Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH, Answered by: Hon CAMERON BREWER

to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Will he introduce legislation to prohibit the supermarket duopoly from charging excessive prices, like Australia has done; if not, why not?

The Government agrees that New Zealanders pay too much for their groceries. The question is what to do about it. Banning excessive pricing sounds attractive in theory, but working out what constitutes an excessive price is much harder in practice, as the Australians are discovering. Our focus is on the underlying problem: too little competition. We have taken significant steps to remove barriers to entry and to strengthen competition, and we have undertaken detailed analysis of structural reform. The analysis continues to inform the Government’s work to deliver greater competition.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has this Government managed to attract a third competitor to significantly disrupt the market, by pleading to overseas investors, yet?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: This Government continues to work on removing those barriers to entry. The good news is, as the Annual Grocery Report released by the Commerce Commission detailed, there is competition in the market—not adequate, but it’s growing, when you look at the arrival of mid-sized supermarkets, when you look at the arrival of Costco, and when you look at the arrival of various online options.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think the excess profits made by the supermarket duopoly, as described by the Commerce Commission, are fair?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We believe that New Zealanders pay too much for their groceries. That’s what we’re focused on fixing; that’s why we’re looking at competition; that’s why we’re turning over every stone, right throughout the sector; and that is why the Minister for Economic Growth continues with her analysis and cost-benefit analysis work, which she expects to report back before the end of the parliamentary term.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How are supermarkets making excess profits, as reported by the Commerce Commission, if not at the expense of consumers, who are paying excessive prices?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: As I said previously, we as a Government believe New Zealanders are paying too much for their groceries, and that is why we are focused squarely on getting a better deal for New Zealanders. We’ve opened up fast track to supermarkets, we’ve created a nationwide building consent pathway, and we’ve made it easier to replicate supermarket designs. We will continue the work, and already we are seeing some good progress being made.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Supplementary.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. He’s had three.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Sore loser!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Don’t be jealous, honey.

SPEAKER: Please, don’t refer to me in those endearing terms. That’s not going to—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Get out—get out!

SPEAKER: That’ll do; we’ll carry on.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Go home, honey.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: See, there he goes again. Does the Minister consider—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: One person speaking during a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister consider it wise public policy to charge a fee for charging too much when that regime requires years of resolution in the courts before anybody might see any benefit at the checkout, if at all, and is the Minister aware that a serious political party has a full-scale policy to break up the supermarkets to fix excessive prices—namely, the policy of New Zealand First?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I am aware of different policy propositions that have been put forward around excessive profits, particularly from the primary questioner, and many commentators have said their policy is simply unworkable.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can he credibly claim that in areas like Auckland or densely populated areas across the country, new supermarkets will be able to spring up when there’s already a saturation of the duopoly in many neighbourhoods with little physical space for new competitors?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: As I’ve already articulated, and as was reported dutifully in the Annual Grocery Report released in the middle of the year by the Commerce Commission, there is a lot of work to do, which we are committed to doing. But, more importantly, we are seeing some positive signs—some positive signs—of competition, when you look at another Costco coming into South Auckland, when you look at mid-sized supermarkets competing, when you look at Chemist Warehouse and how that competes on certain categories, and when you look on increasing options around online offerings for New Zealand consumers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I seek leave of the House to table a letter of exchange between Chlöe Swarbrick and the leader of New Zealand First where the former asked the latter to adopt her supermarkets policy, and the latter said that while we have long advocated eating greens, on this occasion they should consider adopting a full-scale policy to break up the supermarkets and adopt our policy. These are the documents here; can I table them, please?

SPEAKER: Well, that’s up to the House. It’s unusual because they’re already in the public record.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, they’re not.

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

Hon Member: Yes.

SPEAKER: There is none.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, there was—there was.

SPEAKER: Well, speak up; I didn’t hear.

Hon Member: I was right here.

SPEAKER: Well, this would be one time in nearly three years that I haven’t been able to hear the member. My apologies, but we’re moving on.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Are supermarket profits more important than helping struggling families to put food on the table by urgently legislating to put a cap on excess prices?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: As I have articulated clearly enough, we think New Zealanders pay too much for their groceries. That is why the Commerce Commission has consistently pointed to the lack of competition, and that is the area this Government is resolutely focused on. But the good news is we’re seeing some positive signs, and that is including grocery prices increasing just 1.9 percent in the year to 31 July. We’ve got a long way to go, but it’s a big improvement from where we were at three or four years ago.

Finance

Question No. 2

Asked by: DAVID MacLEOD, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on New Zealand’s capital intensity?

Machinery, equipment, technology, and other capital assets are hugely important for economic performance, as more capital per worker means higher productivity, higher wages, and higher living standards. I have seen a recent report from the OECD confirming that New Zealand has a low rate of capital per worker compared to other advanced economies. That fact has long been known, but this Government decided to do something about it. In Budget 2025, we introduced a tax incentive for businesses to purchase new machinery, equipment, and other capital assets—that is the Investment Boost policy.

