Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: KATIE NIMON, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

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

SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Willie Jackson: Sit down, “Bish”.

Don’t you want to hear the answer? [Interruption] Don’t you want to hear the answer?

SPEAKER: No, woah, woah—we’re not going to—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: He told to me to sit down, and I hadn’t even answered.

SPEAKER: Wait, wait—just a minute. I’ll—sit down; I’ll deal with that sort of thing. We’re not going to have this across-the-House exchange outside of the question being asked and the question being answered.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Unlike others, no.

Katie Nimon: What reports has he seen on interest deductibility for residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m still making my way through Inland Revenue’s (IRD’s) regulatory impact statement in 2023. I’m either a slow reader or it’s very riveting material—possibly both. I found page 29 of the 2021 regulatory impact statement particularly interesting. It has a table scoring all four options to deny interest deductibility for residential property against the status quo, using nine criteria. Every single option scored negative on the criteria: new housing supply, rental affordability, efficiency, fairness, revenue, integrity, compliance, cost, and coherence. The highest-scoring criteria was fiscal take. The one shining beacon was more money for the Government, but all four options to ban interest deductibility scored negatively and rated worse than doing nothing. IRD advised against all options and preferred the status quo.

Katie Nimon: What else did Inland Revenue’s regulatory impact statement say?

SPEAKER: Oh well, it could be a long answer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In the 2021 regulatory impact statement, it also noted the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s views, which warned about three key things: increased rents and more rental churn as landlords pass on costs or sell, displacing tenants, who bear the cost of finding and moving somewhere new; reduced feasibility and supply of new build-to-rent housing; and reduced supply of emergency, transitional, and public housing. Emergency, transitional, and public housing was eventually carved out, and so was build-to-rent housing. They joined a list that had already grown to include farmland, hospices, retirement villages, boarding houses, student accommodation, and papakāinga. It’s not good for any of those groups and, therefore, they justify an exemption. It’s not good for all renters.

Katie Nimon: Why did Government decide to reintroduce interest deductibility for residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We had two key objectives: firstly, we wanted to reduce upward pressure on rents. Rent prices went up by $80 a week between when the ban was phased in and when this Government announced its reintroduction. Since then, rents have been flat. Secondly, we wanted to restore the coherence of New Zealand’s tax system. We believe in the principle that tax should be paid on profit.

Hon David Seymour: Did the increase in rent that resulted from this policy undermine the then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s stated intention—

SPEAKER: No.

Hon David Seymour: —of tilting the market—

SPEAKER: No, no—no. Sorry, that’s enough. Turn him off. That’s enough.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: He cannot answer about another Government’s policies; he can answer about Government policy only.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, the entire—

SPEAKER: So we’ll rephrase the question.

Hon David Seymour: OK. Would the increases in rent that resulted from removing mortgage interest deductibility undermine first-home buyers by making their rent higher, making it harder for them to save for a deposit?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, to the extent that interest deductibility costs are passed on to renters, thus increasing the cost of living for renters and making it harder for renters saving for a first-home deposit—absolutely, that is the case. It’s net bad news for everybody.

Hon David Seymour: Would the Minister then feel comfortable describing such a policy as “tilting the market towards first-home buyers”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Some have claimed that interest deductibility is a policy to help first-home buyers. The evidence suggests that, in fact, it is the opposite.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Would a move to remove interest deductibility from residential property amount to a renters tax?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Some would definitely call it that. Having argued vociferously that bringing back interest deductibility for rental properties is, in fact, a tax break for landlords, it therefore follows that removing it is therefore a tax increase.

Auckland

Question No. 2

Asked by: Hon CARMEL SEPULONI, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister for Auckland: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes, and in particular, I stand by the actions of this Government to put a cap on council rates, which will protect Aucklanders from unexpected and unsustained rates increases.

SPEAKER: No one else talking while the Hon Carmel Sepuloni asks the question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement “Aucklanders want to see a clear plan and this Government has a clear plan to deliver for Aucklanders”; if so, what is his plan to get the more than 30,000 Aucklanders who have lost their jobs in the last three years back into work?

