Oral Questions to Ministers

This week, the Government reached a huge milestone in addressing one of the most vexing issues faced by business and workers across the country. This week, the Employment Leave Bill was introduced to Parliament. It will bring simplicity and logic to the way employment leave is calculated, which prevents many headaches for both employers and employees from getting payments wrong. The Holidays Act is complex, confusing, and it has led to huge remediation costs. I am pleased we’re one step closer to getting rid of it.

💬 Laura McClure: How is the Employment Leave Bill different from the current Holidays Act?

The biggest change in the Employment Leave Bill is a switch from a weeks-based entitlement system to an hours-based accrual system for both annual leave and sick leave. There will be no more wrestling with the definition of “weeks” and “days”, adjusting balances when hours of work change, or trying to define what constitutes a “working week” for staff with variable schedules. It also means no more waiting for six months to access sick leave, or 12 months to access annual leave. For most people, leave entitlements will stay the same but what will change is how it is calculated.

💬 Laura McClure: How long have previous workplace relations and safety Ministers worked on fixing the Holidays Act legislation?

When I came into this job as workplace relations and safety Minister, I was well aware of the history of Holidays Act reform, and it has been plagued by multiple delays and a growing sense of frustration from the public that the Government can’t just get the job done. The previous Government set up the Holidays Act Taskforce in 2018, but by the 2023 election, draft legislation still wasn’t complete and ready for introduction. I am proud of the significant progress made already, to have legislation ready and available for public feedback—a milestone that successive Ministers tried and failed to reach.

💬 Laura McClure: What feedback did she receive when she consulted on draft legislation largely based on the previous Government’s decisions?

This Government agreed to test whether the previous Government’s work was hitting the mark by going out for targeted consultation on the work that they had done to date, rather than having to start from scratch. Many submitters indicated that the general framework of that bill was not a significant improvement on the current Act, and that a fundamental change would better address longstanding issues. In fact, 70 percent of technical experts, and 67 percent of employers expressed a preference for more significant change to the annual leave provisions. The Law Society, in particular, described that draft bill as “unnecessarily complex” and “difficult to follow”, with some provisions more complicated than what we have now. A large retail franchise owner told us that if a business of their size had challenges interpreting the proposed changes, then small to medium employers would have found it particularly challenging to navigate those changes.

💬 Laura McClure: What reports has she seen on the Employment Leave Bill?

Since the bill has been introduced, I’ve seen that the Employers and Manufacturers Association has said “it’s good to see the reforms maintaining momentum as this overhaul has been needed for a very long time.” Business Canterbury has said that “businesses will be very pleased to see this bill enter Parliament, and congratulations must go to the Government and Minister van Velden for taking a piece of legislation that has been stuck in review for years and delivering changes that will make it clearer and more workable for both employers and employees.” Simpson Grierson have said that it has been “advocating for an overhaul of the Holidays Act for more than a decade, with a key focus on the need to move from a ‘days’ and ‘weeks’ based model to an hours-based framework”, which this bill does. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: I’d just refer the House to Speaker’s ruling 204/1. Particularly on the Government side, it would be useful to consider that as we progress.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Yes, and particularly our actions not to spend $66 billion on Government spending and wasting it, particularly our actions not to triple the debt and incur a $10 billion interest pay, and particularly our actions not to run up inflation and interest rates to record highs. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just hold on. A barrage can come from both sides. I don’t think Ministers answering questions need the support of those who are sitting behind them.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How do increasing parking fines, more than doubling vehicle insurance levies, increasing the cost of registering a car, or his proposed 22c-a-litre hike in fuel tax help Kiwi motorists with the cost of living?

Well, as the member would well understand, a lot of increases in fees and charges across New Zealand are linked to increases in rates. That’s why I would really ask the member and his party to consider supporting our rates cap work, which is a big, significant driver of the cost of living for New Zealanders and it’s running at four times that of inflation.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that the Government withdrawing funding from local government for things like roading and water infrastructure has had any impact on the rates increases that councils are imposing across the country?

Well, again, I just would encourage the member to support the Government around the local government reforms, removing regional councils, Resource Management Act reforms, fast-track legislation—it’s all designed to get things done for New Zealanders and to lower the cost of living.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ll ask it again: does he believe that the Government withdrawing funding from local councils for things like roading projects and water infrastructure has had any impact on the increase in rates that people are seeing across the country?

No. As we’ve said from the very beginning, we want councils focused on what they can do. We don’t think light shows on public toilet blocks here in Wellington is a good use of public money. We don’t think putting bike lanes up Molesworth Street is actually a very good use of money; it would be better in three waters assets. No, councils need to get back to basics. We encourage the member and his party to actually support good, common-sense reform. [Interruption]

💬 Hon David Seymour: Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: Start it when the House is quiet.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that a Government shouldn’t measure its success by how much it spends and, in fact, wasteful spending is itself inflationary?

It is, and a good example would be, under the previous Government and the previous Minister of Education—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—well, wait, hang on—

—classrooms were $1.2 million—

💬 SPEAKER: That’s enough. The answer was given. Using a supplementary question to attack the Opposition is not allowed.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How did cutting public transport funding, forcing some commuters to pay up to 50 percent more to go to work or school, reduce cost of living pressures for New Zealanders?

