Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, and let me reassure the member: better starts now with no new taxes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just give the House a moment. Thank you.

Hon Nicola Willis: Better late than never.

SPEAKER: No one else needs to speak.

Hon Chris Bishop: Better start releasing some policy.

SPEAKER: No one else needs to speak.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are there 49,000 more New Zealanders out of work today than when he promised to get the country back on track three years ago?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because a previous Government increased spending by 70 percent; that drove up inflation to a 32-year high to 7.3 percent. What that led to was multiple interest rate rises—I think about 13—that slowed an economy down and people lost their jobs. That’s why this Government has been working so hard. I can just say very simply to the member that if he wants to help, imposing more taxes on hard-working New Zealanders is not the way forward.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should the 20,000 construction workers who have lost their jobs under his leadership believe the economy has turned a corner when the first thing his Government did was cancel the projects many of them were working on, leaving many of those very same construction workers with no choice but to leave the country to search for work they should be able to find here?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, I wouldn’t call Let’s Get Wellington Moving, Auckland Light Rail, and three waters projects that were happening under his previous administration—they were not happening. But the member will be pleased to know that actually construction jobs, according to SEEK, are up 35 percent—the fastest growing industry for job ads—and that’s a positive thing. We’re getting things built in this country; not just talking about it.

Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: No, supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Oh, a supplementary question? Well, you wait until we’ve had three from over here.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he said “the economy is on the rise”, was he referring to rising unemployment, rising inflation, rising company liquidations, or the rising price of household bills?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, let me help the member. We’ve had 2.1 percent growth in the last nine months. We’ve got strengthening growth forecasts from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) economists, and Standard & Poor’s. We’ve got manufacturing growth at the highest it’s been since 2021, and it’s outperforming many other countries. Services are expanding, which is fantastic. We’ve had record exports, up 25 percent. We’ve got $12 billion in exports alone in the last two years. We’ve got tourism visitors up by 8 percent and a trade surplus for the first time in five years. Wholesale electricity prices are down by 35 percent. Building consents are up by 19 percent, the highest since 2023. Construction jobs I’ve talked about; consumer confidence, business confidence, farmer confidence, and retail and investor confidence. We’ve got the lowest rent increases in 25 years; stable house prices; and record first-home buyers. The official cash rate is remaining low at 2.5 percent, down from 5.5 percent; there is $7,500 for the average mortgage-holder, back in their back pocket; and the great news is that the number of Kiwis returning home from Australia is up 14 percent in the last 12 months.

SPEAKER: And can I just say that no one speaks while the question is being answered.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the New Zealand economy grown faster or slower over the last three years than was forecast before his Government took office?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can tell the member, as I’ve said before, that the economy grew 2.1 percent in the last nine months, but I want to tell the member that instituting a capital gains tax—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —a digital services tax—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s enough.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —a business tax—

SPEAKER: Prime Minister, that’s enough.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straightforward question. The Prime Minister has been touting his Government’s successes.

SPEAKER: Yes, it was.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the economy grown faster or slower—

SPEAKER: Yeah, good—we got that out, so—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —over the last three years than it was forecast to before he became Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can address the question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can say to the member is the economy has grown 2.1 percent in the last nine months, and isn’t it fantastic to see Standard & Poor’s, the RBNZ, and Treasury all expecting the economy to grow faster than the current forecasts that are on the table.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is Government debt today higher or lower than it was forecast to be at this point before his Government took office?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there’s a sad tale there, where we had a previous Government that cranked up spending from $60 billion to $180 billion. We spent $10 billion on the interest bill, which is four Dunedin Hospitals that we don’t get to build because we’re cleaning up your mess.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a pretty straightforward question. The Prime Minister keeps going on about his Government’s track record. This question was very straightforward: is Government debt today higher or lower than it was forecast to be before the election?

