Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: LAURA McCLURE, Answered by: Hon KAREN CHHOUR

to the Minister for Children: What update can she provide on Oranga Tamariki’s performance against her ministerial priorities?

The latest Oranga Tamariki performance report shows steady progress. The report shows that 97 percent of children in care have been visited by their social worker within the targeted time. The speed of responding to critical and very urgent reports of concern has improved from 80 percent in quarter two to 87 percent in quarter three. This has been achieved while Oranga Tamariki continues to respond to historically high demand, with reports of concern increasing by 48 percent over the last two years. Caregiver satisfaction also remains strong, with a 4 percent increase in caregivers reporting that they are satisfied with the support from Oranga Tamariki, and fewer caregivers reporting they are considering stopping being a caregiver. Lastly, the number of children and young people with serious and persistent offending behaviour continues to trend down—now at a 25 percent reduction since 2023, well exceeding the Government target of 15 percent by 2029.

💬 Laura McClure: Why is it important for children and young people that Oranga Tamariki performs well against these measures?

Oranga Tamariki is involved with the most vulnerable and at-risk children and young people in this country. New Zealanders expect our care and protection agency to ensure they are safe and cared for. Since becoming Minister, my number one focus has been on the safety and wellbeing of children. The evidence shows that regular social worker visits are one of the most important factors in keeping kids safe. Regular visits mean social workers can build trust and relationships and see firsthand how things are going in a child’s life. Caregiver support is also particularly important. Even before I became a Minister, I heard of stories of caregivers telling me they did not feel supported by Oranga Tamariki. Caregivers open their hearts and homes to provide a safe, loving, stable environment for young people, and they deserve to be supported in their important work.

💬 Laura McClure: Does the Minister expect these performance measures to continue to improve?

Yes, I do, particularly due to the extra investment and resources that this Government has put into Oranga Tamariki—for example, new tools, like the new All About Me Plan, which gives young people more ability to have a say in their own care. This is the first step in a much larger upgrade of the case management technology used by front-line social workers. This technology upgrade, along with others, will soon be rolled out and it will strengthen performance by enabling better tracking of social worker visits and actions. Greater focus on early safety planning, alongside increased resourcing and technology improvements, should lead to even greater improvement in responding quickly to reports of concern.

💬 Laura McClure: What other updates can the Minister provide on improvements at Oranga Tamariki?

There is an awful lot to list and I won’t list them all now, but the last few years has seen a large investment in our front-line social workers and their training and development—this includes the introduction of allied support worker roles, which frees up the front line to focus on their core social work. There has been significant work to improve safety in our youth justice residences; this includes everything from the basic stuff like renovating buildings that have not been properly maintained since they were built over 20 years ago, to improving the quality of staffing by introducing standard operating practices, improved recruitment and training, and introducing uniforms for staff. This improvement has been noted in reports from the Children’s Commissioner-Mana Mokopuna, who visit and monitor youth justice residences. These reports give me confidence that, while there is still more work to do, we are on the right track.

Auckland

Question No. 2

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

to the Minister for Auckland: Does he agree with Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, “I can point to very recent examples showing that the National Party, as part of the Government, is failing to deliver for Auckland”?

No. This Government is delivering for Auckland, whether that’s saving Auckland ratepayers almost $900 million on their water bills through Local Water Done Well, growing the Auckland economy by fast tracking ports at the Port of Auckland wharf expansion, or saving Aucklanders $4.5 billion by changing the earthquake-prone building rules. This Government is delivering for Auckland.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Mayor Brown that the Auckland City Deal is “meaningless if the Government cannot honour even a relatively modest commitment to explore an agreed proposal”; if not, why not?

No, because we’ve already delivered tangible outcomes as a result of the Auckland City Deal. It is a landmark deal that gets coordination between central government and local government to deliver for Auckland. That deal will make a positive impact for our largest city in this country. Examples of that include the opening of the new advanced technology innovation centre we did last Friday. This is going to be a game-changer in regards to innovation in the city of Auckland, which is the gateway to our country.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was Mayor Brown correct when he told the Minister, “his boss doesn’t know what a deal is”?

No. What I would say to the mayor also is that when you think about a deal in the context of long-term relationship, the city regional deal is a 10-year relationship and there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge over the next 10 years. What I can commit to is that as a Government, we are backing Aucklanders. We are backing Aucklanders in the economy. It is the backbone of our economic engine and we will continue to support that city.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: If he intended to breach his deal with Auckland City Council only months after it was signed, why should any other council trust a deal with this Government?

