Oral Questions to Ministers

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, and in particular, our desire not to introduce a streaming tax.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he’s laser-focused on the cost of living, can he name one single item in a family’s weekly grocery shop that costs less today than it did when he became Prime Minister?

I’m very pleased to report that, actually, since we last engaged in this conversation—I think the week before last—I said that food inflation was 2.8 percent. The good news is food inflation has come down further to 1.9 percent—[Interruption]. Of course, that compares to 12.3 percent under his leadership.

💬 SPEAKER: Just a moment. The House needs to calm itself; there’s far too much interjection, verging on a barrage, from the other side of the House.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he told New Zealanders he would lower the cost of living, why didn’t he mention that his intention was for prices to still go up?

I’d just say to the member that putting inflation within the band, and getting food inflation to 1.9 percent versus 12.3 percent—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just wait a moment, Prime Minister. Let’s just have one person answering the question.

The point I was making was that 1.9 percent food inflation is a lot better than 12.3 percent under the previous Government; 4.1 percent inflation, even when you strip out the Iranian conflict at 2.9 percent inflation, is a lot lower than 7.3 percent, which was a 32-year high. How did that happen? It happened because they spent more, they taxed more, they borrowed more, and they’ll do it again.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the price of a loaf of bread today; and how does that compare with the price of a loaf of bread when he became Prime Minister?

Well, 600 grams of white bread, about $2.20 today.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of that question was: how does that compare with when he became Prime Minister?

💬 SPEAKER: As you know, there were two legs to the question. He certainly answered one of them.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker. How will—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Go and ask the supermarket.

💬 SPEAKER: No talking while someone is asking a question.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How will increasing petrol tax by 22 cents per litre, as his Government is intending to do, help New Zealanders with the cost of living?

I can just say, putting a capital gains tax in at 28 percent is going to punish every Kiwi in this country. Putting in place a streaming tax on every Kiwi in this country isn’t fair, and certainly putting in a ute tax—

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is responsible for the 22 cents per litre increase in fuel tax that his Government has planned. He’s not responsible for the things that he’s choosing to try and speak about instead.

💬 SPEAKER: The Prime Minister might start his answer again.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. In the interests of the conduct of business in this House, exactly what was that point of order about?

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Try and keep up.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: He gets to his feet, he makes a point of order, but there’s no point of order. There’s no detail on it, and he gets away with it.

💬 SPEAKER: I think we’ve just seen a demonstration of how the point of order process can be used to interrupt the House. I’ve heard what the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins had to say. He was questioning why the person answering the question hadn’t gone straight to the answer. It might be a good idea to leave it a little bit of time, and for there to be a little less noise so we can hear it.

We haven’t yet made a decision on the fuel excise tax, as we have said. Given the Iranian conflict—

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes, you have.

Actually, we said it’s highly unlikely, but we will look to confirm our position on that very shortly. The point I was making was that Auckland regional fuel tax; a ute tax, a streaming tax; a capital gains tax; a digital services tax; and $5 billion taken out of Investment Boost, a business tax, is incredibly damaging to this country. It is a wrecking ball through the economy, and that’s the difference.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it still Government policy, as of today, to increase petrol taxes by 22 cents per litre over the next three years?

I have said to the member before, and I’ve said publicly, in light of the Iranian conflict, that is a discussion that we are having as Cabinet. We will make a decision about that very shortly. I’ve also foreshadowed that it’s highly unlikely the increase on 1 January may happen, but we will have that conversation as a Cabinet and confirm and communicate that very shortly. I just think it’s a bit rich for the member to stand up and ask questions on tax.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has he given minimum wage workers a pay cut, in real terms, every year that he has been Prime Minister?

We have had increases to a number of payments, whether it’s been beneficiaries or whether it’s been minimum taxes, that are broadly in line with inflation.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Is it the case that minimum wage workers are paid by employers and businesses with customers, not the Government, and so in fact it is impossible for the Government to give minimum wage workers a pay cut—because the Government doesn’t pay everyone, Chris?

