Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: KATIE NIMON, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 3 yesterday?

Yes, in particular my statement that to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP in the 2030-31 fiscal year, the Government would have to increase taxes by $10.4 billion in that year, which equates to over $100 more tax per household every week. I’m very glad that the Leader of the Opposition is listening. I’ve done his maths for him, but perhaps he should’ve done it before he made his announcement.

SPEAKER: That’ll do, thank you. [Interruption] Just try and keep it slightly calm. We all know what the season is.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If she stops telling lies about us, I’ll stop telling the truth about her.

SPEAKER: For the member’s sake, I’m going to pretend I didn’t hear that comment.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. I did hear that comment, and I will not be called a liar in this House.

SPEAKER: Offence has been taken. The Leader of the Opposition should withdraw and apologise for that remark.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I withdraw and apologise.

Katie Nimon: What options would the Government have to raise that amount of tax?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A future Government would have several options to get core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP. It could, for example, introduce a capital gains tax. It could cancel the current Investment Boost policy. It could deny interest deductibility for residential rental properties. However, those policies together would only raise around $3.5 billion in the 2030-31 year, which is a long way short of $10.4 billion. More taxes would be required.

Katie Nimon: What sorts of tax increases would raise that amount of revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m aware that members of the Labour and Green parties have a lot of ideas on that score.

SPEAKER: No, no, sorry—your awareness of those things doesn’t matter.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Can I try again with a better answer?

SPEAKER: No, we’ll have the final supplementary—and no one else speaking.

Katie Nimon: Could personal tax increases raise enough revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, of course, raising that amount of revenue could be achieved a number of ways, including through increasing personal tax rates. An option for a future Government to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP would be, for example, through increasing personal income tax rates. It could put the current 17.5 percent income tax rate up to 20 percent, and put the current 30 percent income tax rate up to 33 percent, and put the current 33 percent income tax rate up to 35 percent. These tax increases, together with a capital gains tax, scrapping Investment Boost, and denying interest deductibility, would raise $10.4 billion. So that combination would work. It would also, of course, reduce the take-home pay of New Zealanders. Households would again be paying over $100 more tax every week. To be clear: this Government is not considering any of those options.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Living in a fantasy world over there.

SPEAKER: The Hon David Seymour and no one else, as I keep saying.

Hon David Seymour: In the absence of $100 a week per household of new taxes, could the Government instead just borrow $10.4 billion a year, but what might that do to inflation and household budgets in that scenario?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, well, of course, if the Government committed to a target of increasing spending to 33 percent of GDP but did not find the revenue to fund that, it would have to add to debt. That would have a couple of impacts. The first is that that degree of fiscal stimulation would lead to higher inflation than would otherwise be the case, it would then lead the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates faster and to higher levels than would otherwise be the case, and it would lead to a significantly larger debt servicing bill for every single New Zealand taxpayer.

SPEAKER: OK, we’re moving on now to question No. 2.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Yeah, no, you can call them all you like.

Hon David Seymour: Oh, what, come on—I was up. I stood up quick.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know. Read your Standing Orders.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

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 reassure the member that there will not be an increase to 45 percent for the top tax rate; we won’t be implementing an inheritance tax, a death tax, or a rentals tax, or a wealth or asset tax.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he believe that his proposed resource management system will do a better or worse job of protecting the environment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It will do a better job of protecting the environment but also getting the economy growing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Should environmental limits protect the environment to support both ecosystem health and human health?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The new legislation strikes the right balance of getting the country moving and growing while also protecting our environment.

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he say to Forest and Bird, Greenpeace, and the Environmental Defence Society, who put out a statement last week saying that the amended resource management bills are “Effectively removing environmental limits from the Natural Environment Bill;”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We respect their views, but at the end of the day, we’re growing this country and we’re getting this show on the road.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why does he think that after 30 years of degrading waterways, with nearly half the total length of rivers unsafe for swimming, that self-regulation by the dairy industry will lead to better environmental outcomes?

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

Hon Marama Davidson: Have the amendments introduced to the resource management bills addressed the concern raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the wide ministerial powers in this regime create incentives for special-interest lobbying of Ministers, and if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, no.

SPEAKER: Question No. 3, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Hon Shane Jones: Is that all?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. There’s been an enormous amount of cross-floor conversation today, an enormous amount of conversation among the benches today, and an audible sort of buzz around the place, so everybody just quieten down. One person speaks when they’re called to ask a question.