I don’t agree with the premise of that question because no one’s breached—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: The constant barrage has to stop. Interjections should be rare, reasonable, and apparently, if possible, humorous.

Firstly, I don’t agree with the premise of that question. No one’s breaching any deal. The outcome of the deal structure is in place. It is a strategic and legacy agreement between central government and local government that will deliver for Auckland. For the first time in a very long time, we have alignment between central government and local government in terms of the key projects that will make a difference in our country’s biggest city. We should be supportive, optimistic, ambitious about Auckland, because if Auckland does well, New Zealand does well.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement that the intention of the Auckland deal was to create intergenerational partnerships that survive decades; if so, why did his deal only last four months?

One thing is that speaker’s not too funny, but the second part of the reality is that this Government is delivering for Auckland: $900 million in savings around Local Water Done Well; $4.5 billion around earthquake-prone building rules; fast tracking of the port—$6.6 billion of extra national value as a result of that project alone—fast tracking the north-western busway, unlocking about $10 billion of infrastructure benefits. I could go on, but on this side of the House, we are delivering for Auckland and we are proud of that.

💬 Arena Williams: Does he stand by his statement to Newstalk ZB on Wednesday that he will be making an announcement on iwi representation at Auckland Council very soon; if so, why?

I’ve got a lot of announcements in the pipeline because I’m a very busy Minister, as we are on this side of the House. We are a very busy Government and I make no apologies for that, so let’s wait and see.

Finance

Question No. 3

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

to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 1 yesterday?

Yes—in particular, when I said that to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in four years’ time, a future Government would have to increase the tax taken that year by at least $10.4 billion. That is a big increase. It equates to over $100 more tax per household, every week.

💬 David MacLeod: What would it take to raise that amount of additional tax?

To get core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP, a future Government would probably have to go to the biggest tax bases. One option, for example, would be to increase GST from 15 percent to 18 percent. Doing that and bringing in a capital gains tax, raising tax on businesses by scrapping Investment Boost, and denying interest deductibility on rental properties would altogether raise an additional $10.4 billion, and so the future Government would have achieved its goal of getting core Crown revenue up to 33 percent of GDP. Sadly, with that increase in GST, households would be paying more for almost everything they buy. Taxes would be up by more than $100 a household.

💬 David MacLeod: What is another alternative?

Yesterday, I mentioned another way of getting revenue to 33 percent of GDP in four years’ time. That would be to raise the current income tax rates—raise the current 17.5 percent rate to 20 percent, raise the current 30 percent income tax rate to 33 percent, and raise the current 33 percent income tax rate to 35 percent—bring in a capital gains tax, scrap Investment Boost, and deny interest deductibility on rental properties. That combination of tax increases would raise the additional $10.4 billion required by the future Government’s revenue policy. So there are certainly options to raise large amounts of revenue, but the problem is they are all bad.

💬 David MacLeod: What would be the impact of raising income tax rates by so much?

The immediate impact, obviously, would of course be on people’s after-tax pay. The median full-time wage and salary earner brings home just over $82,000 a year. The income tax increases I’ve just mentioned would increase their tax by almost $1,800 every year. Higher marginal income tax rates also reduce the return from working more hours, taking a promotion, or acquiring new skills, and so people would stop doing those things. Higher income tax rates could also make New Zealand less attractive to skilled migrants and would encourage more Kiwis to leave. In short, raising income tax rates to meet a target of revenue being 33 percent of the economy would be terrible for the economy and terrible for everyday Kiwis.

💬 Tangi Utikere: Will the Government be proceeding with its planned increases in fuel excise?

I’m glad to hear that the Labour Party have come around to our longstanding position, which has been made clear: we will not be lifting fuel taxes on 1 January next year. I also note that one of the first actions this Government took was to reverse the planned fuel tax increases that the last Government had planned and to put a moratorium on those tax increases. Not only did we do that but we also removed the Auckland regional fuel tax. I’ll stand on our record.

RMA Reform

Question No. 4

Asked by: LAN PHAM, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he stand by his statement, “Of course, our standards of living, and the living standards of our children and their children, depend on a healthy environment”?