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It sets the minimum wage.

Absolutely.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Do you need me to draw you a diagram?

💬 Hon David Seymour: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Just a moment. Just bear in mind there was a lot of discussion across the floor there that may affect the ultimate decision about your point of order.

💬 Hon David Seymour: The member opposite asked if he needs me to draw him a diagram; I can assure him I don’t, but I do need him to be clear that not everyone is employed by the Government.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, that’s enough.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the weekly after-tax income of somebody who’s working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage?

I can give the minimum wage increase—average income is $81,000, and the minimum wage is $23.95 an hour, as you know.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I’ll repeat the question. Can I repeat the question, Mr Speaker? I think the Prime Minister might have misheard it.

💬 SPEAKER: You can, but you’re basically asking him to multiply $23.95 by 40, I suppose—or 30—depending on how you like to measure full-time work.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’m asking him if he’s aware of how much a minimum wage worker actually gets, cash in hand, each week.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, OK, with all due respect, that would depend entirely on the circumstances that worker found themselves in: married, unmarried—

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If they’re working 40 hours a week, it’s not that variable.

💬 SPEAKER: —children, no children, etc.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Somone working 40 hours a week, earning the minimum wage, is going to get a fixed amount of money. I’m asking the Prime Minister if he knows what that is. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No, no they’re not. There are many variables.

I am aware.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. My question was: what is the weekly after-tax income of someone working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage? It is not unreasonable, given the Prime Minister’s just basically talked about the minimum wage and the increases, and so on, to ask him to tell the country what that is.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but you would need to qualify it with the circumstances of each worker that was receiving that. The Prime Minister—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I hope this is helpful.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why don’t we stop wasting the House’s time and you just tell that fellow over there that it’s about $760.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, it’s actually not my job to either ask questions or answer questions, although, quite frankly, I could probably do quite well.

I’ve answered the question: it’s $23.95 an hour.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders have confidence in his leadership when he said he was going to fix the cost of living, and in fact prices have kept going up and it’s got worse; he said he was going to get New Zealanders back to work, and unemployment has increased; he said he was going to back businesses, and businesses have been going into liquidation; and his own parliamentary colleagues in the National Party don’t even support him?

Well, they know that they can trust me not to increase spending by 84 percent, drive inflation up to a 32-year high of 7.3 percent, have 12 to 13 interest rises, put an economy into slow-down, and have people lose their jobs. They also can be reassured we won’t be doing a capital gains tax, we won’t be doing a digital services tax, we won’t be doing a business tax, a streaming tax, a ute tax, or, Willie, a land tax.

Finance

Question No. 2

Asked by: RYAN HAMILTON, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

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

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yesterday, Stats New Zealand released the selected price index for July—it’s a monthly series that tracks prices for a selection of household goods and services, including food, rents, and energy; food prices are often mentioned as a pressure point. Yesterday’s release showed food prices rose 0.1 percent for the month; much lower than forecasters had been predicting. In the year to July, food prices rose only 1.9 percent, the lowest annual rise since 2024.

💬 Ryan Hamilton: How does this compare to previous food price increases?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, annual food price inflation has recently been declining, and at 1.9 percent per year, it is quite modest in the context of recent history. For example, food prices rose more than 5 percent per year in every month between January 2022 and, to pick a random month, November 2023. The peak was in June 2023, when food prices were up 12.5 percent for the year—the highest rate of food price increases since 1987.

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

Asked by: CHLÖE SWARBRICK, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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

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

Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the supermarket duopoly ripping New Zealanders off?

Well, again, as we’ve talked about, in this Government, we take any downward pressure we can create by increasing competition very seriously, and that’s why we’ve undertaken a number of actions in this Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister disagree, then, with the Commerce Commission, who have found that the supermarket duopoly are making excess profits of hundreds of millions of dollars, increasing the cost of living for New Zealanders?