Well, I can tell you what is making the most difference to cost of living pressures for New Zealanders, and that is a Government that’s got control of spending. It isn’t spending $66 billion and half of it we don’t know what we’re getting for it. It doesn’t run up debt three times, and therefore we have high interest payments and high interest rates. I’d just say to the member, if he’s very, very serious about helping the Government lower the cost of living for New Zealanders across the system, he shouldn’t be progressing a Reserve Bank of New Zealand dual mandate, he should have supported the income tax thresholds increase that we had, he should be supporting RMA reforms and fast track.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There was no mention of public transport funding at all in that diatribe from the Prime Minister. Perhaps he might like to address the question that was asked, which was around cutting public transport subsidies.

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on—wait on. No talking while someone is doing a point of order, tempting as it may be. Start again.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I can repeat the question, if you like, Mr Speaker, but the ultimate—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, no, I’m going to repeat it back to you, which is going to be my answer to your point of order, so carry on.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The Prime Minister has not addressed the cutting of public transport subsidies, and the increase in cost of living that that’s resulted in for New Zealanders.

💬 SPEAKER: The question was “Has it contributed to the cost of living?”—

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: “How”.

💬 SPEAKER: It might well have said that, but the Prime Minister’s answer said, “I will tell you how”, so I’m not going to pull that up.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No, don’t—hang on—

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does saying, “I will tell you how” and then saying something completely unrelated address the question?

💬 SPEAKER: It’s not unrelated, because it was talking about how the cost of living is being addressed.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, further point, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, don’t—hang on. Not a good idea—not a good idea to keep the argument going. Just ask the question again.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker—fresh point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How did cutting public transport—

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on. Fresh point of order, the Hon David Seymour.

💬 Hon David Seymour: I don’t know whether it’d help to draw the House’s attention to Standing Order 390, which says that questions should not contain ironical expressions, which is actually what the member has been trafficking the whole time.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I don’t accept that. Thank you. It’s not helpful at all.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Just to be clear, are you asking me to repeat the question?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you. How did cutting public transport funding, forcing some commuters to pay up to 50 percent more to get to work or school, reduce the cost of living pressures on New Zealand families?

💬 Hon David Seymour: That’s an ironical expression, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m sorry, look—do you want to stay in the House or not?

💬 Hon David Seymour: Absolutely.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, you can have an opinion, but don’t express it like that.

I just refer the member to my previous answer. The major driver of the costs of living challenges that New Zealanders have been experiencing is actually the Government spending out of control, driving up inflation, driving up interest rates, putting the economy into a difficult place, and people losing their jobs. I would just say, with respect to public transport—if I may, to address the question—this is a Government that has stopped Auckland Light Rail, because $300 million was wasted on that; $80 million on an Auckland walking bridge; and $110 million on Let’s Get Wellington Moving, which didn’t move at all.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government cut funding for apprenticeships in critical infrastructure areas, exacerbating skill shortages and depriving young Kiwis of future job opportunities?

As I said to the member yesterday, I’m actually very pleased with the fact that this is a Government that’s put together a 30-year infrastructure pipeline to give the industry and sector great clarity about the projects that are coming. It’s also a Government that has made sure that we get inflation and interest rates down so the development sector, who do the building and construction in this country, can crack on with it. It’s also a Government that’s lowered the cost of building and construction by opening up the market to overseas building products and doing a lot of common-sense reforms that the previous administration didn’t tackle.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just a moment.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did cutting $2 billion from school-building funding, $1.5 billion from State house building, and funding from hospital rebuilds contribute to the $5 billion collapse in construction activity between when he became Prime Minister and last year?

I’m actually very proud about the fact that we are investing in the Nelson Hospital rebuild, the Dunedin rebuild—that we got that project the right size after the hospital pass we literally got from the other side. I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing on education and building new classrooms for our schools across this country. It turns out you don’t need to pay $1.2 million a classroom; if you pay $600,000, you can get twice as many built, and that’s what we’re doing. It’s a fantastic record. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Before we progress, that general running commentary behind the Prime Minister is getting a little bit too much, so we’ll have no more of it, thank you.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The backbench like to do things behind the Prime Minister, Mr Brownlee!

💬 SPEAKER: I think you should be pleased your microphone is off!

Finance

Question No. 3

Last September, the Treasury released its latest statement on the long-term fiscal position for New Zealand. These statements are prepared every four years, and they look at least 40 years into the future. The latest statement is not advice to one particular Government; rather, it describes the environment that successive Governments will face over the next few decades. The key factor, of course, is the ageing of our population. A greater proportion of the New Zealand population will be receiving superannuation and needing healthcare, and a shrinking proportion will be working and paying tax. As a result, successive Governments will face difficult choices around spending, revenue, and management of public assets and liabilities.

💬 David MacLeod: What does the Treasury say about shorter-term actions?