David MacLeod: What are the benefits of Investment Boost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Treasury and Inland Revenue advised that Investment Boost would lower the cost of capital for businesses by around 5 percent, increase investment in business assets, and reduce the tax impost on domestic capital investment for small- and medium-sized enterprises. Over the next 20 years, it is expected to increase GDP and raise labour productivity and wages. Officials advise that Investment Boost was likely the most cost-effective tax policy available to support growth, productivity, and living standards. Robyn Walker, tax partner at Deloitte, said of Investment Boost that, “Overall, this is a really positive change for businesses.”; and Russell McVeagh said that Investment Boost is a credible demonstration of the Government’s focus on driving economic growth and investment in New Zealand infrastructure.

David MacLeod: How much is the reduction in tax for New Zealand businesses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Budget 2025 documents show that, in the current fiscal year, Investment Boost is expected to reduce taxes on New Zealand businesses by $1.6 billion. Next year, it is expected to reduce businesses’ taxes by $1.7 billion, and the following year by $1.3 billion. That means that any policy to scrap Investment Boost would be an increase in tax on New Zealand businesses. Worse, it would be an increase in tax for businesses who are doing exactly what the country needs them to be doing, which is investing in the machinery, tools, farm equipment, vehicles, industrial buildings, and other productive assets that will raise wages for New Zealand workers; workers that some parties in this House claim to represent.

David MacLeod: For how long has Investment Boost been running?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Investment Boost began on 22 May last year, so it’s been running for just over a year, and the impacts are expected to build up overtime as firms make long-term investment decisions. But we will get an initial snapshot of how Investment Boost has been used after the 31 March next year when businesses will have filed their tax returns for the 2025-2026 tax year. I’ve seen a statement from Robyn Walker, who is a highly respected tax expert, saying, “The proposal to repeal Investment Boost before there has been time to properly evaluate its effectiveness is disappointing … The ongoing history of political flip-flopping on tax settings will continue to negatively affect New Zealand’s ability to be seen as a stable location for investment.”

Energy

Question No. 3

Asked by: Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister for Energy: Is it still his intention that the Government signs a contract with a provider for an LNG import terminal before the election?

on behalf of the Minister for Energy: Yes, it remains the Government’s intention to sign a contract with a provider before the election on the basis that the contract meets the Crown’s requirements and delivers value for money for New Zealanders. We are progressing this because in 2024 this country saw exactly what a dry year does when there is no backup: wholesale prices went up above $800 per megawatt hour, the aluminium smelter cut production, businesses closed permanently, and thousands of New Zealanders lost their jobs. You obviously cannot run an economy on a weather forecast. Since we announced in February that we were proceeding with liquefied natural gas (LNG), I am advised that the wholesale future electricity prices at the end of July for 2028 and 2029 have already fallen from $170 to $125 per megawatt hour, a nearly 30 percent reduction in wholesale electricity prices. This is the market responding to certainty. A dry year occurs every four years on average and they are difficult to predict. I am advised that LNG is the fastest, cheapest, and most flexible way to keep the lights on, protect jobs, and take pressure off power bills, and this Government is getting on and delivering it.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why is he pressing ahead with an LNG import terminal when advice the Ombudsman forced his Government to release showed it may not reduce power prices—indeed, could increase gas and electricity prices—and may not be needed to maintain security of supply?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, what I can infer to the member that will increase electricity prices in this country is banning oil and gas and stopping gas flowing to make electricity. The reason why we are in this position is we do not have sufficient gas to be able to make electricity in a dry year. This Government has taken the leadership to put in place the fastest and cheapest mechanism in order to produce electricity in a dry year, which is the importation of LNG, and that is what we’re doing. Why? Because we care about Kiwi households and businesses, and we are taking action for the failed mistakes of prior Governments.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What specific evidence or advice has he received that counters Concept Consulting’s conclusion that LNG may not lower electricity prices, could raise gas and electricity prices, and may not be necessary for the security of supply?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I answered the point around the necessity for having gas molecules to make electricity in the answer to my primary question. What is clear is that, without gas, we cannot make sufficient electricity to keep the lights on in this country and to keep businesses employing people, including manufacturers to produce goods we export. Without gas, we cannot do that, and that is because the banning of oil and gas has put us in that situation. As a result of that, we have taken the decision to allow importation of LNG, which will provide us the mechanism to make electricity, and that is the action that we’re undertaking as a Government.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question: I asked what specific evidence or advice the Minister had received to back up the opinions that he’s been giving in this House. He has said that they don’t need to follow the Concept Consulting official advice that was supressed by the Government, so what counter advice has he got? He failed to even address that in an answer.