Yes. I stand by my full statement that “our standards of living, and the living standards of our children and their children, depend on a healthy environment. But their futures also depend on whether they can afford a home, and on food and energy security, access to transport and public services, and the ability to make a living”. Our country’s future depends on a healthy environment, on housing, infrastructure, energy, and economic growth. The Government’s Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms are the biggest tax cut any Government will deliver in a generation. Every superfluous consent is a tax. Every unnecessary notification is a tax. Every year of delay is a tax. New Zealanders have been paying it for 35 years and this Government is saying “no more”.

💬 Lan Pham: Does he consider the millions if not billions of dollars that councils are facing to pick up new drinking-water sources to be a tax on the public from a failure of environmental protections?

No, I think the member is confusing different concepts there.

💬 Lan Pham: How does he reconcile his comment just then with his Amendment Paper that will authorise breaches of environmental protections and remove the ability to cap pollution within environmental limits?

Well, very easily, because the member needs to read the actual guard rails for national standards breaching limits, which says they must only be for activities that have a net public benefit, they must consider the wider implications for natural resource use, they must consider the likely opportunity costs, and they must clearly identify the limits that the standards enable a breach of.

💬 Lan Pham: Does he accept that enabling breaches of an environmental limit for any reason defeats the purpose of having limits and puts at risk human and ecosystem health?

A couple of points: one, the member is factually inaccurate. It’s not just for any reason; they have to be for activities that have a net public benefit. The second point I would make is that the Natural Environment Bill requires the setting of environmental limits. One of the great failures of the RMA is that there are no limits, and the Natural Environment Bill says there have to be environmental limits across air, fresh water, coastal water, biodiversity, and land. Now, there’s going to be a debate about what those limits are—I fully accept that, and the Greens will adopt a particular position in relation to that—but can we just agree with the basic concept that the setting of limits is important, the bill enables it, and that is a massive step forward on the RMA.

💬 Lan Pham: What has changed since his own expert advisory group recommended that there should be “A requirement to cap resource use to ensure a limit is not breached.” and today, with the Government now introducing their last-minute amendments to scrap those requirements?

The Government took further advice.

💬 Lan Pham: Given environmental NGOs, iwi, hapū, and planning experts have strongly opposed his changes that further destroy environmental protections, does he think he knows better than these experts and his own advisory group?

No, it’s not a question of knowing more or thinking I’m superior to them. I respect the views of the Environmental Defence Society and others, in the same way that I respect the views of those on other sides of the aisle: infrastructure providers, energy generators, farmers and growers up and down the country. Part of the challenge with planning reform and the planning system, and the environmental management system more generally, is that it involves trade-offs. As we have discovered through the RMA over 35 years, those trade-offs are difficult; they are complicated for the country to grapple with. There are trade-offs that are made between different values and different goals. Part of what we’re trying to do in this planning reform effort is to surface those trade-offs more visibly, make sure the planning system confronts them at the top—at the spatial planning and regional planning level—rather than fight them out at an individual resource consent level. Is it perfect? No. Is it a better system than what we have now? Absolutely.

Housing

Question No. 5

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

to the Minister of Housing: Will the Government introduce a stamp duty?

No.

💬 Rima Nakhle: Why doesn’t the Government support a stamp duty?

Ah, well, a stamp duty is a tax on home buyers. It’s the old rule: tax things you don’t want. A stamp duty makes it harder for Kiwis to buy a home. Just take a random example. For a family buying an average-priced home in Auckland, just pick a random number—say 5 percent. That would cost the home buyer about $59,000. Now, banks, at least in Australia, lend on the house, not on the stamp duty, so that $59,000 comes straight out of the home buyer’s savings and is, of course, additional to the deposit. For most families, that is years and years of additional savings. A stamp duty makes it harder for people to buy houses.

💬 Rima Nakhle: Supplementary. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: We’ve got a question being asked, Mr Jones; please just constrain it.

💬 Rima Nakhle: What do tax experts say about stamp duties?

This issue has been extensively studied. Australia’s Treasury, for example, and economists more generally have described the stamp duty tax as inefficient. It’s one that distorts economic activity and changes people’s behaviour for the worse. They can discourage work, stop people from taking a better job, stop people from moving house, stop people from investing, and hinder workforce mobility. Inefficient taxes shrink the economy and create a cost to society. Treasury has modelled Australia’s major taxes, and I can tell the House that stamp duty on conveyances—in other words, the transfer or sale of property—is the worst tax. It creates 70c of economic damage for every dollar raised. Chuck that through David Seymour’s cost-benefit analysis. It doesn’t come out well.

