Oral Questions to Ministers

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

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

Today, Stats NZ released the labour market statistics for the second quarter—that is, for April, May, and June of this year. That was a tough quarter for New Zealand businesses. Firms faced much higher fuel costs as a result of the Middle East conflict, and were reluctant to make investment and hiring decisions in an uncertain environment. That is reflected in the unemployment rate rising from 5.4 to 5.6 percent.

💬 Dan Bidois: What else did the labour market data show?

The release this morning showed that 13,000 more people were employed in the quarter compared to March. That is an increase of 0.5 percent, which is a positive sign. However, the labour force expanded at a slightly faster rate, which is why the unemployment rate rose. Wages also rose in the quarter, with the average hourly earnings increasing by 1.1 percent.

💬 Dan Bidois: How are Kiwi businesses feeling about the future?

Well, businesses have been doing it tough, as I said. They do remain confident about the future. ANZ’s monthly Business Outlook was released last week and shows business confidence rose 19 points in July. In terms of their own activities, businesses indicated higher employment intentions over the next 12 months, as well as higher investment intentions. That bodes very well for job creation. Export intentions were also up from the previous quarter, with ANZ reporting that export intentions in the manufacturing sector were the highest in over 25 years. These are encouraging leading indicators because businesses that invest and employ more people and expand into overseas markets help lift productivity, incomes, and economic growth.

💬 Dan Bidois: What is the Government doing to support Kiwi businesses?

Well, the Government has focused on improving regulations, business settings, infrastructure, and trade agreements that, in a sustainable way, create a better environment for New Zealand businesses to hire, invest, and grow. That includes, for example, essential Resource Management Act reform, fast-tracking consents for major developments that are job-rich, the Investment Boost tax policy to support investment and enduring job creation, a free trade agreement with India, changes to the overseas investment rules, State highway investments, restoring 90-day trials, repealing mandatory sector-wide employment deals, simplifying Government procurement requirements, and replacing the Holidays Act. These are economic settings that underpin business confidence and support businesses willingness to invest, create jobs, and grow.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

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

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

Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does using the air force to attend a National Party fundraiser demonstrate responsible use of public resources?

I reject the characterisation of the question. What it was, was really a series of events in Fielding and in Whanganui, with Bill Birch’s funeral the next on Friday. It got moved over the top of an event that I had in Auckland, which would have enabled me to take a commercial flight, and in that instance, I used a military asset. I want to reassure the member that the actual cost to the taxpayer—it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything because those planes need to fly and the pilots need to ring up their hours.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why did he choose to attend a National Party fund-raising event and then use the air force to fly back, rather than leave earlier so that he could attend Bill Birch’s funeral, using conventional transport available to everybody else?

Well, as a Prime Minister, I like to be busy and I like to have full days, and therefore I like to—we don’t do “Labour 9 to 5” in this Government, and, as a result, I’m a very busy Prime Minister who wants to get around the country, see as many people as I possibly can, and, where possible, I use commercial flights, whether it be Air New Zealand or Jetstar. Where it doesn’t work we use military assets, as previous Prime Ministers have—probably yourself, Ardern, and also Prime Ministers Key and Clark.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he name any other event in which any Prime Minister or Minister has used the air force in order to attend a party political fundraiser?

Well, I reject that question. I’ve explained the situation; that is not what occurred.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was he at a National Party fundraiser at a golf course immediately before using an air force plane to fly away?

There was a series of events throughout the day in Feilding and also in Whanganui, I explained. Because I couldn’t take, I think it was, the Air Chathams flight out in the morning, I needed to be there at 7 a.m., where my schedule had been moved to the morning after, and that’s why I took the military aircraft.

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

💬 SPEAKER: No, just a minute. I’m going to ask members to reflect on the commentary I made at the start of question time looking at how interjections might be acceptable or unacceptable, and then just quieten down a little bit. Similarly for Government members, the Prime Minister doesn’t need anybody chipping in behind him when he’s giving an answer to a question.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a very simple and straightforward question that relates to the Prime Minister’s accountability for the use of air force planes, something which only he or a select number of other Ministers can do, and whether he was—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, ask the question again.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was he attending a National Party fund-raising event immediately before using the air force to fly back?

I had a full schedule in Whanganui and also in Feilding through that day. The last event—yes—was a National Party event. The next day I had an early start, at 7 a.m. For that meeting I was planning to catch a commercial flight in the morning. I wasn’t able to in this case because Bill Birch’s funeral was over the time of that schedule. I moved that other meeting forward in Auckland to 7 a.m., and that’s why I had to use the military asset. I just want to reassure the member that when I use it, it’s sparingly, and I use it when there is no commercial flights available in order to make my schedule work. It doesn’t come as a cost to the taxpayer because the planes need to be flown and the pilots need to do their hours for training.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Would it be a good use of any person’s time to make two separate return flights from Auckland to Palmerston North and back in order to have separate flights for separate purposes on the same day?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s—

Well, it is the reality of my job as Prime Minister. I want to get out and about and across the country as much as I possibly can. Where possible, I use commercial services, but where I need to use the military asset to get me back because of a schedule, it’s there. I’m just saying that it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything. I use it sparingly, only when I need to, and also, as I’ve said, pilots need to get their hours up.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question. If he is using—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, wait. Some of your own people hadn’t quite wound themselves down.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he’s only using the air force sparingly, why has he used the air force planes more than any other Prime Minister in New Zealand history?

Well, because I’m probably harder-working than the last two Prime Ministers. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: A question is being asked.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he choose to attend a National Party fund-raising event and have the air force, effectively, subsidising him doing so, rather than not attend that event and leave earlier?

