Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: DAN BIDOIS, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government helping New Zealand businesses to invest in productive assets?

To lift incomes and drive long-term economic growth, New Zealand needs businesses to invest in capital investment that increases their productivity. That’s why the Government introduced Investment Boost in last year’s Budget. Investment Boost allows New Zealand businesses to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of a new asset on top of normal depreciation. This tax change means more investment opportunities will stack up financially so more investments will be made. Treasury and Inland Revenue consider that over the next 20 years, Investment Boost will increase New Zealand’s capital stock, lift productivity, and lift wages.

Dan Bidois: Who benefits from Investment Boost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A lot of people benefit when businesses do well, but let me quote from the regulatory impact statement for Investment Boost, which was prepared by Inland Revenue and Treasury officials: “Our view is the majority of the increase in national income from this policy would flow to workers and this increase would come from a combination of higher wages and higher employment, and we therefore expect that the benefits of this policy will be spread broadly across a wide range of New Zealanders.”

Dan Bidois: Is there a cap on the value of new investments under this policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. All New Zealand businesses, regardless of size, are eligible for Investment Boost, and there is no cap on the value of new investments. New Zealand needs businesses, both big and small, to be investing in machinery, tools, farm equipment, technology, heavy vehicles, utes, industrial buildings, and other capital assets. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, people who want to converse across the House while a question’s either being asked or answered will be asked to remove themselves to the side galleries to continue the argument. The Minister may wish to start again.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, thank you. All New Zealand businesses, regardless of size, are eligible for Investment Boost, and there’s no cap on the value of new investments or prescription of what can and cannot be eligible. New Zealand needs our businesses, both big and small, to be investing in machinery, tools, technology, farm equipment, vehicles, industrial buildings, and other capital assets. Those are the sorts of investments that drive productivity growth, job creation, and wage growth. An accelerated depreciation scheme that only applied, for example, to assets less than $10,000 in value might encourage some businesses to buy a laptop or a chair or a lamp. None of that is going to transform their business.

Dan Bidois: How much are New Zealand businesses saving from Investment Boost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Investment Boost is expected to reduce taxes on New Zealand businesses by $6.6 billion in the first four years of the policy. It is a policy to reduce tax on New Zealand businesses. Now, that is not in itself the only point of the policy, which is actually to incentivise businesses to make productive investments which will allow the New Zealand economy to grow. It does show that any policy to remove Investment Boost would, effectively, be a $6.6 billion tax increase on New Zealand businesses. Furthermore, it would have a negative impact on capital investment, on productivity, and on wage growth. Anyone proposing such a policy should be upfront about the consequences.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

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?

Absolutely, and I just want to confirm for the member that this Government won’t be implementing a capital gains tax, a digital services tax, a business tax, a 45 percent top tax rate, an inheritance tax, gift tax, rentals tax, asset tax, land tax, streaming tax, or ute tax.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What day did he first become aware that members of his own team intended to challenge his position as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We dealt with that issue last week. I’ve been very open about it in the media. I’ve talked about it, we’ve dealt with it, and we’re moving on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. What the Prime Minister says to the media is irrelevant. My question to him was: what day did he become aware that members of his own team intended to challenge his position as Prime Minister? This does relate directly to his responsibilities as Prime Minister. He sacked a Minister as a result of it. Asking him when he first became aware of that is not unreasonable.

SPEAKER: And his opening answer was “Early last week”, and I you can’t deny that addresses the question.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Sorry, it’s a point of order. [Interruption] The Hon Chris Bishop. No one else speaking at this time.

Hon Chris Bishop: The Prime Minister is responsible for his actions and statements as Prime Minister. Issues to do with political party matters are not the responsibility of this House.

SPEAKER: Well, unfortunately, there was a consequence that was taken as Prime Minister that has led to the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did he receive an assurance, between learning of Chris Penk’s challenge and his decision to call a National Party caucus meeting, that Erica Stanford continued to support him as Prime Minister; if so, how was that support conveyed?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: That’s right. That does go straight to the heart of it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. The Prime Minister can only be the Prime Minister if he enjoys the confidence of the House. Asking questions about that is absolutely within his purview as Prime Minister. He has sacked the person who I questioned him about. It is completely reasonable to question him about that.

SPEAKER: If your position was correct, then you’d need to ask that question about absolutely every member in the House. The Prime Minister sits in that seat because he clearly has the confidence of his caucus.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. That’s exactly the point. You’re asserting something that has not yet been established. Questioning him on whether or not he does actually have the confidence of his own Ministers, therefore, is totally in order.

