Sitting date: 15 May 2025

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fikse'ea, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement about the pay equity changes that "the process that we have set up is fair. It's robust"; if so, how is cancelling 33 pay equity claims under urgency fair?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, I stand by my statement. We've made changes to the pay equity system that make it fairer and return it to its intended purpose: addressing gender-based pay discrimination. Despite what some may have suggested, any claims that have already been settled remain in place and fully funded. Claims that had not yet been settled under the old system have been discontinued because it is not practical to have two different systems operating at once. That would create uncertainty and unfairness.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was accounting for the fiscal savings in her Budget the reason why urgency was used to cancel 33 active pay equity claims?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does using urgency address the warning she received from Treasury officials on 14 December 2023 that "while it would be possible to legislate to apply any new process to existing claims, such a retrospective action would need to be justified"?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Government did think it was justified, which is why the Government legislated.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she justify the cancellation of 180,000 worker's pay equity claims, when many, like secondary school teachers, will be locked out of lodging a claim under the new rules?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Existing claims have been discontinued but the law has been reset to allow claims to be resubmitted.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with advice from Treasury that "amending the legislation in a way that had the potential to reduce the fiscal cost would be seen as a degradation of the rights of those female-dominated occupations that have not yet raised a claim"?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, because pay equity claims continue to exist. In fact, we have set aside money to honour existing claims that have been settled and future claims.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she not take any action to protect the rights of those female-dominated occupations, given the warning from Treasury that those rights could be degraded, or was saving her Budget more important?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I disagree with the characterisation. Pay equity is important, as is the Equal Pay Act 1972, and we are honouring the commitments in that Act.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen about tax and spending in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I've seen a number of reports about tax and spending. Some commentators say we should be taxing much more, spending much more, and borrowing much more, but to quote the words of a recent ANZ economist, New Zealand has recently been on a "debt-funded spending spree." It's resulted in high inflation, higher mortgage payments, higher petrol prices, and eye-watering prices at the grocery store. Fundamentally, this economy does not need more taxes and irresponsible Government spending; it needs fiscal restraint.

Cameron Brewer: Can he confirm that net core Crown debt will not increase to 53.8 percent of GDP?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Budget is only a week away, but I can confirm that. Under the Government's plan, debt is forecast to be 45.2 percent of GDP by 2028. It's interesting, the Treasury has recommended a debt to GDP ceiling of 50 percent. This is a ceiling rather than a target. Our fiscal headroom is our insurance policy. We need to be able to respond to future shocks like another pandemic or an earthquake. Sadly, some people do not share this view. I have seen some people suggest we should have a debt to GDP ratio of 53.8 percent. This would be irresponsible for New Zealand's future.

Cameron Brewer: Will he rule out $88.9 billion in new taxes on New Zealanders in Budget 2025?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed, I can rule out increasing taxes by $88.9 billion in new taxes in Budget 2025. At this time of global economic uncertainty, and with New Zealand exiting recession and entering a growth phase, the last thing this economy needs is a massive tax and spend Budget.

Cameron Brewer: Will he rule out a wealth tax and capital gains tax in Budget 2025?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. I'm also happy to rule out an inheritance tax and, indeed, other taxes that other parties are proposing.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What about a fun tax?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, the justice Minister asked me about a fun tax. I can also rule out a tax on fun. In fact, I can rule out all of those dangerous taxes that would put at risk our hard-won economic recovery.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So, on the issue of fiscal management, does he consider spending $88 billion and more over four years yet still running a deficit to be both tax-and-spend and "debt and inept"?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters makes the point very adeptly, as he always does.

Question No. 3—Health

3. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does he support GP services being free, publicly owned, and adequately resourced to reach underserved communities?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Well, the member from the Green Party might be surprised to learn that our GP services are private businesses. Our Government is focused on ensuring GPs can deliver timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. Our focus is on providing support to those with the greatest need. This includes maintaining zero fees for children under 14, offering reduced costs for low-income individuals with a community services card, and ensuring discounted access through the Very Low Cost Access Scheme. These initiatives help ensure that those living with the greatest need have access to GP services, and it comes on top of all of the work we're doing to grow the number of GPs in primary practice, such as increasing the number of—

SPEAKER: Yep. Good.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is he concerned that one in six people avoid going to the GP because of cost, and, if so, what is he doing to reduce the cost of accessing care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Government, as I said, is very focused on making sure that those who have the greatest need have access to primary care. And as I said, the Government does a number of things to support that access: maintaining zero fees for children under 14, offering reduced costs for low-income individuals and families with a community services card, and ensuring discounted access through the Very Low Cost Access Scheme. What I can tell the member, though, is that increasing taxes on general practitioners—

SPEAKER: No—that's enough.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —isn't going to increase access.