SPEAKER: With all due respect, I don’t think he did. Firstly, he doesn’t have to respond to an outside organisation’s report.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why has he not published the all-in consumer and taxpayer cost of the terminal when his own modelling shows LNG does not consistently reduce average wholesale prices and can increase them in some scenarios?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Because the negotiations in regards to the importation terminal are obviously commercially sensitive. Those negotiations are currently under way, and that is why we’re not releasing that information.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What exactly has National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Limited (NIFFCo) been directed to do: assessing financing, negotiating commercial terms, allocating risk, arranging Crown support, or preparing commitments for the Government?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, NIFFCo, alongside a range of other Government agencies, including the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, are providing support and advice to Government in regards to this very important issue. New Zealand is facing an energy crisis that was completely foreseeable because we do not have sufficient gas to be able to make electricity. As a result of that reality, we are taking action to solve that. That is appropriate because the lack of gas has had an implication on the New Zealand economy of a loss of economic growth in the region of $5 billion. That is completely unacceptable. That is what we inherited; we’re taking leadership to fix it, and we will get it fixed.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will he commit to releasing NIFFCo’s advice before any contract is signed?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I answered that question in the context of what is—we’ve got commercial negotiations under way, and, obviously, we’re not going to release commercially sensitive information while negotiations are under way.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will he take any proposed commercial arrangements back to Cabinet before any contract is signed, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Obviously, with the scale of investment involved in putting in place an importation terminal for LNG, I would expect, as would be sort of common knowledge, that Cabinet would be involved in that decision-making process. Look, again, I reinforce the point—and maybe this is the problem—that without gas molecules you can’t make electricity. We’re in this position because we banned oil and gas. As a result of that, Kiwi businesses paid the price in 2024.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why should New Zealanders trust him to sign an LNG deal only weeks out from a general election when the Ombudsman found his Government refused to release evidence that the public had a right to see and that modelling showed it could push up both gas and electricity prices for New Zealand households and businesses?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Quite simply because, on this side of the House, we are focused on protecting New Zealanders, to ensure we have economic growth and to ensure we have affordable, abundant, and reliable energy in this country. We are in this situation because of failures by prior Governments. We’re taking leadership to get this fixed. We will get it fixed, and that will benefit all New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: Just before I call question No. 4, it has been pointed out to me by the Clerk that, while leave was sought to table some documents earlier, the House does have to take the word of the member who said there was an objection. My proposal is to put that leave again. The Rt Hon Winston Peters wanted to table some documents that talked of an exchange between himself and Chlöe Swarbrick. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

SPEAKER: Then it won’t be tabled. That’s fine. We move on to question No. 4—Tākuta Ferris. [Interruption]

Tākuta Ferris: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Tākuta Ferris—and no one else.

Housing

Question No. 4

Asked by: TĀKUTA FERRIS, Answered by: Hon TAMA POTAKA

to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “Social housing is a high-cost intervention and should be targeted to those who need it the most”?

on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes, social housing is a relatively high-cost intervention compared to some other Government housing supports—for example, a new social housing place costs, on average, $45,000 per year, and an existing place, on average, around $22,500 per year; compared to the accommodation supplement, with average costs of around $6,000 per year. On top of this, once someone is in social housing, there has been very little follow-up to check whether the circumstances, socio-economic or whānau, have changed and whether or not they still need a social house. That’s why it’s imperative that we build the right house, in the right location, with the right support for those most in housing need. That’s what our work reviewing the social housing system is trying to achieve.

Tākuta Ferris: If social housing is to be targeted to those who need it most, how does he justify the sale of 403 homes and properties in Te Tai Tonga alone in the year to August, when 17,463 whānau nationally are assessed as being in priority A on the housing register?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There have been disposals by Kāinga Ora of social housing over numerous Governments. Kāinga Ora—and previously, before that, Housing New Zealand—has both sold and bought land and housing in order to provide social housing for communities. That continues, because often, if you sell some land that is not suitable any more, you can actually reinvest that money and create more houses.

Tākuta Ferris: Does the Minister accept that it is about time Government devolved responsibility for identifying housing need and delivering solutions to iwi and Māori housing providers, considering there are 8,300 Māori on the housing register, the highest need of any community nationally?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, there has been considerable support—nigh on half a billion dollars over the last three years—to support Māori and iwi providers to build housing for people in housing need. Not only that, there have also been efforts over time to work with iwi, like Ngāti Toa Rangatira, who are currently managing nearly 1,000 social houses that have been previously under the management of Kāinga Ora out in Porirua—a great place, if anyone wants to go there one day. There has been collaboration, and I encourage that collaboration further. We just announced this week 823 places to be funded by the Flexi Fund, and many of those places were actually being built by iwi and Māori housing providers, whether or not it’s Waitomo Papakāinga up in the great northern capital of Kaitāia, or right through to the East Coast, where Tūranganui a Kiwi is going to be building more houses under the Flexi Fund, or indeed places like Hamilton, where Te Rūnanga o Kirikiriroa is building housing—a great place, city of the future.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How does the Minister reconcile his position that social housing should be targeted to those who need it the most with the fact that in West Auckland, more than a thousand people are living in uninhabitable housing and more than 2,000 people are experiencing severe housing deprivation or homelessness?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, I acknowledge that there are some people who are doing it really tough in the housing space, and that’s why we’ve continued to invest over $400 million in very short-term reactive measures. For example, the Housing First 300, which we announced last September—Minister Bishop and I—that’s seen over 700 individuals go through the Housing First kaupapa, the Housing First delivery, and there continue to be places up and down the country, including in Auckland, where housing is being built, whether or not that’s affordable rentals, social housing through community housing providers and iwi housing providers, and others. We continue to focus on those areas with the greatest housing deprivation—for example, Northland, Te Tairāwhiti—Toi Rāwhiti—South Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch, and other places.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Will the Minister commit to providing additional social housing that is needed for West Auckland whānau, or does his characterisation of social housing as a high-cost intervention mean that the 200 whānau in temporary accommodation and more than 500 sharing someone else’s dwellings will continue to go without?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, what we have seen over the last three years is a range of different supports that the Government has given to the building of housing across places like West Auckland. You only have to go and ask Lisa Woolley over at Visionwest, whose community housing provider—a very successful one—is building houses as a result of the community housing provider 1,500 homes that were endorsed in Budget 2024. We continue to support a range of providers, including people in urban Māori organisations who have been building social housing over the last three years, and we’ll continue to do that.