Well, I think the member will also be very excited to hear that food price inflation has further come down to 1.9 percent—that’s good news. We also want to see more competition in the grocery sector; that would put more downward pressure into grocery prices as well, and that’s why we have a number of actions under way to do that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister support ending excess price gouging in supermarkets, like they have done in Australia?

Well, again, the actions that we have undertaken to actually put downward pressure on prices and to create more competition are practical things like opening up our fast-track process—which I know the member didn’t support—so that it’s open to any new supermarket or grocery infrastructure that that can be managed, and obviously creating one nationwide building consent process. That’s very, very important if you’re an international operator that doesn’t want to deal with the 82 building consent authorities that were created by the previous administration.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister say whether he agrees or disagrees with this statement from our bill: “A regulated grocery retailer must not engage in excessive pricing in supplying or offering to supply groceries to consumers”?

Well, I don’t agree with Green Party bills, because the last one I saw was a proposal to actually put a wealth tax on all New Zealanders, and that would be a wrecking ball and drive up the cost of everything and not help any New Zealander.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does the Prime Minister know that 86 percent of New Zealanders who, unlike him, support prohibiting excess supermarket pricing don’t?

Well, I definitely know they don’t want a 45 percent top rate in inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rental tax, or an asset tax. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 4—the Hon Barbara Edmonds, and no one else.

Finance

Question No. 4

Asked by: Hon BARBARA EDMONDS, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

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

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: In the context in which they were made, yes.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the MYOB chief executive on the low-value asset write-off that “Raising this to $10,000 would provide greater certainty and help businesses to make investment decisions, while reducing compliance friction and supporting productivity.”?

No, I prefer the words of the shadow Minister of Finance, who said after Budget 2025, in relation to Investment Boost, it was “good policy”, and my suggestion to Kiwis is that if they want to keep that good policy, party vote National.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many small businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million have actually claimed Investment Boost?

If the member wants to put that down in writing, I’m sure the Minister of Finance will have a look at it. What I can say is that members of this side of the House—and also, dare I suggest, members of the other side of the House—meet businesses every day in this country who are taking advantage of Investment Boost. We back lower taxes for small businesses on this side of the House; the other side wants to lift them up by five billion bucks a year.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just a moment.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Hnry chief executive’s comments on the GST registration threshold that “For too long, the GST threshold has acted like a red light to growth. We’ve watched sole traders who sell to the public hit the brakes just before $60,000 because crossing the line could make them immediately less competitive. This proposal finally gives thousands of businesses the green light to keep growing.”?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, it’s an interesting idea, but I think business is more worried about the $5 billion tax hike that the Labour Party is proposing, and they’re also worried about the swathe of extra wealth-destructive taxes that they will load onto the rest of the economy and that will send a wrecking ball through the economy.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many businesses, full stop, have actually accessed Investment Boost?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I don’t have those figures to hand. I’m happy to put them down in writing. But as I said in response to the previous question, there are businesses up and down the country—farmers and tradies and manufacturers up and down the country—using accelerated depreciation, which is investment boost, which the member herself said was a good policy, which is based on the best advice from the IRD and from the Treasury in relation to what will drive wages and productivity. What is the thing holding this economy back? Productivity. What is the driver of our living standards? Productivity. What is one of the things we can do as a Government to drive productivity? It is investment boost—you should keep it.

💬 SPEAKER: Once again we’ll just have the House calm itself.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: What support is she providing small business owners who own two or more businesses, that are experiences nearly three times the level of mortgage stress compared to non-business owners?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the single best thing we can do for business owners in that situation is get interest rates down, and the way we do that is by not having reckless fiscal policy allied to reckless monetary policy—which is what we experienced between 2021 and 2023, until the Government change. We had a focus on fiscal discipline to take the pressure off interest rates.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I deliberately waited until the end of that exchange to do this point of order. I was hoping you might be able to advise the House whether it is appropriate for Ministers to use question time to encourage New Zealanders to party vote in a particular way, and if it’s not, whether you’ll be ensuring that doesn’t happen in future?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, it’s probably not, but it would not be the first time in my time in this House where I’ve heard Ministers from both sides of the House make those pleas in question time, but people should restrain from making pleas to voters. You can do that outside the House. So we will take that on advisement, and certainly do not want to see it becoming a regular thing—or again for the rest of the day.

