Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: TĀKUTA FERRIS, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

to the Minister of Justice: Āe, e te Māngai, tēnā koe. Why has the Government introduced a package of three Treaty provisions bills that requires some public bodies to do “no more than” take Te Tiriti into account, and repeals other statutory Treaty provisions altogether?

Because we have a commitment in our coalition agreement with New Zealand First, whose leader and deputy leader are leading Māori figures in this nation, to have a comprehensive review of all legislation that includes references to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, and this is the outcome of that review.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with the late Moana Jackson, one of the country’s foremost constitutional lawyers, who said “treaties aren’t meant to be settled, they’re meant to be honoured.”; if not, why not?

Well, I agree with the suggestion that the Treaty is to be honoured, and that is what this Government does on behalf of New Zealanders every day. Naturally, there will be debate about how exactly that can be expressed in legislation. Naturally, there will be a debate about what a Treaty signed in 1840 means today, in 2026, in the context of a modern democracy—and those debates carry on. The good news is that we, generally, in this country, carry on those debates in a calm and dignified way.

Tākuta Ferris: Why does he consider “honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi” to be too strong of an obligation on the Government?

Well, I think, as I answered before, we are determined to continue to honour the Treaty. What I think the member is referring to is the various formulations that have been used over the last few decades, in relation to the Treaty—sometimes referred to “the Treaty”, sometimes “Te Tiriti”; sometimes it’s “honour”, sometimes “have regard to”, sometimes “give effect to”, sometimes another formulation of words. So part of the exercise was to be clear about what we mean.

Tākuta Ferris: If clarity and consistency are truly the problem, why not make honouring Te Tiriti the consistent standard?

Well, because we’ve worked our way through a process that has led to where we’ve got to in terms of the recommendations: some seven bills where we’re going to repeal the provisions because they aren’t appropriate. There will be another one which amends the weighting “to take into account”, and then there’s another piece of legislation that standardises a drafting approach towards the Treaty provisions. This is part of a process that we set out in order to provide some greater clarity. Not all the pieces of legislation that refer to the principles were included in it, and some have been dealt with separately, such as the changes to the Resource Management Act; such as the changes to the Department of Conservation legislation as well. So we’ve gone about this in a careful and deliberative manner.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he believe a referendum on the Māori seats, ending the Waitangi Tribunal, or downgrading Te Tiriti o Waitangi in legislation to its lowest possible level are good policies to improve the future of Aotearoa, or are they just good for campaign season?

Well, none of those things are current policies of this Government. Our Government has been focused upon delivering better outcomes for Māori New Zealanders, like all New Zealanders. It’s why we’re not going to tax them to death like the Opposition will. It’s why we’re focused on restoring law and order in our communities—

💬 SPEAKER: No, just stick to the answer. [Interruption] No, that’s enough—that’s enough.

Well, I’m just giving some context, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—

It’s why we’re very proud of our contributions over the last three years.

💬 SPEAKER: The member barely escaped the prospect of leaving the House early yesterday. Making comments like that is not at all helpful, and I’d advise Ministers not to do it.

Finance

Question No. 2

Asked by: CATHERINE WEDD, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

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

This morning, Stats NZ released the latest GDP figures. These show the economy grew by 0.2 percent in the June quarter of this year, defying expectations. March quarter growth was also revised up to 0.9 percent. These figures demonstrate that over the first half of this year, households and businesses have shown remarkable resilience in the face of the Middle East conflict and the global fuel crisis.

💬 Catherine Wedd: Which sectors of the economy performed well?

Well, as expected, high fuel prices had an impact on retail trade and transport, but nine of the 15 industries measured by Stats NZ grew in the quarter, with construction particularly strong—up 2.6 percent—and exports of goods and services in the quarter were up 3.3 percent. New Zealand households and businesses have been through a deep and protracted downturn, but GDP growth has now been positive for four quarters in a row. Over the last year, the economy has grown 2.6 percent—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: How does it compare to our trading partners?

—much faster than most of our trading partners.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: New Zealand’s doing worse than everywhere else.

Megan Woods would do well to know some facts: go to the Stats NZ website; compare our annual growth with Australia, the UK, the US; and see that New Zealand comes out trumps—or 1.9 percent in per capita terms. That compares well to other countries. Economic growth of 2.6 percent in the year to June is stronger, for example, Megan Woods, than growth over the same period in Australia, the UK, the US, Canada, and her friends the EU.

💬 Catherine Wedd: What is the outlook for economic growth?

Well, this morning’s release was for the June—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Better if there’s a change of Government.

—quarter of this year.

💬 SPEAKER: No, hang on. Listen, excuse me.

There’s some verbal diarrhoea that’s broken out over there.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, just stop for a minute. We’ll just—

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Kick her out.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, no, because she’s asked to be kicked out, and I don’t want to do that. It’s not a gift—it’s not a gift—but I would ask the member just to calm down on the interjections.

It would be a gift to the rest of us—and possibly to her party, too, may I mention. This morning’s release was for the June quarter of this year. More recent data indicates that economic growth picked up in the September quarter, which we will soon come to the end of. Looking ahead, Treasury’s forecasts show growth averaging 2.7 percent a year over the next four years. A growing economy, of course, means better prospects for young New Zealanders, more opportunities, more jobs, higher wages. The Treasury forecasts show 220,000 more jobs by 2030 and wages rising faster than inflation. Kiwis will get ahead under this Government.

💬 Catherine Wedd: How would an increase in taxes affect economic growth?

It would depend, of course, on what taxes were increased and by how much, but, in general, tax increases would be bad for the economy. A big increase in tax would have a particularly profound impact. I’m thinking, for example, of an increase in core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP—I don’t know why, but this example keeps popping into my head. It would mean $10 billion more of extra taxes every year, which is the equivalent, members, of over $100 more tax every week for every Kiwi household.