Hon SIMON WATTS: In regards to the first part of the question, yes. The Government has signed a deal with Auckland. This is a 10-year deal that will bring significant benefits for Aucklanders, and it ensures that there is a relationship that is productive between central government and local government. When Auckland does well, New Zealand does well.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is Auckland going backwards when there has a been a 39 percent increase in the number of Jobseeker Support Work Ready recipients in Auckland in just the last three years?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It is fair to note that Auckland’s unemployment levels aren’t where we want them to be. However, it is fair to also indicate that when we came in, there was an economy in recession. We had high inflation, high interest rates, and that all puts pressure on Kiwi households and, particularly, Kiwi businesses. So the answer to that—as you’ve noted—on our side of the House, is not about more taxes and more spending, but it’s getting the fundamentals right, and that’s what we’re doing.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Do Aucklanders deserve better than the second-highest unemployment rate in the country, with more than 30,000 Aucklanders out of work in the last three years?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Aucklanders always deserve better, and that’s why, on this side of the House, we are committed to having no new taxes. We are fiscally focused and disciplined on our spending. We have a long-term plan in place with Auckland to be able to deliver the infrastructure that will turn the dial, to increase jobs, to increase productivity, and to increase economic growth. When all those factors come into play, that will benefit Auckland, and importantly, that will benefit New Zealand.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that residential building consents in Auckland have increased by 20 percent in the last year, that City Rail Link opens in around 10 days’ time, and that there is massive transport investment happening in Auckland right at this very moment?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes, I can—a 21 percent increase in consents, year on year, up to 40,000. That is, if anything, a clear demonstration of this Government’s focus on doing the basics right, fixing those basics, and building a better future for Aucklanders.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Do Aucklanders deserve better than his Government’s cuts, which have led to Auckland City Hospital having 74 fewer nurse positions, and Middlemore Hospital having 78 fewer nurse positions, than two years ago?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Again, one has to recognise the situation which was the case when we came into Government. We have taken significant steps since that point, but when you try and restructure a health system during a pandemic, you’re going to get consequences, and that is the mess that we are tidying up.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has his Government got Auckland back on track, when Starship Hospital had a shortage of nurses for 59 percent of all its shifts in 2025?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes, we do have Auckland back on track, and I’ve got to acknowledge all of those healthcare workers who are working very hard during the midst of winter, which is always a challenging time for our health system. What I can be very clear about is that the Auckland City deal that this Government has put in place involves a wide range of portfolios, from education, to health, to economic growth and development, to infrastructure. We are a Government of delivery, and we’re going to continue to do that for the future.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Government’s failure to fix the cost of living, failure to get people back into work, and failure to give Auckland the health services it deserves, just more evidence that New Zealand cannot afford three more years of a National Government?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I know is that what New Zealanders cannot afford is nine new taxes, removing Investment Boost, increasing debt, increasing spending, putting a wrecking ball through our economy. On this side of the House, we’re about no new taxes, fixing the basics and building the future, and we will continue to deliver.

Finance

Question No. 3

Asked by: Dr CARLOS CHEUNG, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

The Reserve Bank has just released its Monetary Policy Statement. This includes the decision by the monetary policy committee to increase the official cash rate (OCR) by 25 basis points. As members will know, the OCR rises and falls in cycles. Recently, for more than seven months, it was down at 2.25 percent, which was the bottom of the most recent cycle. In July, the committee raised the rate to 2.5 percent, and it has now been raised to 2.75 percent.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Was this a surprise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. Market pricing in the past few weeks indicated an almost 100 percent expectation of this increase. When the OCR was at 2.25 percent, the Reserve Bank’s accelerator was flat to the floor, providing stimulus to the economy when it most needed it. That could not continue forever, and no one expected it to. The Reserve Bank is now easing off the accelerator and removing some of that monetary stimulus, but interest rates remain well below the levels they reached in 2023. Since this move was fully priced in, there should be little or no change to fixed-term mortgage rates.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Take responsibility. You took responsibility when it was going down.

SPEAKER: The commentary might be useful to the person making it but to no one else.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: No, no. Other people enjoy it.

SPEAKER: Take a supplementary then.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What is the reason for this decision?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I note that in New Zealand there has been a longstanding consensus about the independence of the Reserve Bank to pursue its inflation mandate. While the member opposite may continually interject, saying that the Government should take responsibility for individual cash-rate decisions, that kind of voodoo economics has been condemned by others. The Reserve Bank’s job is to keep on top of inflation—specifically to keep future inflation between 1 and 3 percent over the medium term and, in doing this, seek to avoid unnecessary instability in output, employment, interest rates, and the exchange rate. Price stability is monetary policy’s key contribution to longer-term economic growth and living standards, and we’ve seen recently, between 2021 and 2023, that high inflation can be incredibly destructive. Rising fuel prices from the Middle East conflict have pushed inflation to 4.1 percent, and there are concerns this could spread to other goods and services. At the same time, the economy is strengthening. The Reserve Bank has therefore judged that it can reduce monetary stimulus and move a bit more towards a neutral stance.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What has the Government been doing to help limit inflationary pressures?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has been focused on not adding to inflationary pressure with large increases in discretionary spending—as happened, for example, in 2022 and 2023. Net new spending in each of our three Budgets has been very restrained. This continued restraint means the Government is reducing its Budget deficits over time, and on that basis, the Reserve Bank can set interest rates lower than would otherwise be the case. Let me quote, for example, from Treasury’s 2025 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, which refers to the savings made in that year’s Budget: “Lower aggregate demand that results from the smaller overall Budget creates room for lower interest rates that are around 30 basis points lower than they would otherwise have been by the end of the forecast period.”