SPEAKER: I just want to make it absolutely clear that if there was to be any change in the leadership of a party, it’s done so by a caucus, not by individual Ministers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If Chris Penk was acting alone in trying to remove him as Prime Minister, which resulted in him being sacked, why did he need to call every National MP back to Wellington to vote on it?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: People are going to listen to points of order silently, or otherwise they’ll be listening to it on the broadcast.

Hon Chris Bishop: The Leader of the Opposition is cleverly, but wrongly, conflating two separate issues in attempting to ask questions about matters to do with the National Party caucus, in Parliament where the Prime Minister sits as the Prime Minister. Those are not admissible questions.

SPEAKER: That is correct.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. He sacked Chris Penk as a Minister, who basically challenged him, and said that Chris Penk was acting alone. It is completely legitimate to question the veracity of that claim. It resulted in a Minister being sacked.

SPEAKER: No, they’re two entirely separate things. One is you have party caucuses choose who their leader is. The second thing is that if that party is in Government and is the dominant party, then clearly that leader will become a Prime Minister. Ministers serve at the courtesy of the Prime Minister, and while you may wish to conflate two different things, I think the ground’s been well gone over as to why the Minister concerned was relieved of his portfolios. It’s not tenable for—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: OK, I won’t go further. Good.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: All right—thank you, Mr Speaker. Did any other Minister in his Government indicate that he should stand down as Prime Minister during the last two weeks; if so, why didn’t he sack them too?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As has been reported, Chris Penk was the only person to challenge for the leadership; he was working for himself. I have to say, this is a pretty sad and petty—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No—excuse me, sunshine.

SPEAKER: No, no. OK. Woah. Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s a very straightforward question, Mr Speaker. It was completely consistent with the ruling you’ve just made. It’s whether or not a Minister in his Government asked him to stand down; and if so, why they’re not being sacked. He is responsible for that; it does relate to his job as Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The answer is no. Chris Penk was the only one.

SPEAKER: The answer’s just been given.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Winston Peters correct when he said National’s leadership and MPs are “inexperienced, egotistical, and self-obsessed”; if not, how does he explain their behaviour to twice try and remove him as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. I think he may have had his Chrises mixed up.

SPEAKER: The Hon David Seymour—[Interruption] Wait a minute, just wait.

Hon David Seymour: Is it important for his Ministers—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry. Wait. Even the loud laughter from the back could end up being an early afternoon.

Hon David Seymour: Is it important for his Ministers to update their conflict of interest register, and would he sack one who failed to do it after being reminded 14 times?

SPEAKER: No. I don’t think that helps with things.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If standards of ministerial conduct are that important to the Government, why hasn’t he sacked two Ministers who have been repeatedly racist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just want to say, look, the member is—it’s very flattering; he’s got very obsessed with me. I have to say, Amanda’s getting quite jealous. I think this election is about tax; he wants to make this election about me. That’s perfectly fine, but I think it’s pretty sad and pretty petty, to be honest. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: When we’re all settled. Question No. 3—Jenny Marcroft. [Interruption] Hang on a minute—there’s one person on the question.

Health

Question No. 3

Asked by: JENNY MARCROFT, Answered by: Hon CASEY COSTELLO

to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent reports has she seen on aged care?

This Government established a ministerial advisory group to review aged care. The Aged Care Ministerial Advisory Group has delivered their independent report that sets out what they believe is needed to create an aged-care system that provides the right care in the right place, ensuring people can transition between the type of care they need when they need it. In addition, the group focused on the changes they believe need to be made to make the aged-care system fairer and more sustainable. I would like to commend the group for their exemplary work on this report. They were given a huge task, and the amount of work they put in to deliver the 40 recommendations is admirable.

Jenny Marcroft: Why is this report important?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: A proper aged-care system is a key part of ensuring people live as well as they can as they age, and I’m proud that this Government is actually looking at ways to build that. We’ve known for a long time that aged care isn’t set up as a system and it has funding challenges. For too long, Governments have been kicking the can down the road. Aged care has been a priority for this Government, evidenced by the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement commitments: to engage openly and constructively with the aged-care sector, investigate funding options for residential care beds, undertake a select committee inquiry, and work to support bipartisan agreement on the funding needed for care beds into the future. The ministerial advisory group report provides a vision for a pathway forward, and I hope all parties in this House would consider it to be a good starting point for building a long-term solution.