💬 Hon Member: How desperate.

Such an increase in taxes, of course—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Desperate.

—would have a crushing impact on the economy and on jobs, on wages. To the members opposite who yell out, “Desperate.”, you’re the desperate ones who are aiming for 33 percent revenue—

💬 SPEAKER: That’s enough.

—in your own policy, on your own website—check it out.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s enough. I don’t want to terminate the question, but it’s close. [Interruption] We’ll go to question No. 3, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, and no one else speaks when the question’s being asked.

Finance

Question No. 3

Asked by: Hon CARMEL SEPULONI, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Well, yes, in context. I particularly stand by my statement that there are policies being proposed by that member which would see tax rise to 33 percent—

💬 SPEAKER: No.

—of GDP, the equivalent of $100 more in tax per Kiwi household.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, excuse me—thank you. You can answer from a Government perspective, you can answer from opinion, but you can’t attack the Opposition. That’s one of the rules that’s been the rule for as long as the Parliament’s operated; we’ll keep sticking to that rule today.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is New Zealand’s economy on a real per-capita basis larger or smaller than when she took office?

As the member well knows, the New Zealand economy went through a protracted downturn following a period of excessive spending, excessive inflation, and rapid interest rate rises. The good news is that in the past year, real GDP per capita has picked up considerably as a result of the basics that this Government has been fixing. So while over the three years that we’ve been fixing up the mess left to us by the last lot, real GDP growth has struggled, in the past year it has picked up considerably.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand by her commitment to grow the economy; and if so, why is real GDP per person lower by more than $1,200 since she took office?

Well, I addressed that in the previous answer, and I want to point the member again to the real data: in the past year, in per-person terms, the economy—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Since you took office.

—has grown 1.9 percent.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, just a minute, sorry—we just can’t keep going on with this absolute barrage. There’s no point in asking questions if you don’t want to hear the answers.

In the last year, we have seen a significant recovery in per-capita growth of 1.9 percent. That, members, reflects the good work of this Government to fix the wreckage left by the last Government and put in place the foundations for strong economic growth.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is New Zealand’s GDP growth—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just a moment. Could you start again—just everyone needs to be quiet.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is New Zealand’s GDP growth rate lower than almost every country we would compare ourselves to, including Australia, the US, and the UK at 0.4 percent; the EU at 0.5 percent; Canada at 0.8 percent; and China at 0.9 percent—all of which have been affected by the same international factors as New Zealand?

Well, despite the theatrical voice, she hasn’t listened to the answers I have given. I don’t like to be repetitious, but leave me repeat for that member, using numbers, that in the past year, economic growth in New Zealand, at 2.6 percent, is stronger than Australia, the UK, the US, Canada, and the European Union. I’ve said it once, I’ve said it twice—I’ll keep saying it if she keeps asking the question.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: As the cost of living continues to rise, how many Kiwis have received the full $250 a fortnight she promised them?

It is likely that many have, because that number compromised two numbers. The first was delivering a tax package which would deliver up to $100 a week. That tax package was delivered in full—opposed by those members who didn’t want Kiwis to keep more of their own cash. The second half related to FamilyBoost, and I am advised that thousands of families have now received more than $150 a fortnight in relief as a result of that policy.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When she said yesterday that the Government is currently recruiting 2,300 additional nurses, on top of the current workforce, and that they would be in place by Christmas, was she promising a net increase of 2,300 additional nurses by Christmas 2026?

I do wish to clarify something there, which is that I am advised that Health New Zealand is working hard to fill those roles sooner than the end of the year—all 2,378.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why should New Zealanders believe her promise of 2,300 additional new nurses by Christmas, when it has taken her two years to deliver 54?

Because, Mr Speaker, she’s gerrymandering the figures again, conveniently excluding the first few months of this Government in which many nurses were hired. Overall, we have grown the number of nurses by hundreds, but that member likes to pick the dates that suit her. That’s not how the real world works.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can New Zealanders have trust and confidence in her when she promised to grow the economy and shrank it, promised to reduce the cost of living and made it worse, and promised to fund the health system and then hired only 54 new nurses across the country over the course of two years?

As a consequence of this Government’s responsible economic management, growth in this country has picked up considerably, including growing faster than many of the countries we normally compare ourselves too. Because, under our watch, inflation is much lower than the 7.3 percent it reached under the last Government. And because while New Zealanders have undoubtedly gone through a tough several years, we are now building the foundations in this economy which can give them confidence they can get ahead. And because we are not proposing extraordinary increases to taxation, which would put this economy and New Zealanders’ livelihoods at risk.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her statement that the last thing this economy needs is nine new taxes?

I stand by that statement, and I wish to reassure New Zealanders that if they re-elect a National-led Government, they are guaranteed no new taxes. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s good, so everyone just calm down—calm down. [Interruption] We can just wait all afternoon if you like, I’m not too worried. But I think what I’ll now say is Question 4, Lan Pham.

RMA Reform

Question No. 4

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

to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he consider the Government has an obligation to future generations to protect the environment and maintain a livable climate under his proposed resource management reforms?

Yes, within the scope of what the new planning system is designed to do. The Government’s intent is that the Climate Change Response Act is the primary vehicle for reducing emissions, not individual planning decisions. We need a planning system that protects the environment, not by resisting growth but by setting clear rules so growth occurs within limits—that’s what we’re doing. The system supports future generations by taking a long-term approach to growth, infrastructure, and environmental management.

💬 Lan Pham: How does removing the consideration of the negative effects of emissions support his obligation to future generations to maintain a livable climate, when officials advised that such a change had “a high risk of unintended consequences and is generally not advisable”?