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

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

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

Yes, I do, and particularly our desire to implement and vote for a rates cap at first reading, at second reading, and at third reading to make it law to lower the cost of living for Kiwis.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the statement of Christopher Luxon in August 2022, “As a minimum, our health and education spending will be increasing by the amount of inflation going forward in our Government.”; if so, has health and education spending increased by at least the rate of inflation over the last three years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there have been very good investments in both health and education, but I’d just put it to the member that what’s really important are the outcomes and the results. When we look at the great work done by our Associate Minister of Education in getting 175,000 kids back into school and regular school attendance, that’s a good thing, because 45 percent, which was the record that that member left, was unacceptable for a First World nation. When we look at the improvement that we have on structured literacy and structured numeracy, and those great outcomes for kids, those are fantastic outcomes. When we look at the health outcomes—whether we take the five health metrics and targets—there’s been good progress there with more money going in, 2,100, extra nurses, 900 extra doctors since we started, and improvement in all the key targets, which is good progress.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the fact that health funding hasn’t increased by the rate of inflation over the last three years the reason that our hospitals are increasingly in crisis mode, you’ve got paramedics treating patients in hospital corridors, neonatal units are understaffed and unable to provide care to our most vulnerable babies, and hospital patients are sleeping in soiled bedsheets because there’s no one there to change them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member, we’ve followed pretty much the same investment plan that the previous Government had. But I’d also say we’ve put $4 billion more into health spending. It’s running at $34 billion; it started at $30 billion when we came here 2½ years ago. But what’s most important is outcomes. We’re not like the last Government, which increased spending by 70 percent and delivered worse outcomes. Take the record on education and healthcare and put it up against us any day of the week, and your record was shameful.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why is a third of nursing shifts being understaffed a positive outcome for the health system that he’s proud of?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject those stats. What I see is we’ve got 2,100 extra nurses in our system, we’ve got 900 extra doctors in our system, and we’ve got an improvement in health targets—key health targets. Immunisation rates for under two year olds are up almost 11 percent since you left Government and I took over this Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept responsibility, then, for the fact that Middlemore Hospital has lost the equivalent of 74 nurses over the past two years, leaving paramedics treating patients in hospital corridors?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I take responsibility for is a Government that has invested $17 billion almost over the last three Budgets over the forecast periods. I take responsibility for finding 2,100 extra nurses and putting that into the healthcare system; I take responsibility for putting 900 extra doctors into the system; opening up a third medical school; opening up places for nurse practitioners, nurse prescribers; putting record funding into GP private—you know, primary care.

Hon Members: Private.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And also making sure—yeah, go look at the numbers. Go look at the numbers—go look at the numbers, you’re more than welcome to do that. And importantly, opening up 24/7 telehealth, and $604 million into cancer drugs. We have more to do, but a good start.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept responsibility, then, for the fact that Auckland City Hospital lost the equivalent of 74 nurses over the past two years, with its emergency departments capacity being breached one day out of three over the last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I note is that we are in the worst influenza season in a decade; the health system is managing exceptionally high demand currently. But if I just look at Waitematā district, it has improved five points in emergency department performance in the last year. It’s gone from 63.2 percent being seen within six hours, to 72.2 percent. It was 61 percent when he left Government; it’s now 72.2 percent in Waitematā in the middle of the worst influenza season in a decade.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the health system is getting the funding that it needs, why are only two-thirds of Starship Children’s Hospital’s cancer ward being fully staffed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, this is a Government that’s putting more money into healthcare, it’s putting more workforce into healthcare, and it’s actually delivering better outcomes. There is more to do, but we have put more money, more resources in, and we’re getting better outcomes than your Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if Government funding for education has increased by at least the rate of inflation, why are students paying fees that are nearly 20 percent higher than they were when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I just say look at the investments we’ve put into education. We are focusing on three things. Attendance, because in a first world country 45 percent of kids going to school regularly is unacceptable, particularly when you’ve been the education Minister for 5½ years.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the Prime Minister—

Shanan Halbert: He doesn’t even know.

SPEAKER: Hang on. Some of your own people are calling out.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The Prime Minister may not have heard that the question was actually about tertiary student fees, which have increased nearly 20 percent during the time that he’s been Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: I don’t think that word was put in there, but do you just want to ask the question again. Make it clear.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If education funding has increased by at least the rate of inflation under his leadership, why are tertiary students paying fees that are nearly 20 percent higher than they were when he became the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is a Government that’s put a big priority on primary and intermediate and secondary school education. This is a Government that inherited a huge mess in vocational training: a $300 million investment to create Te Pūkenga over 5½ years of a previous education Minister, with no results. Actually, we’ve put those polytechnics back out into regional New Zealand to connect people with jobs and into work. So our record on education—I know that the member doesn’t want to admit it. After 5½ years of his supposedly being a champion of education, we are fixing his mess, we are fixing those results, and we’re proud of that progress.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, sir. Earlier, the Prime Minister sought the opportunity to compare the record of this Government to the previous Government. I therefore seek leave for there to be an urgent debate immediately after question time to debate that topic.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?

