of $16.68 billion investment in health, across three Budgets, is delivering tangible results.

Rima Nakhle: How important are childhood immunisations?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is committed to ensuring every child gets the best start in life—that's why immunisations are a priority for us. This achievement comes as New Zealand confirmed a new case of measles in Auckland this week, underscoring the urgent need to protect both children and communities from vaccine-preventable diseases. It serves as a timely reminder that measles spreads quickly and can be dangerous, especially for young children. Each child deserves protection from serious illness, and that protection starts with immunisation.

Question No. 11—Education

11. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: When was she first made aware of the Government's changes to pay equity legislation, and what advice did she receive regarding its impact on the education profession, if any?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I became aware of potential legislative work in this area through a Cabinet strategy meeting in December 2024. I received papers regarding the nature and substance of the subsequent proposal in March 2025. In relation to the second part of the question, the Ministry of Education provided an update to me in early May on what this may mean for current claims relevant to the education portfolio.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What was the Minister told about the impact of the pay equity changes on the education profession—in particular, for the nearly 30,000 secondary school teachers who will no longer be eligible for pay equity?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The advice from the Ministry of Education said that they expect—well, they gave me advice on the claims that wouldn't be carried ahead, and they said in their advice to me that they expected that those claims would be relodged and worked through.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Was she aware that changes to the pay equity threshold would lock out secondary school teachers from future claims?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I'm not going to comment on what may or may not become of claims that are current—that were currently before. And when they are relodged, they will be according to the new things that have been put in place.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has the ministry decided to disestablish its pay equity team?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Not that I'm aware.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: If there is no pay equity team at the ministry, how can she claim to be committed to pay equity?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: I think I—yeah, OK. Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, Mr Speaker, I'm sure you've got it, but in the last question she asked as to whether it's been disestablished. The answer was not in the affirmative, and so she went straight on and ignored the question that she just asked and the answer that was given to her.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Asking if something has happened and what that would lead to is entirely legitimate, and the Minister is more than capable of being able to address the question as it is asked.

SPEAKER: That is. But I was about to intervene on the question because I think it was putting forward a supposition that had been reasonably dealt with before that. The member might like to reword the question.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: If the pay equity team were to be disestablished, how can she claim to be committed to pay equity?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, it's a hypothetical. It's a matter for the Secretary of Education because it's operational.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How does throwing nearly 30,000 secondary school teachers under the bus to pay for her Government's Budget ensure they will be equally valued—

SPEAKER: No, no—stop. Sorry, start again. I've just ruled on that right at the start of question time, so please just ask a straight question without all the add-ins and assumptions that might dress it up a little bit.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How will 30,000 secondary school teachers being unable to make a pay equity claim because they do not meet the new threshold ensure that they'll be equally valued and compensated?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, we're about to go into pay negotiations, which isn't something I'm going to comment on. But, throughout my tenure as a Minister, we've been making sure that we are providing our teachers with the best professional learning and development, the best resources, and there is going to be more coming in the current Budget because we value their contributions hugely. There are, of course, pay negotiations to be gone through as well, and teachers and the sector are able to put in future claims if they meet the threshold.

Question No. 12—Education

12. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made about accelerating maths achievement in New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): We are investing $100 million into ensuring young learners who are falling behind in maths get the support that they need. We've known for some time that maths achievement in New Zealand isn't where it should be. In 2021, the New Zealand Principals' Federation said alarm bells should be ringing when it came to maths achievement. Through Budget 2025, we've delivered phase two of our Make it Count action plan to turn around and lift maths achievement in New Zealand.

Tim Costley: What has she announced for years 0 to 2?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: From next year, we'll be introducing a maths check in students' first two years of school. Similar to the phonics check for literacy, the maths check will identify students with additional maths need really early so that targeted support can be provided right at the start of a child's learning journey. Professional learning and development and specialist support will be available to teachers to ensure the checks are used effectively. For the first time, we will be getting consistent, quality nationwide data that will drive investment decisions to ensure we are investing to raise achievement.

Tim Costley: What has she announced for years 0 to 6?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, $56 million will be used to fund the equivalent of 143 new full-time maths intervention teachers for young people in years 0 to 6. These teachers will be trained to work with students in small groups who need extra support, and will be supplied with maths resources to help implement evidence-based approaches to accelerate learning. This additional staffing is the same support we've put in place for structured literacy approaches. The initiative is about building strong foundations so that students are confident and capable in maths from the start of school.

Hon Casey Costello: What has she announced for years 7 and 8?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The remaining $40 million will be expanding our targeted small-group maths tutoring and online tutoring tools for up to 34,000 year 7 and 8 students from term 1 next year. This will ensure students get the foundational numeracy level that they need to be confident in NCEA and life beyond school. All of these initiatives will be introduced in te reo Māori for students who are learning in a bilingual unit or kura kaupapa, so that they all have access to the same resources and support. The system-wide boost in maths education is a game-changer and will raise achievement in schools across the country.

SPEAKER: Those members who need to go off to other commitments should do so quietly.

© Scoop Media