Well, I answered that in the primary answer, which is that the Government’s intent is that the Climate Change Response Act is the primary vehicle for reducing emissions, not individual planning decisions. We have allowed the positive impact of things like renewable energy, for example, in terms of carbon reduction to be taken into account, but not the negative ones, because we want individualised planning decisions not to consider those matters.

💬 Lan Pham: How do changes to the Natural Environment Bill, that remove direction for development to occur within environmental limits and enables pollution to breach environmental limits, support his obligation to future generations to protect the environment?

That’s not actually what the bill does. The bill directs the Government to set environmental limits, which is a big step forward on the Resource Management Act (RMA), which doesn’t do that.

💬 Lan Pham: Why did he say at the Resource Management Law Association Conference that he was “looking forward to limits starting to bite” in the early 2030s, when his own Amendment Paper made clear that even interim limits won’t bite until the 2040s, a decade of decline later?

That’s not accurate—to the second part of the answer, that’s not accurate. To the first part, the whole point of an environmental limits regime is that it does start to have an effect. I think the member would certainly agree with me that part of the problem with the planning system over the last 30 years since the RMA is that limits have not been effective, and we will be putting in place a limits-based regime. There will be quite a bit of debate around what that regime looks like, and the member, I’m sure, will have a view, as will everyone in the economy, and that’s why there’ll be extensive consultation around it. It will be a big step forward for the environment and, indeed, for growth.

💬 Lan Pham: Why should New Zealanders trust that his Government is going to protect the health of their land and water, their drinking-water sources, their oceans, and all of the places they care about and rely on, when the Government appears to have enabled industries who pollute the most to dictate the rules?

People can trust this Government because under this Government, in the last year alone, 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy has been consented. They can trust us because we are the first Government ever to design and build a national flood map so that we can actually work out where our natural hazards are. They can trust this Government because we are the Government that has replaced the RMA, or is about to, with a new regime that puts in place an environmental limits regime, a natural hazards framework, and a national adaptation plan to start to transition our economy to a more renewable one that decarbonises over time. I appreciate that the transition is nowhere near as quick as the Green Party would like, but that’s because they don’t understand that people actually have to live in this economy as well.

💬 Lan Pham: Has he seen the report by Professor Lisa Marriott and Max Rashbrooke that outlines the concerning influence of vested-interest lobbying in New Zealand, and if so, how does his experience compare with a former public servant who said, “The lobbying is intense, and the capture is rife.”?

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, it’s a bit hard to work out how that supplementary actually—

I’m happy to answer it.

💬 SPEAKER: You may be, but I’m not necessarily happy to hear it. Do you want to reframe the question? You can’t just bring in something quietly new like that when you’ve got a very clear written question there.

💬 Lan Pham: Does he agree with the public servant whose quote was outlined in a report by Professor Lisa Marriott and Max Rashbrooke in relationship to the development of legislation in Parliament, who said, “The lobbying is intense, and the capture is rife.”?

I haven’t seen the report, but lobbying is not illegal in this country. I have met with the Environmental Defence Society (EDS), who made strong protestations to the Government around our environment laws. I have met with Federated Farmers. I have met with Infrastructure New Zealand. I have met with a range of groups who are affected by our planning system. Lobbying is not illegal, and last time I looked, nor should it be, because guess what? This place makes really important decisions, and, unsurprisingly, people who those decisions impact on want to have a say in what that looks like. Greenpeace have been to see me, EDS have been to see me, Infrastructure New Zealand have been to see me, the Feds have been to see me. I even met with the member and her colleagues, and I look forward to future meetings. Guess what happened in that meeting? The member lobbied me—ooh!

💬 SPEAKER: Look, I realise we’re a couple of days before the Parliament lifts, but the general excitement in here is much too high. You just need to keep the noise down. Do you have another question, Lan Pham?

💬 Lan Pham: I don’t. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Housing

Question No. 5

💬 RIMA NAKHLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister—

💬 SPEAKER: Just a moment—we’ll just let your own team stop talking.

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

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

For the eighth time in the last three weeks, no.

💬 Rima Nakhle: Is the Government considering introducing a capital gains tax alongside removing interest deductibility on residential property?

No, we are not considering a capital gains tax, and we are not considering removing interest deductibility, and we’re not considering removing them together. That would be a double tax concoction. That is what it would do—a double tax. In 2021, IRD and Treasury warned the Government of the day about overtaxing and double taxation in relation to implementing the removal of interest deductibility when a property could also be taxed on sale—at that time, through the bright-line test.

💬 Rima Nakhle: What reports has he seen on interest deductibility for residential property?

Well, my bedtime reading is very exciting. I’m trawling through what I’ve come to know as “ye olde faithful”, the 2021 regulatory impact statement entitled “Limiting interest deductibility on residential investment property”, which has a lot to say about double tax. In paragraph 52, IRD says that if interest is denied and the property is taxed on sale, then “the investment may be overtaxed”. But the real meat, members, is paragraph 107. Treasury notes that “Allowing a deduction for interest payments when the property is taxable on sale will avoid the double taxation of the economic income from residential investment property”, which is another way of saying a capital gains tax plus the removal of interest deductibility constitutes double taxation, because both taxes apply to the same income. It’s not just me who’s concerned about this—IRD and Treasury were worried about this five years ago.

💬 Rima Nakhle: What else does the report say?

The regulatory impact statement provides a policy suggestion to tackle the risk of double taxation. It says to “allow interest deductions where the property is taxable on sale”, and that’s what the previous Government did. Let me repeat that: when the previous Government decided to remove interest deductibility on residential property in 2021, they had a carve-out to allow interest deductions where the property was taxable on sale at the time of sale. In a world with both a capital gains tax and denial of interest deductibility, you can either lock in double taxation and create unfairness, inefficiency, and disincentives, or do the right thing, avoid implementing a double tax burden, and keep the 2021 carve-out, which means every rental provider gets the interest deduction back at sale anyway. So which is it? Who knows.

Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

Question No. 6

Asked by: Hon WILLIE JACKSON, Answered by: Hon TAMA POTAKA

to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Kei te ea ōna whakaaro i te āhua o te hononga i waenga i te Māori me te Karauna i tēnei Wiki o te Reo Māori; ki te kore, he aha te take?

[Is he satisfied with the state of the Māori-Crown relationship this te Wiki o te Reo Māori; if not, why not?]

Āna. Tēnei mea, te hononga i a Māori mā me te Karauna he pēnei tonu me he mārena: He wā ka piki, he wā ka heke. Kāore e kore kei te mōhio te mema ki tēnei āhuatanga, me te mea nei ahakoa ko wai te kāwanatanga, e kore e taea te kī kua tika katoa ngā mahi a te Kāwanatanga i roto i tērā hononga.

Heoi anō i tēnei wā, tēnei Wiki o te Reo Māori, kua rewa, kua maunu mai te mahere hou a Te Maihi Karauna, kua tūturu hoki tata ki te rima tekau miriona tāra ki ngā mahi pāpāho reo Māori e kaingākautia ana e te mema, ā, kua tūturu hoki te tautoko i a Te Matatini.

[Yes. This phenomenon—the relationship between Māori and the Crown—is similar to a marriage: at times it’s up, at times it’s down. Without doubt, the member is familiar with this situation, and furthermore, regardless of who the Government is, it cannot be said that all actions of the Government are correct within that relationship.

However, at this time, this Māori Language Week, the new Maihi Karauna plan has launched, it has sailed, and almost $50 million dollars has been realised for Māori language broadcasting that the member enjoys, and the support for Te Matatini has also been realised.]

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: If the Government can find $30 million to cut from teachers learning te reo Māori, why can’t it find support for the more than 48,000 Māori now out of work at a time when whānau are struggling to afford kai, rent, and power?

Many New Zealanders, including many Māori, are doing it tough, and what they don’t want to see is another nine taxes added on to their weekly bill. But we are working very hard to ensure that there are very clear steps taken to support those who are facing serious deprivation—for example, for those who have been in emergency housing, making sure that we can help transition them to warm, dry, safe homes—and, indeed, the many, many responsibilities and activities that Minister Stanford has been undertaking to ensure a wide variety of improved delivery of reo Māori and also reo Ingarihi resources into rūmaki and other schools throughout the country.

💬 Hon Erica Stanford: Supplementary question.

💬 SPEAKER: We’ll go to three here. The Hon Willie Jackson.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister: does he stand by his statement on Radio Waatea, “I encourage te reo Māori to be included in all books.”, and if so, why did he support the removal of Māori words in new Ready to Read books?

As we are aware, there are Māori words that continue to be in all those ready to read books, and I’d encourage the member to read some of them.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: What message does introducing three bills to remove Treaty references from legislation in Te Wiki o te Reo Māori send to Māori?

This matter is one that was curated via the coalition agreements, and we are continuing to carry out our agreements, and we stick by our agreements, unlike some other people in this House. What we can also say is this: the responsibility of Kawanatanga is to make sure that we have very clear, understandable, transparent legislation, and at times that needs a review and it will go to the select committee, where the members opposite may have the chance to respond to it.

💬 Hon Erica Stanford: Can the member confirm that not a single Māori word was removed out of a single book under the Ministry of Education in our term, and can he confirm that the proper nouns and names that are used in the decodable te reo readers are exactly the same policy that the previous Labour Government had?

I can absolutely confirm what Minister Stanford has announced, and I can also acknowledge her tremendous mahi to ensure structured literacy and structured numeracy is deployed across all schools, including those where reo Māori is the main language and medium of education. E mihi ana ki a Minister Stanford.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: What is the Minister’s response to Tainui executive chair Tuku Morgan’s criticism of this Government at the Koroneihana, where he said that Māori are being killed by this Government and are being treated like second-class citizens?

Minister Goldsmith and I attended the recent Koroneihana of Te Arikinui Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po, and we were there to acknowledge, honour, and respect the invitation that she sent to us to attend, and we were very fortunate and privileged to be in attendance that day. Yes, there are many comments made on the ātea, but the main kaupapa of that day was to speak to nationhood. Minister Goldsmith and I were very well welcomed and very appreciated for our presence throughout the Koroneihana.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Looking back over the Minister’s term, what does he consider his Government’s greatest achievement for te reo Māori and Te Tiriti: was it introducing three bills on the first week of Te Wiki o te Reo; was it cutting $30 million from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori; was it disestablishing the Māori Health Authority; was it repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on, just a moment. We’ve got a point of order. You can start again in a minute.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I thought the purpose was to ask a question, not ask a question and answer the question at the same time, which is what he appeared to be doing.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, one thing you need to know, and I’m surprised after all your years here you don’t know, is that it’s—

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’m not.

💬 SPEAKER: OK, some people won’t be surprised, but it’s the Speaker who actually makes that determination. Thank you for your intervention; it’s not required. Start again.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Looking back over the Minister’s last term, what does he think his greatest achievement was for te reo Māori and Te Tiriti: is it introducing three bills on the first day of our celebration of Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, was it cutting $30 million from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, was it disestablishing the Māori health board, was it repealing 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, was it increasing the Māori unemployment rate, was it introducing the Regulatory Standards Bill, or was it introducing the most divisive bill in the last generation, the Treaty principles bill—what was the Minister’s greatest achievement?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if the Minister was to take as long as the question we’ve just covered, we’d be here all afternoon, so please make it brief.