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the Prime Minister to make a further comment, but you can’t expect there not to be any commentary about how a situation may arise.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There’s been a range of forecasts in my 2½ years as Prime Minister. What I know is I’m focused on making sure we grow this economy faster; that’s what we’re doing. Frankly, cranking up spending another $4.5 billion a year and asking for Kiwis to pay for that in more tax and more debt isn’t the way forward.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the New Zealand economy is back on track and the Government books are back in order, why has the $2 billion surplus that was forecast for the next financial year, before he became Prime Minister, turned into a $14 billion deficit?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, on this side of the House, we are a Government that has financial responsibility. That’s why we have got Government spending under control, that’s why inflation has come down, that is why interest rates are coming down, and that’s why we have $7,500 in the back pockets of average mortgage-holders. Spend more, tax more, borrow more is what got us into this mess, and that’s what you did.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think his credibility on “spend more, tax more, borrow more” would be a little more credible if his Government hadn’t done exactly that for the last three years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We cut taxes for the first time in 14 years—that party didn’t support it—for working New Zealanders, and their union mates didn’t even support it, either. He wants to put in a capital gains tax in New Zealand. What do you think that will do to the economy? What do you think a digital services tax or a business tax will do, or a streaming tax or a ute tax? Where are you on interest deductibility?

SPEAKER: Question No. 2, Rawiri Waititi.

Hon Member: You need to get started.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Hang on, no one else is going to be speaking while people are asking questions, regardless of how important they think what they’re offering the House is.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Asked by: RAWIRI WAITITI, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, and particularly our desire not to introduce an asset tax.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you for that. Does he stand by his Government’s track record of legislating over court decisions to entrench the theft of the foreshore and seabed through the marine and coastal area amendment Act, and to choose corporate interest over the wellbeing of our taiao and our people through the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of the second leg of that question.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree that tikanga is the first law of Aotearoa, as recognised by the courts, and, if so, will he ensure our people that so long as he’s Prime Minister he will not legislate over the application of tikanga in our judicial system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what Māori can be assured of across New Zealand is this is a Government that is interested in improving Māori outcomes, and when we see Māori youth offending down 28 percent, we see 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime, when we see immunisation rates for under-24 young Māori up from 60 to 71.5 percent, this is a Government that’s delivering for Māori and it’s improving outcomes for Māori.

Rawiri Waititi: Can he rule out revisiting the Treaty principles bill or any legislation that aims to achieve the same goals as the Treaty principles bill, under any Government he leads?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can rule out is a capital gains tax, a rentals tax, and a wealth and asset tax.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that tikanga varies iwi by iwi by iwi by iwi, so which one did Te Pāti Māori recommend we follow?

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister can’t answer for Te Pāti Māori. Is there—question No. 3—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I said: “Which one did Te Pāti Māori recommend to him that they follow?”

SPEAKER: I thought—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, no you don’t.

SPEAKER: No wait on, I thought—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Follow the question very carefully.

SPEAKER: Don’t argue; it’s not a safe thing to do. I thought the question was “Which one did he recommend?”, so that would be something he can’t do. If the Prime Minister wants to make a comment on that; if the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no. Point of order. The question wasn’t that—I know what you thought. I know what you thought; I’m about to correct you.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What is this? You wouldn’t stand for this from anyone else.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I said, “Which one did they recommend that the Prime Minister follow?”

SPEAKER: No, don’t—listen, hang on a minute.

Hon Member: Any tikanga.

SPEAKER: Drop that sort of comment—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, any tikanga, how’s that, eh?

SPEAKER: —or it’s an early afternoon.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So 45 different court decisions, now?

SPEAKER: You make the choice. Sit down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, certainly.

SPEAKER: Right, now that’s the end of that. We’re moving on to question No. 3.

Finance

Question No. 3

Asked by: NANCY LU, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s fiscal strategy?

The Government’s fiscal strategy aims to repair the books after a period of deficits and rapidly growing debt. The key elements of the strategy are to reduce core Crown expenses towards 30 percent of GDP; to return the Government’s headline operating balance measure, OBEGALx—Operating Balance Before Gains and Losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses—to surplus by the 2028/2029 fiscal year; and to put net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward path towards 40 percent. Budget forecasts show the strategy is on track. Core Crown expenses, for example, are forecast to decline from 32.6 percent of GDP this year to 30.3 percent of GDP at the end of the forecast period in 2029-30.

Nancy Lu: Should the Government increase spending to boost the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, no. For starters, it’s worth pointing out that we are already in deficit. It is true that if the Government borrowed more to spend more, it would give the economy a short-term boost, but that is just a sugar hit. There is no impact on medium-term growth; the money borrowed gets added to debt, and the Reserve Bank would likely respond with slightly higher interest rates than would otherwise be the case. Sustainable growth comes from structural changes that raise potential GDP, such as increasing capital intensity, as the Investment Boost tax policy seeks to do. Sustainable growth does not come simply from spending more.