Health

Question No. 5

Asked by: TODD STEPHENSON, Answered by: Hon DAVID SEYMOUR

to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent changes has Pharmac made?

I thank the member for his question. Back in 2024, my letter of expectations to Pharmac made clear they should be improving health outcomes using robust data and evidence. I said they should serve New Zealanders based on actual need without assigning their background as a proxy for need. Earlier this month I was very pleased to welcome Pharmac’s decision to welcome access to three medicines for people with type 2 diabetes from 1 September. That access will be wider and it will apply to all patients based on clinical need, because never again should two patients go to see their doctor with the exact same clinical need and be treated differently because of who their ancestors were. We want one law for all and one future together—not racial discrimination in our policy.

💬 Todd Stephenson: How else is Pharmac responding to Government policy?

Pharmac has ongoing work to give effect to the Government’s Cabinet circular, meeting the expectation that the target and commissioning and design of public services should be based on the needs of all New Zealanders. As of 13 August—the date of their last quarterly report of progress to meet my latest letter of expectations—Pharmac reports that it’s formalised its access criteria within the pharmaceutical schedule. This new approach ensures target patient populations are clearly defined form the outset, ensuring everyone in the group has access to—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Oh rubbish—what a load of rubbish.

—the medicine. Pharmac reports that it’s reviewing all access criteria where—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Oh rubbish.

—there are ethnicity-based elements, with a view to removing or replacing them with clinical—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Sit down.

—criteria. I hear Willie Jackson saying “what a load of rubbish”, and “sit down”—these are facts, Mr Jackson. Number one, Pharmac is moving to funding by clinical need, and, number two, racism is wrong.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Why don’t you come and debate it? You’re too scared.

💬 Todd Stephenson: What has the Minister, in addition, asked Pharmac to focus to in his most recent letter of expectations?

Well, in my latest letter of expectations to Pharmac, I’ve set clear expectations for Pharmac to continue delivering more efficiently the medicines and medical technologies that Kiwis need. I’ve asked them to ensure assessment, procurement, and exceptional circumstances work continues at pace to support access to medicines. Of particular importance, I have asked Pharmac to continue its work in the wider health, social, and fiscal impacts of funding decisions. For example, diabetes is just one condition where the economic benefit to New Zealand of drug treatment versus simple pharmaceutical cost can be measured in the years of dialysis avoided, kidney transplants avoided or delayed, savings to the Health NZ budget, a person’s ability to work and earn taxable income, and reduced need for disability or other support. By starting to think about all the benefits of medication, we can ensure that we optimally fund medication to help as many New Zealanders as possible. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: The point of order is?

As I was beginning this excellent answer, I heard Willie Jackson say, “You won’t debate, because you’re too scared.” I think that’s a very sad reflection on you, Mr Speaker, and he should be asked to withdraw it.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: I stand by that. I stand by that.

💬 SPEAKER: I was aware that Mr Jackson was making various statements. I could not actually hear them.

Well, he just said he stands by it.

💬 SPEAKER: He does stand by it?

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah, I do.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, Willie, I’ve been in circumstances where I’ve tried to debate you. In fact, in 1999, I wanted to have a debate; we ended up having a bet over it. You lost it, and you’ve never paid it, so I won’t be engaging that further.

💬 Todd Stephenson: How has Pharmac been able to focus on these priorities?