There are a range of initiatives but, more importantly, outcomes for whānau Māori, tamariki, rangatahi, kaumātua Māori that this Government is very, very proud of. Whether or not it’s improving the attendance at schools from 33 percent of Māori kids going to school regularly to over 45 percent, or ensuring that the immunisation rate of two-year-old Māori children has improved from under 65 percent to over 72 percent, or the record amount of investment in marae of any Government in history, or over half a billion dollars into Māori housing, or improving and increasing the amount of money that is being committed to te reo Māori broadcasting at the baseline, or the record investment into Te Matatini, or, indeed, improving the state of play for many kids—Māori kids and New Zealand kids—in emergency housing, I could go on. But what I would say is this: this has all been done without any new taxes on whānau Māori.

💬 Hon Erica Stanford: Can the member confirm that this Government has invested $15 million into Te Ataarangi to train teachers to speak te reo Māori, which is half as much as what was invested before, reaching a very similar number of teachers and taking that extra $15 million and investing it into other te reo resources, like the pāngarau maths books?

Yes, and I acknowledge Minister Stanford for her excellent mahi in this regard, and also people like Ruakere Hond, who continue to commit to the teaching of te reo Māori despite the speculative opinion of members opposite.

💬 SPEAKER: I just feel I should just make a general statement, because there are people observing Parliament today and seeing it in a more fractious state than it is usually. It is because we are close to the end of the parliamentary term, but we’ll try and keep it as seemly as possible moving forward.

Children

Question No. 7

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

to the Minister for Children: What is this Government doing to respond to serious and persistent youth offending?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government has done a lot to address youth offending, from expanding the fast-track programme, investing in better help for young people with high support needs, to the great work that associate education Minister David Seymour has done to ensure kids are enrolled and actually attending school. The Government also intends to shortly pass the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill. This legislation provides important tools to protect communities, support victims, and improve outcomes for young people. It will enable a stronger and more targeted response to a small group of young people who, despite multiple previous interventions, continue to offend.

💬 Laura McClure: Why did the Government introduce the Oranga Tamariki—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just a minute. Sorry. We don’t speak, as you know, when a question is being asked, so we’ll start that question again.

💬 Laura McClure: Thank you. Why did the Government introduce the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill?

💬 Tamatha Paul: Because they hate kids.

I hear that member shouting—well, heckling—across the room that it’s because I hate kids. I can guarantee you that if I hated kids, I wouldn’t have put my hand up to come into this House; I would have stayed home and voted for you. The situation I inherited when I became Minister for Children was not good. Under the previous Government, ram raids were averaging two a day, and too many young people were committing serious crimes and causing significant harm to victims and communities. We have already made huge improvements in youth offending by taking a tough but fair approach that ensures there are consequences for their actions, while, at the same time, making sure young people already in the justice system get the support they need to make better decisions, turn their lives around, and unlock their potential. This legislation is just one part of this Government’s commitment to restoring law and order, ensuring there are fewer victims of serious violent crime, and making our communities safer.

💬 Laura McClure: What does the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill do?

This legislation introduces the ability for a Youth Court judge to make a young serious offender declaration. The purpose of the young serious offender declaration is to create a faster, stronger, and more targeted response to serious and persistent offending by unlocking additional powers for police in the Youth Court, such as longer supervision with activity orders, strengthened sentencing and placement considerations, and strengthened monitoring. The legislation also creates a new sentencing response available to the Youth Court for a military-style academy order, which will see eligible young people take part in the programme. This programme will provide structure, address the reasons behind the young people’s offending, involves rehabilitation and therapeutic support, emphasises family and whānau engagement, and has a focus on transition planning to provide pathways these young people can choose to take and change their lives around.

💬 Laura McClure: What impact will this legislation have on the rates of serious and persistent youth offending?

This Government has focused on reducing serious and persistent youth offending from the very beginning by making a Government target that is reported on quarterly. The latest update shows that this target, which was a 15 percent reduction by 2030, continues to be met and exceeded, with a 26 percent reduction in youth offending as at June 2026. I expect this legislation, with its stronger powers for the Youth Court and police, will contribute to and support this remarkable drop in offending rates we have already seen. Ultimately, this means less victims, safer communities, and better outcomes for young people.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Question No. 8

Asked by: ARENA WILLIAMS, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Will he “advocate for those who are paying too high prices” by introducing law changes to prohibit big companies exploiting New Zealanders by charging excessively high prices?

Of course, I will continue to advocate for those who are paying too high prices, and of course I think it is wrong for big companies to exploit New Zealanders by charging excessively high prices. However, while banning price gouging is a superficially appealing slogan, it simply wouldn’t work because it does not address the underlying issue driving higher prices: a lack of competition. In fact, if it did work, it would have been done a long time ago. The Australian experience is instructive in that it has no fixed threshold for what constitutes an excessive price. The regulator has to assess the cost of supply, what constitutes a reasonable margin, and the circumstances surrounding each individual product. That likely means hundreds and hundreds of regulatory and legal disputes over what constitutes a reasonable price for individual product, and millions being spent on lawyers and consultants with likely no benefit to consumers. That is a fatally flawed policy and highlights the difference in approach between the Government and the Opposition. We are focused on long-term, durable measures to increase competition and investment, while Labour’s slogans rely on things that will not work. They are not serious ideas. They are not serious people. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: One person asking a question.

💬 Arena Williams: Are the four major Aussie banks that made a combined total profit of $7.22 billion in our market, with a persistent lack of competitive pressures, gouging their Kiwi customers in a way that they wouldn’t get away with in Australia?