What the books look like in the short term makes a big difference to how they evolve in the longer term. In the Long-term Fiscal Statement, Treasury says, “An important first step is to create fiscal space for future shocks and choices by returning to surplus and bringing debt down to more prudent levels”. That, of course, mirrors the COVID-19 royal commission statement that “There is a pressing need to reduce public debt to provide a buffer for future pandemics or other economic shocks.” The commission pointed out that the previous Government spent too much during COVID and for too long. This Government’s fiscal strategy is about returning to surplus and bending the debt curve over, from going up to going down.

💬 David MacLeod: What is the Government doing to get the books back in order?

Well, for one, we haven’t committed to find $12.8 billion for an unaffordable pay equity approach without knowing where the money will come from. The Government is investing in front-line public services like healthcare, education, and law and order, and we’re funding those investments to a large degree by making savings elsewhere in Government. The Opposition has opposed every single one of those savings measures, and so let’s be clear about what that approach means. All else being equal, if Government spending in Budget 2024 and Budget 2025 had not been offset by our Government’s savings, this year’s operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses deficit, would be $25 billion, and net core Crown debt would be on track to reach 59 percent of GDP by the end of the forecast period. That would be a terrible starting point for dealing with the challenges of an ageing population.

💬 David MacLeod: What does the Treasury recommend about prudent debt?

Well, in the Long-term Fiscal Statement, Treasury restates its advice from 2022 on a ceiling for net core Crown debt. It notes that New Zealand faces ongoing risks from natural hazards, including a 75 percent chance that the Alpine Fault in the South Island will rupture in the next 50 years, and it emphasises again that the maximum prudent level of debt for New Zealand in normal times is 50 percent of GDP. The latest Treasury forecasts show debt staying under 50 percent of GDP and the books returning to surplus. That will take work to achieve. Ongoing savings will be necessary, but this is the starting point that New Zealand needs when considering the long-term fiscal position and our resilience to future shocks.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she agree with Treasury’s statement in that very report that says—and I quote—“costs associated with achieving New Zealand’s commitments under the Paris Agreement are one of the most material fiscal risks.”; if so, what is her plan to achieve the nationally determined contribution, as Treasury has also said that every year that Governments refuse to do domestic mitigation, the cost increases to the tune of billions for offshore mitigation?

I agree that there could be a range of approaches to meeting that obligation. I’m aware that some parties’ preference would be to send an enormous multibillion-dollar cheque overseas.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Congo.

That is not my preference. I reject the member’s claim—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: No money for the Congo.

—that we are not undergoing domestic mitigation efforts.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry—excuse me. Is someone in distress there? It’s starting to sound like it. Start the answer again.

It is the case that there are a range of ways in which New Zealand could meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement, and I am aware that some parties in this Parliament would prefer to send a cheque for many billions of dollars overseas. That is not my preference. I reject the member’s claim that this is not a Government undertaking domestic mitigation efforts, and I suggest she join me one day to visit a farm where AgriZeroNZ are doing world-leading research into reducing methane emissions from our world-leading dairy industry. That’s mitigation effort right there.

Prime Minister

Question No. 4

💬 DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Tēnā koe e te Pīka—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on. Questions are heard in silence.

Yes.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister accept that Aotearoa has higher average sunshine hours than Germany, one of the world’s leading solar markets, yet only one in 35 New Zealand homes has rooftop solar?

Well, there’s more for us to do, and we’re very interested in rooftop solar—we think it’s part of the solution, ultimately. That’s why this Government’s made some consenting changes to make it easier for people to do so. But what’s really exciting is the fact that we’ve got a renewables boom going on in this country, and that’s because of the great energy policy that we’re building.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If that is the case, why is the Government prioritising an expensive LNG import terminal instead of putting cheaper, home-grown solar power on the roofs of New Zealand families?

Well, actually, good energy policy is “and, and, and”, and what we have done is made sure that by getting access to thermal firming energy, that actually enables more renewable investment to take place; gives more certainty to the market; and, importantly, covers off our dry-year risk, which of course the member would understand drives into a risk premium, which leads to higher power bills.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How many households could be fitted for solar power systems for the $1 billion price tag of the liquefied natural gas—LNG—import terminal and the $3 billion price tag of the landlord tax cuts?

Well, I think the member’s mixing her drinks in that question, but I just say that—as I said in my previous answer—it’s an “and, and, and”. This is a Government that’s incredibly proud that we actually have a renewables boom under way in this country. The settings that we have put in place through fast track, which none of the Opposition parties supported, has enabled that to happen. The work that we’re doing to reach out to investors overseas and here in New Zealand to expand solar, to expand wind, to expand geothermal is all very good. The fact that we have coal, the fact that we have gas—that’s all good because we need that for dry-year risk, and that’s actually about lowering power bills.

💬 SPEAKER: Can I just suggest that the Prime Minister’s a little cautious about some of the descriptions he might put on other people’s interpretations of various situations.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Prime Minister aware that the modelling from Rewiring Aotearoa shows that if 80 percent of New Zealand homes had solar, it could provide the equivalent backup of up to 29 days of additional hydro storage?

In answer to my earlier questions, that’s why this Government’s very interested in the role that rooftop solar can play in our total energy mix.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the Government choosing imported gas and the wellbeing of landlords over home-grown solar energy for whānau in Aotearoa?