Well, I reject outright the characterisation of a subsidy. I’m Prime Minister of New Zealand, I have a very full schedule, and I use commercial flights as much as I possibly can. When there are times to make my schedule work, my team will reach out to see whether they can use a military asset. As I’ve said, it doesn’t cost anything to taxpayers because the planes and the hours need to be flown. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on—sorry, Prime Minister. Excuse me. We’ve just got to calm it down a little bit. It’s almost impossible to hear the answer from someone so far away, and I know that a lot of the armchair—we’ll just say—constitutional lawyers out there who reflect constantly on my performance in this Chair would be surprised to hear that I can’t hear someone that far away, but I’m supposed to hear the back of the House. So we’ll have a bit of silence, please. Very rare interjections.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did he attend the National Party fund-raising event as Prime Minister or as leader of the National Party?

Again, I had a series of events through Whanganui and Feilding for the day. My schedule needs to work; my team reach out when I need to get from A to B. If there’s no commercial flight available, they might reach out to the military to see whether a military asset is available. It doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything—the hours need to be ran up, and the planes need to be flown. It’s as simple as that.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a very straightforward question. The leader of the National Party does not have access to air force planes; only the Prime Minister does. Asking him whether he was attending the event—immediately prior to using the air force plane—as Prime Minister or as leader of the National Party is a significant matter of public importance, because it’s whether or not it’s justified for him to use the air force. I think it’s very reasonable to expect that he would answer that.

💬 SPEAKER: At all times, the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister. We’ve been through this exercise in the House where—it started with Speaker Wilson, who made it clear that members can ask the Prime Minister about matters relating to his role as Prime Minister, but not as a party leader. The point is it doesn’t matter what the Prime Minister does; he’s always Prime Minister.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: A further point of order, Mr Speaker. In this case, the Prime Minister has been using an air force plane, which is only available to a very select number of people. The Prime Minister and a small group of Ministers, not even all Ministers, can use the air force plane. Therefore, the capacity in which he was attending an event is material to his responsibilities to this House as Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, you really should terminate this; Speaker’s ruling 207/2 clearly says if you ask a political question, don’t cry when you get a political response.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, that’s not quite how I saw this one. The Prime Minister might like to make a response.

The event that I was attending at 7 a.m. the next morning in Auckland was as Prime Minister, as was the series of events that happened in Auckland the next morning. I had a series of events in those towns as Prime Minister, I ended up popping into a National Party event, and I then couldn’t make the 7 a.m. flight, because there was a 7 a.m. appointment I had the next day if I didn’t do that. That was in my capacity as Prime Minister.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the facts are, in the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings, that if you wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister, then question time is the appropriate time, but if you wish to ask a question of the leader of the National Party, that’s for the debating chamber and not question time, and that’s why he should have been ruled out.

💬 SPEAKER: I would refer the member to Speaker’s ruling, I think, 181/6—I’ll check that in a minute, but I think that’s the one that is relevant here.

RMA Reform

Question No. 3

Asked by: TIM COSTLEY, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcement has he made about heritage in Wellington?

Fantastic news: on Monday, I opened consultation on changing heritage planning rules, relating to five sites in Wellington, following an investigative report into whether they negatively impact growth, development, or employment. The investigation found some heritage provisions are having negative impacts on growth and employment and explores how these can be remedied. I’m now consulting on those findings. I encourage those with relevant information, evidence, or views to take part. Following that consultation, I will consider feedback from affected parties, including Wellington City Council’s response to the investigation, before deciding to recommend changes or not.

💬 Tim Costley: What are the five sites that are subject to consultation?

I was asked by Mayor Andrew Little and the Deputy Mayor of Wellington to look at heritage provisions related to the Karori Tunnel, the Kelburn Viaduct, the former General Headquarters Building at the corner of Taranaki Street and Buckle Street, and the Miramar oil tank. They also asked me to look at the height restrictions in the Courtenay Place heritage area. The Miramar oil tank is of particular note. The land is owned by the WingNut Group, which has indicated an intention to utilise the site to support film production activities associated with its studios. The investigation found this business makes a significant contribution to economic activity, both within the regional and wider national economy, and the extent to which the tank occupies the site, combined with its unique geometry and heritage requirements, limits the ability to officially integrate new development alongside or around the structure.

💬 Tim Costley: In that case, what are the impacts on economic growth that these heritage provisions have?

The investigation calculated the economic impact of these restrictions. They estimate that modifying or removing irrelevant controls could enable around 770 additional apartments, generate approximately $280 million in construction activity, and support around 300 jobs through commercial development—including film studios and facilities. This is a reminder to everybody that things that look like harmless regulations almost always have a very real economic cost. We are confronting the trade-offs on this side of the House.

💬 SPEAKER: Can I just say that the Speaker’s ruling I quoted before was 180/1, not 181, and also 174/1.

Regulation

Question No. 4

Asked by: CAMERON LUXTON, Answered by: Hon DAVID SEYMOUR

to the Minister for Regulation: How has the Government implemented the principles of good regulation in support of New Zealand businesses?

Comprehensively. Business can’t reach its potential when it is held back by stupid rules, which often feel like they’ve been made on the assumption that the businesses themselves were stupid. Well, they are not, and the Ministry for Regulation has been assiduously working to remove and delete stupid rules that hold back New Zealanders in sectors as diverse as early childhood education; the import of agricultural, horticultural, and veterinary products; residential and small-to-medium solar; the hemp industry; hairdressing; and I’m very much looking forward to another “h”, along with the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: a comprehensive set of changes to make it easier for hospitality to do business in this country. It’s a long-suffering sector, held back by many stupid rules soon to be no more.