Nancy Lu: Has the Government considered raising core Crown expenses to 33 percent of GDP?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. Thirty-three percent of GDP would be very high for core Crown expenses. The Treasury’s core Crown expenses series goes back to 1993-94 and has only been at 33 percent or above on six occasions, including around the time of the global financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. The average for core Crown expenses over the past 25 years—through, of course, both blue Governments and red Governments—is only 30.7 percent. Thirty-three percent would therefore be a very significant increase in spending and it is definitely not something the Government is considering.

Nancy Lu: How is additional Government spending funded?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If the Government wants to spend more, it either has to tax people more or borrow more. For example, to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent, to match a similar increase in expenses, the Government would have to increase taxes by $10.4 billion in the 2030-31 fiscal year. To put that in perspective, colleagues, $10.4 billion is $5,400 of extra tax for every household in New Zealand; put another way, $103 more tax per household every week.

Finance

Question No. 4

Asked by: Hon BARBARA EDMONDS, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: Fa’afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she kept her promise that her Government would “reduce food prices for Kiwis”, when the price of white bread is up over 72 percent since she came to office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I can say that this Government has achieved lower rates of food price inflation than was the case under the last three years of the last Labour-led Government, in which food price inflation soared over 12 percent per year. Currently, food inflation is easing. Food prices rose just 0.1 percent in July, with annual food inflation now 1.9 percent, which is obviously a lot lower than the 12 percent food inflation that her mates managed to achieve.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she kept her promise that the Government would lower grocery prices, when the price of beef mince is up more than 33 percent since she came to office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I said, food price inflation is lower on our watch than it was under the last Government. I think it is worth acknowledging that global beef prices are determined in a global market in which New Zealand participates. If that member’s policy is that she wishes to lower the returns farmers get for red meat, I would also indicate to her that that would have significant implications for jobs.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: So are butter prices higher or lower since she came into office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I said, food price inflation has eased during the time of our Government, which is to say simply that food prices are not increasing as fast as they once were. When it comes to butter, I think it’s worth pointing out that New Zealand is one of the biggest exporters of butter in the world, and higher returns for dairy have injected billions of dollars into the economy in recent years, which has supported jobs on farms. I am always on the side of shoppers who wish to see affordable butter, but if the member’s solution is that she wants to see dairy farmers getting lower prices, she should spell that out to the public.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is that like when you called Fonterra in?

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, have you got a question?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No.

SPEAKER: Then please don’t interfere with someone asking from your own side.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why does she continue to claim that she will “reduce food prices for Kiwis”, when the price of cheese is up 28 percent; lamb chops, 31 percent; mince, 33 percent; milk, 33 percent; white bread, 72 percent; and butter, 88 percent on her watch alone?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, because week in, week out, this Government is doing what it can to control the costs that lead to excessive food price inflation. For example, last week, we made an announcement intervening on the Horizons Plan Change 2. The result that was described to me in a text message I received from a vegetable grower was this: “It will see growers held to account to demonstrate good practice and reduce the environmental impact, but it’s practical, workable, and achievable. Congratulations on doing what no other regional or central government of the past has done: listen to growers on the ground and implement workable solutions. We couldn’t have done it without your help to open doors for us along the way with what you’ve done to help keep New Zealand growing healthy food, stay accessible, and reasonably priced for everyone.” Red tape matters and our Government has been reducing it, and that means that vegetable prices will be lower than they otherwise would be.

Prime Minister

Question No. 5

Asked by: Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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?]

Yes, and I can assure the member that we won’t be implementing a death tax or a gift tax.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Treaty—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. How many times do I warn people on the front bench of the National Party—don’t speak while a question is being asked? That applies to people on this side of the House, too—not to mention any particular names.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Treaty settlements create binding obligations on the Crown, or can those obligations be set aside when they become politically inconvenient?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This Government believes in upholding its Treaty obligations.

Hon Marama Davidson: Was the decision to halt Plan Change 1 simply for the purpose of allowing continued pollution and degradation of the Waikato River for short-term private profit—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, God, what a stupid question.

Hon Marama Davidson: —despite water quality being one of the region’s most significant—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who the hell wrote this question?

Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker, I’ve got chitter-chatter—

SPEAKER: You can start that question again, and I’ll keep an eye on where the noise is coming from, because mumbling under your breath doesn’t save you.