Media and Communications

Question No. 5

Asked by: JOSEPH MOONEY, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

to the Minister for Media and Communications: Is he considering implementing a streaming tax?

No, we are not, and we think Zealanders pay enough tax already and we don’t need another tax.

Joseph Mooney: Has he seen any New Zealand films that required a streaming tax in order to succeed?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, but I do recall seeing Tinā last year, a highly successful film, earning more than $10 million in the international box office, and one of New Zealand’s most successful films. It did draw on the extensive support of the New Zealand taxpayers, but it didn’t need an extra tax.

Joseph Mooney: Has he seen any other examples of investment that don’t involve a streaming tax?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I did go to the opening night of the New Zealand International Film Festival which screened Big Girls Don’t Cry, a New Zealand film—excellent film, great film—which received a lot of support from New Zealand taxpayers, and collected through current taxation. The observation, as I was listening to and watching that film, was that we didn’t need another tax to go on top of all the other taxes that we already pay in order to enjoy great film and great TV series in this country.

Joseph Mooney: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, right. OK.

Joseph Mooney: What commentary has he seen about a streaming tax?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, well. Well, I have some interesting commentary. I saw one member say, “We will implement a streaming levy as early as possible after the election—

SPEAKER: Just recall—I just remind the member again about Speaker’s rulings 181/3 and 181/4, so it might help him with the progress of that—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Would you like me to consult that?

SPEAKER: I would think that if he hasn’t consulted it after I recommended it the other day, then there’s no point in reading it now.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, Mr Speaker, that was an administrative oversight on my part and I apologise for it. But what I can say is that there’s been much to-ing and fro-ing, but on this side of the House, we’re absolutely clear: there’s enough taxes paid in New Zealand already, and we don’t need another tax.

Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

Question No. 6

Asked by: Hon WILLIE JACKSON, Answered by: Hon TAMA POTAKA

to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he stand by his statement at the Iwi Chairs Forum that “we haven’t got it all right”; if so, what haven’t they got right?

I recently attended the Iwi Chairs Forum in Tāhuna—Queenstown—alongside Minister Willis, as representatives of the National Party. However, I will respond to that in light of my other responsibilities. One area where I think we could have communicated better is the immense tax relief that the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, offered all New Zealanders, including an estimated $400 million to whānau Māori in Budget 2024. Another area where I could have communicated it a bit better, and we could have communicated it a bit better, was the extraordinary work of the regional development Minister with the Regional Infrastructure Fund, and, indeed, collaborating together with these people—these honest, hard-working people—on this side of the House, in delivering more marae support funding than any Government in history, more Māori language broadcasting funding at the baseline than any Government in history, and more money into kapa haka than any Government in history, and also I could have articulated more transparently about the parlous state that a previous Government had left two-year-olds’ immunisation rates for Māori in this country. I take my hat off to Minister Brown for his good work to get those immunisation rates up, from 64 percent to over 70 percent—kia ora.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is spinning stories. I don’t like to say it, but that’s not true, what he’s saying in terms of funding for marae. It’s not—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, wait—sorry. Don’t interrupt a point of order. Start again.

Hon Willie Jackson: The Minister is spinning stories in the House. He is saying that this Government has spent more money on marae, more so than any other Government. Minister Shane Jones and myself, and Labour, spent $100 million on marae, and that was more than any other Government—

SPEAKER: Yeah, look—good. So far, you are listing a series of debating points, but it’s not a point of order.

Hon Willie Jackson: But the point of order is that the Minister—I don’t like saying it, but—

SPEAKER: Well, if that’s the case, then—

Hon Willie Jackson: —he’s telling a lie.

SPEAKER: —you know there are other remedies.

Hon Willie Jackson: He’s telling a lie.

SPEAKER: There are other remedies open to the member. He’s been here for quite a long time and he knows what they are. Is there another supplementary?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Responding to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, I’ve just dealt with it.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe that Nicola Willis got it right when, at the Iwi Chairs Forum, she said that “We are proud of our belief that iwi and communities deserve more power over their own resources.”; and if so, what example does he have where more power has been provided to Māori over this term?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It gives me great pleasure to remind all members of this House that this Government has invested over $200 million into marae over the last three years. That is perhaps double the amount of money that the member has mentioned about a previous Government that he may have been part of, but it’s important to get our maths right—don’t be so fuzzy. In relation to devolving and collaborating with iwi and Māori over doing things at a localised level and a regional level, a great example is the half a billion dollars that this Government has co-invested and collaborated on with Māori and iwi housing providers. As a result of that, we expect nearly a thousand more houses to be deployed across various iwi and Māori organisations and the land that they own. I could rattle off a number of examples, but how much time do we have, Mr Speaker?