💬 Cameron Luxton: In what other areas has the Government used the principles of good regulation to advance the interests of business?

Probably the most important area of deregulation by this Government is around resource management. The single biggest handbrake holding back the potential of this country is the endless need for resource consents, the uncertainty that they cause, and the lack of focus on real environmental protection. Chris Bishop and Simon Court, as members of this Government, have done sterling work, producing two new bills that went through second reading in this House just yesterday. They follow the principles of good regulation, of actually respecting people’s property rights, even compensating people when they lose those rights. Those two pieces of legislation are expected to create $13.3 billion in direct savings. It’s a very good example of the Government’s regulatory agenda making it easier to do business in this country.

💬 Cameron Luxton: Where else has the Government focused on supporting businesses through regulatory reform?

As we heard just earlier from the Minister of Finance, there’s a number of areas. In fact, it’s been a theme of this Government to delete stupid rules that hold back the potential of Government. Anti - money-laundering (AML) regulations, the bane of so many people, from accountants to lawyers to real estate agents, are being fixed by Nicole McKee, the Associate Minister of Justice. Her reforms are getting rid of unnecessary rigmarole for those honest operators, while putting a sharper focus on those committing organised crime and fraud with dirty money. Those reforms are going to make anti - money-laundering proportionate to risk: for example, simplified identity verification and due diligence rules for low-risk entities like family trusts, and they’ve already made it easier, once again, for a child to open a bank account without going through the madness of AML.

💬 Cameron Luxton: Is there a particular area of reform that all New Zealand employers were crying out for that this Government has delivered on?

Yes, but I would make the point that the relationship between employers and employees is actually symbiotic. It’s a win-win. There are often people in politics that try and pit groups of New Zealanders against each other, but the truth is, if you make the laws better—[Interruption] You can see the pleas of guilt across the other side of the room right now. A play’s the thing to catch the conscience of a king, and Carmel Sepuloni is no king, but she was just caught out, none the less. The Employment Leave Bill, by Brooke van Velden, is something that both Labour and National Ministers had attempted to fix. Nobody had been able to find a fix. Brooke van Velden came in, had to rip up the work that had been done to date because it was unworkable, and just last week, through this Parliament, we saw a replacement for the Holidays Act that is usable. If you think about it, the Ministry of Health managed to underpay its workers by $2 billion. Imagine what a nightmare that’s been for small business. Well, again, this Government is getting regulation right. Brooke van Velden has fixed it where others failed.

💬 Cameron Luxton: What other areas of reform delivered by this Government will have a significant positive impact on New Zealand businesses?

I almost sense a small hesitancy at hearing good news, but there’s lots more to come. The health and safety reforms and what, again, Brooke van Velden has done in this role, are so critical to business and removing stupid rules that allow them to reach their potential. She found that, often, WorkSafe was there to hammer people for breaking the rules but wasn’t there to help them be safe in the first place. As a result, people spent huge amounts of money on consultants, finding themselves worse off. What did she do? She went and listened to people—she went on a tour and listened to people in business—and what did she find? She said that we actually need more guidance to be safe. She has divided WorkSafe’s roles so they’re actually helping people be safe as well as keeping them accountable if they’re not, which is a massive improvement on what we had previously. [Interruption] The Labour Party are complaining my answers are too long. Well, actually, these details matter, and when you’ve done the work, you can speak in detail, and that is something that, perhaps, has put these people over here and those people over there.

Finance

Question No. 5

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

to the Minister of Finance: Kia orana kātoatoa, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that the Prime Minister’s comments that business owners are negative with a “parent-child mentality” should be understood in its context; if so, what was the context of saying that business owners are negative with a “parent-child mentality”?

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

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: What was the context for Christopher Luxon calling New Zealand businesses “soft”?

The transcript of the Prime Minister’s comments is on the record; it is clear that he was referring to businesses who look to Government for subsidies. It is the case that the last Government did have a rather patronising attitude towards business.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: What was the context for Christopher Luxon calling those doing it tough “bottom feeders”?

Given the member is the one who came down to the House with that quote, she should probably know the context from which it came. I don’t have that quote with me today.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: In what context, therefore, is it acceptable for Christopher Luxon to call New Zealand “very negative, wet, whiny, inward looking”?

When he’s talking about the Opposition—very appropriate comments. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No one else speaks.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was the real context that she, along with the Prime Minister, promised to fix the cost of living and grow the economy, and instead, unemployment is up, prices are up, GDP per capita is lower than when she took office, and New Zealanders are worse off?

The question for the Government and the task for the Government is not to describe the problems; it is to put forward policies to address them. On this side of the House, our efforts to boost tourism numbers, bring back international education, introduce tax reform to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, fast-track major developments, and make reductions in red tape are all policies to support growth, employment, and income creation. By contrast, other parties have no ideas and have opposed the activities that would support job creation. They voted against fast track; they’ve voted against the things that would support this economy to recover stronger.

💬 SPEAKER: If the Leader of the House needs to converse with the other side, do it out in the aisles, not during a question answer.

Foreign Affairs

Question No. 6

Asked by: Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN, Answered by: Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS

to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes, and we thank the member for his question, which assists the order of the House. I stand by all of my statements as Minister of Foreign Affairs, including those made during two visits this term to China and my numerous engagements with my Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi. For example, I said in November 2025, “The coalition Government is committed to maintaining and building our strong, mature, and mutually respectful relationship with China. We have been pleased with the number and quality of high-level visits between China and New Zealand over the past two years,” I stand by that statement. I also stand by our decision to approve the procurement of two state-of-the-art ferries from a Chinese shipyard. The New Zealand - Chinese relationship is one of the most longstanding and significant.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he stand by his statement, “Go back to your own country—that’s where they lie like a flatfish, but they don’t lie like that here, all right? This is called a democracy—this is called a democracy, unlike what you’re used to.”?