Well, I reject the characterisation of that question.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 5

We inherited an economic downturn where close to 190,000 people were on the jobseeker benefit, and jobseeker numbers have been rising steadily since 2022, before we took office. Just yesterday, the COVID-19 royal commission inquiry found Labour’s increased spending drove up Government debt and inflation, which leads to higher unemployment. That’s why the forecast has always been due to get worse before it gets better. That’s why we’re fixing the basics—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is a massive speech that isn’t responding to the question.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s right—it was a question on notice, too.

—and building a welfare system focused on getting more people into work.

💬 SPEAKER: I’d just make the point that, actually, members cannot demand a particular type of answer. That’s always been the case.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Can I ask the Minister how many people will have to come off the benefit for the Government to reach their target of 50,000 fewer people on a jobseeker support benefit?

Well, as I’ve said in this House, we are absolutely focused on reducing the number of people on the jobseeker benefit, which is why I’m proud, despite still having the hangover of the previous Government’s excessive spending in the COVID years, we are seeing 83,000 New Zealanders exit benefit into jobs, which is great news, and I thought that member would celebrate with me.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: No, thank you. But does the Minister—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Wait, Mr Jackson, just—the House needs to listen to questions in silence.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister, does she stand by her statement that “2026 will be the year that my progress towards the jobseeker target starts heading in the right direction.”, and, if so, when does she expect to see a reduction?

Well, absolutely, yes, and what we are seeing are green shoots in terms of economic recovery if you look at the latest filled jobs data, showing the strongest annual growth in the hospitality sector. We’re also seeing confidence in the construction sector. We’re seeing the labour force participation rate increasing, which is one of the earliest indicators of labour market recovery. So, absolutely, I’m encouraged by what we are seeing. We are dealing with what we inherited from the previous Government, where Auckland was locked down for longer than it needed to be and the Government spent excessively, which led to higher unemployment.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Has she asked officials to model the long-term social and fiscal costs of pushing more people into severe hardship because of her policies, or is she only interested in rhetoric rather than action?

Well, just later in the day, we will be debating in this Parliament the Treasury long-term forecast or impact of what we saw during the COVID years that very much directly affected New Zealanders and the challenges they face today. So I suggest that member look in the mirror.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: When the Prime Minister promised to fix the economy, did she advise him that his policies would instead lead to more than the population of Wellington city in terms of jobseeker benefits, and, if not, why not?

Well, I said in my answer to the primary question: unfortunately, we inherited trends of rising numbers on the jobseeker benefit—unemployment has been increasing since 2021, and the jobseeker numbers going up since 2022. What we have done to fix the basics is create a far more active welfare system, including what we launched last week: an industry partnership with chambers of commerce up and down New Zealand, to support more New Zealanders into work.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order. I don’t believe the Minister went anywhere near the question. The question—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, hold on, wait on a minute. You started your question by referring to a policy that was part of a 2023 election, and asked what advice the Minister had given to the Prime Minister at that time. It’s only reasonable that she looks at what the circumstances were at that time.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: You think so?

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: OK, I’ll go to my next supplementary, then, Mr Speaker. To the Minister: why should hard-working New Zealanders trust the Minister to fix unemployment and reduce job seekers when, under her watch, job seekers have increased every quarter, unemployment is at a 10-year high, and homelessness is out of control?

Because it’s very simple: this is a Government that has been absolutely focused on reducing excessive Government spending which led to higher levels of inflation, higher interest rates, which leads to unemployment. So we are dealing with the root causes of what we have inherited. That’s why we have been focused on economic growth. We know that is what drives down the cost of living and supports more opportunities for New Zealanders being in work. If I look at one area we are focused on economic growth, it is tourism and hospitality—to the year to 23 March, an extra 9,000 in employment, just in that one sector alone.

Health

Question No. 6

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 6, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption] The House will be quiet to listen to an answer again.

In the context they were made, yes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the royal commission find that the Ministry of Health provided advice to former Ministers Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall regarding concerns about mandating the COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds, and, if so, when?

The royal commission found that a briefing raising concerns from the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group was provided to the Hon Chris Hipkins on 22 December 2021.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm whether former Ministers Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall took any action or raised any questions following advice received on 22 September 2021 about concerns surrounding the mandating of COVID19 double-dose vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds?

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How can a Minister in the current Government possibly answer questions about an action that a Minister in a previous Government—of which he was not part—did or didn’t take?

💬 SPEAKER: No, the question was about what the royal commission had said.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, that didn’t mention the royal commission at all.

💬 SPEAKER: Then we might re-word the question. So the Standing Orders are very clear and have been for a long, long time. You can’t bring another party into a question—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we had—

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on, I’m just ruling on a point of order. Just give me a minute.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, maybe I could help you, before you make an improper ruling.

💬 SPEAKER: It hasn’t happened so far. My point simply is—I’m just talking about Speakers’ rulings that have been around for a long time, and you can’t use a supplementary question or a question in the House to attack the Opposition. You can ask the Minister questions about what the Minister is dealing with at the moment.