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he believe Minister Goldsmith got it right when he ordered officials to remove te reo Māori greetings and references to Aotearoa New Zealand in an official invitation to Matariki; if not, did he ask Minister Goldsmith why he chose to do that?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As you know, Minister Goldsmith is a very hard-working and busy Minister with a variety of portfolios, but it is not my role, as the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, to get into the mind and the head of Minister Goldsmith. It’s my role to ensure that we deliver on the promises that we have made, particularly around the Nelson Tenths legislation, which went through its third reading this week—something that the previous Government was never intending to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware that the Iwi Chairs Forum have put their interviews online and that the Greens have had 1,000 views, Labour’s Willie Jackson has had 8,000 views, National have had 16,000 views, and Winston Peters has had 44,000 views, while Te Pāti Māori have two people waiting for their premiere tonight?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I understand that Minister Peters, the rangatira here in the parliamentary precincts, was very much appreciated and adored by many of the iwi chairs and the young people conducting those interviews.

Hon Willie Jackson: Did he think that Minister Upston got it right when she mucked up the winter energy payment for thousands of kaumātua when she was told about the problem 10 days before by Labour?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are things that we don’t get right, but the difference between ourselves and the member is that we get on and deal to them. We don’t leave them hanging—like the Ōrākau lands; like Kororipo; like, of course, the Nelson Tenths and 15 settlements that Mr Goldsmith has currently curated over the term of this House. I absolutely applaud Minister Goldsmith’s effort over in Wharekauri recently, where we reached the deed of settlement with Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. Again, two ticks to his résumé, and I hope that they’re blue.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was talking about Minister Upston, and the Minister wasn’t mentioned once. I was talking about the Minister mucking up payments to kaumātua although she was told 10 weeks beforehand by Labour about this. The Minister didn’t address the question at all.

SPEAKER: Yes, he did. He said she fixed it.

Hon Willie Jackson: I didn’t pick that up—I didn’t pick that up. You sure?

SPEAKER: Very sure.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I didn’t pick that up, but I’ll take your word for it.

SPEAKER: Oh, thanks very much. Very generous of you.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why should iwi Māori have any trust in this Government when all iwi see is their settlements are being breached, te reo Māori is being removed, Treaty clauses are being removed, and the Māori-Crown relationship has gone backwards?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There’s a degree of hyperbole in the member’s comments and the member’s questions, but he is clear and consistent. We are absolutely focused on doing things with Māori, not just dropping inconsistent and unclear aspirations and propositions and, sometimes, statutory provisions. That’s the role of Government: to make sure that we effectively deliver on the services that we have, and we ensure that legislation that is presented to this House is done in an appropriate manner. I absolutely applaud the mahi that the agencies have done, the mahi that the Ministers and the members of this Government have done, and the mahi that we all do to try and improve the oranga and the ōhanga of Māori communities and Māori societies. That’s why I’m so for the mahi around fast track, because when you look at some of the fast track—

SPEAKER: Yeah, yeah, that’s good. You’ve done well. Is there another question? Question No. 7—Mike Davidson.

ACC

Question No. 7

Asked by: MIKE DAVIDSON, Answered by: Hon SCOTT SIMPSON

to the Minister for ACC: Has he read the report, The Legacy of PCP and its Dioxins in Aotearoa: An overview of human rights concerns; if so, does he have a response to it?

Yes. My response is that the Government is committed to ensuring that the accident compensation scheme covers people who suffer from injuries, including work-related injuries. That’s why this Government recently updated the list of work-related diseases in the Accident Compensation Act after more than 15 years, and that’s why there is also a clear process for injured people to seek cover.

Mike Davidson: What does he say to Kereama Akuhata, who said, “Most of us who were poisoned at work do not get ACC, and ACC continues to refuse to acknowledge the varied range of illnesses which exposure to PCP and dioxins have caused”?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I would say that ACC remains, as it always has done, available and open to receive claims from any New Zealander who seeks to apply for compensation. That process is open, ready, and available.

Mike Davidson: Does he stand by his statement that, “I acknowledge the experiences of former sawmill workers and their families.”, and does this include acknowledging the fact that they are sick and dying without access to ACC, despite being poisoned at work?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Like the member who’s just asked that question, I am not a medical expert and I do not seek to profess to be one. That’s why, as Minister, I rely on the professional advice of medical experts. As I’ve stated previously, ACC remains available and open to receive—

Hon Member: Applications.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —applications, yes—cases from people who feel that they may have been affected. That process continues and it’s available.