Hon Members: Yes.

Local Government

Question No. 4

Asked by: Dr CARLOS CHEUNG, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister of Local Government: Why has the Government introduced legislation to cap council rates?

Because for too long, ratepayers have been hit with steep and unexpected rates increases, adding pressure to household budgets at a time when many New Zealanders are feeling already the squeeze. Ratepayers nationwide have been hit with median increases of 14.2 percent and 9.2 percent over the past two years, respectively. Under this Government, the days of roller-coaster double-digit rates increases are coming to an end.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will the rates cap help keep rates affordable for households?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Under this legislation, councils will be required to keep annual rates increases within a target range of 2 to 4 percent. Rates increases are cumulative, which means that the amount a household will save grows over time. Rates are also one of the biggest household costs which households have no control over. In 2024, we saw average rates increases across the country of 14 percent. If we’d had a 4 percent rates cap at that time, we would have avoided an average 10 percent increase, which cumulatively would have saved the average ratepayer approximately $2,881 over that 10-year period.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How much could ratepayers save with a rates cap?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Just to give a couple of specific examples: in Waitaki, a 17 percent rates increase on the average rates bill of $3,500 would add about $595 a year. Under a 4 percent rates cap, the maximum increase would have been around $140, saving the average ratepayer about $455 a year. In Auckland, a 7.9 percent rates increase on the average rates bill of $4,378 would add about $346 a year. Under a 4 percent rates cap, the increase would have been around $175, saving the average Auckland ratepayer around $171 a year.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How has the Government ensured that councils can continue investing in essential infrastructure under the rates cap?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Again, a rates cap doesn’t sit in isolation; it sits alongside the replacement of the Resource Management Act, which will significantly reduce the number of consents councils have to grant. It also sits alongside the changes that this Government has made to infrastructure funding and financing, which will give councils better financing options. Rates capping sits alongside a whole suite of changes that this Government has made that focuses councils on the basics and it gives them the right tools to get the job done.

Finance

Question No. 5

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

to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes—particularly my answer to question No. 1 today, which the Leader of the Opposition took issue with. Everything I said in that answer was completely factually accurate.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who is correct: Nicola Willis, when she said that the Government would “reduce food prices for Kiwis”; or Cameron Brewer yesterday, when he said, “We, as a Government, are all about more sustainable food price increases”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Both are correct, and it’s also correct to say that food prices are lower than they would otherwise be if we had had a Government that was pumping up inflation with excessive wasteful spending.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who is correct: Nicola Willis, when she said that “Prices coming down is exactly what we want to see”; or the Prime Minister, when he said that decreasing prices was a bad thing?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, again, both are correct. It can be the case that overall inflation is stable and within the target band but that there are also some prices for some goods which are falling. If she looks at the most recent food price inflation, which had food inflation slowing to 1.9 percent, she’d see that within that basket of goods, there are some food items which have reduced in price.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she claim in August 2024 that she was “starting to get the cost of living under control”, given since she took office, the price of cheese has increased by 28 percent, steak by 37 percent, and butter by 88 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because when I made that statement, I was reflecting on the fact that inflation in that year had dropped dramatically. In the September 2024 quarter, it was at 2.2 percent; March 2025 quarter, 2.5; June 2025, 2.7. A fair comparison would be, for example, June 2022, when inflation was 7.3 percent; September 2022, when it was 7.2 percent, as it was in December; and March 2023, when it was 6.7 percent. The fact is this: with disciplined spending and a single mandate for the Reserve Bank, this Government has exercised much more control over inflation and therefore general price increases than the last Government ever achieved.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does that mean that overall food prices are higher or lower than three years ago?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is a disappointing day in this House when the Opposition finance spokeswoman needs to ask that question. Yes, it is the case that food prices are higher; it is also the case that wages are higher. What matters to people being able to get ahead is that wages rise faster than inflation and prices.

Hon David Seymour: How does the Minister of Finance find it, taking lectures about prices from people who created more inflation than a bouncy castle?