SPEAKER: Thank you. That last bit was unnecessary and shouldn't happen again.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think the current capitation funding model is successful at remedying health inequities, and, if not, what does he plan to do about it?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the capitation funding is designed to ensure that we can increase access for primary practice. Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health have got work under way to look at how it can be improved, to ensure we improve access for all New Zealanders to be able to access primary care.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is he committed to ensuring that health inequities are addressed in the capitation funding model review that he has just spoken about?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, look, the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand have work under way which is focused on how we can improve access. But, as I said, there are a number of things the Government does to ensure those who have the greatest need are supported to access their GP—as I said: free access for children under 14, offering reduced costs for low-income families with a community services card, and ensuring discounted access through the Very Low Cost Access Scheme. The Government does a number of things to support people who have the highest need to be able to access their GP.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the Government doing to grow the GP workforce and improve access to primary care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, our Government is delivering on its commitment to strengthen GP clinics and put patients first. Over this term, medical school placements will increase by 100 places—a major investment in growing our GP workforce and ensuring access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. We're also funding 50 graduate doctors a year to train directly in GP clinics, helping to get more doctors into communities where they're needed the most.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why did he not maximise funding for GP training placements to 889 places by 2027?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we have, as I said, increased spaces by 100 medical training spaces over the course of this term of this Government. That is the biggest increase in many, many years—about increasing medical training places through our universities. This Government is very focused on growing our workforce. We have more doctors at Health New Zealand; more nurses at Health New Zealand. We're very focused on increasing access to primary care as well so that people can get timely, quality access to healthcare.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will the Government commit to funding in greater amounts mobile healthcare clinics to access underserved areas such as South Auckland, to ensure people can be reconnected to GP services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, there's a number of things the Government is doing to increase access to GP services for those who need it the most. As I said, zero fees for children under 14, reduced fees for those families with a community services card, and ensuring discounted access through the Very Low Cost Access Scheme—which I know serves a number of clinics in South Auckland—so that people in those communities are able to access their GP at a low cost. We're very focused on targeting the Government's resources to maximise the benefit, rather than the Opposition's tactic, which is to tax more, borrow more, and spend more.

SPEAKER: No—hang on. I've warned the member once, now twice. There won't be a third warning.

Question No. 4—Women

4. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Women: Has she sought advice on the impact on closing the gender pay gap from moving the pay equity claim threshold from a 60 percent to a 70 percent female-dominated workforce; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women): I receive a range of advice on the gender pay gap, and indeed, closing the gap does remain a top priority for me. The gender pay gap, as I'm sure the member will know, is a very complicated matter that can be caused by a number of factors, including organisational, sectorial, and indeed national. They can be addressed in a number of ways, not just through resolving pay equity claims. And regarding the threshold, I was advised that the majority of claims do meet the 70 percent threshold to be raised under the amended pay equity legislation.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has she sought advice on the gender pay gap implications of secondary teachers who have a 63.6 percent female-dominated workforce and will not meet the threshold for a pay equity claim under the changes that her Government has made to the legislation?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: As I said in my first answer, I have received a range of advice. The great majority of the claims that have been paused can indeed restart because they do meet the 70 percent threshold, and I would encourage them to do so.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: How many workers will be able to proceed with their claims under the changed thresholds her Government has put into place?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: What I would say to that member is that there are, of course, a wide range of people who have been in the process of raising a claim. As, I think, the Minister responsible outlined to the House yesterday, it is estimated about 180,000 members of various unions have been part of previously raised pay equity claims.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. We are all aware that 180,000 workers were covered by claims under the previous legislation. The Minister has been telling the House that very few people will be impacted by moving the threshold from 70 percent to 60 percent. I asked the Minister very specifically what that number now was. If she doesn't know, she can say that, but she did not address that question.

SPEAKER: But the Minister doesn't have to accept the position that's been put in a supplementary question. Well, the reality is there are now no claims. They're all extinguished. So the question is, until new claims are lodged, how would you know what the numbers are?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Well, she could have said that.