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has delegated responsibility to respond to the royal commission into COVID-19, a report which—

💬 SPEAKER: That’s right.

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: —specifically notes and names Chris Hipkins.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s right. I’ve just made that point.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Right. In the context of the royal commission’s report, can the Minister confirm whether former Ministers Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall took any action or raised any questions following advice received on 22 September 2021 about concerns around the mandating of the COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds?

The royal commission did not highlight any actions from former Ministers following this, and I’m not aware of any.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the royal commission find that either of the former Ministers Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall acknowledged safety concerns about mandating the COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds, and, if so, on what date were those comments made?

The royal commission found the briefing received by Ministers on 22 December 2021, which raised concerns from the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group, was considered by the Hon Ayesha Verrall on 7 January 2022. The royal commission also found that the Hon Ayesha Verrall made a comment on the specific advice related to the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group’s concerns. I’m advised that this comment referenced data relating to safety concerns.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did two-dose vaccine mandates remain in place for 12- to 17-year-olds, despite former Ministers Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall having been advised of concerns about mandating the COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for this age group?

Yes, I’m advised the vaccine mandates in workplace settings for the age group remained in place until late January 2022, and that COVID-19 vaccine certificate requirements for this age group remained in place until April 2022.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: So is he concerned that advice regarding the health risks of mandating the COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds, who numbered in their hundreds of thousands, was not made available to the public?

💬 SPEAKER: No, he can’t comment on that. That’s an action of a previous Government—or inaction, or whatever way you put it—but it’s not something that he has direct responsibility for and it’s not something that’s reflected on in the royal commission report.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. On this most serious matter, where over 100,000 people were affected by the failure to warn them or their parents or the public—are you saying that that’s not a proper question to be asked in this House, as to whether he’s concerned about that, and what its possible legal ramifications mean for us, not now—10 years, 20 years, or 30 years from now? Surely that’s what this Parliament’s about.

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Peters, I deeply reject any suggestion that I am not concerned about those many hundreds of thousands of people who are affected or that I don’t know the circumstances of some of those people who are affected. But it is not an appropriate question. It can be worded in a different way, and if it was worded in a different way, it would comply with Standing Orders. You’ve been here a long time. You know what the rules are. You can’t use a question about a report like this to attack another side; you can talk about the report, and then you can talk about the Minister’s response to that report.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: All right. Has he received any legal advice in the last 24 hours raising concerns about the Government’s future liability for the public failing to have been notified in the first place?

I have not received such advice, but what I would say is that the report does raise some serious concerns in relation to the advice that was provided at the time. Ultimately, improving immunisation rates is a key policy of this Government, and it is critically important that we have transparency around the information in this regard, so that the Government—and I have made that expectation very clear to the Director-General of Health.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he believe that the entire point of the COVID inquiry was to identify accountability and responsibility and to identify reasons for the future, and, if so, does he believe a “nothing to see here” attitude from the previous Government Ministers is remotely good enough at this point in our history?

💬 SPEAKER: You can answer the first part of that question.

The Government has welcomed—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, yesterday, you heard countless objections and points of order right at the beginning of the Prime Minister’s speech, denying any knowledge or any accountability. One day later, they’re hiding behind Standing Orders. That cannot be the way this Parliament operates.

💬 SPEAKER: No, it’s not doing that at all. The reality is that we have a way in which questions can be answered and a way in which questions can be directed. It’s not the Hon Simeon Brown’s decision to reflect on the accountability of anyone else in the context of this. Some of that stuff is for the public to decide. But the first part of the question—the Hon Simeon Brown.

The Government has welcomed the royal commission report. New Zealanders lived through one of the most significant global public health and economic events. They made real sacrifices. We will now be considering the recommendations from both the phase one and phase two reports and expect to outline our response in July, ensuring any future decisions balance the health and economic needs of all New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 181/3: can you clarify, sir, please, why a question related to the conduct of former Ministers covered in a royal commission report, which could lead a reasonable person to conclude they were either grossly negligent or they deliberately concealed the information—why is that not allowable?

💬 SPEAKER: No, that’s an opinion, and I’d refer to the Minister to Speaker’s ruling 180/4, which makes it permissible and legitimate for a Minister answering questions to refer to something that came from a previous Government that landed on their plate. The royal commission report that we’re dealing with here is retrospective and quite different, and so you do apply the fairness in the situation. But anyone who reads that report will reach their own conclusions.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday in this House, the then Minister responsible for health denied all knowledge; today, it has been proven by evidence that that denial yesterday was false and wrong. Now, what’s available to this House 24 hours later, when that’s allowed to go by as being a totally unfair question to ask, and it ought to be held accountable? There are standards of this political environment we’re in now where Ministers are called to account—that’s the whole idea—and former Ministers as well. But in the report, it said she knew, and yesterday in this House, publicly, she is saying the reverse. This is a contempt of this House and she should have been ruled out yesterday and told to come down today and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Standing Order 418 is the remedy, for the member, that he’s just asked for.

Prime Minister

Question No. 7

Yes.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement: “As Prime Minister, I have a responsibility to do everything I can to bolster the existing rules-based order and to further strengthen New Zealand’s position offshore.”, and, if so, will he commit to supporting countries and peoples that are victims of illegal aggression?