There have been extensive market studies and investigations into the lack of competition between the Australian banks. And, in fact, this Government has picked up every single recommendation of how to address the root and underlying causes of those problems, including reducing many of the regulatory barriers from the Reserve Bank, introducing open banking to allow fintechs to compete more vigorously, and growing Kiwibank so that it can be a more robust competitor to those Aussie banks.

💬 Arena Williams: Are the power companies who have increased their residential prices by 20 percent over the last two years under National gouging their customers?

It is absolutely the case that we want to see more electricity generation driving down prices for New Zealand electricity consumers. It is also the case that very heavy regulatory restrictions in the Resource Management Act have prevented many power firms from building the wind farms and the solar farms that they have wanted to build. They have instead spent years caught up in court. Our approach of accelerating and fast tracking those projects has led to an absolute flourishing in the building of new electricity generation, and that is already flowing through to lower wholesale prices.

💬 Arena Williams: Why does he talk tough with statements like “New Zealanders pay too much for their groceries”, when he won’t take any tough decisions to help them pay less for groceries?

Because when I talk tough, I don’t offer lightweight solutions.

💬 Arena Williams: Is—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Everyone just calm it right down.

💬 Arena Williams: Is all Kiwis can hope for on high food, energy, and petrol prices from this Government just another review, or should there be consequences if a company misuses its market power to gouge Kiwis?

It is the case that if companies misuse their market power and take anti-competitive action, under the Commerce Act, they can already be prosecuted by the Commerce Commission. That member should educate herself by going to the Commerce Commission website and observing the significant number of prosecutions that are progressing through the courts right now where the Commerce Commission is of the view that there have been breaches of the Commerce Act—and that includes cases against supermarkets.

💬 Arena Williams: Has the Minister met with the senior National MP who is publicly describing the plan to split the supermarkets as “bonkers”, as reported in the media today?

Well, no, because that is an unfounded and anonymous allegation. However, I have found official advice that refers to an idea for a wholesale separation in grocery as a completely bad idea. This was official advice provided to the last Government, which said it would not reconsider wholesale separation because it would disrupt efficiency, risk increasing prices, result in an unstable market; incentives for the separated wholesaler and retailer to each expand vertically to gain efficiency of scale; it’s not clear that the wholesaler would be viable or that it could become a monopsony. We gazumped them this week. Next week they’re going to announce another slogan, and it will not deliver for New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. They would have been the most coherent answers that Cameron Brewer has given, and I imagine he would want them attributed to him, so it should be put on the record that those were on his behalf.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that would be nice if it were the rules of the House. Whenever a Minister answers, they are responsible for the answer.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, he’ll be delighted.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, no, you’re missing the point. It was the Hon Nicola Willis who was responsible for the answers given today. We established that last week when you asked—

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: No, but he’s not here.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, we did. No, no, hang on—we went through this two weeks ago. Anyway, we’ll go through—

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speakers’ rulings do make it clear that if a Minister is answering on behalf of, then they need to indicate that. If a Minister is out of the country, then that Minister answering would be the acting Minister. Neither of those things occurred today, so there is a lack of clarity on this basis. Whether it was addressed last week or not, the fact remains that at no point did the Minister indicate that she was answering on behalf of the Minister who was asked the question.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s true, but it’s the Government’s decision as to who answers a question, and so the Minister who was answering today is responsible for the answers that were given.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, sir. If the Government transferred the question, you would be absolutely right, but in an instance where a Minister is answering on behalf of, the question sheet does not say “Minister of Finance” or, indeed, any other portfolio held by the Hon Nicola Willis. It was addressed to Cameron Brewer. Nicola Willis answered on his behalf. At no point did she indicate that it was on behalf of. This would be a change to the rules, as is clearly outlined in Speakers’ rulings.

💬 SPEAKER: No—I’m happy to take it offline with you, but if a Minister stands up and gives an answer in the House, whether they’re answering on behalf of another Minister or in their own right, they are responsible for what they say to the House. So that’s very clear.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir, that is true in the case where those comments were then reflected on at a subsequent question time. But for the purpose of being clear as to how the question is being answered, then it needs to be indicated in the answer at the time that it is on behalf of. Otherwise, we have this unusual situation—and you referred to it earlier, if anyone was tuning in to question time that was unfamiliar with it. We have questions that are clearly indicated to the Minister. They were gender specific; it would be very confusing for the public as to what was going on. All that needed to happen, as is outlined clearly in Speakers’ rulings, is the Minister indicates that they are answering on behalf of the Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. Look, rather than going into the back and forwards as we are at the moment, I’d like to take advice on this and come back to you formally, perhaps, after question time. Can we go now to question No. 9—Mike Davidson.

Internal Affairs

Question No. 9

Asked by: MIKE DAVIDSON, Answered by: Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN

to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she stand by her statement, “I have conditional confidence in Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s Executive. I expect savings I have asked for to be made, and I will continue to monitor the organisation’s delivery against expectations”; if so, why does she retain confidence in Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s executive?

Yes. It reflected my position at the time the statement was made. However, since then, there has been a serious breach of the no-surprises convention by the chief executive. He withheld information I would expect to be alerted to for a full year. I have made it clear to both the board chair and the chief executive that this conduct is unacceptable. The information that the matter relates to has now been referred to the Serious Fraud Office. As a result, I have no confidence in the chief executive of Fire and Emergency New Zealand. I have communicated that I have no confidence in the chief executive directly to the chief executive and the board chair, and have set out my expectations regarding the board’s responsibility to address these concerns. I will continue to hold Fire and Emergency accountable for meeting the Government’s expectations and delivering the improvements required of the organisation.

💬 Mike Davidson: What information was withheld from the Minister?

Sorry, could you repeat that question.

💬 Mike Davidson: What information has been withheld from the Minister?

Look, I’m not at liberty to say because I don’t want to get in the way of any investigation that has been referred to the Serious Fraud Office.