Hon Marama Davidson: Was the decision to halt Plan Change 1 simply for the purpose of allowing continued pollution and degradation of the Waikato River for short-term private profit, despite water quality being one of the region’s most significant environmental concerns?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is it acceptable to overrule a decision that has been supported by the Environment Court and been through a 14-year collaborative process between iwi, farmers and growers, councils, industry, and environmental and community groups?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we’re changing our planning laws. We’re moving from an old system to a new system, and it’s important that things are done in the context of the new rules.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is his decision to halt the planned improvements to the health of the Waikato River a sign of intent for the resource management reform his Government is pushing through this week, which places short-term private profits over the health of our environment every single time?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, did you hear the end of that question?

SPEAKER: I did, and I was about to interject on that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: The member can ask the question without the supposition added on to the end of it.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is his decision to halt the planned improvements to the health of the Waikato River a sign of intent for the resource management reform his Government is pushing through this week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the draft Amendment Paper to the Natural Environment Bill currently before the House specifically says that existing Plan Change 1 will be the basis for the new plan once the environment system changes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he believe that he knows better than the Environment Court and the Waikato River Authority about the state of the Waikato River, or does he simply not care and, as the chair of the river authority has said, is he willing to “pass the buck to the next generation”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. One of the biggest things holding this country back has been our Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms—our RMA laws—that’s why we’re reforming it, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re doing it because we’ve got to get planning and consenting things done and to build in this place—more roads, more wind farms, more farms, more supermarkets, more renovations, more houses, more hospitals. That’s a good thing. You cannot have an RMA reform—an RMA programme—costing us $1.3 billion. Costs are up 70 percent; actual time taken to get consents is up 150 percent. We’re changing it—we are changing it—because we’re going to get things done and built in this country, and we’re going to grow our economy.

Housing

Question No. 6

Asked by: Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister of Housing: Is the Government considering removing interest deductibility for residential property?

No.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why does the Government support interest deductibility?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are many reasons—two the House might be interested in. On this side of the House, we believe in the eminently reasonable and best-practice tax principle that tax is paid on profit, not revenue. The Government does not tax small trade business on gross sales while ignoring the cost of wages, materials, tools, and fuel. Removing interest deductibility for residential property breaks this principle, and it means that the mum and dad investor, or someone who rents their home out, could have to pay tax on their property even if it’s making a loss. Secondly, removing interest deductibility raises costs for people who provide rentals, which, according to the experts, are likely to be passed on to renters. One might even call it a tenant tax.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Who would pay if the Government removed interest deductibility on residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In general, people who provide rentals will pay. Some of those increased costs are likely to be passed on to renters—that is what IRD warned about back in 2021. Removing interest deductibility could also incentivise or force people who provide rental properties to sell, which, of course, affects renters as well. You cannot increase costs for landlords at no cost or consequence to renters. All these costs have an effect and a consequence.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What reports has he seen on interest deductibility for residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve seen many reports. One thing I have been reading at night is IRD’s 2021 and 2023 regulatory impact statements (RIS). From the 2021 RIS: “[IRD] has advised against any of these options to deny or limit interest deductions … additional taxes on rental housing are unlikely to be an effective way of boosting overall housing affordability. … [This would] put upward pressure on rents and may reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer-term.” and could have “negative impacts on rents and housing supply, high compliance and administration costs for an estimated 250,000 taxpayers, and [would erode] the coherence of the tax system.”

Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister seen any other recent admissions that taxes on a particular activity can be passed on to consumers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there is no shortage of proposals in this House, mainly on the other side—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough—that’s enough.

Hon Member: Aw!

SPEAKER: Yes, I’d be upset about that, but I suspect if you tabled the document you claim you’ve been reading every night, you’d have found the cure for insomnia.

Health

Question No. 7

Asked by: Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that the net change in nursing FTE is a more accurate measure of workforce growth than hiring statistics, and why is the net increase in Health New Zealand’s nursing FTE between the quarters ending March 2024 to March 2026 only 54 nurses?