I stand by all my comments as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I also stand by my comments as the New Zealand First Party leader. However, if the member would like to question my statements made as the leader of the New Zealand First Party, he should understand that the correct place to do that is during the general debate, not in oral questions. Oral questions are for holding Ministers, not party leaders, to account. Check out the Standing Orders. Get some experience around this place.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. When a Minister is making a statement in a portfolio for which they are ministerially responsible, they cannot be doing that as a party leader when they are in this House, whether it’s in a general debate, whether it’s in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement or the Budget debate. The key point here is: is it portfolio related? In the case of Winston Peters, when he is making these statements, they directly relate to foreign affairs. Therefore, they are ministerial statements, so him saying, “I made that statement in the general debate as New Zealand First leader.” cannot be allowed to stand because it is his ministerial portfolio. He is speaking about matters related to his ministerial portfolio. When he is in this House, he is the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Speaker, can I just say this.

💬 SPEAKER: We’ll hear from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Everyone remembers this was a Wednesday afternoon debate. I was speaking in it as the leader of New Zealand First, and it’s as clear as daylight. The Standing Orders make that very clear. After all this time, I’m astonished that the leader of the Labour Party doesn’t even understand that.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Only five minutes ago, the leader of the Labour Party was busy telling us that the Prime Minister’s not the Prime Minister at a National Party event. Now he’s saying that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is always the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He can’t have it both ways, but he just contradicted himself in the same five minutes.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s one of the difficulties that the House has wrestled with for a long time, way back to 2002. I don’t have them at hand, but there are some rulings from the Rt Hon Margaret Wilson which will deal with that at some point. The Minister has at the very least addressed the question, but I refer him, as I did earlier, to Speaker’s ruling 174/1.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Why did he, via a spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, agree with the comments made by Winston Peters during the general debate?

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, ask that question again. That wasn’t overly clear.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Why did he, via a spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, agree with the comments made by Winston Peters during the general debate from last week?

I reject the—

💬 Hon Member: Characterisation.

—characterisation of the facts behind that question. He is utterly wrong.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What did he mean when he said, “that’s where they lie like a flatfish” when referring to China?

One more time: under the Standing Orders, if that member wants to ask me a question as the leader of New Zealand First, in which role the speech was made, then he has to wait for the general debate. He cannot do it at question time.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. That is a question related directly to a statement made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The Rt Hon Winston Peters is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The statement on which he is being questioned relates to foreign affairs. He cannot say that he did not make that statement as Minister of Foreign Affairs unless he is no longer the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

💬 SPEAKER: The question, in fact, referred to, as I understand it, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade person affirming something that the Minister had said. If that’s correct, then the Minister should answer.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order. Just some clarity from you, Mr Speaker—we’re happy to table it, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did, in fact, confirm the statement by the New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters. In terms of my question previously, I was referring to the quote he made last week when referring to China, which relates to the portfolio.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. He answered his very question; he said, “by the New Zealand First leader”. In his explanation, he just said it.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, good. Look, I’d refer all members of the House—as I have earlier today; twice now, I’ve done so—to Speaker’s ruling 174, which makes it abundantly clear that speaking in a general debate can be as a Minister, or it can also be as a party leader. Try some other lines for the questioning.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “Winston Peters has a long track record of inappropriate attention-seeking comments designed to get the media and other politicians to talk about him instead of the issues Kiwis are facing”?

The answer to that is, undoubtedly, no. But what I do think is racist is when a Labour MP said, “Chinese-sounding names are buying too many houses in Auckland—”

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty. I think I know where this is going. Mr Peters.

—or when a Green MP said, “White cis men”—oh, sorry.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you. I think we know exactly what this point of order is about, and I’m sure you’ll be right.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaker’s ruling 205/4: you must not bring a party not involved in the question into the answer.

💬 SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct. Do you have another question, Lawrence Xu-Nan?

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that his comments were “racist”?

The answer to that question is no, but what I do think is racist is, for example, saying “White cis men cause all the violence in the world.”

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. Wait on—wait on. Unless it’s about—

I didn’t give the quote—I didn’t say the person who said that.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—

I’m just giving you a quote.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah. The problem is you’re going to read out the quote and then say who the person was, and then it will be—

No, I didn’t say that.

💬 SPEAKER: I know that—just listen to what I’m saying. Perhaps it would be easier to make a decision about whether it stood or not if the person who the quote is attributed to was mentioned at the start. You cannot use Government questions or questions to Ministers to attack the Opposition.

Could I just say that, by way of example, what would be racist is saying, “It’s mind-blowing to see Indians—”

💬 SPEAKER: No, just hang on a minute. Sorry. No one else speaks.

Yes. What would be an example is, “It’s mind-blowing to see Indians, Asians, blacks, and Pākehā helping campaign in a Māori seat.” That would be racist. Or when a National MP said, “Two Chinese would be more valuable than two Indians.”

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, look, they’re irrelevant—

See my point now?

💬 SPEAKER: —they’re irrelevant to the answer.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree that Chinese people “lie like a flat fish”?

For the umpteenth time, if he wishes to raise that in a debate, that’s the appropriate time, but he can’t raise it during question time.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, no, he can—

No, he can’t.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, he can. I’m sorry. If you read the read the Order Paper, it’s question No. 6 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It’s not unreasonable to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs what he thinks about another country, particularly in the circumstances. It’s a reasonable question.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I made the very distinction at the start that when I was speaking as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that was one matter. When I was speaking as the leader of New Zealand First in a debate for the party called New Zealand First, that’s a different matter, and the Standing Orders apply to that time in the debate, which is the event he’s raising. That’s my simple response to that.