Jenny Marcroft: What is being done in response to this report?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I’ve said, the future of aged care is incredibly important—for those in care, their families, everyone who might be in care, the sector, and the wider health system. They also involve significant sums of money. We need to get any change right. That’s why the report and its recommendations will be considered carefully by this Government. Cabinet has directed the Ministry of Health to develop advice for the Government on the recommendations, including on options for the timing and process of aged-care reform. This will cover immediate and longer-term priorities into the future.

Prime Minister

Question No. 4

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 I want to reassure the member that this Government won’t be implementing a 45 percent top income tax rate, an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or an asset tax.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When he said, and I quote, “I thought the Greens’ announcement was sort of a bit of classic Greens, to be honest, in the sense of we haven’t even got the investment here in New Zealand. We haven’t got data centres happening at scale.”, was he unaware of the hyperscale artificial intelligence (AI) Datagrid data centre being approved—the very context of the Greens’ announcement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. My point was that we’ve got about three data centres coming on stream in the next year, if everything goes to plan. Current data centres are about 0.6 percent of New Zealand’s electricity generation, Australia’s about 2.2, and I think Ireland’s 22 percent.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So, then, does he stand by his statement that “we’ve got about three data centres, I think, expected to come on stream in the next year. The advice we’ve had is that it won’t put upward pressure on electricity prices”, and, if so, can he confirm that this advice explicitly excludes the AI Datagrid centre?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So can he guarantee that the 280 megawatt Southland data centre will not push up electricity prices for households and businesses?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, actually, a lot of data centres that have come into New Zealand actually support additional generation and investment. If you think about the Microsoft one that’s been backed by Contact, think about the AWS one backed by Mercury, think about the Datagrid Southland one backed by Mercury as well—I’m just saying to the member that we agree that there should be some sensible rules. We certainly think there should be additional generation put in place. There’s a number of things that we can work through to get a code in place to get some common, sensible rules, but I just want to reassure the member that we need data centres for a modern life in New Zealand. We want to take the opportunity. That’s what we’re going to do.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So how does the Prime Minister reconcile his agreement with us that we need “sensible, common-sense rules” in place for hyperscale AI data centres with his willingness to continue allowing hyperscale AI data centres to be consented under current rules before sensible, common-sense regulations can be put in place, meaning that those consented AI data centres will not have those rules apply to them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: My point was that the Greens want to turn off investors and investment before they have even arrived in New Zealand. They want to put up a “closed for business” sign. We went through that experience on oil and gas and it wasn’t pleasant. I was just saying to the member that we have about three coming on stream in the coming year. We believe in some sensible rules, and we’ll get those in place in due course.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has there been any evaluation whatsoever on the impact on energy prices if his Government’s investment arm strategy of $35 billion more invested into hyperscale AI data centres is successful before sensible, common-sense rules can be put in place?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the member would fully support the actions of this Government that have led to a 35 percent reduction in wholesale electricity prices because of our desire to make sure we have a liquefied natural gas import facility, we have a strategic coal reserve, we have a strategic diesel reserve, and we’ve built more renewables in the last two years than we have in the previous eight.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: A point of order and no one else making any comment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I understand that the rules of question time are not that the Prime Minister obviously has to answer the question, but at the very least I understand he is supposed to address them. My question was specifically and explicitly about whether the Government had requested any advice on the impact on energy prices of hyperscale AI data centres. He did not address that.

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister may wish to make another comment.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah. Look, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advises that if current data centre growth continues as expected, there should be no upward pressure on electricity prices. This is also a Government taking the energy needs of New Zealand very seriously. That is why, actually, a 35 percent reduction in wholesale electricity prices is a good thing for New Zealand and New Zealand businesses.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister heard Anthony Newley’s song “Stop the World—I Want to Get Off”, and could that possibly be a political party’s manifesto?

SPEAKER: No.

Women

Question No. 5

Asked by: Hon CARMEL SEPULONI, Answered by: Hon NICOLA GRIGG

to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her statement that “The Government is committed to supporting women”; if so, why?