Mike Davidson: As the Minister said in a previous answer that the ACC schedule has just been re-looked at, did this include pentachlorophenol, which has been identified as hazardous to workers’ health almost 50 years ago?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: There were a range of matters considered by the panel. From memory, I think there were 12 new conditions that were added to Schedule 2. The process is now formalised that a further review will occur, commencing in five years’ time, and that process will actually, probably, start in the next Parliament, but that is a process that this Government set in place, and it had not been reviewed for 15 years.

Mike Davidson: Has he asked or does he intend to ask for any advice on extending Schedule 2 to cover pentachlorophenol exposure; if not, why not?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Upon reading the report that I received earlier this week, I have asked for further information and advice.

Mike Davidson: How many former sawmill workers exposed to pentachlorophenol have died while waiting for the Government to provide a practical pathway to compensation and redress, and how many more will die while no action is taken?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: That’s not information that I have access to or is available to me, but if the member would like to, perhaps, put a question in writing, I would seek to attempt to provide an answer.

Education

Question No. 8

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

to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with educators who described the draft curriculum as “potentially damaging to learners” and showing “a total lack of understanding of our disciplines”?

No. As the member notes in the question she asked, this is draft material for the senior secondary curriculum that is currently out for consultation—not the final content currently being written by 350 New Zealand subject matter experts borrowed from schools around the country. I’m proud of the new curriculum. It represents work from across the sector with hundreds of submissions from teachers, school leaders, subject experts, education organisations, and New Zealanders across the country. I will note some comments around the fact that there is too much material in the drafts. We’ve always been very clear that it was our intention to start with more and settle on content that the sector tells us will set Kiwis up for success.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If climate change was never removed from the curriculum, why has she ordered officials to put it back?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I’ve already answered this in the media. While the term “climate change” did not appear—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: And you don’t answer it.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and that’s what we’re getting here: an answer.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. While the term “climate change” didn’t appear in the curriculum content, students learn about how climate systems work, why climate change happens, and its impacts through the social sciences curriculum. I’ve already instructed the ministry to explicitly include and signpost the words “climate change” in the years 0 to 10 curriculum, and I would note that climate change science is included in the senior secondary curriculum.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she claim that climate change remained in the curriculum when education professor Chris Eames says that in the curriculum, the causes are not connected coherently or even attributed to humans?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I’ve already answered that question. This is the junior curriculum, levels 1 to 4. The content around climate change is included—how climate systems work, how climate change happens, and its impact—in the social sciences curriculum. As we move up into the senior secondary curriculum, a lot more of that content is included, as appropriate, because some of the science behind it is quite high-level and aimed at students who are in senior secondary.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why is she now blaming unnamed curriculum writers for the omission when she personally reviewed and approved the final curriculum before its release?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Because I am not the final determinant and decision maker of the content—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Carry on.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker—I’ll start again. It is not the job of the Minister to go through the content as it is set out before it goes out. I do a final look through, but I’m not a teacher, I’m not an expert, and I don’t go through—[Interruption] I don’t go through, nor should I be expected to, nor is it my job to go through and make changes. I just have a final look at it before it goes out, and I trust the process, the officials, and all of the subject matter experts from around New Zealand who wrote and approved the content.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can she confirm that climate change appeared explicitly in the draft curriculum, disappeared from the final version she signed off, and is now being reinstated only after public criticism?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There were multiple drafts of the curriculum that came through. I didn’t see them all. I signed off the very final one. All I know is that the curriculum writers have now been instructed to go back and signpost exactly where climate change is mentioned in the curriculum. As I’ve already said, students learn how climate systems work, why climate change happens, and its impacts on humans through the social sciences curriculum. I’ve instructed us to make sure that we’ve signposted with the words “climate change” exactly where that happens.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she accept that signing off a curriculum that removed climate change, denying it had been removed, blaming the writers, and then ordering officials to put it back just demonstrates to New Zealand parents exactly why curriculum decisions should be left to education experts and not politicians such as herself?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I’ll say this really slowly and clearly for the member so she understands: writers write the curriculum; the Minister signs it out at the very end—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Some of that noise is coming from your own side. Please carry on.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It is not the Minister’s job to write curriculum information or to change it. It is up to the curriculum experts and the writers employed by the Ministry of Education who make those decisions. They are the ones who put in the curriculum climate change; they are the ones who omitted the words “climate change”; I’ve just asked that it goes back in the curriculum to signpost the fact that it is included and always was included in the curriculum.

Transport

Question No. 9

Asked by: TOM RUTHERFORD, Answered by: Hon JAMES MEAGER

to the Minister of Transport: Is the Government considering introducing a ute tax?

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: No.

Tom Rutherford: What impact would introducing a ute tax have on farmers, tradies, and other New Zealanders who need a vehicle for work?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Well, for farmers, tradies, contractors, and small businesses, a ute is a tool of the trade. Increasing the cost of those vehicles means increasing the cost of doing business. Whether that is getting tools to a worksite, towing gear, or working on farms and forestry roads, those costs do not disappear. They will be passed on to consumers through higher prices. The Government won’t be reintroducing a ute tax, because we don’t want to make it more expensive for New Zealanders to get on with the job.