SPEAKER: Well, she could have, but I caught on to it, and I'm sure most of the House did.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: On what date was she made aware the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety had notified the Prime Minister that reviewing the approach to pay equity was one of her five priorities?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I would advise the member to put that specific question in writing. What I can confirm to her is that I was first alerted to it in November. I was then, indeed, included in meetings in March, and I was consulted throughout the process.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: On what date was she consulted on the work the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety received in December 2023 on options to change the Government's approach to pay equity?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The initial conversation I had with the Minister of Finance regarding pay equity occurred on 9 November 2024.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Did she attend the Cabinet strategy committee report back in early 2025 where options for a future approach to pay equity were discussed?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I'd need the member to put in writing the specific date of that. What I can confirm is I was included in a Cabinet strategy meeting on 3 December 2024.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You're not a member.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: As the member has acknowledged, I am not a member of that particular committee. I was included in a strategy meeting on 3 December 2024.

Question No. 5—Education

5. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about supporting the Government's target of raising student achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Our work programme is defined by pace, clarity, and outcomes and is delivering exactly what we said we would. We're investing nearly $100 million to ensure that extra help with maths is available across all stages of primary and intermediate schooling so that children get the extra help they need, an approach we're already delivering in reading. We're embedding financial education into the curriculum, so students are taught how to budget, save, invest, and understand things like insurance and loans. Our kids deserve a world-leading education to give them the best possible start in life, and that's what we're delivering.

Suze Redmayne: What feedback has she seen about her actions to accelerate maths achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Feedback from schools has been very positive. One student from Cambridge Middle School who has been involved in our maths acceleration trial said, "When I started I couldn't answer, like a simple question really, but now I can do division, fractions, percentages all pretty easily." Having heard the Government will be expanding the programme to reach up to 34,000 years 7 and 8 students, one principal said, "Fantastic support. We need this all the way." But what I love to hear from students is what it means to experience success. One student involved in the trial said, "I love maths. It's probably the best thing I've done this year.", and that's why this is a Government committed to progress and achievement.

Suze Redmayne: How are her recent announcements supporting teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This Government recognises teachers' ongoing commitment to raising student achievement, which is why we're investing to back our teacher workforce. Twenty-thousand teachers have received high-quality professional development in structured literacy, 15,000 have received structured training in maths, and over 836,000 maths resources have been delivered to students and teachers in primary and intermediate to support the new world-leading maths curriculum. We've delivered on our promise to remove the cost of teacher registration and practising certificates, and that is just the start.

Suze Redmayne: How are her recent announcements supporting parents?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The Government backs parents to be a key partner in their child's learning. To support parents we've launched the parent portal to provide clear guidance in the curriculum each year in English and maths, videos about starting school, the phonics checks, guides to parent interviews, explainers about structured literacy, and all the resources that you need to support learning at home in English and maths. We've already had 231,000 visits to the page, making it the Ministry of Education's most viewed page. Parents want to know these things about their child's learning. They want to be involved. My message to parents is, "We have your back. That's why we are supporting you and restoring your place at the heart of your child's learning. Thank you for everything you do to support your child on their education journey."

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the subject of raising student achievement, will the Minister set aside funding so that some members can study Economics 101 and History 101 to learn that Marxist, pinko money-wasting never ends well for any country?

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister has no responsibility for the education of members.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I didn't say members; it could be students.

SPEAKER: You did say members, but if you want to—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, it could be a student member—you just assumed that didn't you?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think you can split hairs, but just—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I'll rephrase it, then.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that would be good.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the subject of raising student achievement, will the Minister set aside funding for some students to study Economics 101 and History 101 to learn that Marxist, pinko money-wasting never ends well for any country?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We've already invested an hour a day in reading, writing, and maths. We've invested multiple tens of millions in professional learning and development along with resources, and we're updating the curriculum in all of the areas that the Deputy Prime Minister has alluded to today.

Question No. 6—Workplace Relations and Safety

6. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Is it accurate that 180,000 workers are affected by the cancelling of 33 pay equity claims?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): First, I would like to give hope to the member and any woman watching who would like to raise a pay equity claim. You can do this. Any woman or union can do this today under the new system this Government has introduced. The work that has been put in to date under previous claims has not been wasted. The material and evidence may be able to be used for the new claim.

SPEAKER: Yeah, just a moment. It is a very straight question. It was on notice. If there's anything you want to add, that's fine, but you should answer the question in the first instance.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: In response to the question about the number of workers who were covered by the 33 pay equity claims in progress under the previous system, that is the estimate I was provided by the Public Service Commission. The figure is based on the data they have on claims in the public sector and some of the claims in the funded sector. The figure will not include all workers in the funded sector, as the Government is not the employer and so does not hold all that information.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How many of the 180,000 workers are employed in the funded sector in services such as Plunket nurses, early childhood education teachers, or hospice workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: As I've said previously, from the figure that has been provided to me by the Public Service Commission, that is based on the data that they have on claims in the public sector and some of the claims in the funded sector. As the member will be aware, the public sector does make up a large majority of that number.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Has Cabinet made a decision on whether it will fund successful pay equity claims in the funded sector such as Plunket nurses, early childhood education teachers, or hospice workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My understanding is that this may have been information provided maybe a year ago that the Government, under Minister Nicola Willis' pay equity reset, suggested that the funded sector would not be funded by the Government for pay equity.

Hon Jan Tinetti: So why won't the Government fund successful pay equity claims for core services in the funded sector, given their funding comes from the Government?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: That was a decision that is not within my remit. That is a question for the Minister of Finance.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is the reason why they won't fund successful pay equity claims such as for Plunket nurses, early childhood education teachers, and hospice workers because the Government's Budget won't add up?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No. I think some things do need to be made clear. We do still have a pay equity system. We will still be funding some of these claims, but when it comes to things that are in relation to the Budget, the member has been here for quite a while and should know that I'm not the Minister of Finance. I'm not responsible for the Budget and I can't give out information that relates to the Budget or anything that may or may not be Budget-sensitive. I'm simply the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, responsible for the legislation that underpins the system. You know, I'm not responsible for everything. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I'd just say to the House that there's been quite an emphasis and focus on the stricter application of Standing Orders. One of those Standing Orders talks about the barracking and the point where barracking becomes heckling. I can't quite remember the number, but I'll research it later. But I'd just suggest that members take that into account when they feel the need to start yelling across the House. Jan Tinetti, is there another question?

Hon Jan Tinetti: No.

Question No. 7—Oceans and Fisheries

7. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he believe bottom trawling is damaging; if so, should it be banned?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): No, I do not consider that bottom trawling should be prohibited or banned, and, yes, it can have effects on the environment. However, with clever management measures, these things are all capable of being mitigated.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister agree that bottom trawling is rapidly losing its social licence due to the destruction it causes to marine habitats and its high emissions profile, and, if not, why not?

Hon SHANE JONES: No. The bottom trawling techniques that are pursued by the New Zealand fishing industry are relatively harmless, and I hope the member isn't following catastrophisation of what may happen in less enlightened nations.

Teanau Tuiono: Why is New Zealand the only country still bottom trawling in the South Pacific despite growing international concern and environmental evidence?

Hon SHANE JONES: We on this side of the House are not going to ostracise the men and women working, earning a legitimate living, in an important segment of the economy. The reference to seining and trawling in New Zealand refers to an established practice, and, yes, from time to time, it does happen in the Hauraki Gulf, which shouldn't bother anyone because the Hauraki Gulf is basically a mud-stained bottom.

Teanau Tuiono: How does the Minister reconcile his decision to scrap plans to restrict bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf, with his Government's commitments to marine biodiversity, especially in light of the 97 percent decline in whales and dolphins, and the functional extinction of species like crayfish and scallops in parts of the gulf?

Hon SHANE JONES: As befits my approach to politics, I deal with science and technology, and I can assure the House that the Tīkapa Moana bill being promoted and brought forward by our colleague the Minister of Conservation already allows for a host of areas to be excluded from bottom trawling. And I think it's important that we remember that our Government is interested in doubling exports, not exiling industries or buying into the weaponisation of legislation designed to de-industrialise New Zealand. That was on display yesterday with the Green alternative budget.

Teanau Tuiono: Has the Minister seen Sir David Attenborough's new documentary Ocean, which contains some of the most graphic footage of the damage that bottom trawling can do to the seabed?

Hon SHANE JONES: Many generations of New Zealanders have followed, with a great deal of interest, Mr Attenborough. However, Danish seining trawling in New Zealand is a vastly different proposition from the graphic images that feature in that particular movie. There are thousands of New Zealanders who rely on this industry for their jobs, generating export. And, as I said, again, we must not allow emotionalism to overcome science.

Teanau Tuiono: Is the Minister intentionally undermining public trust in marine protection laws and weakening New Zealand's international reputation on ocean conservation, or is that just a byproduct of his unwavering servitude to the seafood industry?