Yes. This Government is committed to supporting women through practical actions. Just yesterday, we announced further support for women living with endometriosis by introducing guidelines to help doctors and clinicians diagnose the condition. We’ve also expanded free breast screening to the age of 74. We’ve introduced KiwiSaver Government contributions for eligible parents receiving paid parental leave in Budget 2026, and we will continue to invest in initiatives that support women’s leadership, wellbeing, safety, and economic participation. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to gather itself. Just keep waiting. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Government supporting women when it changed the law under urgency, cancelling 180,000 women’s pay equity claims and blocking secondary school teachers from making future claims?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: As has been traversed more times than I can count in this House, I am not the Minister responsible for the pay equity changes. However, this Government remains committed to progressing pay equity through a system that is clearer, is targeted, and is sustainable in the long term. Pay equity is important—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: How much?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: —but it is just one part of the picture.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Show us the money.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Women’s overall economic outcomes are influenced by a broader set of economic and social factors.

SPEAKER: The Hon Megan Woods.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I’m not Megan Woods, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, you could have been confused with the amount of questions coming across the House during that last exchange. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Government supporting women when it blocked proposals to introduce cross-party legislation to change our consent laws so the National Party could score political points?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I have no responsibility for that legislation.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s answer to the primary question, she rattled off a number of areas that the Government, she proposed, had supported women in, so I believe I can ask about a range of things across sectors involving women, because her job is to advocate on behalf of women, as the Minister for Women.

SPEAKER: That’s an interesting prospect, but there will be some aspects of Government activity that involve all Ministers; the Minister for Women pointing to those is not unreasonable. To ask specific questions about those I think is probably taking it a bit too far, but ask the question again.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Government supporting women when it blocked proposals to introduce cross-party legislation to change our consent laws so the National Party could score political points—

SPEAKER: See, the last part makes it very difficult for a Minister to answer without making some political statements. You’ve got to ask what exactly you want.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Government supporting women when it blocked proposals to introduce cross-party legislation to change our consent laws?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I do reject the characterisation of that question, but what I would say is this Government is working really hard to improve safety for women. Just last month, I launched a practical guide to help employers and workplaces support staff experiencing stalking. That launch actually coincided with the Government’s introduction of new anti-stalking legislation, which recognises stalking as a harmful pattern of behaviour that carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Government supporting women when it removed 53,000 families from receiving BestStart childcare tax credits and cutting the payments for another 9,000 families?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I have no legislative responsibility for that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was Nicola Willis correct that the reason paid parental leave is not currently 30 weeks is because the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety “didn’t prioritise this change in her work programme”, and, if so, why didn’t she prioritise these changes in her women’s portfolio?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I’m advised that that is not what the Minister of Finance said, and I’d suggest that member put those questions in writing to the relevant Minister.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Paid parental leave is one of the areas that the Minister did cover in her opening answer to my primary question, so I think it’s fair that I am able to ask a supplementary question on that specific area.

SPEAKER: Yes, and it’s also fair that the Minister says she’s not able to answer on that. Do you have another supplementary? OK, question No. 6—Dr Carlos Cheung.

Housing

Question No. 6

Asked by: Dr CARLOS CHEUNG, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

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

No.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How does interest deductibility on residential property work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In New Zealand, tax is paid on profit, not revenue. That mean residential property investors can subtract mortgage interest they pay, and other expenses like council rates, from their rental income. Take a simple example: if a rental earns $30,000 a year; rates, insurances, and repairs comes to $8,000; and mortgage interest is $20k, with deductibility, the taxable profit is $2,000, and tax is about $660, and without it, the tax is about $7,260—on a property that only actually made $2,000 profit. This is a great way to disincentivise people from renting out their property. The Government supports the principal that you pay tax on profit—as it does with any other business.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why isn’t the Government considering removing interest deductibility on residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Many reasons, but here are three. For one, removing deduction is unprincipled because it violates a fundamental principal of tax law. Secondly, it’s inconsistent and can therefore create perverse incentives. Thirdly, removing interest deductibility raises cost for people who provide rentals, which—according to experts—is likely to be passed on to renters. It is perhaps unsurprising that between 2017 and 2023, rents went up by $180 per week, and they are now flat, and in some markets falling.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What do experts say about removing interest deductibility on residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Let me quote from the regulatory impact statement. IRD said that they were concerned that denying interest deduction would make rental investment unattractive, reducing supply over time, placing upward pressure on rents, thus raising costs for renters. Dr Oliver Hartwich said that calling interest deductibility a loophole “misunderstands how an income tax works. … No Government would dream of taxing a farmer on gross sales while ignoring the cost of feed, fertiliser and fuel. Yet that is precisely the logic applied to landlords.” Even noted tax expert sir Deborah Russell said it would be an arbitrary rule, designed to achieve a non-tax purpose. I agree with Deborah Russell: we should keep the law as it is.