Tom Rutherford: Who would bear the cost of introducing a ute tax?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Well, that’s the fundamental unfairness of a ute tax. It’s the people who bear the cost of it who are the very New Zealanders who have the least ability to avoid it: the farmers, the tradies, the lower-income New Zealanders who have limited practical alternatives, while it subsidises households that are already in a position to buy a new electric vehicle (EV) or hybrid. In rural New Zealand, there would be no practical alternatives, so they would be forced to pay the extra tax for wealthy EV owners in the cities. The Government does not believe it would be fair or sensible to do so.

Tom Rutherford: What policies are the Government pursuing to reduce transport emissions without imposing additional costs on motorists?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: We are focused on making lower-emissions choices easier and more practical rather than taxing people into changing their vehicles. That includes accelerating the roll-out of EV charging, backed by public and private sector co-investment. We have also removed unnecessary consenting barriers for EV chargers and are improving smart charging settings so people can charge at cheaper times. The Government’s approach is to expand choice, build the infrastructure people need, and let New Zealanders decide what vehicle works best for them.

Environment

Question No. 10

Asked by: CAMERON LUXTON, Answered by: Hon ANDREW HOGGARD

to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has he made?

Yesterday, I announced the Government’s decisions on how we will reform the freshwater farm plan system to make it simpler and more practical for farmers. We will bring in regulations that are proportionate. They will ensure that the work that farmers put in their farm plan focuses on genuine risk and improves water quality but doesn’t bury the kitchen table underneath a mountain of paperwork. I announced the risk thresholds which will trigger the need for certification and auditing. This is a much more proportionate approach than everyone having to be certified and audited, as in the previous system.

Cameron Luxton: What other changes is the Government making to freshwater farm plans?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: We are cutting the waffle out of the system. We are removing unnecessary mapping requirements so that farmers are focused on what actually creates risk; simplifying catchment context documents so that they give farmers the information they need and no more; and simplifying the grading approach for those that undergo audit, by moving to a pass/fail assessment and away from letter grades. As part of developing this policy, I took the opportunity to have someone come and do a certified plan under the new system on my own farm. What I found, and what farmers will see, is that having to do a farm plan should not be onerous. Most farmers are already managing their farm in a way that deeply cares for the local environment, and farm plans will be a way to validate and demonstrate that.

Cameron Luxton: What announcements has the Government made about Waikato’s Plan Change 1?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Yesterday, Ministers Bishop, McClay, Jones, and myself announced that the Government will stop the restrictive elements of Plan Change (PC) 1 from applying during the transition to the new resource management system. Plan Change 1 is a feature of a law that is on the cusp of being replaced, and farmers would have faced consenting and farm-planning requirements that may not be required under the new framework, which cuts red tape and is based on property rights. I acknowledge the work put in by a range of players to get through the 14-year PC1 process, including the agricultural industry, and that work will be taken into account when the new natural environment plan for the relevant catchments is developed.

Cameron Luxton: What announcements has the Government made about Plan Change 2?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The Government also announced yesterday that it would stop farmers and growers being caught between two sets of rules by making changes to the implementation of Plan Change 2 in the Horizons region. This is an issue I’m pretty familiar with as a Manawatū farmer. I’ve spent years dealing with Horizons’ One Plan. The Government will remove the harsh nitrogen reduction targets that farmers would have had to meet under Plan Change 2. Under these targets, it would have made it virtually impossible for Horowhenua’s vegetable growers to be able to carry on producing the fresh veggies this country requires. Farmers and growers want to keep doing right by the land, but they shouldn’t have to meet the requirements that are about to disappear and were poorly thought out to begin with.

Justice

Question No. 11

Asked by: CAMILLA BELICH, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to the Electoral Amendment Act 2025; if so, why?

Yes, in the context in which they were given and taken.

Camilla Belich: Why did he claim that the official count for the election could be up to five weeks when the Electoral Commission modelling shows that his changes will only save three days?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, as I recall, what I said was that the advice I got when I took over was that the elections always used to be able to be counted in two weeks and then Labour made a change to allow same-day voting and it went to three weeks. The advice I got was that if we did nothing, it would be longer, heading towards four weeks, and my guess was that if we did nothing over an extended period of time, it would just keep working its way up—the number after four is five, and so that was the logic of my explanation.

Camilla Belich: Does he have any evidence to support the contention that he just made that it would keep going up indefinitely?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The evidence that I had in mind was the primary driver of taking it longer to get a final count is the growth of special votes. Special votes occur when somebody hasn’t been enrolled by writ day, or is voting outside their particular area. Those special votes take 10 times as long to process as normal votes, and there’s been an exponential increase in special votes.

Now, the main driver of that was the previous Government’s decision to allow same-day enrolment—the problem there was it muddied the message, because the message that the Electoral Commission has is that everybody should get enrolled and it is the law to be enrolled. But if, at the same time, they’re saying get enrolled, but, in the mean time, don’t bother because you don’t have to because you can just rock up on election day and vote, well then that was a mixed message and so there were more and more people not enrolling, and that was leading to more and more special votes, and if you followed the graph, there’d be more and more special votes and it would take longer to count.