💬 Mike Davidson: Will the Minister accept responsibility for the continued decline in confidence in Fire and Emergency New Zealand due to the failure of leadership, fire trucks breaking down, fire stations being closed due to staff shortages, and fractured relationships between firefighters and the Fire and Emergency New Zealand leadership?

No, it is my view that, of course, there have been issues within Fire and Emergency. A lot of these are historic, but there are also ones that have been happening to date. There have been issues across fleet; there have been issues across bargaining and collective arrangements; there have been issues with payroll and the human resources information system. Now I am aware of even more significant issues, which I believe are worse than any of the day-to-day management issues, but I have met with the board chair and I have made my expectations very clear that the board needs to restore my confidence within Fire and Emergency.

💬 Mike Davidson: Do firefighters currently have safe working conditions?

My understanding is yes. My understanding is that Fire and Emergency does do its best to ensure that firefighters, whether they are professional or volunteer, are supported in the very serious and important work that they do to go out there and help people in their time of need. However, if there are any specific individual concerns that the member would like to raise, I would ask for those to be raised to my office so that we can get correct answers.

💬 Mike Davidson: Is she confident, given her lack of confidence in the chief executive, that communities are not at greater risk?

I think there are a few things in that question. The communities are at greater risk when the firefighters are striking, that is true, and I would ask that the firefighters stop striking and return to the bargaining table so that there are no hours of any day where we do not have professional firefighters. However, I wouldn’t believe that in general firefighters are at risk.

💬 Mike Davidson: Are communities in Hutt City at greater risk by having their fire station closed since 2021, meaning around 16,200 people who reside in the area are now outside Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s eight-minute response time?

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: There are two others there, mate. Go and visit the Hutt.

The Hon Chris Bishop says “Go and visit the Hutt.” I think that’s a great recommendation to the member. However, look, over the next 10 years, we are investing over $700 million into the property of Fire and Emergency. We expect 30 different areas around the country to have that investment in the next financial year. The Hutt itself has not been prioritised by Fire and Emergency in that respect. However, it is also the case that it would be a breach of the law to, as a Minister, expressly suggest where any particular station should go. That is a decision that is for the board and for the chief executive. However, as I’ve expressed, the board has work to do to ensure that they restore my confidence.

💬 Mike Davidson: Point of order. I asked a very clear question, which is were the communities in Hutt City at greater risk by being outside of the eight-minute response window now that the fire station is close, and there are approximately 16,200 people that reside outside of that response time. The question was are they at greater risk? The Minister never addressed that question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think that possibly the problem is with the question when you said, “Are they at greater risk?”, and then went on to say that the station closed in 2021. It’s a risk that’s existed for, what, five years?

💬 Mike Davidson: Yes, and that’s the question. She did not address that. I can repeat the question.

💬 SPEAKER: No, we’ll just see if we’ve got another answer.

Look, across the country, people are serviced by volunteer and professional stations, and where there are any particular gaps, those are filled by other stations in the area.

Justice

Question No. 10

Asked by: TOM RUTHERFORD, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

to the Minister of Justice: What action is the Government taking to deal with disorderly behaviour in public places?

The police will soon be able to issue move-on orders to people who are behaving in a disorderly manner in public places. The legislation is expected to pass its final reading in Parliament tonight or maybe tomorrow morning. The Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Act will provide an additional tool for police to reclaim our town squares and our CBDs and our city streets for the benefit and enjoyment of the people who live there, who work there, and who visit there.

💬 Tom Rutherford: Who will be subject to a move-on order?

Move-on orders will be issued by police to people who are breaching the peace; obstructing or impeding someone entering a business; displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening, or intimidating behaviour; rough sleeping; or begging that unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of a public place. Anybody that’s been visiting our town squares and CBDs in recent years has seen a level of disorder that is not acceptable. We, as a Government, are determined to restore law and order in this nation, and this is just one more step that we are taking.

💬 Tom Rutherford: What consequences will people face if issued with a move-on order?

A move-on order is, of course, not a criminal sanction—we are not criminalising the behaviour here—but a refusal to follow that move-on order will lead to a fine of up to $1,000 or even imprisonment for up to three months. Of course, the easiest way to avoid that is to follow the instructions of the police officer.

💬 Tom Rutherford: Why is the Government taking action to deal with disorderly behaviour in public places?

Because we believe that New Zealanders going about their business in our CBDs—in contrast to the Green Party, our view is that people should feel safe in our CBDs and in our town squares. We have in mind those people who put their life savings into a retail business, get up at 7 o’clock every morning, try to make a living for themselves and their families, and are confronted with somebody lined up outside the entrance to their store shouting at people, intimidating people, and making it difficult for them to make a living, and that is why we are bringing this change.

Question No. 8 to Minister

💬 SPEAKER: I just want to respond to the point of order raised earlier by the Hon Kieran McAnulty. Speaker’s ruling 198/3, which I think he was referring to, does make it clear that where there is to be no change in portfolios and no transfer of a question, a Minister answering on behalf of another Minister needs to make clear to the House if they are answering on behalf of the Minister or as acting Minister. So I’d ask the Hon Nicola Willis just to clarify that.

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No, sorry—

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: —acting—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. I think—

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: Yes, I was acting on behalf.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you. The Hon Nicola Willis—oh sorry.

💬 Ingrid Leary: I won’t say what I was going to say, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s a good thing.

Seniors

Question No. 11

Asked by: INGRID LEARY, Answered by: Hon CASEY COSTELLO

to the Minister for Seniors: Does she stand by her statement, “those that are on fixed incomes, relying mostly or exclusively on superannuation, are doing it tough”?