Finance

Question No. 7

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

to the Minister of Finance: Mālō ‘aupito, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her claims, in 2024, that New Zealand is seeing the green shoots of recovery, when, on her watch, business liquidations are up 70 percent, with 3,023 placed into liquidation in the year to March?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, but I would also note that the number of new businesses registered outpaced those liquidation figure in those recent statistics as well.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the cost of living getting better or worse when there was $43.4 million of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in June alone, up almost 20 percent in just one year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The latest data that we have on inflation—which of course is the biggest driver of the cost of living—shows that food prices, and food inflation, has continued to ease. Food prices increased just 0.1 percent in July, meaning that annual food inflation has fallen to 1.9 percent, which is its lowest rate since December 2024—and a lot lower than the double-digit food inflation experienced under the last Government.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, then, is there $43.4 million of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in June alone, if inflation was just the issue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do want to acknowledge that anyone who is put in a position where they feel they have to withdraw their KiwiSaver funds is someone that I have a lot of sympathy for, and that is not a situation that we want to see happening readily. Of course, the question is: what do we do to ensure that fewer Kiwi families are in that situation? Our Government’s answer is to ensure that we are fuelling economic growth that drives wage growth and job creation—whether that’s fast tracking major projects, whether that’s the Investment Boost tax credit to promote investment and wage growth, and whether that’s reducing red tape, these are the sorts of policies that support a stronger set of economic outcomes for all New Zealanders. The reverse is also the case. If we were, for example, to impose billions of dollars of new taxes across the economy, that would send a wrecking ball through the hopes and aspirations of Kiwi families.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, then, with record net migration, higher unemployment, and low growth—while Kiwis are doing it tougher—has her Government resorted to calling them and New Zealand businesses “bottom feeders”, “soft”, “impatient”, “C-listers”, and “wet”, “whiny”, and “inward looking”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the latter part of the question, but I would simply point out this: the people who stand in this House and say they are on the side of everyday workers better be consistent with their policy positions, because if those are the same people who are saying they want to whack $5 billion worth of additional tax on businesses who are striving to increase wages and increase jobs, and if those are the same people who will oppose fast-track developments—

SPEAKER: Yup, that is enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —creating jobs, then those peopleare not on the side of growth.

Prime Minister

Question No. 8

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 just want to reassure the member that this Government won’t be implementing an asset tax, a rentals tax, a gift tax, an inheritance tax, or a 45 percent top tax rate. We think that would take New Zealand backwards.

Hon Marama Davidson: Do hospitals have safe staffing levels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very proud of what this Government has delivered, with 2,100 extra nurses and 600 extra doctors in our healthcare system, a big outreach to nurses to invest in nurse prescribers and nurse practitioners, and a big investment in primary care. I think we’ve got more to do in healthcare, but we’ve made some very good progress.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he proud that three nurse roles in neonatal intensive care in Wellington were not approved for six months, or that chemotherapy treatments had to be shut down from not having enough nurses to provide treatment due to deliberate delays in approving hires for vacant roles?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m proud about is that, actually, this is a Government that’s invested more money into healthcare, it’s a Government that has invested more in workforce into healthcare, and, importantly, the healthcare system is starting to improve on the five key targets and metrics that we’ve set it. We have a real challenge with the bureaucracy in the middle, but we’re making progress on that too, and I’m sure the member would want to support less bureaucracy in healthcare so that we can get funds and people out to the front line.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he be proud of his promise that front-line services wouldn’t be impacted by Public Service job cuts when we are hearing from workers in the system that “We are required to quietly cut and restrict services in order to prevent waiting lists from blowing out.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually proud of the fact that we’ve set targets and—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Where was the proof behind that allegation in that question?

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where was the proof or evidence behind the allegation in that question?

SPEAKER: There doesn’t need to be.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, there does.

SPEAKER: No, there doesn’t.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You can’t say anything you like in here.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, but there doesn’t. We’re going to have the question again.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he be proud of his promise that front-line services wouldn’t be impacted by Public Service job cuts, when we are hearing from workers in the system that “We are required to quietly cut and restrict services in order to prevent waiting lists from blowing out.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m proud about is that this Government is focused on health outcomes, and we have prioritised on making sure we have shorter wait times in emergency departments, we’ve made sure that we get immunisation rates for under-twos focused, and we’ve made sure we’ve got access to first specialist appointments, elective surgeries, and faster cancer treatment plans. On all of those metrics, we’re making progress. That matters because we want to see things and outcomes improve for patients.