In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to providing material support to the 700,000 people displaced from their homes in Lebanon by Israeli attacks, and, if not, why not?

Well, Israel obviously has a right to self-defence against Hezbollah. You know, we would note that their response has been heavy-handed, it’s causing mass displacement, and it actually further destabilises what is already a very fragile region.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: What does he see as the difference between the people displaced by a war of aggression in Lebanon, whom he will not commit to providing aid to, and the people displaced by Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, which he did provide aid to?

Well, that comparison is embarrassing. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: What is the criteria for his Government to introduce a blanket visa extension for people in New Zealand whose countries are at war or under attack, as was done for Ukraine?

I just would reassure the member that with respect to Iranians that are in New Zealand and need a visa extension—my advice that I’ve received is that there’s around about 130 whose visas might expire in the next two months—we have an excellent Immigration New Zealand response and a dedicated team that’s able to help them on a case-by-case basis. Of course, the Minister is monitoring the situation closely, and if she needs to change special directions in due course, she’ll give that some consideration.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Muhammad, an Iranian man with a 72-year-old mother on a visitor visa, who told The Post, “If they automatically extended the visas that would have been a great help from the Government and also peace of mind. They did that for Ukrainians … with a pathway to residency. So for us, it could be the same.”; if so, will he push for a blanket extension of visas for people affected by the war?

As I said earlier, I just encourage Muhammad to reach out to Immigration New Zealand if his visa is expiring. The important thing is that Immigration New Zealand has set up dedicated resources and a team to actually respond to visa issues case by case.

Housing

Question No. 8

Just this morning, I saw a report from Cotality showing that housing affordability in New Zealand has improved to its best level in almost a decade due to stable housing prices, rising wages, and falling mortgage rates. There are many measures of housing affordability, and all are looking good under this Government. Cotality says that in quarter four 2025, the house price to income ratio was 7.2, down from above 10 in 2021. The average years needed to save for a home deposit has also fallen from 13.4 years post-COVID to 9.6 years today. To top it all off, there’s been a huge improvement in mortgage payments as a percentage of household income, down from twin peaks of 56 percent in early 2022 and late 2023, to 42 percent now. This coalition Government doesn’t just talk about it; we deliver on housing affordability.

💬 Dan Bidois: What other evidence has he seen on improved housing affordability in New Zealand?

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has a housing affordability indicator dashboard on its website. It’s got three indicators—deposit affordability, mortgage serviceability, and rent affordability—and all three have improved since we came into Government. The rent affordability indicator shows that rents are the most affordable they have been since the series started in 2003, and over the last two years, with responsible fiscal management—mihi ana ki a koe e te Minita Pūtea Willis—an improvement of economic conditions. We have created the environment for low inflation and low interest rates, and since December 2023, the mortgage serviceability indicator has improved by 60 percent.

💬 Dan Bidois: What does more affordable housing mean for Kiwis?

Improved housing affordability means more pūtea in the hand for Kiwis. It means that our whānau can go to the movies now and again, or nanny can buy—especially in Hamilton West—rugby boots for her mokopuna for the season. It also makes homeownership more accessible. We’re starting to see more affordable housing bear fruit for whānau. In the December 2025 quarter, first-home buyers dominated New Zealand’s housing market and accounted for 28.4 percent of property purchases—the highest level ever recorded by Cotality. Go the Chiefs.

💬 Dan Bidois: Has he seen any evidence of average rent prices going up 10 percent in the last year?

Unlike some members of this House have asserted, no. I’m advised that the credible measures of rent price changes show that rents are flat. For instance, the stock measure, Stats New Zealand’s rent price index measure, shows rents up 1.2 percent in the year to January 2026—lower than inflation. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s measure shows rents up 0.4 percent in the year to January 2026.

💬 Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: MBIE bond data.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s tenancy bond data, Prime Minister, shows median rents down 1.6 percent in the year to January 2026, and TradeMe data shows rents down 3.1 percent in the year to January 2026. We are making housing more affordable.

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that this stabilisation in rents is particularly remarkable given quite recent history in which rents went up $170 a week?

Yes, and I can confirm that that is a great thing for the hard-working people of Hamilton West.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister expecting people so committed to evidence and data, not ideology, to congratulate him on these results, or have they been a bit quiet lately?

We are making progress. We are delivering on housing affordability, and we are delivering for all Kiwis and the people of New Zealand. Kia ora.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. I seek leave of the House to have one extra supplementary question to ask exactly about that.

💬 SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

💬 Hon Members: Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Interesting.

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon Kieran—[Interruption] Just a moment.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Can he confirm that front-line providers such as the Auckland City Mission, the Wellington City Mission, and the Christchurch Methodist Mission have told him to his face that homelessness has reached unprecedented heights and they point to his policies as to the reason why?

I can confirm that many community housing providers—including some in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, and Christchurch—have been very enthusiastic about the additional support that we have given for Housing First that has seen nearly 500 people come off the streets, out of rough sleeping, into housing over the last four months. The Opposition should be congratulating those housing providers for their good work. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just calm, everyone.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Another lie—another lie.