💬 Rima Nakhle: What experiences overseas has he seen about stamp duties?

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, too much noise. Just ask the question again.

💬 Rima Nakhle: Ask the question again? Of course. What experiences overseas has he seen about stamp duties?

When Toronto added a second stamp duty on property purchases, purchases by owner-occupiers fell and purchases by investors rose. I refer members to a study published in the Review of Economic Studies. In Britain, researchers found stamp duties cut the rate at which people move house, thus affecting mobility. It means growing families are stuck in a two-bedroom house when they need more, or an older couple in a home they can’t afford to leave. Stamp duties are bad policy, and we won’t be introducing one.

Health

Question No. 6

Asked by: Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL, Answered by: Hon CASEY COSTELLO

to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that Health New Zealand’s projected deficit for the 2026-27 financial year has deteriorated to $475 million, and what proportion, if any, of that deficit will be closed with cuts to front-line services?

on behalf of the Minister of Health: The Government has agreed to increase Health New Zealand’s projected deficit for 2026-27 to $475 million, as set out in media reports and Health New Zealand’s publicly available statement of performance expectations. That is a deliberate decision to deliver more healthcare for New Zealanders, so I reject the premise of the second part of the question. This decision is to protect services.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If his Government has added only 54 fulltime-equivalents (FTEs) of nurses in two years while the deficit was $350 million, what happens to nursing numbers when the deficit has grown to $475 million?

I will address the nurse number question that the member has put. This matter has been traversed in the House a number of times now, and the member’s assertions don’t become more true the more times she says them. There are 2,162—

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

—additional nurses on a net basis.

💬 SPEAKER: I was just about to suggest that the Minister answer her question again, without reference to anything that might have been said by the Opposition on this matter.

This matter has been traversed in the House a number of times. There are 2,162 additional nurses on a net basis employed by Health New Zealand since 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 fulltime-equivalents. We have grown the number of nurses at Health New Zealand by more than 1,600 FTE, and as at 14 August, there were 2,378 FTE nursing roles actively being recruited across Health New Zealand.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: After cutting hospital maintenance from $120 million in 2023 to $97 million in 2025, how many further cuts is he planning to turn around a deficit of $475 million?

Again, the point around the deficit is to ensure that services are not being cut. This means we are operating on the delivery of services so that we do not reduce. This is not being funded by loss. This is not being funded by Apple Pay or credit card. This is on the reserves that exist within the health system, so that no front-line services will be cut.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If 1,000 data and digital staff lost their jobs when the deficit was $350 million, how much further will support for these critical systems be cut when the deficit is $475 million?

As we have stated, this decision was a deliberate decision. Health New Zealand could balance its books tomorrow, but it would only get there by treating fewer patients than it has proven it can treat, and that was not an option considered by the Minister. The investment driving this year’s position is in additional elective treatments, winter preparedness, and primary care. This is care being delivered to New Zealanders right now, and the Government has not been prepared to trade off to a faster route to a number on a page. Therefore, we will not allow services to be cut, and that is why the deficit is being used in this way.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Exactly what sort of mentality would describe $475 million more in health as a deterioration in investment in health?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, without being personal, the Minister can address the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, what sort of mentality, without being personal, would describe it that way?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s exactly the problem.

This Government has agreed to increase Health New Zealand’s deficit position from break even to $475 million in 2026-27. This is entirely funded by cash reserves and, therefore, does not involve debt.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If care and support worker numbers in Health New Zealand fell by 213 fulltime-equivalents while Health New Zealand was running a $350 million deficit, will there be greater cuts when the health system is running a $475 million deficit?

I’ll reiterate the position again. The decision that has been made is deliberate. Health New Zealand could balance its books tomorrow, but it is choosing to ensure that quality of service is maintained, that we do not cut services. The member is implying that the better option would be to return to balanced books and cut services.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Very slowly and with crayons: is $475 million more a cut or an investment?

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why should we follow the rules when that’s allowed?

💬 SPEAKER: Excuse me.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You wouldn’t be able to work it out, four-flusher.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry. If you’ve got a point of order, stand up and take it. Don’t snipe from the side.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: What’s your point of order?

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: The point of order is quite clear, that you have said to this House on a number of occasions that there is to be no lead-in before a question is asked; it certainly isn’t supposed to be using questions to clearly attack other members of the House. Both of those things were in breach in that and you said nothing. Now, this is another example of that member being allowed to do things that you expect from others. It is not acceptable, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: And that is completely unreasonable on your part, and if you want that applied to every question that gets asked from the Opposition, then that’s where we’ll go. In the meantime, the Minister should answer that question.