In response to that earlier exchange, I just didn’t want to have a battle of wits with a half-armed opponent. The Government—

💬 SPEAKER: The previous exchange was between me and you, so I’m not sure you should describe yourself quite that way.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Why didn’t you come to the debate on the weekend?

💬 SPEAKER: Please just carry on.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Why didn’t you come to the debate on the weekend?

This Government took over—well, I’ve said: because I didn’t want to have a battle of wits with a half-armed opponent—

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on a minute.

—and the halfwit is you, Mr Jackson.

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. We’ll stop the question. Mr Jackson, calm it.

Back over here on the adult side of the room, the Government has—

💬 SPEAKER: That doesn’t help at all.

—allocated more than $7.2 billion to Pharmac over four years. This includes a $54 million dollar uplift over four years, announced in Budget 2026, and a $604 million uplift over four years, announced in June 2024. That means that Pharmac has been able to make 135 decisions to fund or widen access to medicines, including decisions on 47 cancer medicines. Over 680,000 patients are expected to benefit in the first year of funding from these cancer medicines, but there is more work to be done, and that is the important work that this Government is doing for New Zealanders at their most vulnerable times.

Prime Minister

Question No. 6

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?

Yes, and particularly our desire not to institute a capital gains tax—supported by Te Pāti Māori.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: That’s not true. Does he consider directing 13 Government agencies to review Treaty provisions across 28 Acts to have been an efficient use of Government resources, due to the cost of living and public services crisis?

Again, as we’ve talked about in the House before, we’ve had Treaty clauses build up over 30 to 40 years. They’re quite inconsistent. We want to make sure that they have certainty about the legal risk, that the obligations to all parties are spelt out well, and that’s why we’re doing it.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What tangible improvement in the lives of New Zealanders will result from his Government amending Treaty provisions in 19 pieces of legislation?

Well, actually, I’m very proud of the progress that we have made for Māori and the outcomes that have improved under this Government. I mean, you can look at the 13 Treaty settlements that have been advanced; you can look at the 1,000-plus Māori families that have been brought out of emergency housing; you can look at a 9 percent reduction and 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime; you can see Māori youth offending down 28 percent; we’ve seen tamariki Māori immunised at 24 months just move from 60 percent to 71.5 percent, improving their health and wellbeing; and I think about the huge investment we’ve put into 1,000-plus homes, contracted with 35 Māori housing providers, in order to make sure we do everything we can on the housing front too. I could go on.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Please don’t. Why did a Government that promised less bureaucracy require 13 Government agencies to search legislation for Treaty provisions to rewrite?

Well, I think I’ve answered this question in my previous answer.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he identify one additional hospital bed, teacher, nurse, affordable home, or reduction in household bills that will result from his Government rewriting Treaty provisions?

Well, what I can say is that Māori patients seen within six hours of showing up at an emergency department has gone from 68 percent to 73 percent. As I said earlier, tamariki Māori being immunised has gone from 60 percent to 71.5 percent. That’s awesome. That’s great news and I’d think that’s something that member would be celebrating with the Government too.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he name one Māori right or statutory Treaty protection that his Government has strengthened with the same urgency it has shown in reviewing, removing, or weakening them?

Well, I’m actually very proud of the 13 Treaty settlements we’ve advanced. I’m very, very proud that after many Governments failing to do so that we’ve reached a resolution on the Nelson Tenths and we’re very excited about that. I’m also very pleased to see the Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Act passed as well.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he name a single iwi, hapū, Māori organisation, or Māori community that has asked his Government to make weakening Treaty protections across legislation a priority?

Well, I’m proud of the ones that we have worked with in terms of offering up a thousand extra homes; $442 million, as I said, spent with 35 Māori housing authorities to make sure that we do a better job on social housing.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister think that as a criterion of achievement, that Te Pāti Māori is now asking people not to vote for them as a party?

💬 SPEAKER: No, the Prime Minister can’t answer that question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, I can.