💬 SPEAKER: If Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, without losing a question, asked the question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs about what he thought about another person’s statement, that might get around the issue.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree with the comment made during general debate that—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—who by.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: By the leader of New Zealand First.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: —by the leader of New Zealand First, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that “Chinese people lie like a flat fish”?

For the umpteenth time—now, look, if you drop me a line, I’ll give you some help on how Standing Orders operate. You cannot ask that question, right—you can do it in a debate, but you can’t ask it in question time, because this is not responding as the Foreign Affairs Minister, and question time is for the response of Ministers and the Prime Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: Look, I’m sorry, but almost every week we have a question to a Minister in here asking if they agree with something that they’ve said themselves in the past. That’s not unusual. So a question that asks the foreign Minister if he agrees with the statement by a party leader is not out of order, but it’s up to the Minister to be able to answer that or decide how to answer that. But saying it’s simply not answerable is not enough.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Ask again.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree with the New Zealand First leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that “Chinese people lie like a flat fish”?

Point of order. I didn’t say that. That very statement is false.

💬 SPEAKER: OK—

Look at the Hansard. That statement is demonstrably false, but then what’s new here?

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Right, I will try it again. Supplementary—

💬 SPEAKER: You’re back on your allocation now.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does he agree with the New Zealand First leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that Chinese people “lie like a flat fish”?

The part I do agree with is that somebody who has been in this Parliament five minutes, has wasted so much of Parliament’s time. When we first came here, we were told to breathe through our nose for the first three years and learn the system. That, clearly, is what they weren’t told over there.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: Just a minute. That answer doesn’t help the order of the House. I think the answer, in my head at least, would be relatively simple, but it doesn’t need to be an insult to someone duly elected to the Parliament. So we’ll do it—for the last time—Lawrence Xu-Nan.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Supplementary. Does he agree with the New Zealand First leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that Chinese people “lie like a flat fish”?

That statement is demonstrably, on the Hansard, false.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order. “Should the House like a copy, we can go to the Hansard”—that is the quote from Hansard.

💬 SPEAKER: Look—no, it’s available to everybody.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Mr Speaker, you were in the Chamber at the time, and I know that we can write to you afterwards and seek clarity and get him to correct what he just said, but you well know that that’s exactly the statements that were made, and I just cannot see how it is conducive to the order of the House or for the confidence of us being able to interrogate the Minister—

💬 SPEAKER: I do well know what the statement was. I know it very well. I spent quite a bit of time on it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: That was the quote and it refers to Chinese people—

💬 SPEAKER: No, it’s not accurately given. Words matter, if I can quote a former member of this House, and so everyone needs to think about that.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. In previous occasions, when members of this House have questioned the legitimacy of other members and their right to participate fully in the workings of this House, you have made rulings very clear. On the back of your statement just then that words matter, it might be important, therefore, that I read clearly a statement that you made to the House on 19 February 2026: “Members who engage in such comments can expect to be ejected from the House. Free speech does not enable gratuitous comment about other members. Such comments are not only disrespectful to the member concerned but also to this House and also disrespectful to the electors and the electoral process that allows members to sit in this House.”

Now, sir, that statement was referred to last week when the comments in question were brought to your attention. At the time, you said that you did not hear them or—sorry, sir, I got mixed up; that was the time prior. In this instance, you said that you chose not to intervene in fear of interrupting. You thought it was a tit for tat, but on reflection, if a member raised concern, then you would have been required to address those concerns. Therefore, the concerns were raised too late.

💬 SPEAKER: And, might I say, at that point, had those concerns been raised at that time, and had there been a response that was a withdrawal and any form of apology, that would have been the end of the matter for the House. Can I say that, with regard to today, I didn’t think it appropriate to, effectively, deny the member Lawrence Xu-Nan the opportunity to ask questions. In fact, I gave him licence to ask more questions, and so I think anybody can draw their own conclusions about what is happening here. I didn’t think it appropriate to say that the member being questioned should remove himself from the House when there were legitimate questions and the person who has got oral question on notice No. 6 has a right to supplementary questions.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, sir—which is precisely why I waited until the end of the exchange to raise this point of order—there are two areas concerned that are directly linked to your response today and your statement that you made to the House on 19 February: (1) the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stood by his comments not only as Minister but as leader of the New Zealand First Party—that was the answer to the first question—and (2) he has repeated word for word a statement that questions the legitimacy of members elected to this House. If it is true that you are firm of the view that members are equally elected to this Chamber—and previously you have made it clear to the House that if members questioned that, they can expect to be ejected—at the very least, this House would expect that you would ask that comment be withdrawn and apologised for.

💬 SPEAKER: What I’m going to do is have a look at the Hansard, as I did overnight last night, and come back to the House. My recollection is that Mr Peters spoke about the member being in the House for only five minutes—that’s fine—and then spoke about his own experience. It might seem hard to believe that he spent three years breathing through his nose before he said too much here. That’s where I’d like to leave it. I think the points you raise are quite valid, and I certainly don’t resile from my view that all members of this House, regardless of how long they’ve been here, are elected equally.

Energy

Question No. 7

Asked by: CATHERINE WEDD, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister for Energy: What announcement has the Government made about supporting New Zealand businesses facing higher gas prices and uncertainty about future gas supply?