💬 SPEAKER: Mr McAnulty, you can stand, withdraw, and apologise for that. I asked you to stop; you didn’t—stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise.

Mental Health

Question No. 9

Asked by: INGRID LEARY, Answered by: Hon MATT DOOCEY

to the Minister for Mental Health: Is he concerned that unaffordable counselling costs and waiting times of up to six months for funded services are preventing many New Zealanders from accessing mental health care?

Our mental health plan is working. We’re delivering faster access to support and more front-line workers: 83 percent of Kiwis are now accessing primary mental health support within one week; 82 percent of Kiwis are now accessing specialist mental health support within three weeks. The front-line mental health workforce has grown by 11 percent since coming into Government. The child and adolescent mental health workforce has grown by 19 percent. Last week’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission report found an extra 35,000 adults were seen last year due to 557 more specialist front-line staff.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was about unaffordable counselling costs; I didn’t hear anything about counselling costs. I don’t believe he addressed the question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think he did address the question by talking about availability of services, which, if it’s being taken up, might translate to cost. The Minister may make an extra comment.

The question also mentioned access, which I answered, and concerns, and I do have a concern, because the premise of this question is about reprioritising public mental health funding into private health providers. I’m concerned for her—her colleagues don’t know that, and they’ll have questions for her after this question time.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s what happens when you have a point of order that goes awry.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Is he concerned that counsellors report that they could see more clients yet people remain stuck on waiting lists because funding is not available to them?

I’m happy to announce to the House that when you look at primary counselling support, when we came into office, that was sitting at 200,000 Kiwis a year; we’ve now grown that to 250,000 Kiwis a year.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Is he concerned that around one in five counsellors say they are considering reducing hours, retiring, or leaving the profession within two years, and what impact will that have on already long waiting lists?

Well, I’ve got a deal for them. Last year, we opened up the accreditation pathway so a further 330 counsellors can now be registered—when previously they couldn’t have been—to work for Health New Zealand publicly funded roles.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Why should someone who can afford private counselling be able to get help quickly while someone relying on funded support can be left waiting months?

Ah, she’s bit confused there, because the premise of the report was, actually, that for private counsellors, the cost was going up, resulting in delays for people going private, which is quite contrary to that question.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Shouldn’t mental health care be available for people who need help, not just those who can afford it?

The irony here is that we are talking about counsellors, and that member and her team rallied when this Government committed $24 million directly to fund 800 more counsellors on Gumboot Friday to deliver to 15,000 young people more access and support. We’re delivering for counsellors too.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Question No. 10

Asked by: KATIE NIMON, Answered by: Hon SCOTT SIMPSON

to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What actions has he taken, if any, to ensure fuel markets continue to operate fairly and transparently for New Zealanders?

In a time of global uncertainty affecting international oil markets, it’s important that expectations are clear and oversight is strong. So, to that end, I’ve written to the Commerce Commission to clearly set my expectation that it closely monitor wholesale and retail fuel prices, as well as importer margins, to ensure motorists continue to receive a fair deal at the pump. At the same time, the Minister for Energy and I have also written directly to fuel companies to reinforce those expectations and encourage open and constructive engagement. When global conditions are uncertain, it is right for Government to set clear expectations and work with industry to safeguard fair outcomes for New Zealanders.

💬 Katie Nimon: Why did the Minister write to the Commerce Commission, and what expectations has he set for his role during this period?

The Commerce Commission plays a central role in supporting confidence in the fuel market. They do this by monitoring prices, margins, and engaging, where necessary, to ensure pricing reflects market conditions. In my letter, I asked the Commerce Commission to increase the frequency of its fuel price monitoring to closely watch pricing behaviour and margins and to engage with industry and consumers if any questionable behaviour emerges. The expectation is straightforward: it’s about giving households and businesses confidence that fuel prices are fair and reflect real market conditions.

💬 Katie Nimon: Why did the Minster and the Minister for Energy also write directly to fuel companies?

The Minister for Energy and I wrote to fuel companies to be transparent about the steps the Government is taking and to emphasise the importance of fair pricing and clear communications during a period of volatility. This was not about making accusations, but about setting expectations and reinforcing the value of open constructive engagement between Government and industry. Fuel companies have an important role in maintaining public confidence, especially when global conditions are uncertain as they are currently.

💬 Katie Nimon: How do these steps help protect households and businesses while still supporting a competitive fuel market?

New Zealanders, rightly, expect a competitive fuel market and the confidence that they are being treated fairly. By strengthening monitoring and keeping communication channels open, we are helping to ensure price movements reflect genuine global pressures, not unjustifiable increases. I also want to acknowledge the fuel sector’s ongoing contribution through the Fuel Sector Coordinating Entity, which is especially valuable at times like this. The balance between strong consumer protection and a well-functioning market is central to this Government’s work on fixing the basics and building for the future.

Energy

Question No. 11

Asked by: SCOTT WILLIS, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister for Energy: Does he have concerns about the volatility of international liquefied natural gas prices eliminating the forecast cost savings from the proposed liquefied natural gas import terminal; if not, why not?