As I’ve stated, the $475 million was a Government decision to ensure that services do not get cut and that the funding is completely delivered by cash reserves, and, therefore, no debt is involved.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. You’ve just indicated that if that is what the Opposition would like, then that is what we’ll do. That is what the Opposition would like, sir. We draft our questions according to the requirements of Speakers’ rulings, and all we ask is that the requirements be applied consistently across all parties and, specifically in this instance, across all members.

💬 SPEAKER: Good.

Revenue

Question No. 7

Asked by: SAM UFFINDELL, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister of Revenue: Is the Government considering increasing the corporate tax rate?

No, this Government is not considering increasing the corporate tax rate. New Zealand’s company tax rate remains at 28 percent, where it has been since a previous National Government lowered it. IRD’s own 2025 tax system review says that higher taxes on inbound capital raise the return investors require. We are focused on growing the economy, attracting investment, making it easier for businesses to invest and hire, fixing the basics, and not on raising taxes on businesses that employ hard-working Kiwis.

💬 Sam Uffindell: What impact would raising the corporate tax rate have on the New Zealand economy?

Raising the corporate tax rate would be a handbrake on the economy when we can least afford it: less investment, lower labour productivity, and lower wages, with the tax liability ultimately being borne by hard-working Kiwi workers. New Zealand already has one of the higher company tax rates in the OECD. Increasing it up from 28 percent would make this country a worse place to invest. That means fewer jobs and less growth.

💬 Sam Uffindell: What would raising the company tax rate mean for everyday Kiwi workers?

Well, it’s a mistake to think that only the big corporates and their owners would be harmed by an increase in the company tax rate. Any increase would also affect small businesses and make it harder to start a business in the first place. It would also impact every worker. When businesses hire fewer people and make fewer investments because they are instead paying that money in taxes, that means fewer opportunities for workers. This side of the House wants to see more people in work, not less. We want to make sure that more people are starting and growing businesses, not less.

💬 Sam Uffindell: What tax changes for businesses has the Government introduced instead?

Well, good news: instead of a tax increase, this Government has delivered Investment Boost. This Government’s Investment Boost has significantly lowered the tax burden on new investment. Investment Boost actually cuts the average effective marginal corporate tax rate by about five to six percentage points, and that takes it from about 28 percent to below 24 percent.

💬 Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Will he rule out increasing GST?

I’m glad the member asked about future appetite around taxes, but on this side of the House, I can be very clear that we will not be increasing any new taxes—

💬 SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. Just answer the question without any sort of flicks at the other side of the House.

Yeah—we will not be increasing any new taxes.

💬 SPEAKER: Good, and that’s the end of that question. Oriini Kaipara [Interruption]—Oriini Kaipara, and no one else.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 8

💬 ORIINI KAIPARA: [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office]—to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: what impact, if any, will the Government’s use of automated decision-making to make benefit decisions have on whānau access to income support, and unemployment?

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member needs to present the question to the House as written.

Asked by: ORIINI KAIPARA, Answered by: Hon PENNY SIMMONDS

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What impact, if any, will the Government’s use of AI to make benefit decisions have on whānau access to income support, and unemployment?

💬 Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That isn’t the question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, it’s the question I’ve got in front of me.

💬 Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The final sentence: “and the impact on employment”?

💬 SPEAKER: No, that’s correct. Look, the other day I took a question off the National Party because they’d got it wrong. In that case, they got it dreadfully wrong, because it was a supplementary that was asked instead of the primary. Read the primary as it’s written on the paper.

That’s exactly what I read.

💬 SPEAKER: The yellow sheet of paper?

Yeah, that’s exactly what I read. I didn’t add anything into it. However, I will start again.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. There must be two bits of paper floating around. Answer the question.

💬 Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, before you do, I do apologise to the member for that second intervention. The first one was correct.

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The ministry does not use generative artificial intelligence (AI) to make decisions about people’s benefits. It uses automated decision-making—ADM—for some straightforward, rules-based processes where no discretion is required, while decisions requiring judgment continue to involve staff. This means faster and more accurate access to support that beneficiaries need, while retaining human judgment and safeguards.