On Friday, I announced, alongside Ministers Willis and Jones, that the Government’s Gas Transition Loan Guarantee Scheme is officially open for business. The scheme will help businesses invest in reducing their reliance on gas, improving energy efficiency, and securing their future competitiveness. The Government’s scheme will guarantee up to 80 percent of the default risk on eligible loans. The Government expects to unlock up to $1.2 billion in lending through this programme. This is a practical example of our Government’s approach to fixing the basics and building the future, helping businesses manage today’s challenges while investing in tomorrow’s growth. Strong businesses create jobs, drive exports, and grow wages. That’s why we’re introducing this scheme.

💬 Catherine Wedd: Why has the Government introduced this scheme?

We understand that businesses need certainty and confidence to invest, and after years of declining gas supply following the decision to ban oil and gas exploration, many businesses are facing higher costs and greater uncertainty. Rather than leaving businesses to face these challenges alone, this Government is stepping up with practical support. We want New Zealand to export more goods, create more jobs, and grow the economy, not see investment in jobs move offshore due to the current situation with gas supply. That’s why we’re backing businesses to adapt, remain competitive, and continue growing.

💬 Catherine Wedd: How can businesses apply for the Gas Transition Loan Guarantee Scheme?

This scheme is designed to help businesses get on with what they do best: growing, investing, creating jobs, and driving our economy forward. Since 31 July, businesses have able to register their interest through participating banks—ANZ, ASB, BNZ, Kiwibank, and Westpac—for loans of up to $50 million in scheme loans for each business. Whether it is a manufacturer in South Auckland, a food processor in the Waikato, or a horticulture business in Hawke’s Bay, this scheme gives businesses practical support to invest with confidence and remain competitive. That is what backing business looks like.

💬 Catherine Wedd: What additional support is available to give confidence to businesses facing a dwindling supply of gas?

Alongside the loan guarantee scheme, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has launched a suite of practical support services to help businesses understand their energy options. Some businesses may need help understanding how they use their gas and how they could use it more efficiently, while others may require more detailed technical or fuel-switching analysis. We’re focused on removing barriers to investment, improving energy security, and giving businesses the confidence to grow. That is what this Government is doing through this programme: fixing the basics, building the future, and backing New Zealand businesses every step of the way.

Prime Minister

Question No. 8

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

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

Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs given his statement in the House today that saying people from China “lie like flatfish” isn’t, in his view, racist?

We canvassed this yesterday. As I said, he was speaking in a general debate as New Zealand First’s leader, and, as a result, the Speaker made a ruling that those remarks were unacceptable. He’s had previous spats with the Chinese Ambassador when he was a Minister of Foreign Affairs under Labour, and I can reassure the member that the relationship with China is in very good heart and is in very good shape.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I was actually asking the Prime Minister about his confidence in the Minister given the answers the Minister gave in the House today. Those were statements that he made in the House today as a Minister, where he said that those statements weren’t racist. I’m asking the Prime Minister whether he has confidence in him in light of that statement.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, I think that’s a clear question.

Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think it helps New Zealand’s international reputation in countries such as China that we are making headlines such as, “New Zealand Foreign Minister demands Chinese-descent MP ‘Go back to his own country’.”, in light of the fact that China is our largest trading partner and second largest source of inbound tourists?

Well, I reassure the member that the relationship between New Zealand and China is in good shape, but I’m also very proud of this Government’s efforts to build relationships with many countries around the world. Look at what we’ve done within the Europe and the UK free-trade agreements (FTAs); look at what’s happening with respect to the progress we’re making with the US administration as well as the Indian FTA; and the upgrade of our comprehensive strategic partnerships in North-east Asia and South-east Asia have been very important for New Zealand.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, I would ask that you please pay particular attention to these questions, which are clearly an attempt to get the Prime Minister to talk about the leader of another party, which, under Speaker’s ruling 181, is completely not allowed. Speaker’s ruling.

💬 SPEAKER: The difficulty you’ve got with putting that forward is that it’s not 181; it’s 180/1, and the point that remains is that the Prime Minister is responsible for his Ministers at all times. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a party leader or not. If the Minister is in the executive, the Prime Minister can answer questions about that Minister’s portfolio.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Surely we’ve established, over the period of time the House has traversed this issue, that the remarks that the member refers to were remarks made by the leader of a party in the general debate, yet you’re allowing him to continue to pretend that they were made in a different context.

💬 SPEAKER: No.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Speaker’s ruling 180/1 does not allow that.

💬 SPEAKER: That would be true if the question was constructed in a way that led to that particular conclusion, but it hasn’t been. I’ve been listening very carefully. He’s asking about the Prime Minister’s views on reports where, in fact, the statements that were made have been reported. You’re not going to get me to back away from the fact that this is a House where Ministers are asked questions and should answer them. The Prime Minister is asked questions about one of his Ministers; he should answer them.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister spoken to any representatives of the Chinese Government since Winston Peters’s contribution in the House last week, and, if not, how can he claim that the relationship is in good heart?

No, I haven’t, but we’ve had many high-level engagements with the Chinese senior leadership, both in China and in New Zealand, and in other forums—the Foreign Minister and myself—and I think we have managed this relationship very well and improved it further over the last 2½ years as a new Government.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister seen these comments by the Chinese Ambassador: “We have absolutely no interest in being dragged into the domestic politics of other countries.”; or the ministry of foreign affairs of China saying, “Parliamentary debates in New Zealand are New Zealand’s internal affairs. China will not comment on that.”?