In response to the first part of the member’s question, yes, it is correct that the net change in nursing full-time equivalents (FTEs) is an accurate measure of workforce growth. That is why just last week in the House I referenced the 2,162 additional nurses on a net basis employed by Health New Zealand since 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 full-time equivalents. In response to the second part of the member’s question, I’m advised that in a workforce the size of Health New Zealand, people are joining and leaving all of the time for a range of reasons. What’s important is that we have grown the number of nurses working at Health New Zealand by more than 1,600 FTEs, and that as at 14 August there were 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers, with thousands more progressing through recruitment.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When Middlemore Hospital has lost the equivalent of 78 full-time nurses in the past two years, are his cuts the reasons paramedics are forced to treat patients in hospital corridors?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in the answer to the primary question, there has been significant growth in full-time equivalents since we came to office. There is clearly more work to do, and that is why Health New Zealand is actively recruiting, as at 14 August, for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles—by Health New Zealand—including 475 nurses who have already accepted offers.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When Auckland hospital nurses have been cut by 74 full-time equivalents over the last two years, is it any surprise the emergency department breached its capacity on a third of all days last year?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in the answer to the primary question, since we came to Government, Health New Zealand has increased the number of nurses by more than 1,600 FTE roles. As at 14 August, there were 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers. It’s also important to note that the number of vacancies has reduced, from 2,632 to 1,600 FTE, the turnover rate—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order. We’re all sitting here while the Minister has, despite answering on the question of net nursing growth, repeated points about recruitment numbers which are totally unrelated. He is now introducing another matter, and under Speakers’ ruling 206/4, this is totally unrelated to the issue, which is the total number of nurses.

SPEAKER: I think it’s very hard to argue that, given that the Minister is talking about vacancies and hiring, as I heard it. It’s hard to say that’s not related to the question. Please, take an extra supplementary.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When Waikato Hospital nursing staff has been cut over the last two years, by 53 full-time equivalents, why is he continuing to claim he hasn’t cut services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in the answer to the primary question, the number of fulltime-equivalent nurses working at Health New Zealand has increased by more than 1,600 full-time equivalents across New Zealand. We are hiring across the country, as at 14 August, currently recruiting for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers. There is clearly more work to do, but as I said, we have reduced the number of vacancies from 2,632 full-time equivalents to 1,601. The turnover rate has reduced from 11.7 percent to 8.4 percent, which means our retention rate is improving. The vacancy rate has reduced from 8.6 percent to 5.2 percent. There’s more work to do, but there is a lot of recruitment under way.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why does he cite gross figures rather than net for the three months at the beginning of the Government’s term, when they hadn’t put in the hiring freeze, in order to disguise the fact that for the last two years, they have essentially not hired any additional nurses?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I reject the premise of that question, and if I wish to choose two different dates—as the member seeks to do—I’ll refer to March 2023, when the number of doctors at Health New Zealand was 10,093; and September 2023, when it had fallen to 9,962. Under her watch, the number of doctors reduced by around a hundred.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the net change in the number of fulltime-equivalent doctors employed by Health New Zealand between quarters ending March 2024 to March 2026?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m advised that Health New Zealand employed an additional 502 fulltime-equivalent doctors on a net basis between March 2024 and March 2026. Between September 2023 and March 2026 that number was 942 fulltime-equivalent staff.

Local Government

Question No. 8

Asked by: CATHERINE WEDD, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister of Local Government: What announcements has he made about capping council rates?

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Today, the Government is introducing legislation to cap rates. Ratepayers have faced medium rate increases of 14.2 percent and 9.2 percent over the past two years. That is not sustainable for Kiwi households. Under the new system, councils will be required to keep annual rate increases within an initial target range of 2 percent to 4 percent. The rates cap will put a break on excessive increases, drive greater financial discipline, and sharpen the focus on delivering the basic services communities expect.

Catherine Wedd: How will the rates cap ease cost of living pressures for New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Rates are not optional. Councils also effectively operate as monopoly providers of core services. Electricity retail companies, phone service providers—unlike those, households don’t actually have a choice on who they buy those services from, unless they pack up and move away. In recent years, New Zealanders have been hit with increases worth hundreds of dollars a year, compounding to thousands of dollars a year over time, and they have no choice but to eat that cost. We are putting a brake on excessive rate increase, which will flow straight to New Zealanders.

Catherine Wedd: How has the Government ensured the rates cap balances affordability for ratepayers with councils’ need to deliver essential services?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’ve designed the cap to be firm but practical. The 2 to 4 percent range gives councils room to meet cost pressures and to continue investing in essential services and infrastructure, while putting a clear limit on excessive rate increases. There will be exemptions for genuinely exceptional circumstances—natural disasters, for example. It’s not about stopping councils from delivering essential services; it’s about forcing prioritisation. It’s a policy against 70,000 bucks on decorative artwork for a single bus stop. It’s a policy against $2.3 million for light-up public toilets in Wellington. Central government isn’t perfect either and we’re working hard to get our books back in order, but we think the rates cap will deliver real benefits for working New Zealanders.

Catherine Wedd: How does capping rates fit within the Government’s wider programme to improve the performance and accountability of local government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, it’s another part of the Government’s programme to get local government back to basics and focused on value for ratepayers. For too long, when council costs and appetites have increased, the answer has just been to say yes, because ratepayers will be there to pick up the tab. We’re changing that. The rates cap will require tougher choices, prioritisation of spending, and focusing on services that communities expect to get right: roads, footpaths, rubbish, parks and recreation. Ratepayers deserve councils that respect the money they are entrusted with. This Government is putting in place the accountability around how that money is spent.

Education

Question No. 9

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. My question is to the Minister of Education and reads: does she stand by her claim that “2026 marks the first year of nationally consistent assessment and reporting in primary and intermediate schools”; if so, how is this consistent with reports that some schools are assessing differently to others?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Members are required to repeat the question that’s written before them, and not change the words on the way through. She just did. She threw the word “how” in there.

SPEAKER: Read the question again.

Asked by: Hon GINNY ANDERSEN, Answered by: Hon ERICA STANFORD

to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her claim that “2026 marks the first year of nationally consistent assessment and reporting in primary and intermediate schools”; if so, is this consistent with reports that some schools are assessing differently to others?

To the first part of the question, yes: from 2026, schools must use one of three assessment tools which report consistently against progress descriptors. To the second part of the question, yes: some schools are assessing differently to others because there are three different tools.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she claim that her new school reports deliver “national consistency” when principals say identical student achievement is being reported in two completely different ways?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, last year, the Ministry of Education worked very, very closely with the education sector—with unions, with principals, with the New Zealand Rural Schools Association—to put together parent reporting. We then put together a very comprehensive document called Reporting to Parents and Whānau, which was released in term 1, which gives the sector a breakdown of exactly how to implement. Now, I understand that there are some principals who are needing some additional help, and I will say to them, and I’ve also said to the ministry, that they should, firstly, read this document, and, then, secondly, please get in touch with the ministry, because they are on standby for additional help.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she claim that the guidance was clear, when schools received conflicting advice from the ministry; and will she identify which of the two different methods currently being used are supposed to be used?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve already said, everything is laid out very clearly in this comprehensive document that was produced by the Ministry of Education, put out in term 1, and sent out to schools through, I believe, the method of communication that the ministry uses with schools. It all lays it out very clearly in here exactly how it’s to be done. If there is still some confusion amongst schools, I would say to them: please get in touch with the ministry, have a read of this document—it is all clearly laid out.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will she accept responsibility for the inconsistent implementation of her new school reports, or does ministerial responsibility disappear whenever her policy goes wrong?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s really important to understand the backdrop of where we came from before we implemented this, because when national standards were removed, nothing was put in its place. For six long years, we’ve had all schools using completely different ways of reporting to parents—stars, ticks, ABCs. We are now bringing consistency to the sector. It is a big change, because nothing was replaced after they removed national standards, but now we have a consistent document. It is a big change; we are here to help schools if they misunderstand anything in this document.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will she apologise to the children who received lower grades, not because their achievement declined, but because she rushed out a reporting system before schools had clear and consistent instructions?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, if there’s anyone that should apologise to the children of this country, it is the previous Labour Government for ignoring all of the warning signs of the dashboard that results were plummeting while they sat back and did absolutely nothing—no consistent assessment, no consistent curriculum, no consistent reporting to parents. We’ve done it all, and we did it in three years.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10—Chlöe Swarbrick and nobody else.

Prime Minister

Question No. 10

Asked by: CHLÖE SWARBRICK, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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?]

Yes, and I just do want to reassure the member that we will not be implementing a 45 percent top tax rate, a death and inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or a wealth asset tax.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on—hang on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his Government’s commitment to sign a contract with a preferred provider for the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal before the election; and, if so, why is it appropriate for his Government to commit the country to a multi-billion-dollar investment in fossil fuels that lacks bipartisan support in the final months before an election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I want to thank the member for her question, because wholesale electricity prices have dropped 35 percent from the 2024 peak, and the strategy of “and, and, and”—a strategic coal reserve, a strategic diesel reserve, an LNG import facility as a backstop, coupled with building more renewables in two years than the previous eight years—is working. That is good news, because people lose their jobs, and businesses close down in regional New Zealand, because of failed energy policy from the previous administration.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is his response to the Smart Energy Alliance, who wrote to him in July of this year stating that “the Government should exercise restraint in recognition of rushing through such a major investment with potentially serious safety, economic and environmental implications during the pre-election period”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would say to them, just look at wholesale electricity prices on the forward curves, because the good news is that Meridian are saying they will pass that on to their commercial customers next year, and we expect them to do so.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will his Government underwrite the billion-dollar LNG import facility with taxpayer money?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we’ll have more to say about that when we announce our policy, but what we have said very clearly is we are not going to fund that on power bills. We are not adding to the power bills of New Zealanders, but we are going to make sure that they actually get lower downward pressure on power bills, and the way that we do it is that we make commitments to thermal firming-energy as well as expanding and opening up more renewables as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we to take that answer as confirmation that his Government will use tax—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Winston said, “no”.

SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry. Please.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, who’s in charge? Winston Peters is answering questions as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s kind of true.

SPEAKER: Answering might be fine, but we’re about to have a question asked.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Are we to take that answer from the Prime Minister as confirmation that he is comfortable with billions of dollars of taxpayer money being used to underwrite his LNG import facility?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m very comfortable with is wholesale electricity prices dropping 35 percent, and gentailers saying they’re going to pass those on to commercial customers, which means businesses stay alive—the mills in regional New Zealand—and that means people stay in jobs.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that he will use taxpayer money to underwrite his billion-dollar LNG import facility?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’ve said previously that gentailers will pay for it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, that’s absolutely got to stop.

Chlöe Swarbrick: As well traversed, Mr Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister doesn’t actually have to answer the questions in question time, but he does have to address them. My question was specifically about the use of taxpayer money to underwrite the LNG import facility. I asked that question three times. He did not once specifically refer to the underwriting.

SPEAKER: Well, he’s most certainly indicated where the funding is going to come from. Now, beyond that, he also started the answer by saying that those announcements will be made when they finally announce the policy. I don’t think he can take it much further than that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I wonder if you could clarify for us: when Winston Peters answers a question before the Prime Minister, saying, “The Government’s position is no.”, who do we accept the word of: is it the Prime Minister or the other one?

SPEAKER: Well, you see, you’re really asking me: if someone interjects at some point on an answer, do we assume that they’re right? There’d be numerous people on your side of the House who do also attempt to answer for the Prime Minister and other Ministers, but, by and large, we recognise it as an interjection only.

Tākuta Ferris: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s decisions to cut thousands of Public Service jobs, particularly in Wellington, when those job losses remove income from whānau and spending from local communities at a time where Māori unemployment has risen to 10.8 percent, double that of non-Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we want to build a Public Service for the 2040s and beyond, not for the 1990s, and so we are going to transform the Public Service. We’ve talked about that before, and we’re very comfortable with the fact that we want to see better services and better delivery of customer service to the public of New Zealand, and we can do a much better job.

Tākuta Ferris: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s cost of living actions when petrol has risen by 15 percent, and diesel by 35 percent, placing added pressure on whānau Māori in Te Tau Ihu in particular, who travel significant distances to access essential services like healthcare and schooling?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I stand by this Government’s efforts to lower inflation, to lower interest rates, and to get the economy growing so that we can get people into work. I also stand by the fact that we have done a number of things across New Zealand to actually help the Māori economy. Whether it’s been in Regional Infrastructure Fund investments, that’s all designed to create opportunity for Māori and non-Māori across New Zealand.

Tākuta Ferris: How can the Prime Minister justify removing Tai Poutini Polytechnic as a standalone institution at a critical time where we need more pathways into education and employment, and considering 22.3 percent of rangatahi Māori aged 15 to 24 are not in employment, education, or training?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually very proud of the fact that we have improved regular attendance amongst Māori students from 51.3 percent to 54.6 percent just in the last year. I’m very proud of the $104 million Budget 2025 package for Māori learners, and the $334 million in Budget 2026 for Māori school property. These are all positive things designed to create opportunity for Māori and non-Māori.

Tākuta Ferris: What single action can the Prime Minister point to that has measurably improved the lives of whānau Māori in Te Tai Tonga through better cost of living, health, or education outcomes, considering the results of these measures have worsened under his Government’s watch?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I refer the member to the answer in the last question.

Agriculture

Question No. 11

Asked by: MILES ANDERSON, Answered by: Hon TODD McCLAY

to the Minister of Agriculture: Is the Government considering a land tax on farms?

No, absolutely not. The Government is keeping taxes low so that New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their family can do with their own money.