💬 Oriini Kaipara: Is the Government sending a message to the private sector that it is OK to replace entry-level roles with automated decision-making, and, if so, what impact will this change have on Māori and rangatahi unemployment, which is sitting at 10.8 percent and 25 percent respectively—both 11-year highs?

On behalf of the Minister, the use of automated decision-making enables Ministry of Social Development staff to process more quickly and more accurately the support that beneficiaries need while still retaining the safeguards and human judgment on decision making.

💬 Oriini Kaipara: Have any mistakes been made?

On behalf of the Minister, that’s a fairly broad question, but if the member would like to put in writing what particular mistake she might be aware of—let me know.

Housing

Question No. 9

Asked by: Hon KIERAN McANULTY, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister of Housing: How many of the social houses funded in the 2024 and 2025 Budgets have been delivered?

Since coming into office, the Government has delivered around 8,000 net new social homes; 5,000 net new social houses delivered by Kāinga Ora; 2,900 delivered by community housing providers. In relation to Budget 2024 and 2025, as of this week, 633 places have been delivered so far; by 30 November 2026, we expect this number to be at least 1,000, which is great progress.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he accept, as outlined in a recent report by Community Housing Aotearoa, that homeless has reached its highest ever record level?

As the member knows, there are a variety of different measures in relation to homelessness—for example, from Census 2018 to Census 2023, the number of people living in severe housing depravation, which is a statistically robust measure of homelessness, went up by around, from memory, 37 percent.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Sir, I asked him specifically around “Does he accept that homelessness has increased to the highest level?” His response was to a datapoint from the previous Government—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, I appreciate that point. I think the Minister could either not answer because it’s not in the public interest or give some answer to that specific question, even though it is in the nature of a yes or no.

I’ll just repeat what I said, which is that there are a variety of different measures around homelessness. I referred to the most statistically robust measure of homelessness, which is severe housing deprivation as measured by the census.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why, when Community Housing Aotearoa have said that homelessness has now reached its highest ever level, will he not rescind his instruction to Kāinga Ora to not increase the number of houses it has?

Because, in relation to the second limb of the question, the Government is interested in growing social housing more generally, not a narrow fixation on the number of State houses. We have funded significant investments across all three Budgets in growing the social housing pipeline, which is why there is now around 4,800 to 5,300 total homes funded across Budgets 2024, 2025, and 2026. We are delivering them in a cheaper way, thanks to the support provided with the Community Housing Funding Authority, which I note the member has decided to match recently, and I welcome. We’re delivering them in a cheaper way, and a more value-for-money way, and delivering them to the areas which are needed most—for example, last week, Tama Potaka and I announced well over 100 homes in Tairāwhiti alone because that is the area that is in severe need.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: How can he, on one hand, see homelessness increase to the highest ever record level, admit that there is no guarantee for shelter for those who need it. and claim to want to fix it, while only delivering, so far, 633 houses, and refuse to rescind his instruction to Kāinga Ora not to increase the number of homes?

Well, the member is conflating about three or four separate issues there. I just refer him to what I said in the last answer, which is that we funded over 4,800 social homes across Budgets 2024—

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: You delivered 633.

Yes, as the member may well discover at some point, it takes time to build houses. Funding a house does not immediately mean it turns up—for example, I am advised that for social houses funded in Budget 2020, some were not delivered until 2025, five years later. So the funding provided in Budget 2024 started on 1 July 2025, which is just over a year or so ago, and 630 homes have been delivered. If the member wants to talk about delivery, I’d just put up 100,000 homes and compare it to the record.

💬 Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Minister please confirm that the recent Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport Homelessness Insights Report noted that the number of those rough sleeping in Auckland has decreased over the past 18 months, and this is influenced by the successful use of 300 Housing First places announced by said Minister in September 2025?

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many of those have been filled?

All of them, actually. In response to the question from Tama Potaka—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: That’s enough. The Minister’s quite capable of answering on his own without the barrage from the background.

Yes, I can confirm that. Let’s just be honest with the House: we have a homelessness issue in this country. I’m not denying that we have one, I’ve never denied that and I never would, because the facts are obvious. We’ve had a homelessness issue in New Zealand for the better part of 20 to 30 years, and we need to be honest about the fact that the solution is not just writing a cheque. Between 2017 and 2023, the country spent—wait for it—$30 billion on housing support, and the number of people living in severe deprivation increased. So if it was just a money issue, we would have solved it a long time ago. The honest answer is it is land supply, it is infrastructure, it is better social support, it is social investment, it is backing our community housing providers, it is doing a range of things—all of which, by the way, the Government is doing.