SPEAKER: No, you’ve asked a question that is designed to attack the Opposition. We’re not having that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When did the Government’s policy change from “help bring down food prices”, “reduce food prices”, and “lower grocery prices” to “We, as a Government, are all about more sustainable food price increases”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It has consistently been the case that we are working to ensure that food prices would be lower than they otherwise would be, in a context in which fiscal policy is so expansionary that it is driving out-of-control inflation. New Zealand has had a very recent experience with this under the last Government, when food price inflation reached 12 percent. It is the case that when Governments are disciplined about their own fiscal choices, that lowers overall inflation and food price inflation. It is also the case that there is a very live debate occurring right now in our body politic about the virtues of simply spending more without the means to pay for it. The reality of what that does is it drives up prices for everyone, as occurred during the cost of living crisis under the last Government.

Regulation

Question No. 6

Asked by: SIMON COURT, Answered by: Hon DAVID SEYMOUR

to the Minister for Regulation: What initiatives has the Government taken to ease the regulatory burden on New Zealanders?

A great many, in fact. I dare to say that cutting red tape and deleting stupid rules has almost defined this Government’s programme. Perhaps no initiative stands out more than replacing the Resource Management Act with a simpler system grounded in property rights, and for that I commend the member for his stoic and conscientious efforts, alongside Chris Bishop. That reduction in rules and red tape around using people’s own land is the single biggest initiative to make wages higher and houses more affordable as we spend more time getting stuff done and less time being told no in this country.

Simon Court: What practical results has the Ministry for Regulation delivered?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, again, in sectors from the hemp industry to hairdressers to hospitality, you are seeing the Ministry for Regulation hearing the concerns of regulated parties, which they might not have been willing to tell their regulator, and formulating plans that are now being implemented to cut red tape and delete stupid rules. For example, the benefits of reducing the time to import a horticultural or agricultural product or a veterinary medicine into this country is expected to free up $270 worth of value, just from reducing red tape. We’ve seen many small initiatives—something as simple as being able to bake a cake and sell it, or put your garden shed wherever you like—that all stacks up to saving hundreds of millions of dollars by unlocking New Zealanders’ potential to get stuff done.

Simon Court: What action has the Government taken to reduce unnecessary regulation in the workplace?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, many of these initiatives that I’ve already talked about reduce regulation in the workplace. However, there are many specific initiatives that the Government has taken—for example, those by the Minister for Workplace Relations, Brooke van Velden, who has replaced a broken Holidays Act that was so bad even Government departments couldn’t seem to work out how to pay people properly; restored 90-day trials; clarified the status of contractors vis à vis employees; and removed unnecessary employment law barriers. Brooke van Velden has also overhauled the health and safety law so that businesses can focus on critical risks and actual safety rather than tick-box exercises. I could go on, but this Government, across the board, has been committed to giving people more time to actually produce the things that they need so they can get paid more, so things can be produced more cheaply, and so they can afford them rather than being in compliance activity.

Simon Court: How is the Government reducing the burden imposed by earthquake-prone building rules?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I mean, this is a perfect example and perhaps one of the largest and most significant initiatives the Government has taken, which is to save an estimated $9 billion in excessive earthquake compliance. These rules have destroyed people’s livelihoods. For example, a constituent of mine who lost her life savings because her body corporate did some routine maintenance which triggered earthquake strengthening work, lost everything having to comply with that law. It will now be gone. We’re going to save $9 billion. That was the work of the Hon Chris Penk. It’s very sad what happened there, but when you get military people too close to Government, they often try and take over eventually.

SPEAKER: Question No. 7—Suze Redmayne [Interruption]. Suze Redmayne—and no one else.

Agriculture

Question No. 7

Asked by: SUZE REDMAYNE, Answered by: Hon TODD McCLAY

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

No, we will not be implementing a capital gains tax on New Zealanders, just as we will not be implementing a land tax. As the Prime Minister has said, a capital gains tax would be a wrecking ball tax for the New Zealand economy. The Government is keeping taxes low so New Zealanders, including rural New Zealand, can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their families can spend their money on.

Suze Redmayne: What reports has he seen about a capital gains tax on farms?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I’ve seen a report by Federated Farmers that says, and I quote, “The constant threat of new taxes completely undermines farmers’ confidence to invest in our businesses to increase productivity, efficiency and sustainability.”—and I end the quote. A capital gains and land tax, with inevitably complicated rules, would mean New Zealand businesses would pay more tax, and it would be harmful for the business confidence and the Kiwis that own those businesses. We should be finding ways to reduce tax, like the Government’s Investment Boost, so people can invest and innovate, grow their businesses, and create more higher-paying jobs.

Suze Redmayne: What other reports has he seen about taxes on the rural economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Former finance Minister Bill English said about capital gains tax, and I quote, “I think every finance minister has a look at it, and they seem to come up with the same answer. In fact, Michael Cullen told me that at the time, he said, I’d go through it and then IRD will tell me that it’s actually not … worth it” in the end. It’s clear that successive finance Ministers have recognised that a capital gains and land tax would not drive prosperity or help New Zealand, and this is why the Government won’t be implementing either of these taxes on rural New Zealand.