Hon Marama Davidson: Has a single nurse told him that there are safe staffing levels in front-line hospitals?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell the member they certainly appreciate having 2,100 more nurses in the system than when we came to Government.

Media and Communications

Question No. 9

Asked by: Dr VANESSA WEENINK, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

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

No [Interruption].

SPEAKER: No one else is talking.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What would a streaming tax mean for New Zealand consumers?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, any tax imposed on streaming platforms would ultimately risk being passed onto consumers—the people who are trying to watch Netflix, or Apple TV, or whatever it is. The Government’s view is that New Zealanders pay enough tax already, and the last thing that we need is even more taxes, so that is why we’re not going to be adding to the pile of taxes that New Zealanders pay, and part of that is being careful about our spending and that means we don’t have so much tax.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Instead of a streaming tax, what is the Government doing to support local content?

Hon Willie Jackson: Nothing.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, a large amount and, rather than taxing viewers—

Hon Simeon Brown: Does Willie still want a tax?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and I acknowledge my counterpart Willie Jackson who is—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, look, I’m sorry; one Minister answering only would be useful. Start again.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I do acknowledge the member Willie Jackson, who is obviously upset about not having this tax, but he lost the argument, I presume. What the Government does invest is more than $400 million a year in the screen sector, including $85 million a year for NZ on Air, and around $280 million through screen production rebates. Also, this Government is moving legislation to improve prominence on new television sets that turn up. We’ve also removed Sunday advertising restrictions in order to help the broadcasters. There’s been a lot of work done to help New Zealand local content, but we’re not going to be adding new taxes.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Has he seen any recent proposals for a streaming tax?

SPEAKER: This needs to be very carefully answered.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, as we discussed yesterday, there was a member’s bill and it did refer to a “small levy” on these giant streamers that will create a substantial revenue stream. The only point I’d say is this: things can start small that become big. If we look at Canada, for example, a 5 percent tax was introduced and then—lo and behold—it was 15 percent. The first series was at 5 percent and the next series was at 15 percent, so there’s always a risk when taxes and levies are introduced that they will continue to expand. We’re not going to take that risk, and that’s why we’re not having a streaming tax.

Health

Question No. 10

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

to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that the net increase in Health New Zealand full-time equivalent nursing staff between the quarters ending March 2024 and March 2026 is 54 fulltime-equivalents?

In respect to the member’s question, all of this information is published, and I refer the member to Health New Zealand’s Health Workforce Information Programme (HWIP), which reports on the growth of our healthcare workforce every single quarter. I’m advised that it shows Health New Zealand now employs 2,162 additional nurses on a net basis compared with September 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 fulltime-equivalents (FTE). There are more nurses working in our public hospitals today than in previous years. Those are Health New Zealand’s own published figures and they’re freely available. That work has not stopped. I’m further advised that as at 28 July 2026, advertising for Health New Zealand nurse roles was under way for 1,422 FTE, with a further 297 at interview stage, 154 at reference-checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. This is a very similar circumstance that occurred previously with this exact same Minister: with a primary question on notice that gives a specific time frame, he deliberately chose not to answer that question and talked about something of his own choosing. The primary question on notice specifically asks between the period of “March 2024 and March 2026”, neither of which he responded to.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure about that, to be quite frank with you. I was listening very, very carefully for some of the reasons that you’ve outlined earlier. I think the Minister gave a very comprehensive address to the question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The Minister talked about a time period before that in the question, and a time period after that in the question. Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that for primary questions on notice, they should be addressed to a more correct standard than is required for supplementaries. If that were to be a supplementary question, then yes, indeed, it would have been addressed. But if we have a situation where Ministers can choose to answer whatever time frame they wish, what is the point in question time if they’re not required to respond directly to primary questions on notice?

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll take this a bit further, but the question does actually state a specific outcome and asked him to confirm it. He clearly didn’t. The Minister may make a further comment on this answer.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in my answer, the number is publicly referred to and available in the Health Workforce Information Programme, which reports on the growth of the health workforce every single quarter.

SPEAKER: That’s not a—I would have thought that while you can’t be asked to give a yes or no answer, something more specific about the two dates that are mentioned there would be helpful to the order of the House.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, well, the answer to the question, as I said, the number is available. It is published in the Health Workforce Information Programme for the quarters ending 24 March and 26 March, at that number of FTE.