SPEAKER: You can ask the question again, but the last part is to be struck out of the Hansard record.

Teanau Tuiono: OK. What is more important to the Minister: maintaining public trust in marine protection laws and New Zealand's international reputation on ocean conservation, or maintaining the trust of the seafood industry?

Hon SHANE JONES: Proclamations of international reputation without a chequebook that can actually meet the costs of environmental dues is a pipe dream. The fishing industry and the techniques of the fishing industry are constantly being reviewed by regulators, and New Zealanders can sleep happy tonight knowing they have a pro-industry champion in the matua.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government continues to progress its plan to restore law and order with vigour. We've given Police the additional powers they need to disrupt the activities of gangs. We stopped taxpayers funding the proliferation of cultural reports. We've made sweeping reform to the Sentencing Act to put more serious offenders in prison for longer by restoring three-strikes and restricting sentencing discounts by adding additional aggravating factors so that offenders are more appropriately held to account. Our target to reduce the number of victims shows this is working, with more than 28,000 fewer victims recorded in the latest stats. There's been great progress, but there is still a lot more to do.

Tom Rutherford: What is next on the law and order agenda?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Parliament is currently considering a range of legislation, including the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, which makes changes to ensure that, if convicted, adult sex offenders are publicly named and held to account if that is the wish of their victim. And shortly, the hard-working Justice Committee will report back on legislation to make stalking an illegal and jailable offence for up to five years—much work to be done there.

Tom Rutherford: Why is it important for the Government to restore law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because it needed restoring in 2023, when we came to Government and communities across the country didn't feel safe. People deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their communities and to have confidence that the justice system will hold those who disregard the laws to account. Every victim that is spared from going through the trauma of crime deserves the attention of the House, and that's what we're focused on today.

Tom Rutherford: What other actions is the Government taking to restore law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: As part of our Q2 plan, the Government intends to make decisions on a range of matters, including reforming the Crimes Act to further strengthen consequences, particularly in response to views of the ministry advisory group on retail crime, led by Sunny Kaushal, relating to low-level offending, and strengthening trespass laws. We also intend to progress law changes to make citizen's arrest provisions more effective, and I look forward to the other side supporting these sensible changes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the topic of law and order, has the Minister read any reports proposing $88 million in new spending but zero dollars to Police and $770 million in cuts for Corrections?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I have seen those. I've seen those reports, and they're related to the Green Party. It is a state—

SPEAKER: In that case, you don't have to answer it. We move now to question No. 9.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Was cancelling 33 current pay equity claims consistent with her commitment to reduce persistent disadvantage as outlined in her employment action plan; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Our Government is committed to maintaining a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims, and this process is open for claims. The employment action plan ensures we are working across Government to provide greater opportunities for more New Zealanders.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the gender pay gap an example of persistent disadvantage?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did she advocate for her employment action plan objective to reduce persistent disadvantage when the pay equity changes were discussed at Cabinet?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If the member had read the action plan she would understand that persistent disadvantage is disadvantage that is ongoing for two years or more over a life course or intergenerationally, which is why we are focused—for example—on reducing the number of young people on benefits because if they go on to benefit under the age of 25, they will spend 20 future years there. That is persistent disadvantage.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If the gender pay gap is not an example of persistent disadvantage, what is?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I just answered that.

SPEAKER: Just give her the fact again.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: 20 years for a young person under the age of 25 going on to a jobseeker benefit or a main benefit.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does cancelling the 33 pay equity claims align with her action plan's concern that there are "persistent and serious gaps in the labour market participation and outcomes for specific population groups, especially women"?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That's why we have a range of Ministers who work on the labour market issues, including the Minister for Women, including the Minister of Education, the Minister for Vocational Education, and other Ministers as examples. This is a cross-Government piece of work to improve outcomes for all New Zealanders, including women.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has the Government made about increasing competition in banking?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Recently, I announced the next big step for open banking in New Zealand. Cabinet has now signed off on the regulations for open banking and we're now on a clear path to delivering more choice and better service for Kiwi consumers. The major banks will have until December to get ready for open banking, and that means that there will be certainty that open banking will be live by this Christmas.

Nancy Lu: What is open banking and how would it help Kiwi consumers?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Open banking allows New Zealanders to securely share their banking data like transaction history and account balances with third parties such as fintechs. It aims to increase competition and innovation in the financial sector by enabling new services like budgeting apps, new payment methods, and loan comparison tools. And importantly, consumers stay in control. Data is only shared with their consent and providers must meet strict security standards.