Housing

Question No. 10

Asked by: TAMATHA PAUL, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his reported statement that it doesn’t sit comfortably with him that there is no guarantee of shelter for people on any given night; if not, why not?

Yes, in context. What I said was—and, actually, what I’ve just repeated in response to the last supplementary—we have an enormous challenge around housing in this country. I’ve spent much of the last three years doing my best to try and fix it, including things like fast track and building more social homes. Last week, we announced 820 new social houses around the country, including in the areas that are in severe housing need. We’ve expanded homelessness outreach services, including in Auckland—the Auckland City Mission and Kāhui Tū Kaha. I’m not going to pretend for a moment that there is not a challenge here; there is. It’s a long-running social challenge for New Zealand, we’re making progress, but there’s a lot to do.

💬 Tamatha Paul: Was he trying his best when the Government decided to restrict access to emergency accommodation?

Emergency accommodation is there. There are around 400 people living in emergency motel accommodation right now. It is there for those who are in genuine need. We did make a change, because the Government’s view was that spending $1 million a day, which is what we were doing, and trapping people, over 4,000 at its peak, in grotty, dank motel rooms, often filled with crime and squalor, was terrible for the families, disastrous for children, and recklessly irresponsible for the communities which those motels were in. The only people who benefited from that disaster were motel owners, who enriched themselves on the backs of human misery. So I’m proud that we put an end to it.

💬 Tamatha Paul: Was he trying his best when his Government decided to empower the police to move on rough sleepers when they have no guarantee of shelter?

In relation to the second part of that question, we’re working hard with a range of community providers in Auckland, including some of the groups I just mentioned, like the City Mission and Kāhui Tū Kaha. We’ve funded immediate transition housing support in Auckland, for example, and I’m aware of a letter from her colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter in relation to a similar service that could be funded in Wellington, for example, as well. Those services do work, and we’ll continue to support them.

💬 Tamatha Paul: Does he expect someone who is rough sleeping out in the cold and wet weather, when they are moved on, if there is no guarantee of shelter available to them, to be able to move on?

I’ll just refer the member to the answer I previously gave, which is that we fund an extensive range of supports in our major centres, and now—thanks to the work of Mr Potaka—increasingly in our regional centres, as well, to help those who are doing it tough, who are in need of support, and who don’t have a bed for the night.

💬 Tamatha Paul: Are the immediate access transitional housing beds available in the whole country enough to meet the persistently high number of people rough sleeping when all of those beds are in Auckland and there are only 65 beds?

No, they’re not available in the whole country. Not everywhere in the country has the providers or the services that could sustain those, but if there are providers out there who are prepared to offer what is quite a difficult service to provide—I want to say that in the best spirit—then we’re prepared to look at that, obviously.

💬 Tamatha Paul: What will he do, if anything, to address his discomfort that there is no guarantee of shelter for homeless people?

What I will do is do what we are doing—fast track, going for housing growth, sorting out our infrastructure system, changing our social housing system—so that rather than having a potpourri approach to social housing provision, we take a place-based approach, look at the data, and say, “The East Coast has housing need; we’re going to spend some money there and build some houses. The Far North has severe housing deprivation; we’re going to invest some money there.” We’re going to look at the cohorts who need social housing the most: the victims of family violence, the former prisoners, and the people in acute mental health beds who can’t leave the mental health facilities they’re in, because they’ve got nowhere to go. We’re going to direct the system to make sure people like that have social houses that they can go to. Our social housing system is not working effectively enough for the very people it is designed to help. The good news is that we are fixing it. I invite you to come on the journey with me.

💬 Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Minister please confirm that this Government has committed, again, to funding more than $14 million of additional transitional housing services in locations such as Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Hamilton, Whakatāne, Tauranga, Waimakariri, Napier, New Plymouth, and now Masterton?

Yes, I can confirm that, and I’m very proud of those investments.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 11

Asked by: CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL, Answered by: Hon PENNY SIMMONDS

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “in terms of unemployment, Māori are disproportionately affected”; if so, why?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes, we acknowledge that many Kiwis are finding it tough at the moment. That’s why our Government is so focused on fixing the basics and building the future. We are seeing positive signs. Our economy is growing. The Ministry of Social Development’s community coaching programme and expanded case management services have helped improve employment opportunities for young people, including Māori. I’m confident our approach is working, because despite challenging times, we have seen an increase in the number of Māori exiting the jobseeker benefit on to work.