Suze Redmayne: Has he seen any other reports about taxes on farms?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yes, I have. A farming representative said—and again I quote—“every election we find ourselves responding to proposals that unfairly target farming: methane taxes, water taxes, wealth taxes, land taxes, or capital gains taxes.” Federated Farmers describe the capital gains tax as a “mangy dog, that [would] add unacceptably high costs and complexity to the rural sector”. They are right. We should be backing the rural sector and their 360,000 jobs, not taxing them more, which is why our Prime Minister has ruled out these taxes.

Education

Question No. 8

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

to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?

Yes, and in particular my actions in special education. I’m really proud of the work that we’ve done in the last three years, with 142 extra special and satellite classrooms around the country; six almost full school redevelopments of our special day schools; and three new special schools: one in Drury, one in Palmerston North, and one in Gisborne—they are the first that have been built in 50 years—and tens of millions of dollars into learning support modifications. Inclusion is choice, and I’m really proud to have ruled a line in the sand to fully support the special education sector.

Reuben Davidson: Why did she say, in relation to teenage use of social media, “We know the harms and we need to do something about it.”, if she doesn’t intend to pass the first reading of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill before the election?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Every parent knows the harm of social media. That’s on top of all of the reports and evidence that are now starting to flood out. I am really proud of the fact that we have worked hard for the last year to get to a point where we can introduce a bill to the House and show the country what we are proposing. We would have introduced it so much earlier—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You could do it today.

SPEAKER: No, careful. Carry on. Thank you.

Reuben Davidson: Why did she say, “We’ve watched these platforms become more sophisticated, more persuasive, and more powerful. This has to change.”, if she doesn’t intend to change it by passing the first reading of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill before the election?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s interesting, this line of questioning from the Opposition. They have had five months to be this passionate about it. I have given them multiple occasions viewing the bill, asking questions, having my officials at their beck and call. If they had been this passionate about it weeks and weeks ago, we could have introduced it and had a first reading, but they buggered around and here we are and we’re out of time.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. By the Minister’s own admission, sir, this is a very important issue. That was a straight question, it wasn’t political in nature, asking why—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Listen! A point of order gets heard without any comment from anyone else in the House. Please start your point of order again.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: By the Minister’s own admission, this is a very serious issue. It is entirely legitimate and, actually, a non-political question to ask why the Government has made such a big deal about the introduction of a bill, citing its importance, but not wanting it to be read for the first time despite there being a few weeks of sitting left. For that question to be responded to—

SPEAKER: Come to the point. What is the point of order?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The point of order is that the entire response of that straight question was political in nature, which, as you know, and, in fact, the House knows, is clearly against Speakers’ rulings. Straight questions deserve straight responses.

SPEAKER: That’s true, but there are also Speakers’ rulings that make it clear that when a political question is asked, a political answer will be given, and it most certainly was, in my estimate.

Reuben Davidson: Why, when there are more than 26½ hours of House time remaining after this week, won’t the Minister commit just one hour to passing the first reading of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’ve already made it very clear that there are not many days left of sitting. We’ve got a very, very full agenda, but as I’ve already—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Sorry, just a moment. We’ll hear the rest of this without the barracking from anywhere else in the House.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’re right in the middle of an extraordinarily important bill brought by Minister Chris Bishop: the Planning Bill. We’ve got a very full agenda. There are only a few days left of sitting time, but as I’ve already said, we could have done this so much earlier if we had had more support from the Opposition.

SPEAKER: You’ve said enough.

Reuben Davidson: Why did she ask young people to speak publicly about their deeply personal experiences of viewing disturbing content online, including self harm and extreme violence, to highlight the urgency of this issue if she is now saying that job can wait until after the election?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Those videos have been up for some time on my social media to raise awareness of what is an extraordinarily serious issue that I have been spending the last—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry. We’ll now hear the rest of the answer in complete silence. You can start again.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Those videos have been up on my social media for a long time because we wanted to highlight to the public, to parents, and to anyone who wants to learn about the harms of social media that this is extraordinarily important and that we are talking to young people to understand what their concerns are. But again, part of it was also to let the Opposition know, because for all of that time they wouldn’t support the bill until yesterday. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’m going to have to ask one of those front bench members to either keep it down or take an early cup of tea.

Reuben Davidson: Is it correct that on Monday this week at 3.30, the Government announced the introduction of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill, and on Tuesday at 2 p.m., we indicated the bill has our support, only for the Government to say at 4.25 on Tuesday that it won’t allow a first reading of the bill before the election; and if so, why is the Government seeking to use such an important issue as a political football? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. This has been identified, obviously, as a political question, so we’ll listen in the same silence to the answer.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In relation to that second part of the question, I have been working extremely carefully over the last five months to not turn this into a political issue. I have given multiple briefings about the bill on multiple occasions to the Opposition, including one time when they were able to invite all of their MPs to come and see the bill in a room and only four of them bothered to show up. They have had plenty of time to support this bill and they didn’t bother to do it till yesterday, after asking 79 ridiculous questions late last week. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—question No. 9.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You got caught out.

SPEAKER: Sorry, do you want to leave or not?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, if you want me to, I will.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t particularly want you to; I just want you to be a little bit more considerate of the process and particularly the opportunity for Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to ask a question.

Prime Minister

Question No. 9

Asked by: DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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

Yes, in particular this Government’s response not to implement a capital gains tax or a wealth tax.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he accept that his Government has increased taxes, levies, fees, and charges on 32 occasions despite repeatedly telling New Zealanders there would be no new taxes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m very proud of the fact that this is the Government that introduced tax relief for the first time in 14 years that helps lower and middle income working New Zealanders.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why has his Government prepared to give the largest tax cut gains to higher income households and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax relief to property investors while increasing costs on ordinary New Zealanders?

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

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If debt is still rising, and struggling whānau are being asked to pay more, why is asking the wealthiest New Zealanders to contribute more the one option his Government refuses to consider?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I want to correct the member: a capital gains tax or a wealth tax would be an absolute disaster for New Zealand. It would just add cost on to low and middle income working New Zealanders. This is a Government that cares deeply about low and middle income working New Zealanders, as evidenced by the fact that we were the first Government in 14 years to give tax relief—sadly, opposed by Labour, Greens, and the union movement, and that’s bad, bad, bad.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Government scrapped the tenant tax, and rent rises are at their lowest increases for 25 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can. I can confirm that under a previous administration, it went up $180 a week. What I can say is we’ve had the lowest increase in rent in 25 years; that is a function of very sensible housing policy. We saw house prices go up 30 percent in a single year. The good news is we’ve got first-home buyers at record highs at 29 percent; affordability has improved; and, most importantly, we’ve had people sitting on a social housing State house wait-list—it went up four times under the last Government—and, I think, we’ve taken about 7,000 people off that list into proper homes, and that’s all good stuff.

Resources

Question No. 10

Asked by: JAMIE ARBUCKLE, Answered by: Hon SHANE JONES

to the Minister for Resources: What announcements has he made regarding petroleum and mineral exploration in New Zealand?

Recently, I announced that the seventh petroleum permitting application has been accepted for assessment. Since the repeal of the offshore wimpy, unloved, loathsome exploration ban—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: That you announced.

Hon SHANE JONES: —imposed by Jacinda Ardern, when she misled Winston—

SPEAKER: No—no, sorry.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not necessary.

Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t want to hear from that 3-inch toad.

SPEAKER: No, look—[Interruption] I’ve been very clear that the rules are, and have been, for as long as this Parliament has sat, the Government cannot use questions to itself to attack the Opposition. That is exactly what was happening in that question. You get one more shot at it and then we’ll be out if it can’t come into line. Jamie Arbuckle.

Jamie Arbuckle: Supplementary.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I believe he called one of his colleagues a “3-inch toad”, and that shouldn’t be allowed, surely?

SPEAKER: Well, you might find that offensive applied to you; clearly, they don’t. Can we have Jamie Arbuckle.

Jamie Arbuckle: How many petroleum and mineral permits were approved in the past year and how does that compare to previous years?

Hon SHANE JONES: Point of order. I’m presuming that I’m answering the primary question, sir?

SPEAKER: No, you’re answering the supplementary.

Hon SHANE JONES: No, your reference to me, in correcting me, was to have another go. I presume you were inviting me to—

SPEAKER: No, I didn’t say that.

Hon SHANE JONES: —correct my answer to the primary question.

SPEAKER: No, I said we will have one more go at hearing the question, but we’re on the supplementary now.

Hon SHANE JONES: So on the supplementary?

SPEAKER: Yes—yes. Do you want it read out to you again?

Hon SHANE JONES: I have announced, on behalf of the Government, that we have now received the seventh petroleum application. We will be considering an application from CBX Energy, and they will be proceeding in the Pegasus Basin, east of the North Island, to undertake technical studies based on existing geological geophysical data. A country that understands and backs its resource potential is better placed to control its future—a future, sadly, that was snuffed out as a consequence of a bad decision in the past. Thankfully, that future was salvaged when this Government overturned a bad decision, and, as a consequence, energy security is in far safer hands.