Camilla Belich: Was speeding up the election count, by an estimated three days, worth disenfranchising a projected 55,000 voters?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We are not disenfranchising any voters. What we are doing is placing a perfectly reasonable requirement on them to be enrolled. I can tell you right here, right now, it is the law to be enrolled. The other thing I can say is that in Australia, they require people to be enrolled about 30 days before the elections. I am confident that New Zealanders are, if not more capable, certainly as capable as Australians, and I’m very confident that we can do it. My message to New Zealanders is: if you look, you will see the ads, the ads are out there everywhere you look. Get enrolled before 25 October so that you can have a vote.

Camilla Belich: Why has he made it harder for young people to enrol to vote, when only 54 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds are enrolled, and the official count is likely to be no faster than the last election?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Unlike that member, I have confidence our younger New Zealanders, I’ve got every confidence that they can follow an instruction and get themselves enrolled.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think it somewhat underestimates New Zealanders to suggest that they would find it too difficult to enrol to vote in advance of an election?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I certainly don’t like the implication that New Zealanders are somehow slower than Australians. On this side of the House, we think we can be equally as capable as Australians.

SPEAKER: Camilla Belich and no one else.

Camilla Belich: Did he ask the Electoral Commission to model a middle ground where enrolment closed on voting day but remained open during early opening period; and if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The advice I got from the Electoral Commission was that if we changed it by one day, it would make insufficient difference in order to have a real impact. The advice I got was that if you’re going to do it, you should go to before voting starts in 12 days, and that will have a difference because it will allow more votes to be processed before election day, and then counted.

Camilla Belich: Will the almost 115,000 people currently on the dormant roll be able to cast both their electorate and their party votes on election day?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Like everybody else, you need to be enrolled before the date, the day before voting. So my message is just a simple one; I don’t want to complicate people with dormant rolls and other rolls. New Zealanders are out there and they need to be enrolled at a certain time so that they can have a vote. It’s not hard; it’s not complicated: get yourself enrolled by 25 October.

Camilla Belich: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that was a very specific question relating specifically to the changes that the Minister has brought in about the dormant roll, not about people being enrolled, and I don’t feel he addressed the dormant-roll element of that question.

SPEAKER: He can have another crack at it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I said I didn’t want to go into all those details, and I have a simple message for all New Zealanders, which is: if you want to vote, get yourself enrolled.

Education

Question No. 12

Asked by: RIMA NAKHLE, Answered by: Hon ERICA STANFORD

to the Minister of Education: How is the Government improving student outcomes through investments in school infrastructure?

Well, great news, the Government is investing a further $31.3 million to create calmer, less destructive learning spaces in more than 600 classrooms, at nearly 90 schools across the country. This includes Redoubt North School in that members electorate of Takanini. The latest funding builds on the $10 million allocated to 40 schools last year. We’ve already completed projects at six schools, with 32 further projects to be completed by the end of the year. It’s a practical, targeted investment that makes a real difference for students and teachers.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government putting walls back in open-plan classrooms?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve said before, this is about closing the door on the failed experiment of open-plan classrooms over many decades, including the previous six years—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Yeah, but you required it; gave them no choice. Talk to the schools that didn’t want it.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —under the Labour Government who failed to change it either. There is no convincing evidence that large open-plan classrooms support good learning outcomes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Tell Hekia she was wrong.

SPEAKER: Sorry, hang on. Does the member need assistance or something? Because that constant noise is not acceptable.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Open-plan classrooms are often noisy and create stress and are distracting environments for students, particularly those with additional learning needs. Every child deserves a classroom where they can focus, take part, and succeed, and every teacher deserves a space that lets them do what they do best. We’re taking a staged approach so that simpler projects can move quickly, while design and planning get under way for the more complex works. This is a practical, targeted investment that makes a real difference.

Rima Nakhle: How has the Minister been able to deliver so much in the last three years? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no, come on. I suspect that if we keep going down this track, the Electoral Commission are probably going to start charging political parties for the parliamentary time given that we’re in the three-month period. Make it a very brief answer. It is an opinion that you are able to give, but it should be brief—very brief.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In education, we’ve done this by reducing average classroom construction costs by using standardised designs and off-site manufacturing, fast-tracked $413 million of investment for maintenance, and we’ve created a stand-alone school property agency. What we haven’t done is have to resort to more tax to do it.

Rima Nakhle: What other investments has the Government made—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry.

Rima Nakhle: What other investments has the Government made to support students, teachers, and schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Putting walls back into classrooms is just one of the many things our Government has done to support schools. Just last week, the Minister for Energy and I announced that 500 schools have been selected for solar technology as the Government’s $30 million Solar on Schools programme rolls out, which will cut schools electricity use from the grid, reduce emissions, and lower their power bills at the same time. We’re also investing $21.7 million to expand the highly successful on-site school training programme. We’re delivering $750 million in learning support, the biggest investment in a generation, so that every single school, years 1 to 8, has a learning support coordinator by 2028. Again, all of this was delivered without increasing tax for education by a single cent.

SPEAKER: That concludes questions for oral answers. We’ll take 30 seconds while people who need to leave the House to do so quietly.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill.