1. Question No. 1—Prime MinisterCHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Acting Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Prime Minister): Yes; in particular the Government's continued investment in supporting New Zealanders to become apprentices. Our Apprenticeship Boost programme has supported over 50000 apprentices to move into or retrain their trade; 8800 employers have signed up to the scheme so far representing a 61 percent increase since the pandemic began.Christopher Luxon: Why did the Government send the cost of living payment to more than 6000 people who had told IRD that their mailing address was overseas and does he accept that this was a careless waste of taxpayers' hard-earned money?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we covered in the House yesterday the Cabinet when it set the criteria for the cost of living payment was extremely clear who that was to go to and that that was people in New Zealand. We continue to work with Inland Revenue to define the way in which the policy can be implemented. I'm advised that in the case of many of those people the member refers to they may well have had two addresses.Christopher Luxon: Why didn't the Government consider taking simple steps like checking mailing addresses before sending millions of taxpayers' dollars to people living overseas?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reiterate the answer that I've just given to the member: Cabinet was very clear in the criteria that we set. We're working through with Inland Revenue how to improve that. Once upon a time the member and his party supported people earning less than $70000 getting some help with easing the cost of living. Nowadays we know that their priority is simply those earning the highest amount of money getting tax cuts.Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that sending millions of dollars to people living in Sydney London and Dubai was an expensive mistake and will he now apologise to taxpayers for the way he has wasted their hard-earned money?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What would be a massive mistake is giving tax cuts to the highest-earning New Zealanders—that would be a massive waste of money on behalf of the taxpayers of New Zealand. And I just can't believe the Leader of the Opposition would still be proposing such a silly wasteful—wasteful—policy.Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm that the 100000 people who got the first cost of living payment by mistake represents a loss to taxpayers of at least $11 million and if so why won't he apologise to taxpayers for wasting $11 million of their money?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The number that the member gives is not one that I can confirm in the House today.Christopher Luxon: What is the number?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That's exactly the work that IRD is doing right now—the work on that process. But the member needs to be aware—the member needs to be aware—that when a new payment such as this is created IRD will work through their systems. The Cabinet was extremely clear about what we did. And I reiterate: if the member wants to go looking for waste the member should look at his own policies.Christopher Luxon: Why does the Government think it's acceptable to send millions of taxpayers' dollars to overseas backpackers and bankers when back home here in New Zealand Kiwis are suffering with real wages falling 3.7 percent?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We do not think that is acceptable and it's the very reason why we're working with IRD to improve those policies. What the member needs to ask himself is whether as a party they are promoting a policy which would see the wealthiest New Zealanders get thousands of dollars of tax cuts a year. Also the member needs to explain himself as to how he's going to make his policies work. While his colleagues promise more spending he wants to cut taxes he wants to reduce debt—his policies don't add up.Christopher Luxon: Will he now finally admit that instead of his rushed and convoluted cost of living payment he should have just let Kiwis keep more of what they earn or does he against all the evidence continue to believe that he can spend Kiwis' money better than they can?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The person on the minimum wage who's getting $27 a week as a result of the cost of living payment is going to be a lot happier with that than the two bucks a week that they would get under the National Party's policy.David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement that Minister Nanaia Mahuta is scrupulous in the way that she adheres to the Cabinet Manual" and if so is he aware that since he made that statement three out of four Government contracts awarded to her husband's companies have been subject to internal investigations by the contracting agencies? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the first part of the question: absolutely yes. With respect to the second part of the question: the Public Service Commissioner on the urging of both Minister Mahuta and Minister Hipkins is looking at the way that Public Service agencies have undertaken their procurement with respect to conflict of interest issues.Hon Chris Hipkins: Let's talk about Bill English's family shall we?SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Chris Bishop: Point of order Mr Speaker. I was just wondering if there's going to be any punishment for the Government by way of extra supplementaries for the National Opposition in relation to that inopportune remark from the Leader of the House.SPEAKER: I've noticed since I became Speaker and today's been no exception that the volume coming from my left is such that it indicates to me that maybe not every supplementary question asked is wanting an answer by the Opposition; if they did it would be a lot lower. And I'm going to also warn the Government side as well: some of the interjections are out of order. I've sat here and waited for someone to take a point of order on this and so my warning is to both sides. When I became Speaker it was indicated to me that you wanted more robust debate at question time; that's what you're getting. So to both sides if you don't want that any more if you want me to intervene I will do it but it will be a very different look to question time and the indication that I've had from many parties is that you don't want that. You either want it or don't want it; I'll leave it up to you to decide."