Yes I have, and I just want to reassure the House that the relationship is in very good shape. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, and no one else—no one else.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Rt Hon Winston Peters replied to those comments that he just mentioned, referring to the Chinese ambassador as a “communist shill”; if so, why did he not feel it appropriate to pick up the phone and speak to the Chinese ambassador to clarify that that is not the position of the New Zealand Government, given the Rt Hon Winston Peters is this Government’s Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Well, I just want to reassure the member that, actually, this Government, with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the trade Minister, the defence Minister, have good relationships with the Chinese administration, as we do with many other countries, and we have step-changed and lifted the intensity of our relationships with the world, including China and other countries, and we’re very, very proud of that. That is serving New Zealand very well with respect to record levels of exports, higher-level quality engagements around matters of defence and security, people-to-people links, and also economic growth.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the New Zealand Government, in any capacity, conveyed any form of apology to the Chinese Government for the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ recent comments that he as Prime Minister described as racist; if so, what form did that apology take?

We don’t need to. No, we haven’t. The relationship is in good heart, as I’ve just said.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Cambridge Dictionary defines a “shill” as “someone who helps another person to persuade people to buy something”, and, by definition, all diplomats are shills for their own country—and you’re looking at New Zealand’s biggest and most experienced shill, which would give those members over there a thrill?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m sure the Prime Minister—

I wasn’t aware of the full definition, but I appreciate it, having had it now.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, good, that’s fine. Yeah, excellent.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the New Zealand Government received any formal complaints from the Chinese Government regarding Winston Peters’ recent racist statements; if so, who will formally respond to those complaints and when?

Not that I’m aware of, but I want to reassure the member that the Foreign Minister has outstanding relationships with his counterparts in China and around the world.

Trade and Investment

Question No. 9

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

to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent reports has he seen on New Zealand exports?

Statistics New Zealand have recently reported that the value of New Zealand’s goods exports have jumped almost 25 percent, or $1.6 billion to $8.1 billion, for the month of June 2026, compared to June last year. Stand-out performances include the red meat sector exports, at $1.37 billion, 50 percent higher than June last year. This is a record for that month. Sheep meat exports were up 40 percent by volume and $458 million by value. Beef exports up 25 percent by volume and $679 million additional. Overall, red meat exports grew by 21 percent, to $13.134 billion—a new record for the year ending June 2026, driven by the increased demand for outstanding New Zealand red meat. I want to thank every farmer for their contribution.

💬 Suze Redmayne: What reports has he seen on overall growth in primary sector export earnings?

Well, there’ve been many recent reports of very good news that the primary sector exports overall are showing great and strong results, with broad-based growth across many sectors. As an example, annually, kiwifruit is up 12 percent, or $510 million, and will export $4.6 billion this year; wool, up 29 percent or $128 million, and will export $575 million—great news for our wool farmers; aluminium up 38 percent; and dairy up 6.2 percent to $1.81 billion extra. The Government’s relentless focus on our trade agenda is working. New Zealand’s goods exports have increased from $72.5 billion to $83.4 billion, or 15 percent more over the three years. When we came to Government, we set the goal of doubling exports by value over 10 years, and these numbers show the country is on track.

💬 Suze Redmayne: How is the Government supporting the growth in exports?

Well, 71 percent of all of New Zealand’s exports are covered by 17 high-quality free trade agreements, and they’re delivering tangible results for our exporters. As an example, our trade agenda is focused on supporting New Zealand exporters to be more competitive offshore, and it’s delivering. We’ve completed the India free trade agreement (FTA), which will eliminate or reduce tariffs on 95 percent of New Zealand’s exports; we brought the New Zealand - European Union (EU) FTA into force ahead of schedule, and as a result there’s been an extra $3 billion worth of exports from New Zealand to the EU over the last two years; we completed New Zealand’s first FTA in the Middle East with the United Arab Emirates, which is in force and eliminates tariffs on 98.5 percent of our exports; we completed negotiations for the Gulf Cooperation Council, an economic bloc worth $4 trillion in GDP, which eliminates duties on 99 percent of our exports over 10 years. We’ve also undertaken 23 trade missions to 18 countries and eliminated non-tariff barriers worth over $700 million.

💬 Suze Redmayne: How will the New Zealand - India Free Trade Agreement support export growth?

Well, it can support it significantly. Although the agreement is not yet in force, our exports to India over the last three years have grown by $1.18 billion—an increase of 130 percent already. New Zealand’s exports, when the agreement is in force, will have 95 percent either full or partial tariff reduction. I want to give an example of the services sector. Services exporters or companies in New Zealand will have liberalised access in 100 sectors or areas in the Indian market. An example: architects and engineers will have a right to provide services there, an industry where $21 billion is spent on infrastructure every year. Another example is our lamb and wool exports. Lamb will fall from a 33 percent tariff to zero on day one; wool will also go to zero, which will allow significant exports on behalf of New Zealand exporters. I would like to recognise the hard work of many members across this House, not only in voting for the legislation at first reading but also in travelling to India to promote wool.

Prime Minister

Question No. 10

Asked by: Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Is a Minister of Foreign Affairs who just now agreed with the comments made by the New Zealand First leader during the general debate last week fit to serve in his Government?

Well, I’m not sure I—I reject the characterisation of the question.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Shall I ask it again?

💬 SPEAKER: No.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: OK. Have the comments of his Minister of Foreign Affairs had a harmful impact on Chinese and migrant communities?

Personally, I’ve talked about this; the remarks were offensive, they did hurt our Chinese-Kiwi community, and I stand with them.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: How can he credibly stand by a Minister of Foreign Affairs, then, who he just said has caused harm to Chinese and migrant communities?

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has done an exceptionally good job over two and a half years of advancing New Zealand’s national interests with a range of countries, expanding trade opportunities, and deepening diplomatic ties, deepening security and defence ties as well. We are very, very proud of the state of our relationships with many countries around the world, including China.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When it comes to racist comments, what do you think of white cis men—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—no—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: —causing all the violence in the world, which she said? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: The member’s making it very difficult to maintain order in the House. It might be better if he had an early afternoon.