💬 SPEAKER: No, he can’t.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he regret his Government’s excessive use of urgency when it has been revealed this morning that rushed laws caused 14,800 pensioners to miss out on the winter energy payments that they were entitled to?

Well, that is unacceptable and I’m sorry that that has occurred. What has been the focus is for the Ministry of Social Development to make sure those payments do get to those people as quickly as possible, and that a good review is taken to actually fix that issue. It’s important we fix it, and we are fixing it.

Housing

Question No. 7

Asked by: RIMA NAKHLE, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

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

Stats New Zealand released its selected price indexes yesterday, for July 2026. Annual rent growth in New Zealand has basically come to a stop. Rents in July were up just 0.1 percent year on year, the lowest for almost 25 years. Rents actually fell 0.1 percent from June to July this year, following on from a no-growth trend in the last year. The affordability indicators from the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport show a similar picture: rents are the most affordable they’ve been since the series started in 2003—great news for the majority of renting Kiwis.

💬 Rima Nakhle: How have New Zealand rent prices tracked, over time?

Stats New Zealand publishes a rental price index, which has shown a general decline in both the stock and flow measures since November 2023. If you consider rents for new tenancies using tenancy bond data, these have remained flat and have actually fallen in some cities, like Wellington. It’s a vast improvement on the 2017 to 2023 period where rent prices for new tenancies rose by $180 per week.

💬 Rima Nakhle: Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: No, we’re all done.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 8

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

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill that it would “contribute to a more proactive, efficient, and accurate welfare system”; if so, is it consistent with 15,000 pensioners and veterans losing their winter energy payments?

Yes. I stand by my statement that the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill would “contribute to a more proactive, efficient, and accurate welfare system”. The omission in legislation affecting the winter energy payments for some superannuitants and veterans pension clients is not acceptable. That outcome was not intended and I was disappointed when the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) brought this to my attention last week. I immediately directed MSD to fix the problem, and I have asked for a review to understand exactly what’s happened and the impact. MSD has advised that all affected payments have now been corrected and measures have been put in place to ensure no further clients are affected. I apologise to any New Zealander affected by this.

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Who is correct, the Minister who described the issue as caused by a policy omission by MSD, or the Prime Minister, who said it was an IT issue?

It’s quite straightforward, so let me walk members through it. There was an omission made in the policy stage and the winter energy payment was not included as an excluded item. That policy omission was then omitted in the legislative process. Back then, when the IT rules were put in place, it was again omitted. The policy omission is where this problem was caused. MSD has apologised, and I am apologising to New Zealanders affected by this.

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How long did the average pensioner or veteran who lost their winter energy payment have to go without the money to pay for their energy bills?

I don’t have that detail, but I have asked MSD to provide me with more detail about this issue. But what I can say is that the maximum amount affected was less than $300 per superannuitant, which I accept would have caused harm, and that is why I have apologised.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Minister read the front page of The Post this morning, which reported that her ministry has apologised for their drafting error and that the Government will amend the law to fix this problem, and, after that line of questioning, is she also wondering whether Willow-Jean Prime has even read the newspaper today?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—we’ll let it go.

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: One person is speaking.

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she admit that rushing legislation through Parliament without proper scrutiny meant that her mistake left vulnerable people without heating in a freezing cold winter?

No. As I’ve said, the omission occurred in the policy development, and of course it is very unfortunate that this has occurred, which is why I asked MSD, with urgency, to fix it to ensure that people did not go without.

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she commit to not rushing future changes through urgency due to the stress and harm that she has caused to thousands of people across the country?

Unfortunately, if I think back on my time in this House, there are many examples where legislation has required fixing at a later date. I am frustrated that this has occurred, and, as I’ve said, the priority was on making sure that those who were without winter energy payments were reimbursed at pace. That’s exactly what happened within 48 hours of me being aware of this issue.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister share New Zealand First’s concerns about the delay in this matter for those pensioners, and that it is our concern because we were the driving force behind the winter energy payments in the first place?