💬 Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Can she confirm that under her watch, Māori unemployment in Tairāwhiti has reached nearly 10 percent?

As we acknowledge, there is a disproportionate number of Māori that are implicated by unemployment. Things like being predominantly in sectors such as manufacturing, construction, infrastructure, which are more susceptible to changes in employment cycles, means that unemployment has been higher—much higher—than we would like it, but that’s why we are putting in place a number of things to assist. Things like Mana in Mahi, things like He Poutama Rangatahi, things like Flexi-wage, and things like driver’s licence support, Community Job Coaching, 1,000 additional Youth Guarantee places, saving Apprenticeship Boost, and doubling trades academies are all focused on ensuring that there are pathways to employment for Māori.

💬 Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Can she confirm that under her watch, young Māori not in education, employment, or training has reached 23.1 percent?

Again, young people are disproportionately impacted by high unemployment, and, again, that is why we have that full range of programmes there to support a pathway for young Māori into employment. But the biggest thing that will ensure that more young people, more Māori, go into employment is growth in our economy. That is why we are so focused on ensuring that the economy can grow—so that employers have confidence to take on more staff. But something that we will not be doing is putting in place stamp duty, an international company tax—

💬 SPEAKER: That’s enough—that’s enough.

💬 Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Can she confirm that there are nearly 10,000 more Māori on jobseeker support compared to when she took office?

On behalf of the Minister, we have been very clear that Māori and young Māori are disproportionately impacted by unemployment. That is why we have to be so focused on ensuring that our economy grows, on ensuring that we take away red tape—so that businesses have the confidence to grow and hire more people. It is absolutely critical that our economy continues to grow to enable lower unemployment and to ensure that more Māori are employed. We are seeing signs of it in regions like Canterbury and Otago and Southland, where the economy has come back stronger and, therefore, the unemployment rate is dropping.

💬 Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Why, when the number of Māori unemployed and on jobseeker keeps rising under her watch, did she cut Māori trades training, an initiative that addresses the very concerns she claims to have?

I will read that full range of supports, if the member would like, again: Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Flexi-wage—a whole range of programmes, training initiatives, employment support that is designed to help prepare people for work when it is available so that they can take up those opportunities.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Question No. 12

Asked by: ARENA WILLIAMS, Answered by: Hon CAMERON BREWER

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

Yes, in the context they were given.

💬 Arena Williams: Will he continue to defend high food price increases, and what other price increases on essentials is he asking Kiwis to wear?

I have never defended high food prices. We are very encouraged—and I’m grateful to have the opportunity, again—by the latest Statistics New Zealand food price index, which showed grocery prices increased just 1.9 percent in the year to July 2026. It’s a big improvement from 12.3 percent in the year to June 2023.

💬 Arena Williams: So does he share the goal of the finance Minister, as stated on 27 May 2025, to “reduce food prices for Kiwis”, or his comment this week that he will defend sustainable food price increases?

I have never gone out there defending food price increases. What I promoted was sustainable grocery prices, and that is what we are getting to a point of—1.9 percent in the year to July 2026 is a big improvement from 12.3 percent under the previous Government.

💬 Arena Williams: Can seniors, who are increasingly visiting the doctor malnourished and in need of vitamin injections, afford these sustainable food price increases he commented on this week, as he defends those price rises while the supermarkets profit?

Again, we are seeing some progress as far as grocery prices go, and I take you back to 2023, when overall annual food prices went up by 12.5 percent, when grocery food prices went up 12.8 percent, when fruit and vegetables—in 2023—went up by 22 percent in one year, when restaurant meals and ready-to-eat food went up 9.2 percent, and when meat, poultry, and fish went up 11 percent. That was her record.

💬 Arena Williams: Who is correct: the Minister, who said just then that we are seeing some progress on grocery prices, or the carer who said, “When we talk about proteins, we talk about eggs, fish, meat—they’re almost out of reach now to a generation of pensioners.”?

This Government will continue the good work it’s doing to put downward pressure on grocery prices. The latest stat we have is 1.9 percent—just 1.9 percent—as an annual increase in food. Yes, we’ve got some work to do, but it’s a big improvement from where we were at under the last administration.

💬 SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a moment for those who need to go to other business to do so quietly.

I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Natural Environment Bill and the Emergency Management Bill (No 2).