SPEAKER: You can’t give an answer that leaves the House none the wiser. None of us have that information in front of us, and I presume the Minister does.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: And I said the number is publicly available in the Health Workforce Information Programme for those two quarters at the FTE stated in the parliamentary question.

SPEAKER: I think that was a yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well sir, with respect—point of order.

SPEAKER: The Minister just said it is as stated in the parliamentary question. Can’t get clearer than that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister referred in his answer to the primary to HWIP data, which is not in a parliamentary question answer. That is published data by Health New Zealand, so it would be incorrect for him to refer us to a written parliamentary question answer, and I think the question remains unanswered for that reason.

SPEAKER: No, no. The way I just heard it is the Minister actually said that the number is correct as stated in the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think maybe I could be a little helpful here. The Minister did appear to be quoting from an official document. Therefore, I’d ask that he table it.

SPEAKER: Is the Minister quoting from an official document? He appears to be not.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Then how can he claim that, then?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s published; it’s online.

SPEAKER: No, hang on—no, no need. Thank you.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the answer to my primary question “54”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, no one else.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he say nursing vacancies reduced by referring to a different time period from the time period specified in my question on 28 July?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, because the member is cherry-picking a set of dates. The reality is I, in my answer to the question, talked about when this Government came to office and what the numbers are now. That member needs to take actual note of the answers that I am giving. As I said, I’m further advised—because at the heart of this question is: is the Government focused on recruiting the nursing workforce New Zealand needs? In my primary answer, I said we have 1,422 nursing roles currently being advertised, a further 297 at interview stage, 154 at reference-checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates. I’d also note that the number of vacancies in September 2023 was 2,632; that is now down to 1,601. The turnover rate has dropped from 11.7 percent to 8.4 percent. The vacancy rate has fallen from 8.6 percent to 5.2 percent. The workforce is being strengthened under this Government.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he cite, on Q+A, the nurses hired since coming into Government when nearly all of that growth happened before the election, and nursing fulltime-equivalents has grown by just 54, as he conceded today?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m not sure if she remembers, but this Government came to office in October 2023, after the election, and the number of nurses that have been employed by Health New Zealand is 2,162 additional nurses since September 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 fulltime-equivalents. Those are the facts.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he explain—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Everyone, just calm it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he explain to New Zealanders why released documents show he knew about the hiring freeze all along and he has been deliberately deflecting answering questions about it in the House and in media?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It was a document that was provided to RNZ from the PSA, which is a union campaigning for a change of Government, from March last year, when I’d just become the Minister of Health. Since then, we’ve got a new board, we have a new CEO, and we have established devolution, devolving decision making back down to the regions and districts where recruitment should take place and unravelling the mega-bureaucracy put in place when she was Minister of Health. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. That general barrage has to stop, or the questions will stop.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why doesn’t he come clean and admit there has been a hiring freeze at Health New Zealand since the moment he has been Minister?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There is no hiring freeze at Health New Zealand. In fact, the facts speak for themselves, and there are currently 1,422 nurses—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’re going to hear the rest of this without having comment from any other part of the House.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There are 1,422 nurses currently being advertised at Health New Zealand; 297 at the interview stage, 154 at the reference-checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates. This Government is having to unravel the complexity of the bureaucracy put in place by the previous Government when they decided—

SPEAKER: That’ll do. [Interruption] That’s enough.

Agriculture

Question No. 11

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

to the Minister of Agriculture: Are the Government’s tax policies supporting the primary sector to grow; if so, how?

The Government’s tax policies are supporting the primary sector to grow, as it hits a record $64 billion in exports this year. For example, the Government’s Investment Boost tax policy has allowed the primary sector to invest in their businesses and grow production. A tax expert said this Government policy reduces costs of capital investment, making it easier for agribusinesses to grow. A rural accountant has said it rewards forward-thinking businesses that are upgrading gear, reducing risk and improving output. New Zealand does not grow by taxing more and investing less. Investment Boost is an important part of lowering taxes and boosting the rural economy.

Suze Redmayne: What reports has he seen about how the Government’s tax policies are supporting the primary sector to grow?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Investment Boost is driving investment across plant and machinery, vehicles, irrigation, and environmental practices, which is driving regional growth. There are reports of this being a game-changer for rural New Zealand. Pumps and irrigation, for example, immediately have a 20 percent tax deduction under Investment Boost. As the member will know from her electorate of Rangitīkei, water distribution enables greater productivity on farms. Without Investment Boost, significant harm would be done to rural businesses and the rural economy.