Economic Growth

Question No. 11

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

to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she stand by her statement, “Economic growth means more jobs, higher wages and better opportunities for all New Zealanders”?

Yes. I’m surprised the member has to ask. Of course, growing the economy remains the best way to create more jobs, lift wages, and improve opportunities for New Zealanders. That is exactly why this Government is progressing policies that build business confidence and create jobs. For example, fast-tracking major projects, giving businesses a real incentive to invest through Investment Boost, progressing free-trade agreements, and adjusting procurement guidelines so that when the Government invests, it can look at the impact those investments will have on New Zealand. It’s also why we must not introduce policies that would wreck business confidence, such as, for example, a broad capital-gains tax. Growing the economy is the best way to create jobs, and our Government is progressing policies to achieve that.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: How can today’s unemployment rate, which is higher than Treasury had forecast, be a sign of economic growth?

The question is whether the policies that the Government is progressing will support more job creation in the future. What we have seen from the ANZ Business Outlook more recently, following what was undoubtedly a very difficult quarter, is that businesses have said that their hiring intentions have increased, their confidence has increased, and that their investments will increase. That bodes well for future job-creation.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she claim there’s to be more opportunities when there are 8,000 more people experiencing long-term unemployment in the June 2026 quarter than in the same quarter of 2025?

Well, one of the very clear reasons why I can claim there will be more opportunities is that this Government’s fast-track legislation means that 27 major projects have received a fast-track consent, and those projects collectively will support thousands of jobs. I note that Labour sought to remove a project expected to support around 7,000 jobs: the Rangitoopuni housing development. They sought to remove a project expected to support around 4,420 construction jobs: the Homestead Bay housing development. They sought to remove a project expected to support 100,000 jobs with the Kings Quarry expansion. I could go on.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s fine—talk about the Government.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she continue to claim there are more opportunities when there are 48,000 more people out of work compared to when she took office?

I have fully acknowledged that the levels of unemployment that we are seeing are much higher than we would like. What we take responsibility for, as a Government, is progressing policies that will give businesses the confidence to expand, hire, and create more job opportunities. That is why we are on the side of fast-tracking major projects, providing lower tax burden to businesses through the Investment Boost tax policy. It’s why we are expanding tourism, why we are expanding international education, backing our farmers and the education sector, supporting more free-trade agreements. That member has to do more than cry crocodile tears. Come up with a single idea of your own.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: If economic growth means higher wages, how does she explain New Zealand having the worst wage growth in the developed world under her watch?

That member should be very careful with statistics, because I think that the report that she is referring to is one that largely refers to the wage growth that happened under the last Government. I would note, however, that there are a range of economists who have pointed out that the underlying data used is not the appropriate measure to use to look at comparative wage data.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she still stand—

💬 SPEAKER: No, that’s the whole lot used up.

Prime Minister

Question No. 12

Asked by: RAWIRI WAITITI, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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

Yes.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: How does he respond to the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Tinihanga o Ngā Mātāpono: The Urgent Report on the Treaty Principles Reform, that the Government’s strategy reform programme has breached Treaty principles and caused significant prejudice to Māori?

As we’ve discussed before, there’s been all sorts of generic Treaty principle clauses in different bits of legislation. We want to create certainty, and we also want to make sure that everyone’s very clear about their obligations under that legislation.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does the Prime Minister accept the tribunal’s findings that his Government has acted inconsistently with Te Tiriti o Waitangi; if not, which specific findings does he reject?

Again, the point of the Treaty clauses review is to make sure that we don’t create uncertainty or legal risk after everybody. We want to be very specific. We want descriptive Treaty clauses that spell out everyone’s obligations to each other, to provide maximum clarity and consistency.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Point of order, Debbie Ngarewa—

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question—

💬 SPEAKER: Look, sorry, don’t start talking until you’re properly called. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Apologies. Thank you. My point of order is that the Prime Minister failed to address the actual question. The actual question was: which finding did he reject?

💬 SPEAKER: No, it wasn’t the actual question; it was the second part of it.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Can the Prime Minister identify a single Treaty reform introduced by his Government that the Waitangi Tribunal has found strengthens rather than undermines the Crown’s Treaty obligations?

Well, I actually think there’s lots that we’re very proud about in ensuring we’ve got stronger Māori outcomes, which would be part of the reason between iwi and Crown about how we work towards upholding the obligations of the Treaty. You know, making sure we improve regular attendance from 51 percent to 55 percent in the last year is really great. Making sure there’s 4,000 fewer victims of Māori violent crime is really important. Making sure we honour the Treaty by ensuring there’s less Māori youth offending—down 28 percent. I could go on. This Government’s done a lot to improve outcomes for Māori.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Why hasn’t the Prime Minister dismissed the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his racist statements against the Chinese community, and is the Prime Minister avoiding dismissing the Minister of Foreign Affairs because he fears it could trigger the collapse of his coalition and an early election?

In answer to the second part of the question, no.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm that political parties that enjoy the confidence of the House and form a Government, sworn in by the Governor-General, have the ability and the mandate to implement their policies rather than ducks quacking in front of a body full of quacks themselves?

Well, I just think we’re being very proud about upholding our Treaty obligations, and the way you do that is you improve outcomes for Māori. That’s what this Government’s been focused on.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Who is leading this Government, Christopher Luxon or Winston Peters, and in the words of Eminem, would the real Prime Minister “please stand up”?

💬 SPEAKER: No, that’s—

I’m standing and that would be me.

💬 SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds for those who have to go to other business to do so quickly, quietly, and without conversation on the way.