Miles Anderson: What reports has he seen about a land tax on farms?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I’ve seen a report by Federated Farmers that said—and I quote—“A land tax would cost farmers as much as the previous Government’s methane tax and send financially marginal farmers to the wall.” In contrast, this Government is reducing costs and cutting red tape for farmers and growers so that they can get on with doing what they do best: producing the highest quality food in the world and creating more, and higher-paying, jobs for New Zealanders.

Miles Anderson: What other reports has he seen about a proposed land tax?

Hon TODD McCLAY: More taxes would make our farms less competitive internationally and push up costs on New Zealand consumers. Federated Farmers also said, “The best way that we can address the cost of living crisis is by having successful businesses that can pay higher wages, so let’s not provide another tax that takes away from that opportunity”—that was a quote. We won’t be introducing a land tax or any other new tax on rural New Zealand or other New Zealanders.

Miles Anderson: Has he seen any other reports about the impact of a land tax on farms?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, a report that stated the cost for farmers could be as much as $47,000 every year. A land tax would be as harmful to rural New Zealand as a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, an inheritance tax, or a death tax. None of those taxes is proposed by the Government. Instead, we’re supporting farmers by implementing business-friendly initiatives like Investment Boost—as they hit record exports of $64 billion this year. We want productivity, not punishment.

Cameron Luxton: Does the Minister agree with ACT’s 10 August announcement committing to no new taxes, and if so, when did the Minister decide no new taxes was the right approach?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I’ve been in this Parliament for 18 years. I’ve always believed that New Zealanders should keep more of what they earn. I absolutely agree with every Prime Minister of a National Government I can think of, including our current Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who has said that the way to grow an economy and create jobs is not new taxes, which is why the Prime Minister, on behalf of the National Party, ruled out any new taxes in our next term of Government.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question had two legs: one sought an opinion on a political party’s policy, and the other asked when the member changed his mind on the policy. I don’t think he actually addressed either of them; he just gave a general dissertation on his beliefs.

SPEAKER: No, no. What I heard is that he said he’s been here 18 years and he always agrees with the Prime Minister.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Question No. 12

Asked by: ARENA WILLIAMS, Answered by: Hon CAMERON BREWER

to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Does he stand by his statement, “We believe that New Zealanders pay too much for their groceries. That’s what we’re focused on fixing”; if so, when can New Zealanders expect lower household bills as a result of this Government’s work?

Yes, that’s exactly why we’ve taken action to remove regulatory, enforcement, and structural barriers that limit competition in the grocery sector. We’ve opened the fast-track process to supermarkets, we’ve created a nationwide building consent pathway, and we’ve made it easier for new entrants to use proven supermarket designs. We’ve also strengthened protections for suppliers and we’re strengthening our competition and fair-trading laws. With regard to prices: food inflation is currently running at 1.9 percent—substantially lower than the 12.3 percent that it was in June 2023.

Arena Williams: Why does the Minister defend rising grocery prices on his watch, when this Government promised more than a year ago to increase grocery competition and reduce food prices for Kiwis?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We, as a Government, are all about more sustainable food price increases and we have it, so far—[Interruption] It’s tracking at a much better rate than it was in 2023. In the month of July, grocery prices increased by 0.1 percent. In the year to July, grocery prices increased just 1.9 percent. It’s a big improvement from 12.3 percent in June 2023.

Arena Williams: What does the Minister say to people paying bills for junk insurance, when the Financial Markets Authority’s (FMA’s) report found that some insurances pay out just 3c for every dollar paid in premiums?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I would repeat to the member, as I did in the Estimates debate last week, that the FMA have got a target on junk insurance—

Arena Williams: You called them loan sharks.

SPEAKER: Hey!

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —and that is what they are focused on and that is what they continue to look into and investigate.

Arena Williams: When will this Government stop defending high prices when those insurers are keeping 97c in the dollar every Kiwi pays?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We look forward to our insurance affordability review, that the likes of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, that the likes of the Commerce Commission, that the likes of Treasury, and others on the Council of Financial Regulators are putting together. We await their analysis with great interest.

Arena Williams: What hard decisions has this Government actually taken to break the market power of the major supermarkets and insurers to bring prices down?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We have done a number of things, as I said in my primary answer, but we’ve also introduced stronger enforcement and greater supplier protections when you look at the Grocery Supply Code, when you look at competition law, when you look at the increasing penalties that we’re putting around fair trading breaches, and when you look at the resourcing that we continue to give the Commerce Commission.