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 4

Asked by: Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME, Answered by: Hon LOUISE UPSTON

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all her statements regarding main benefits and supplementary payments being wrongly suspended since the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act 2025 came into force?

Yes—in the context in which they were given. As I made clear in the House yesterday, a number of payments have been affected since the mandatory reviews Act came into force, and that is not acceptable. The Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) focus has been on ensuring payments are resumed. I have directed MSD to conduct a full review into this issue, including how many people were affected and what further steps are needed to prevent it happening again. I expect to receive the outcome of that review on 10 September.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many beneficiaries have had their benefit payments wrongly suspended since the law change?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in the House yesterday, I don’t have that number; that is what I’m expecting to get from the review on 10 September.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why, after I asked her the same question yesterday, can’t she tell New Zealanders how many beneficiaries had their benefit payments wrongly suspended, and is she just hiding behind waiting for a review?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. It is unacceptable that people have had payments suspended when they should not have. I asked the MSD, with urgency, to focus on fixing the problem, which was to ensure that people who had payments suspended had them reinstated and that they were not without funding for long. That’s what the urgency was on, and, separate to that, I have asked for a review where I am expecting all the details, including how many people have been affected by the two issues that I outlined in the House yesterday.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she take 19 days after being notified to apologise to those receiving payments, such as a disability allowance or supported living payment, for the fact that their benefits were wrongly cut?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I was first made aware of the issue on 13 August, and there were two issues identified at that point. On the Monday, MSD provided an apology and a statement associated with those two issues. I apologised the following day; I have apologised subsequently. It is not good enough that MSD have suspended payments that should not have been suspended, and the focus was on ensuring that those people who had payments suspended had the money returned to them.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many people couldn’t afford to put fuel in their car to take their children to school, couldn’t buy groceries, or couldn’t pay rent on time as a result of having their benefit wrongly cut?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I’ve said, it should not have happened, and I appreciate that for some people, the suspension of a payment would have caused hardship. That is why I asked the Ministry of Social Development to act with urgency as soon as I became aware of this issue—to focus on reinstating payments so that people did not go without.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she acknowledge that for beneficiaries living below the poverty line, even missing one week’s worth of payments could have resulted in people going hungry or being made homeless, and if so, will her review, due to be released on 10 September, include the possibility of compensation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I appreciate this shouldn’t have happened and has had an impact on those people who shouldn’t have had payments suspended.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. My question was specifically about compensation, and the Minister did not address the issue of compensation and that being within the terms of reference of that review.

SPEAKER: Well, there were two legs to your question, with all due respect, and she answered the first.

Finance

Question No. 5

Asked by: CHLÖE SWARBRICK, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “In the absence of the international oil shock, inflation would have been back in the target band”; if so, what actions, if any, has the Government taken to reduce our economy’s dependence on fossil fuels?

Yes. Without changes in petrol and diesel prices, annual Consumers Price Index inflation would have been 2.9 percent in the June quarter, according to Statistics New Zealand, which would have been within the Reserve Bank’s target range for inflation. To the second part of the question, if the member wants to go into specifics, she should put a question to the Minister for Energy, but I am happy to note that the Government has, for example, put energy projects into fast-track consenting and removed red tape holding back solar installations. I am advised that on our watch, solar connections are up 47 percent, that solar generation for March 2026 was up 50 percent from a year earlier, and that renewable electricity generation hit a record 96.5 percent in the final quarter of 2025.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Minister confirm that her Government came to office and cut active investment in decarbonising industry while also committing hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to subsidise fossil fuels, resulting in our economy having greater exposure to imported fossil fuel inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, in terms of things that have exposed us to imported fossil fuel inflation, the fateful decision to ban oil and gas exploration has exposed us to Indonesian coal prices more than any other decision. In terms of this Government’s decision to close the corporate welfare fund otherwise known as the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund, absolutely, I stand by that decision.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If the Government’s fiscal policy in the last three years had reduced instead of increased our dependence on fossil fuels, does the Minister understand that we would now be less exposed to imported fossil fuel inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the assertion in that member’s question, and I once again remind her that the stupid decision to ban oil and gas exploration has left New Zealand fundamentally exposed not only to having to import fossil fuels that we would otherwise be able to produce at lower emissions here, but it has also exposed our entire electricity system to the risk of the lights being turned off in a year where the hydro lakes aren’t full. So for the member to be asserting that somehow our Government’s decisions have led to this predicament I think shows ignorance and recklessness.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is her Government actively spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds on subsidising fossil fuel production instead of investing that money in renewable energy generation, knowing full well that those decisions increase our exposure to fossil fuel inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, again, I reject those assertions, and I also point out to the member that reducing dependence on fossil fuels requires more than simply banning fossil fuels, because in order to build renewable generation, we require a reliable electricity system that can perform during dry years and periods of low renewable output. Therefore, the Government has progressed multiple measures to strengthen energy security, reliability, competition, including advancing a winter energy reliability obligation to ensure the sector appropriately manages dry year risk, more reliable—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me, sorry—if that carries on, you’ll be carrying it on outside the House. Is that clear?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Finally, more reliable and affordable electricity enables greater electrification of transport and industry while maintaining affordable electricity for New Zealanders. If we want more investment in renewable generation, which this Government certainly does, and if that member wants that too, she should support fast track and she should support steps to ensure firming electricity is available so that people want to invest in the solar farms.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that in 2026 alone, to date, 519 megawatts of new solar capacity has been added, 229 megawatts of new wind capacity has been added, and a 200 megawatt battery has been added, representing nearly 1,000 megawatts of new generation capacity to the New Zealand electricity system?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I can confirm that this Government’s efforts to cut red and green tape are working. Renewable electricity generation built in the past three years was more than double that built in the previous eight.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the finance Minister comfortable moving ahead with the Government’s plans to underwrite a billion-dollar liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility with taxpayer money, when the economics have fundamentally changed today, even more radically with the announcement of Methanex’s closure, or will she support a new, sensible cost-benefit analysis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, when the original policy advice on the need for backup LNG in a dry year was developed, that advice was predicated on an assumption that Methanex would be closing in 2027, so we had already factored in the release of that additional gas into the market in our decision making. The member would do well to note, because she appeared not to know in her press release earlier today, that even with that additional gas, we still have a problem in a dry year. It is not enough to fill the gaping hole the last Government left us by banning oil and gas exploration.