Jamie Arbuckle: How does the extractive sector support the New Zealand economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: The New Zealand economy is on a far safer footing as a consequence of an expanded mineral estate. It is important that I read into the record: 2025 calendar year, 434 petroleum mineral permit approvals—the highest number on record, more than double the 210 approvals in 2023 and greater than the previous record of 393 in 2024. Since the beginning of 2024, more than 1,000 permits have been issued.

Steve Abel: We’ll cancel them soon.

Hon SHANE JONES: The Government is bringing—ah, I have heard they’ll all be cancelled. This is why New Zealand cannot afford to change the Government. We have heard the Venezuelan recipe—

SPEAKER: No, no. That’s enough. Sit down, Mr Jones.

Jamie Arbuckle: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, we’re moving on to question No. 11.

Infrastructure

Question No. 11

Asked by: Hon RACHEL BROOKING, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister for Infrastructure: Does he stand by his statement that “it depends”, when asked if ratepayers will pick up the bill that would otherwise have been paid for by development contributions for fast-track approvals on land not zoned for housing; if so, what does it depend on?

In context, yes. My full statement during the environment Estimates debate last week was: “The short answer is that it depends. It depends on the project, and it depends on the conditions granted in relation to that project.” I also said that people need to read the conditions, because I think there is an assumption that, if something is fast-tracked, building can happen immediately. People should read the conditions. They’re often extremely extensive around highway upgrades, waste water and stormwater, local roading upgrades, wetland restoration, the need for network capacity or an alternative solution if there is no capacity, and more, before a project can even happen.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does he agree with Auckland Council analysis cited in the letter from the mayors of Auckland and Queenstown that ratepayers could end up subsidising the infrastructure costs of current fast-tracked greenfield projects by up to $1.5 billion?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I haven’t seen the underlying analysis around that claim, but I do agree with the general point, which is that, in relation to the wider network infrastructure effects, we should maintain a core principle that growth should pay for growth. That’s why the Government has announced amendments to the Local Government Act in order to make sure that development contributions can be lifted in response to out-of-sequence greenfield fast-track projects.

Dan Rosewarne: Why should Waimakariri ratepayers have to pay infrastructure costs for Carter Group’s Ōhoka development that has twice been rejected due to major concerns over flooding, transport, and infrastructure and is now being considered again via fast track?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: A couple of points there: one, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that, because that project is before—

Hon Member: Looking after your mates.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it is before an independent panel appointed under fast track, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment. In a more general sense, in relation to all projects, I would just encourage the member, as I said in response to the primary question, to go and read some of the conditions attached to greenfield fast-track projects, which, as I read out, are often extensive, often mean the projects will be staged once the infrastructure has been built, and often require the developers to provide a range of infrastructure upgrades.

Ingrid Leary: Were the mayors of Queenstown and Auckland wrong when they told the Government, “The unchecked use of the fast-track system to force tens of thousands of houses into rural areas with limited public infrastructure is not helpful”, and will in fact make things worse for many ratepayers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there’s any number of factual inaccuracies in that statement. I have huge respect for both mayors. Firstly, the powers are not unchecked; secondly, there is no compulsion or force required; and, thirdly, housing can go in rural areas as long as there is infrastructure required to service that development. That literally has been the process of development in New Zealand for the last 150 years, and the Government stands by fast track.

Shanan Halbert: Why does he continue to support the Delmore project when he said, “If the infrastructure is not there, not only should you not be allowed to do it, you actually can’t.”, since that project will have to truck sewage to Whangārei?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, in relation to Delmore, it’s not a case of whether or not I support it or not; it’s a case of whether or not it has gone through an independent expert panel process, which it has. Again, I repeat what I’ve said twice now, I encourage members to read the decisions and read the conditions. Stage two of that project cannot go ahead until all—

Shanan Halbert: Sewage to Whangārei. Read it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Listen—listen. You might learn something. I know it’s difficult for you, but you might learn it. Stage two cannot go ahead until all necessary infrastructure—roading, waste, and waste water—is addressed. For waste water, this could include a connection to a public network, expansion of the stage one private waste water treatment plant to service the entire development, or another solution. You need to read the conditions of all these projects.