Suze Redmayne: Has he seen any other reports about how the Government’s tax policies are supporting the primary sector to grow?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes. Earlier in our term, we removed the ute tax, that unfairly penalised farmers, foresters, and growers. At the time, Federated Farmers said, “Taxing farmers in this way only added additional cost to productive businesses for no material advantage.” A commercial vehicle lease and finance company reported many tradies and farmers telling them that the ute tax unfairly penalised them from needing a rugged and practical work vehicle, and there was a rush from tradies to buy new utes when it was taken away. And, Mr Speaker, you will remember, as I do, when Groundswell organised a nationwide howl of a protest: 60,000 people turning up to say no to the ute tax—

SPEAKER: Just don’t bring me into your answer.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I apologise. I thought I saw you at it. I’ll stop now.

SPEAKER: That’s wrong—yes, carry on.

Hon TODD McCLAY: A return of this tax would harm every farmer, every grower, every trader in New Zealand.

Suze Redmayne: Has he seen any other reports about the effects of taxes on the agricultural sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yes, I’ve seen media reports about an intention to scrap Investment Boost and to bring back the ute tax, and this would be devastating for the farming sector. It would impose a tax on tradies who need a ute for work, or farmers who need one to run their farms. The reports referred to a senior Labour Party candidate in Mt Albert, Michael Wood—

SPEAKER: That’s good. No, leave it there.

Seniors

Question No. 12

Asked by: INGRID LEARY, Answered by: Hon CASEY COSTELLO

to the Minister for Seniors: Is it still the Government’s plan for its policies to reflect the “reality” that “older people are a vital and growing part of New Zealand’s workforce, economy, and communities”?

Yes, particularly in the context in which that quote was made, off the back of the latest New Zealand Institute of Economic Research business of ageing report, produced for the Office for Seniors. The report showed that the value of unpaid work by older people has passed $20 billion a year; the paid work by over-65s contributes around $9 billion a year; self-employment for over-65s adds a further $5 billion a year; older people pay more than $13 billion in tax a year; and consumer spending by over-65s is close to $55 billion a year. Everyone knows that older New Zealanders make an incredible contribution to our society, and the business of ageing report puts some serious numbers behind that contribution.

Ingrid Leary: How is it so that her Government values seniors when 51,000 seniors report costs as a barrier to seeing their GP?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Absolutely this Government recognises that those that are on fixed incomes, relying mostly or exclusively on superannuation, are doing it tough. That is why this Government is approaching aged-care reform to ensure that we invest in keeping people well and improving access to aged care, and, most importantly, that we grow our economy. What we won’t do is put a capital gains tax on our older seniors, to ensure that they have a lower cost of living.

Ingrid Leary: Do seniors’ greater health needs and vulnerability to the cost of living make them less or more impacted by GP costs?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I’ve just said in my previous answer, those older New Zealanders that are impacted by fixed income will of course do it tough, and we are doing the practical things to ensure we reform our aged-care system to improve access, to improve the quality of living for our older New Zealanders. One of the things that is important to note is that when we saw a problem, we actually looked to reform the aged-care system, not appoint an Aged Care Commissioner to commentate on the problems.

Ingrid Leary: Does she accept that when cost causes seniors to delay seeing their GP, health problems can worsen and ultimately require expensive hospital or even emergency care?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Absolutely, which is why I’m so proud of the aged-care report produced by the ministerial advisory group that addresses just those points. That is why we have sought, under the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, to seek bipartisan agreement to improve the system. We will continue to work on that because, on this side of the House, we are the party of solutions.

Ingrid Leary: Will her Government commit to providing seniors with three free doctors visits per year; if not, why not?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Having traversed, quite at length, the challenges of accessing a GP appointment in the first place, promising three free GP visits to everyone, regardless of whether they need it or not, puts an added drain on the system. What I’ve said, repeatedly, is we want practical solutions that are delivering, that will improve the health outcomes for older New Zealanders.

Ingrid Leary: Will her Government commit to providing all New Zealanders with three free doctors visits per year; if not, why not?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: What we will commit to is improving health outcomes for New Zealanders. Access to good care, access to early diagnosis, access to surgical treatments—that is what we will do, and we will ensure that is delivered by this Government.