💬 SPEAKER: The Minister may respond—[Interruption] Just a moment—hang on. The Minister may respond to the first part of that question.

I know that the winter energy payment is valued by many, many New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she take responsibility for the thousands of pensioners and veterans losing their winter energy payments?

Well, as I’ve said, there was an omission. MSD has apologised, I’ve apologised, and every single person has been reimbursed for that.

Prime Minister

Question No. 9

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; in particular, actions not to institute a 45 percent top income tax rate, an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or an asset tax.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Is he confident that the use of automated decision-making and mandatory reviews has not resulted in wrongful cancellation of main benefits such as jobseeker or the supported living payment due to processing delays or errors?

Yes, and I’m very supportive of the use of those tools in order to be able to free up staff to be able to support others with more complex needs.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: What is he doing to reduce the risk of starvation, disease, and fisheries bycatch to the hoiho, the rarest penguin in the world?

Well, I know that the Minister of fisheries feels incredibly strongly about this issue, and I’d encourage the member to direct her questions to him.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence that his Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, a Minister who has taken pride in being wined and dined by the fisheries industry, is the best person—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, no—sorry. The question will terminate unless you can ask that without the added emolument to it.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he have confidence that his Minister for Oceans and Fisheries is the best person to ensure bold and immediate steps are taken to protect hoiho from commercial fishing?

Yes.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that fisheries-related mortality is a preventable, human-caused threat to mainland hoiho and that his Government has the power to reduce it?

I’m very confident in the actions of our great Minister for Oceans and Fisheries.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to extending protections across the known Hoiho habitats, from Canterbury and North Otago to Rakiura, and out to 14 nautical miles?

Again, I would encourage the member to direct her questions to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Media and Communications

Question No. 10

Asked by: NANCY LU, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

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

No—no, I’m not. That is because New Zealanders do not need more taxes, and the people who tune in to Netflix, or whatever other streaming device they have, don’t need to be paying more taxes. The Government that keeps control of its spending doesn’t need to dream up new taxes every day.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: You don’t do anything anyway, Goldie.

💬 SPEAKER: There’s only one person asking. You know, just calm it all down.

💬 Nancy Lu: Has he seen any recent proposals for a streaming tax?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, can I just remind the Minister, before he answers, to familiarise himself with 181/3, and for that matter 181/4. The Government’s already a little bit behind the ball today for previous infringements, so we’ll see how we go.

Could you give me five minutes to read those two?

💬 SPEAKER: I would have thought, given the Minister’s expertise in all 11 portfolios that he might have that at his fingertips!

I have seen some recent proposals. In fact, the Government has been considering a member’s bill that has been before the Parliament, by Willie Jackson, proposing such a tax. We don’t agree with it—although I’m surprised because we can’t find that bill anymore this morning.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—that’s enough; careful. [Interruption] No, you’ve said enough. Question No. 11, Dan Rosewarne.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Your point of order better be a decent point of order, and not a trifling thing.

I seek leave to table a document, which is the Broadcasting (Commercial Video On-Demand Levy) Amendment Bill, which is no longer available on the parliamentary website.

💬 SPEAKER: But it is publicly available, so we’ll let that go. Dan Rosewarne. [Interruption] Sorry—I’m hopeless at the internet but I could find it, so just let it go.

Small Business and Manufacturing

Question No. 11

Asked by: DAN ROSEWARNE, Answered by: Hon CAMERON BREWER

to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: Does he have confidence that small businesses are getting a fair go when dealing with large insurers; if so, why?

Experiences will vary significantly, depending on the insurer, the nature and location of the business, its risk profile, and the type of cover being sought. What I can say is that I have confidence in New Zealand’s insurance regulatory framework and in the institutions responsible for overseeing this sector.

💬 Dan Rosewarne: What is he doing in response to reports that customers seeking windscreen repairs are often directed by their insurer to big players rather than small, local, independent businesses?