Hon Rachel Brooking: How can he claim that fast track is working well when he has left ratepayers on the hook for hundreds of millions in infrastructure spending?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I can claim that fast track is working well because near where she is, the Hananui Aquaculture Project, which was declined under the Resource Management Act, will provide hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in a salmon farm in the South Island and give effect to a Treaty settlement. I can claim it’s working well because Precinct Properties got approval to build a billion-dollar development in Commercial Bay in just six months. I can claim it’s a success because 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy generation capacity has been consented in the last 18 months alone. I can claim it’s a success because the Waitaha Hydro scheme, the first hydro to be built in New Zealand in 20 years, got approved after seven months when it was declined under the previous Government. And I can claim it’s a success because, in the Waikato, we’re building a waste steel recycling facility providing hundreds of jobs. Fast track is getting New Zealand building again, we’re building the future, and we stand behind it. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Question No. 12, Chlöe Swarbrick, and, I say it again, no one else.

Prime Minister

Question No. 12

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 particularly our decision not to implement a 45 percent top income tax rate, and particularly our decision not to implement an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or an asset tax.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by his many previous statements that increased costs for businesses will result in increased costs for consumers; and if so, does he understand that his intention to make power companies pay for his billion-dollar liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility will result in higher power bills for New Zealand consumers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said to the member yesterday, the good news is—and I know she takes a great interest in this because failed energy policy from the previous administration had people lose their jobs—wholesale electricity prices have dropped 35 percent since the peak of 2024. Our energy plan is definitely working; we’re lowering the risk premium, that’s lowering the bills. And look, this is more good news: the Meridian CEO said that he’s going to pass on to commercial customers next year that drop in wholesale electricity prices, so the strategy is working. We have a strategic coal reserve in Huntly, we have a strategic diesel reserve in Whangārei, we have an LNG import facility coming as a backstop, and most importantly, we have a renewables boom under way in this country and that’s fantastic.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So does the Prime Minister think that energy is the only sector in the economy whereby increased costs on businesses are not passed on to consumers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said yesterday, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and National Infrastructure Funding and Financing are working through the LNG import facility. It will not be funded by a levy on power bills. It’s very simple for us. We are de-risking the dry year risk, and as a result we’re lowering power bills. That’s a good thing. You’ve just seen it in wholesale electricity prices. The failed policies of the last administration led to $800 per megawatt-hour wholesale electricity prices. I just encourage the member to get on the website and look out and check out the forward electricity wholesale electricity prices and you’ll see some really great value there.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: We’ll just do one over here. Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is the Prime Minister comfortable using billions of dollars of taxpayer money to underwrite the LNG import facility, which is not backed by any independent expert or economist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as I said, we’re working through a process, and when we complete that process we’ll have more to say about it. But I just want to say to the member, the energy strategy of this Government is actually lowering wholesale electricity prices. We were in an absolutely tragic situation where destroying and banning oil and gas led to $800 megawatt-hour wholesale electricity prices, and mills and regional jobs were lost across this country, thank you to the previous Labour-Greens administration.

Hon David Seymour: Can he imagine believing that residential rental property was the only sector in the economy where increasing taxes wouldn’t be passed on to consumers—i.e., tenants?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there’s a very good case, you know—the Deputy Prime Minister raises a very good point there, which is that, under this Government, by restoring interest deductibility, managing the brightline back to the period of time, we’ve actually been able to lower rents in this period. Having stable, lower rents; we’ve actually had the lowest increase in 25 years—25 years—after $180 a week increase under the previous administration. That helps regular New Zealanders. That’s how you actually help them, support them in a cost of living crisis. And that’s why I just ask the member to please, please support the rates cap.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If his Cabinet can delay critical decisions on who pays for climate adaptation, why can his Cabinet not delay critical decisions on billion-dollar fossil fuel infrastructure until after the election, when he could argue that he has won a political mandate for something that he did not previously campaign on?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think New Zealanders appreciate downward pressure on power bills. That’s what the energy policy of this Government is delivering and that’s what we care about. We actually care about lower power bills. We care about working people getting supported in a cost of living crisis, and putting downward pressure on energy prices. That’s exactly what we need to be doing. A 35 percent decrease since the 2024 peak created by the failed policies of the last administration is actually fantastic news because that means lower prices next year are going to get passed on to commercial customers. That’s great for our economy: businesses grow, costs are lowered, and jobs are created.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. Mr Speaker, again, I appreciate that the Prime Minister does not actually have to answer the question, but he did not even attempt to address the question, which very specifically was about whether the Government would consider delaying the LNG import facility decision, which will be underwritten, potentially, by a billion dollars of taxpayer money until after the election.

SPEAKER: Good. You’ve outlined your argument, but not exactly a point of order. But the Prime Minister most certainly addressed the question that was put to him. Do you have another supplementary?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll take one.

SPEAKER: I think we’ll leave it there. That concludes oral questions.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Planning Bill, the Natural Environment Bill, and the Emergency Management Bill No (2).