SPEAKER: Is there someone taking photos from the gallery with a flash camera? If you’re using flash bulbs, stop.

Economic Growth

Question No. 6

Asked by: Hon GINNY ANDERSEN, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she stand by her statement, “Our Government is determined that New Zealanders who are seeking work can find it”?

Yes, and one of the ways that we are supporting job creation is by ensuring that the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) is topped up. Contrary to the wrongful assertions of some members of the House, the National Land Transport Fund is used to fund the road maintenance programme. If the NLTF budget, which provides for thousands of jobs and supports businesses in our construction industry, was to be gutted, those jobs would be put at risk. It would be economic vandalism to slash billions from that fund with no way to pay for it or no plan on how to support those who would be left without work. It would also be reckless for members opposite to propose that they would get rid of the Land Transport Fund because it’s not even used to maintain the roads. Know what you’re talking about before you make up policy on the fly.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Ginny Andersen, and nobody else.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she stand by her statement when the Student Pulse job survey shows that student confidence in New Zealand to find a job here has fallen to its lowest level in its 11-year history?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, first of all, I have confidence because I haven’t had to correct statements made on Newstalk ZB this morning after misleading people. Second of all, I have always acknowledged the labour market has been slower to recover than we would like, but we know it is a lagging indicator. Employment increased by around 13,000 people in the June quarter, and more recent indicators are very encouraging. ANZ says that employment intentions are now at their highest since February, while Westpac says that employment is rising again, job advertisements are trending higher, and it expects unemployment to have reached its cyclical peak. But there can be no guarantee of roles for members in this House who don’t even know the facts about the issues they get into yelling matches about on the radio.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she really that out of touch that she thinks—[Interruption] Start again? Does she really think—

SPEAKER: Just, sorry—people may wish to react, but they need to control themselves. A question can be asked without anybody else making any comment on the question. Start again.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she really that out of touch that she thinks New Zealanders are leaving our country by choice?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, just to add salt to the wound of that member’s ignorance on the radio this morning, no, there is no Government law requiring people to leave the country against their will. But if it is the member’s proposition that that be the proposal, then that is right up there with her telling Mark Mitchell that he had no economic credibility because she was right about the land transport fund. That member needs to ask herself whether she should really keep asking supplementaries today.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she still stand by—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on a minute. Wait—wait.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she still stand by her statement “The most important thing we can do to take families out of poverty is to ensure that they have better jobs to go to.”, and if so, why do jobs keep disappearing under her National Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I stand by my statements. No, I would not stand by a statement that says that the road maintenance fund is a separate fund. You need to go check that. It’s a separate fund. You want to be credible on financial things and you’re really kidding yourself—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon David Seymour: Would it be a gross violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to force New Zealanders, against their choice, out of the country?

SPEAKER: Well, just be careful how you answer that.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’ve heard a lot of novel policy proposals in this House, but I’ve never before heard someone claim that when New Zealanders leave the country, they do so at the mandate of the Government. But if there was one person I could have relied on to come up with that one, it would have been Ginny Andersen.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough, thank you. Just a moment. I should probably have just cut that question off and so we’ll sort it out somewhere else.

Rawiri Waititi: Who are you sending home this week?

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Rawiri Waititi: Sorry—it was over there.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I would think so. The Hon—

Rawiri Waititi: I was asking who they are sending home this week.

SPEAKER: The Hon Ginny Andersen, and no one else.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Are New Zealanders really choosing to leave or is it that disappearing jobs and rising food costs mean that so many New Zealanders just can’t afford three more years of National?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: She’s a sucker for punishment. It is the case that—

SPEAKER: No, remember that all questions and answers are actually directed through the Speaker. I’m not going to get upset by that, but please don’t start by suggesting that I’m a sucker for punishment—although anybody watching this!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, you have at any point the option to cut it off; you’d be doing us all out of some pain. It is the case that New Zealanders will choose to leave the country for a variety of reasons relating to their personal circumstances, and it is ultimately their choice to do so. Our Government is working very hard to strengthen this economy so there are more job opportunities and better opportunities to get ahead, and a key part of that is being able to commit to New Zealanders that we will not be imposing new taxes on them. I think it’s time that that member backtracked after yet another incorrect claim.

Hon Chris Bishop: Just in relation to New Zealanders who are seeking work, and making sure they can find it: has the Minister seen the comments of two teachers, who are undoubtedly looking for work, long-time Labour supporters quoted in Newsroom this morning saying that the curriculum reforms of this Government have given her the most confidence about what she was teaching in the 18 years she’d spent in the classroom?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. I can say that one of the most important ways to strengthen this economy for the future is to better educate our kids and ensure they have the literacy, numeracy skills and knowledge needed to contribute to a growing economy. It is heartening to me that despite the long-term affiliation between the teacher unions and the Labour Party, they are rejecting the proposals from that member to get rid of our successful education reforms.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. I seek leave for the Hon Ginny Andersen to have an additional supplementary question in light of how well this one’s going.

SPEAKER: Well, as you know, you can’t seek leave on behalf of another person, however, the Hon Ginny Andersen, point of order.

Hon Member: Just give her one.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Has he done any recent polling in Hutt South lately?

SPEAKER: No, no, no. [Interruption] For those people who are either watching or listening to the broadcast, please understand that we are literally—I think it’s now about six days away from the Parliament lifting for the Election, but the campaign has clearly started in here. Can we now move to question No. 7—Andy Foster.

Health

Question No. 7

Asked by: ANDY FOSTER, Answered by: Hon CASEY COSTELLO

to the Associate Minister of Health: What updates can she provide about upgrading our emergency helicopter fleet?

Last month I was privileged to attend an event to welcome the addition of a new Airbus H145 D3 helicopter to serve the Hawke’s Bay region. This new helicopter is a significant upgrade to the existing aircraft it has replaced, with enhanced automation, improved performance in challenging conditions, and superior patient care capabilities. This is great news for the people of the Hawke’s Bay, and I want to acknowledge the Hawke’s Bay Rescue Helicopter Trust for their unwavering commitment to supporting air ambulance and search and rescue services to the region since 1992.

Andy Foster: Have other regions also benefited from upgraded emergency helicopters?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes. Given the vital role the emergency helicopters play in saving lives around New Zealand, particularly for those living in remote, rural, or regional areas, this Government invested $27.3 million across 2024 and 2025 to replace ageing helicopters with 16 newer aircraft. The new Hawke’s Bay helicopter was the eighth near-new, or new, aircraft to come into operation since early 2024. Other regions that are already benefiting from upgrades include Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Greater Wellington, Nelson-Tasman, Canterbury, and the West Coast.

Andy Foster: Why are upgrades to the emergency helicopter fleet important?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In 2024, New Zealand’s emergency helicopter fleet was the oldest in the developed world. This created sustainability and reliability risks, and meant the excellent paramedics, doctors, and nurses providing treatment to patients have had to do their work within the constraints of the existing fleet. On top of that, emergency air ambulance helicopter services have come under increasing demand, which has grown more than 21 percent over the last five years. In the last calendar year alone, the emergency air ambulance fleet flew 13,274 hours—an average of more than 36 flight-hours each day. Meeting this growing demand and ensuring patients can receive the best care in their time of need is essential and requires a fleet that can spend more time in the air and less time under maintenance.

Andy Foster: What updates can she provide about the next steps in this upgrade programme?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: By June next year, the final eight replacement helicopters will be in service. The next region to benefit from an upgraded aircraft will be Gisborne, with its replacement helicopter due to enter service at the end of this month. Following that, the final seven replacement helicopters will begin operating in remaining parts of the North Island, including New Plymouth and Palmerston North, and also in Christchurch. Air ambulance staff do incredible work, and these upgrades will ensure they have the tools to deliver the best outcomes for patients.

Revenue

Question No. 8

Asked by: CARL BATES, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister of Revenue: Is the Government considering implementing a capital gains tax on small businesses?

No, this Government will not introduce a capital gains tax on small businesses. Small business owners work hard; they take risks, they employ Kiwis, and invest their own money to build something for themselves and their families. Taxing capital means less investment, less growth, and less jobs, and that’s why a capital gains tax will never be progressed by this Government.

Carl Bates: What types of small businesses could be affected by a capital gains tax on commercial properties?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Many small businesses that own property that they operate from—think of a mechanic who has a workshop, or a hairdresser with a salon, or the owner of a local dairy. A capital gains tax on commercial property would mean the owners of those properties would face a tax bill when they sell their premises. These are ordinary Kiwi business owners who have worked very hard and invested over many years to build up an asset. On this side of the House, this Government will not punish them for that.

Carl Bates: What would a capital gains tax mean for a small business owner who owns the property they operate from and sells it when they retire?

Hon SIMON WATTS: For many small business owners, the property they operate from is also part of their retirement nest egg. If that property that they own increased in value by, say, $100,000, a 28 percent capital gains tax would mean a $28,000 tax bill when they sell up. We don’t think Kiwis who have spent decades building a business should be penalised when the time comes to retire.

Carl Bates: Why does the Government believe small business owners should be able to keep the rewards of the businesses they have spent years building?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, because we want New Zealand to be a country that rewards hard work, savings, and aspiration. Small business owners put their own money on the line, they create jobs, and often spend decades building up their businesses and the property it operates from. Our message to them is simple: we back you to get ahead and we will not punish you for succeeding. No new taxes.

Hon David Seymour: Would a capital gains tax on the increase in nominal value of an asset mean that a small business owner in the position he describes would actually be paying tax on inflation even though they were no better off?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes, the reality is that the cumulative effect of a capital gains tax as asset values appreciate means that the tax burden that falls upon those business owners in that scenario would be significant. Again, that is a tax burden that is borne by business owners who have done a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into their businesses, that back the Kiwi economy and back New Zealand. We back those individuals.

Hon David Seymour: What would the Minister believe about the financial acumen of someone who designed a capital gains tax like that?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, we can see examples around the world of tax policy that is neither efficient nor effective at collecting tax revenue. If you want to identify one of the worst ways in which to collect tax revenue, then you would look at a capital gains tax, which is why, on this side of the House, we will not be implementing a capital gains tax. It is an inefficient mechanism; it attacks capital, and, by the way, capital is used to grow the economy, and on this side of the House we want to grow the economy.

Building and Construction

Question No. 9

Asked by: ARENA WILLIAMS, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister for Building and Construction: Are builders who operate as sole traders and small businesses better off today than they were three years ago?

Yes, in particular because of Investment Boost, which allows sole traders to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of new business assets, including new tools, machinery, or a work ute. That means better cashflow for sole traders, a lower tax bill, and more money in the back pocket of builders.

Arena Williams: Were the 764 construction businesses liquidated over the past year crippled by rising prices?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, it isn’t without doubt that the construction sector has been through a difficult downturn, but we are now better placed than we were three years ago. Three years ago, inflation and interest rates were high, construction costs had surged, and consents were falling. Today, interest rates and inflation are lower. We have seen 40,581 homes consented in the latest year, up 21 percent year on year. I’m very proud of this Government’s contribution.

Arena Williams: Will he defend price rises of up to 70 percent this quarter across aluminium, timber, glass, insulation, plastics, and wall panels as part of his Government’s plan for sustainable price rises?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As I noted in my prior answer, the impact and consequences of high inflation levels and high interest rates mean those costs flow through to builders and the construction sector. While I am regretful of the reality of the policy that we inherited, we are focused on fixing that and we are doing that. We’re implementing a number of policies in order to improve the situation, including a wide range of changes to the building consent legislation, which will make it easier, cheaper, and faster to build in this country.

Arena Williams: Does he stand by the previous Minister’s prediction about building price rises that “the changes we have made will dampen inflation”, when the evidence today shows that prices are still rapidly rising—so fast that projects can’t get off the ground?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes, I do stand by those statements. I would encourage the member to look forward rather than in terms of the downturn which occurred three years ago. The sector today is better positioned, it has greater confidence, and the forward look around activity is improving. We acknowledge that not every builder has yet felt that recovery, but this Government is focusing on policies such as fast-track reform, such as reform to the building consent system, such as replacement of the Resource Management Act. All of this will result in more building activity.

Arena Williams: Why did the Government cut Apprenticeship Boost from January 2025, causing new apprentices to fall 34 percent in just that year?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I don’t agree with the premise of the question raised by that member. This Government has significantly invested in the area of workforce, and it is very clear that we know that what we inherited three years ago was an unsustainable boom-and-bust cycle—announcements of projects with funding and delivery that was not there to complete them, which left Kiwi builders exposed when that pipeline inevitably fell away. Our job on this side of the House is to replace that pipeline with a credible funded pipeline, and we are getting on and executing that agenda.

Women

Question No. 10

Asked by: Dr VANESSA WEENINK, Answered by: Hon NICOLA GRIGG

to the Minister for Women: What recent announcement has she made regarding cervical screening? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. The Hon Nicola Grigg.