Nancy Lu: What are some examples of open banking in practice?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, there are many great examples overseas of open banking in practice, and I can't wait to see what New Zealand - based fintech start-up companies will come up for us here in New Zealand. Other countries have seen exciting start-ups flourish under open banking and examples include one called Revolut, an app that links to other banks for easier budgeting, payments, and multi-currency use. And then there's UNO Home Loans, a tool that speeds up mortgage comparison using income and spending data from banks. And then thirdly, Canopy, which verifies rent and income from a streamlined process when moving house.

Nancy Lu: What else is the Government doing to increase banking competition?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: This Government is laser-focused on increasing competition in the banking sector and that is for sure. As members will know, the Government has called for a select committee inquiry into banking competition following the Commerce Commission's study on personal banking. Now, the hard-working Finance and Expenditure Committee received more than 200 public submissions which showed broad concern about the level of competition. And recently I also announced a programme run by the Financial Markets Authority to help level the playing field for fintechs challenging the big banks and to further boost competition.

Question No. 11—Disability Issues

11. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement, "That is why we are prioritising disabled people, their families and carers"; if so, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes. Prioritising disabled people, their families, and carers is a priority for this Government, and that's why we provided a record $1.1 billion funding boost to disability support services in Budget 2024. The state of affairs left by the last Government needed immediate action to stabilise the disability support system. And just announced today in Budget 2025, the Government has provided $190 million of social investment for vulnerable New Zealanders, including support for Autism New Zealand's early screening and intervention programme that provides services and support for whānau, caregivers, and professionals. Our Government is focused on improving the lives of the nearly one in six disabled New Zealanders.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How many people included in the care and support workers' pay equity claim are employed in disability support services?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I don't have that number on me, and I would encourage anyone who has a pay equity claim to continue with their process.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Has Cabinet made a decision on reallocating the funds held in contingency to settle the care and support workers' pay equity claim?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm not going to comment on comments that may or may not be subject to the Budget.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why did she agree to change the threshold from 60 percent to 70 percent, making it impossible for Peke Waihanga—the Artificial Limb Service—to lodge a pay equity claim, given their workforce is 65 percent women?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Government made a decision to make a process that was fairer and more transparent, and claims can be made, and I'd encourage women and unions to do so.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How will she ensure access to artificial limbs, orthotics, and rehabilitation, given Peke Waihanga is already disadvantaged by previously settled claims that mean they could lose their staff to employers who pay more?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I don't think that's an issue that is any different from any employment space. I would encourage that organisation to look at supporting their employees.

Question No. 12—Agriculture

12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcements has he made about strengthening regulation to support the welfare of dogs?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Last month, I announced new regulations that will create infringement offences for dog owners who cause their animals harm by leaving them chained up for days on end. Regulations will prohibit chaining vulnerable dogs, like pregnant or young animals, except for very temporary situations, and will give enforcement agencies real teeth to intervene swiftly where there is clearly observable harm associated with the long-term chaining. I want to send a sharp, clear message to dog owners that this poor behaviour towards animals is unacceptable and there will be consequences.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why are the regulations required?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I'd like to acknowledge the work of the SPCA here. They told the Government back in 2021 that the powers available to animal welfare inspectors under the regulations were not remotely adequate to address the almost 1,500 complaints about chaining that they received in 2021. Serious mistreatment of animals is already an offence under the Act, but criminal prosecution takes a lot of money and a lot of time. These infringement offences will allow appropriate action to be taken quickly to address the problem.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will these new regulations focus on the wellbeing of dogs?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The Government took a bit of time to work through a few different options and we've landed on outcome-focused regulations. In some cases, there could be good reasons for a dog to be tied up for periods of time, as long as it's in a way that preserves the standards of animal welfare. So these regulations will target harm. They will list a series of clearly observable outcomes where welfare is compromised. This will enable inspectors to know straight away whether an infringement fine is justified.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the regulations be implemented?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Look, it's important to note that these regulations won't affect most Kiwi dog owners, who treat their dogs exceptionally well. For those that don't, however, there will be a six-month period after the regulations are made at the end of the year where inspectors will focus on education and working with the community. This will be followed by a common-sense application of the law. I'd also note that even with these regulations in place, the most serious breaches can and will proceed to prosecution where necessary.

SPEAKER: There'll be members who need to leave the Chamber for duties elsewhere in the precinct. They may do so quietly, as we've come to the end of oral questions.

© Scoop Media