As I said in my primary answer, we have a lot of confidence in the institutions and the regulators that oversee our insurance sector. And, as we know, the affordability of insurance review is under way. I know it’s a residential review of general insurance, but the same principles will apply as to when that review comes back to us, and that, no doubt, will have different suggestions that we can take forward to improve things.

💬 Dan Rosewarne: Does he think it’s fair and reasonable that independent repairers report being required to reduce and resubmit invoices before payment will be approved by insurers?

As I’ve said, there are plenty of institutions—regulators, consumer entities—that continue to look at this sector, and we, as a Government, will continue to look at this sector, to make sure consumers and paint and panel places are getting a fair deal.

💬 Dan Rosewarne: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The supplementary question explicitly sought the Minister’s view and opinion, and Speaker’s ruling 186/5 states that “Opinions can be sought and will be given.” The Minister’s answer did not provide a view on whether it was fair and reasonable; instead, he spoke about other matters. Could I ask that he address the question that was asked?

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, but I thought he did exactly do that. Whatever he says, ultimately, is an opinion.

💬 Dan Rosewarne: What is his view on the impact for small businesses that referral arrangements between large insurers and their preferred provider networks may not be disclosed to customers?

I’m very happy for the member to put these questions in writing and for me to give him full answers, or, likewise, I’m very happy for him to come and visit me on the ground floor of Parliament House. If he is genuinely concerned about these issues, put them on notice and we’ll give him a full and frank answer.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, you can’t question someone’s integrity in something like that. [Interruption] Supplementary, Dan Rosewarne and no one else.

💬 Dan Rosewarne: What options, if any, is he considering to level the playing field for small businesses competing against businesses favoured by insurers?

As I said, we continue to look at the insurance sector, the Commerce Commission continues to look at the insurance sector, the Financial Markets Authority continues to look at the insurance sector. One thing that we’re looking forward to is the Insurance Affordability Review. That’ll just show us where we’re at with competition, the impact of natural disasters, and the impact of building and construction costs. We’re going to turn every stone over to get better premiums for everyone that takes cover, particularly around the vehicle sector.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: To the Minister, does he have confidence that small businesses are getting a fair go when they’re investing in plant and machinery and other important things to grow their business through Investment Boost?

Thank you, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry; that’s quite wide of the actual question that was asked.

Agriculture

Question No. 12

Asked by: GRANT McCALLUM, Answered by: Hon TODD McCLAY

to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has he seen on Government policies to grow New Zealand’s agriculture sector, including Investment Boost?

I’ve seen reports that Investment Boost is supporting the agricultural sector to grow. Of course, Investment Boost allows farmers to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of a new asset from their taxable income on top of depreciation. This means speeding up investment and a much lower tax bill for them in that year as a result of the purchase. Investment Boost makes it easier for farmers to invest in tractors and other equipment, in buildings; many are installing new irrigation and effluent systems, which all helps boost productivity. I’ve also seen the president of Federated Farmers, Colin Hurst, say that “The deduction from taxable income available under Investment Boost can be a significant factor in getting these investments across the line.” Therefore—no longer a quote—Investment Boost shows that the National Government backs farmers in all Kiwi businesses, large and small, to succeed.

💬 Grant McCallum: What other reports has he seen about how Investment Boost is supporting the agriculture sector to be more productive?

The president of the extremely influential Tractor and Machinery Association said, “It definitely feels like the Government’s Investment Boost tax incentive scheme is kicking in.” This is because tractor sales in September 2025 were up 18 percent on the same month of the previous year. This positive trend has continued with tractor sales up nearly 19 percent in June of this year, compared to last year. These sales indicate confidence that it is backing farmers to grow their businesses. I’ve also seen a comment from agricultural tax advisers who call it a “golden opportunity for agribusiness investment”, noting strong early inquiries from farmers and growers about buying new machinery. Of course, this helps them grow their businesses.

💬 Grant McCallum: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: No, we’re all done. That concludes oral questions.