Thank you. Yesterday, the health Minister, Simeon Brown, and I announced that cervical screening will be free for all eligible women aged 25 to 69 from 1 March 2027. Currently, over half of women eligible for cervical screening have to pay for the appointment, and from next year almost 800,000 more women will be eligible for the free screen. We also launched New Zealand’s cervical cancer elimination plan, which sets out a pathway to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040. Successive parliamentary reviews—including one in 2018—and, also, women’s health advocates have called for this change for years. This Government has listened, this Government has funded it, and this Government is delivering it.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is making cervical screening free so important?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Well, cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers, and when it’s found early, the five-year survival rates are at around 90 percent, but once it spreads, that survival rate falls to about 19 percent. But screening only works if women can access it, and we know that cost can be a barrier for some women. By making it free for all eligible women, we are making it easier for them to access this potentially life-saving service.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What does the Cervical Cancer Elimination Plan seek to achieve?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The plan sets an ambitious goal of eliminating cervical cancer in New Zealand by 2040. It focuses on increasing HPV vaccination rates, lifting screening participation, improving follow-up care, and ensuring timely treatment. New Zealand has the tools to make cervical cancer a disease of the past, and this Government is taking the steps necessary to get there, rather than just talking about it.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What does the announcement say about the Government’s priorities?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: It shows this Government is focused on practical action that actually improves health outcomes for women. We’re investing in prevention and early detection because that saves lives—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just—sorry. Look, just a minute. This is a reasonably serious sort of topic, and I can’t understand why you’re chipping at it so hard. Just let the answer come.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: May I start again, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Yes, but shorten it up.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Wonderful, because it actually shows that this Government is focused on practical action that actually improves health outcomes for women. We’re investing in prevention and early detection because that saves lives and reduces pressure on the health system. Importantly, we are able to deliver free cervical screening for all eligible women without introducing a new tax to pay for it. That is what good Government looks like: improving public services while managing taxpayers’ money responsibly.

Economic Growth

Question No. 11

Asked by: Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she stand by her statement that “grocery prices are high by international standards and Kiwi shoppers are being poorly served by a market effectively dominated by just two major players—Foodstuffs and Woolworths”, and, if so, what will she do to address this poor service for Kiwi shoppers?

Yes, the Commerce Commission’s August Annual Grocery Report says that New Zealand grocery prices remain higher than the OECD average and that major supermarkets still hold 82 percent of the market. The fundamental problem is too little competition. That is why this Government is removing barriers that have kept competitors out of the supermarket sector, strengthening protections for suppliers and competition law, and making it easier to build and replicate new supermarkets.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does she accept the Commerce Commission’s findings that the supermarket duopoly has been making over $1 million a day in excess profits, and is that fair on regular people struggling to put food on the table?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I support the Commerce Commission’s findings but not necessarily the way that they are paraphrased by Green Party members.

Hon Marama Davidson: When, if ever, will people see any results at the checkout from her long-awaited supermarket reforms?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is the case that food price inflation has reduced dramatically, with the latest data showing that food price pressure has been easing, with food prices increasing just 0.1 percent in July, with annual food inflation at 1.9 percent. This compares with peaks for food price inflation under the last Government, which reached over 12 percent.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will she join the 86 percent of the country who want the Government to ban price gouging by supermarkets like Australia has done?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, no, I do not think that there is a workable proposal on the table for doing that. There are really big questions that need to be asked to determine a maximum price so that costs aren’t shifted elsewhere in the supply chain or on to other products, to define what is an excess profit margin, and to consider the wider effects that that would have. Determining an excessive price, members, is also inherently complex. It requires judgments about the cost of supplying individual products and what constitutes a reasonable profit margin. Of course, I know that there are some members in this House who would love a Soviet-style regime where the Government sets the price for everything.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will she intervene on behalf of Kiwi shoppers to break up the supermarket duopoly and create a third competitor to lower grocery bills, and, if not, is it because David Seymour won’t let her?

SPEAKER: No, you can ask the question again, but you can leave the last bit off it.

Hon Marama Davidson: I’ll ask a different supplementary, Mr Speaker. What are the Commerce Commission’s findings in relationship to the duopoly’s profit, and does she agree they are excessive?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I recall, the Commerce Commission’s various annual grocery reports indicate that the margin on groceries in New Zealand appears larger than that in other markets, and this has been directly linked to the lack of competition in our market, with an effective duopoly. That is why this Government has progressed a range of changes to lessen the barriers to competition and ensure there is more of the competition you would expect in a workable market.

Housing

Question No. 12

Asked by: INGRID LEARY, Answered by: Hon TAMA POTAKA

to the Associate Minister of Housing: What advice, if any, has he received about changes to the Government’s retirement village repayment policy following the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon’s statement that there would be a “surprise” retirement village announcement?

I receive a wide range of advice, particularly in places like Linda Jones Ryman retirement village and Foxbridge Bupa in the mighty electorate of Hamilton West, and, importantly, I listen to and interact with and talk with our treasured seniors and their whānau on a regular basis on what the policy reforms mean for them. I also continue to engage with operators, the Retirement Commissioner, and other stakeholders. That advice has covered things like repayment time frames, affordability, sector liquidity, and other changes that could apply to current and future residents. It confirms that we and our dignified kaumātua in retirement villages need a fair and balanced reform package.