As I answered in the House last week when the member asked this question, no, I am not. Forward prices for electricity have declined about 13 percent, or $20 a megawatt hour since the Government’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) announcement. This clearly shows that, despite international events, the market is confident that LNG will work as an insurance for the sector during a dry year.

💬 Scott Willis: Why did he decide that electricity users should be the ones levied for an LNG import terminal, when gas users will be the primary beneficiary of LNG by having an alternative to dwindling domestic supplies?

Because LNG is an insurance policy for the electricity sector.

💬 Scott Willis: Would a liquefied natural gas terminal be commercially viable as a dry-year solution without the Government intervention to levy electricity users; if not, does this indicate that the electricity market has failed to deliver a solution for the dry-year problem?

As I have noted previously, there is a risk premium built into power bills for households and businesses as a result of a lack of dry-year cover when we have insufficient rain, wind, and solar, and hence the solution required is to ensure that we have cover in a dry year, which is produced by both coal and gas. The challenge is that the last Government stopped gas exploration and, as a result, we have no gas. So we are looking to import that.

💬 Scott Willis: Does he accept that any cost savings from an LNG terminal are estimates only, and that the only thing guaranteed about an LNG terminal is that there will be extra costs levied on electricity users in New Zealand households?

As I answered in my primary answer, the member only needs to look at the future prices of electricity, which are traded on the Australian Stock Exchange and other exchanges, to see the numbers I have quoted. The pricing for 2027, 2028, and 2029 are all below or exceeding $20 per megawatt hour. Again, that is a reflection that the market has confidence that the solution which this Government is going to undertake deals with the challenge and the problem which we have, which is lack of cover in a dry year.

Internal Affairs

Question No. 12

Asked by: LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE, Answered by: Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN

to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is she confident that Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s cuts of $50 million a year will not impact the safety of firefighters and the public; if so, why?

Fire and Emergency New Zealand is not making cuts of $50 million per year; they are looking for cost efficiencies, something I support. In fact, I’m advised that in this financial year alone, they are planning to invest $84.7 million in new fire trucks, property, and equipment, all of which will contribute to improved working conditions as well as the safety of firefighters and of the public.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will cancelling recruit courses for professional firefighters keep the public and firefighters safe?

Sorry, could the member repeat that? I couldn’t quite hear.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will cancelling recruit courses for professional firefighters keep the public and firefighters safe?

I’m not aware of cancelling of recruitment, so I will take that one back to my office.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will cutting fire prevention staff, specialist wildfire roles, and key support staff for firefighters keep the public and firefighters safe?

I can only assume that the member is referring to a restructure that Fire and Emergency is currently undertaking. Those are simply proposals, and there are no final decisions that have been made. I have been assured that no front-line firefighters or comms centre positions are proposed to be affected. However, on the other hand, I’m advised that savings will be reinvested in areas including those that support the safety of volunteers and paid firefighters, such as fleet, training and equipment.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How does forcing firefighters to use unreliable equipment that, as one firefighter put it, “fails us constantly and we have to repair them ad-hoc on the go so that we can do our jobs” keep the public and firefighters safe?

I feel sometimes I’m repeating myself when I’m answering questions on Fire and Emergency New Zealand, because I’ve had multiple questions over multiple months on the exact same topic. I’ll simply repeat that Fire and Emergency New Zealand has inherited decades of under-investment in old trucks with the amalgamation of the two services into one. They have a plan and have had a plan for a number of years to invest in new fleet and equipment. This year alone, they have a plan to invest $84.7 million in new fire trucks, property, and equipment. However, when they have a fleet of over 1,300 appliances, there is always going to be a maintenance issue. However, Fire and Emergency New Zealand has assured me that they manage all of their trucks. They ensure they have back-up appliances and crews that can respond if a truck is temporarily unavailable. It doesn’t mean that equipment issues mean unsafe environments for workers and the public. Once again, I would caution the member against buying into a concern, which could grow in the public—

💬 SPEAKER: Wind it up.

—that we have an unsafe environment. That is not true.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will docking the pay of firefighters just asking for a fair deal keep the public and firefighters safe?

I can only assume that the member is referring to the decision to partially deduct pay. That has been a response to the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU) escalating its industrial activity, which has put the community at increased risk. I would ask the negotiators for the NZPFU to come back to the table at the Employment Relations Authority.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How can she possibly claim that cutting more than $50 million a year from Fire and Emergency New Zealand, cancelling recruit trainings, and forcing firefighters to rely on unreliable equipment is keeping firefighters and the public safe?

I haven’t done that.

Asked by: LAURA McCLURE, Answered by: Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN

to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What progress has she made toward repealing and replacing the Holidays Act 2003?

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?

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

to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she seen on New Zealand’s long-term fiscal position?

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

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

Asked by: Hon WILLIE JACKSON, Answered by: Hon LOUISE UPSTON

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the number of people receiving jobseeker support benefit higher or lower now than it was when she took office?

Asked by: Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister of Health: Particularly now. Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

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?]

Asked by: DAN BIDOIS, Answered by: Hon TAMA POTAKA

to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he seen on housing affordability?