Ingrid Leary: Will he reduce the maximum repayment period from 12 months; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we know, when we commenced the mahi on the reform package, there was a range of different issues that were confronting the sector, including dispute resolution, the ownership and maintenance of chattels, and disclosure and transparency requirements, as well as exit repayment time frames. What we have done is land on a fair reform package that includes a six-month interest arrangement and a 12-month mandatory repayment time frame, and we think that is a fair and balanced package, alongside the other changes we have proposed.

Ingrid Leary: Why did he choose a 12-month mandate when officials advised that only 5 to 10 percent of residents would benefit?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There is a range of different expert analysts in this House and beyond, some of whom have actually suggested maybe a three-month mandatory repayment time frame is suitable, but the ministry itself and the retirement village operators have said that that is not feasible. It could create a $3 billion to $4 billion liquidity requirement. It could result in new residents paying $60,000 to $120,000 extra to buy—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific regarding advice that he had received from his own officials regarding a time frame that he and his Government are proposing. He has spent this entire time talking about why he doesn’t agree with a three-month time frame, as opposed to actually answering the question about the advice that relates to his proposal of a 12-month time frame.

SPEAKER: But the question itself asked about a five-month time frame.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: No, it didn’t, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, sorry, I thought it did.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll ask the member. Did you mention a five-month time frame?

Ingrid Leary: No, I mentioned his 12-month time frame.

SPEAKER: As opposed to what? I definitely heard “five”.

Ingrid Leary: I asked him whether he would reduce it.

SPEAKER: To?

Ingrid Leary: I asked him if he was prepared to reduce his time frame.

SPEAKER: OK, fair enough.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The “five” that you heard was in reference to the advice that the ministry gave the Minister that only 5 to 10 percent of residents would benefit from this Government’s 12-month proposal, and so far—

SPEAKER: I did pick that up. I had—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yeah, that’s the only reference.

SPEAKER: —thought that it was five months.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes, well, there are a number of different views across the House and, actually, out in the sector around what an appropriate time frame could be, but the ministry itself and retirement operators have said that a three- and a six-month time frame would not be feasible. It could potentially break the sector because of the liquidity requirements, the increase in costs and incoming residents, and the increase on a per-week, per-unit basis of between $130 and $260—and we’re talking about a cost of living crisis. The other thing is that once you reduce the repayment time frame too much, all of a sudden the retirement villages put the handbrake on amenities like bowling greens and swimming pools, and, actually, the most important thing, which is the aged healthcare provision in these places. That is not a situation that anyone in this House would countenance for our treasured, beloved, and cherished seniors.

Ingrid Leary: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No one else.

Ingrid Leary: Will he apply his mandate to all 56,000 current residents so that their licences don’t become less marketable than new licences; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It is important for the public to have confidence in contractual certainty and the integrity of contract law. We don’t just throw contract law to the wind, unlike others that we know. It is important to ensure a fair and balanced reform package that acknowledges the needs of current and future residents. We will continue to get feedback, but what we won’t do is change the material provisions of 45,000 contracts just to hand out free stuff.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that an earlier repayment period is theoretically feasible, but it comes with very large and expensive trade-offs that will actually be felt by existing and future retirement village residents?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can confirm that, and it is important that we land a fair and balanced reform package that acknowledges a range of issues, including the need for us to continue to have contractual certainty, to have uplifted consumer protections, and to continue the provision of aged healthcare, which would be severely compromised in the event that we bring the repayment time frames back too far.

Ingrid Leary: Will his reform include an automatic initial repayment of 10 percent of residents’ own money, as recommended by officials from multiple Government agencies; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Cabinet has made decisions in November 2025, and we will continue to receive feedback. If there are any new Cabinet decisions to be made, we’ll let Parliament, the member, and the public know.

Ingrid Leary: Why is he listening only to operators, rather than to retirement village residents, who have waited far too long when it comes to getting their own money back?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I visit residents in retirement villages throughout the country. I’ve been to places like Russley in Christchurch, to places like Hilda Ross—a great National Party member from many years ago—over there in Hamilton East. Also, there is the Metlifecare, out at Forest Lake in Hamilton West—I’m always going to mention Hamilton. It’s important that we ensure that we uphold contractual certainty, that we uphold contractual law, and that we land a fair and balanced reform package that sustains the test of time but also ensures that the retirement village sector, the aged-care sector, and the property sector actually continue and they don’t break. On our side of the House, we don’t just get out and throw contracts to the wind. We are very, very mindful of the need for consumer protections but also of the need to ensure that we not only have a sustainable retirement village sector but also a sustainable provision of healthcare across a variety of forms.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a short break while those who need to leave the House for other business do so quickly and quietly.