Yes, I stand by that statement, and I also stand by my statement that older New Zealanders make an incredible contribution to our society. While there is a range of Government income support and assistance available, and our seniors are, generally, better-placed financially than other groups, individual circumstances mean people can, sometimes, need extra help. The reality is that someone on a fixed income is hurt by high inflation, especially at the levels that this Government inherited. I can also advise the member, and reassure superannuitants doing it tough, that, on this side of the House, we won’t be committing to reckless spending that fuels rampant inflation and drives up costs, and we won’t be introducing a raft of new taxes to take even more money out of the pockets of older New Zealanders.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Why did she personally approve the removal from the Better Later Life seniors’ outcomes framework, indicators that measure housing affordability, material hardship, income adequacy, proportion of income spent on housing, and income after housing costs?

As I replied to the member in a written answer regarding this, in considering how best to monitor outcomes from the updated Better Later Life action plan, the Office for Seniors highlighted that the previous framework, of 60 measures, had limitations, including, previously, not adequately representing the outcomes being sought through the action plan. Given this is a shorter set of indicators that more clearly link to the strategy’s objectives, I think this is a better solution for monitoring delivery. As an example, the Better Later Life strategy focuses on housing choices and options. Measuring satisfaction with housing options more clearly links to the stated aims that come from the previous housing measures. Previous measures are still reported through other surveys in the Office for Seniors, who regularly monitors those.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Why did she personally approve removing “material hardship” from the framework, when more than 76,000 special needs grants were issued to seniors last year just to meet their basic needs?

As I would highlight before, the Better Later Life action plan and the strategy delivery has been improved, modernised, and simplified to target practical delivery of outcomes that improve the lives of seniors. Therefore, the measures we’ve applied into this report are aligning to ensure we are delivering those outcomes.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Why did she personally approve removing “income after housing costs” from the framework, when the Older Persons Poverty Monitor found 102,000 seniors were living in income poverty after housing costs?

Again, I will say that we are aligning measures to the Better Later Life action plan. All the measures will continue to be monitored. What we will refer to is that the Ministry of Social Development estimates only around 3 percent of older people are experiencing material hardship, and an additional 4 percent are near hardship. These are the measures that will continue to be monitored through the Office for Seniors. Again, this side of the House is ensuring that we are delivering practical outcomes: subsidiary dwellings for 70-square-metre dwellings to make it easier for older people to live; a rates rebates scheme, recipients of over 66,000 SuperGold card holders; delivering a formal ID for free for older New Zealanders to ensure that SuperGold card holders have a form of primary ID—practical delivery by a practical Government improving outcomes, driving down costs, reducing inflation, and improving the lot of everyday New Zealanders.

💬 Ingrid Leary: How do her new framework indicators, like measuring KiwiSaver participation among adults or job satisfaction among people over 65, show where the seniors are becoming poorer?

They absolutely measure the successes of the Better Later Life Action Plan, because the Better Later Life Action Plan is ensuring that we are making sure older New Zealanders’ quality of life improves, that they are participating in their communities, and that they are enjoying a quality of life—in choosing if they want to work, that they are feeling rewarded. The other part that we will recognise is the fact that we’re trying to ensure that our older New Zealanders continue to be connected socially, and things like making our town centres safer to participate in and enjoying our community centres without feeling threated and afraid are a practical step to improve the life of seniors.

💬 Ingrid Leary: Why did she replace genuine indicators of seniors’ hardship and poverty, from a framework that exists to measure seniors’ hardship and poverty?

I’m not sure how many ways I can say this; we have a Better Later Life Action Plan that ensures we deliver actions, and we will measure the best actions, the best measures to ensure we are delivering those actions. The other measures that the member is referring to will continue to be monitored by the Office for Seniors.

Trade and Investment

Question No. 12

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

to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What progress has been made on the New Zealand - India Free Trade Agreement?

Excellent progress. Yesterday, the New Zealand - India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) implementation legislation passed by 93 votes to 29, marking a major milestone for one of New Zealand most significant trade agreements for many decades. The FTA was concluded and negotiated in just nine months of intensive negotiation and was signed just a few months later. The agreement is expected to enter into force later this year. When it does, it will open a new chapter for Kiwi exporters, providing approved access to a market of 1.4 billion people.

💬 Suze Redmayne: What benefits will the New Zealand - India Free Trade Agreement deliver for New Zealand exporters?

It will deliver immediate benefits for New Zealand exporters in the world’s fastest growing major economy. From day one, 57 percent of New Zealand exports to India will enter duty-free, rising to 82 percent once the agreement is fully enforced, with many other tariff rates having significant reductions. The agreement secures major gains for agriculture, horticulture, seafood, forestry, manufacturing, dairy, and services, and it delivers tariff-free access for many products, significant reductions for wine, mānuka honey, apples, and dairy products. The FTA creates new opportunities to earn higher export returns in a market of 1.4 billion people, delivering more jobs and better incomes for New Zealanders.

💬 Suze Redmayne: Which sectors will benefit from this free-trade agreement, and how?

The benefits will be felt across New Zealand, from kiwifruit and apple growers to wine producers, foresters, coal exporters, and sheep farmers. The FTA delivers immediate tariff-free access for sheep meat, wool, coal, and more than 95 percent of forestry exports, while seafood, mānuka honey, wine, and dairy products receive significant tariff reductions over time. It also includes a most favoured nations protection for wine and services, ensuring New Zealand benefits from future improvements that India grants to other trade partners. Overall, the FTA boosts opportunities for exporters and our regional communities, and it will drive export-led growth in the economy.

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

The FTA will allow Kiwi exporters to grow in the world’s fastest-growing major economy. India is already our ninth-largest trading partner, with just under $4 billion of two-way trade, but it accounts for just 1 percent of our goods exports, highlighting the opportunities for growth. With access to that market of 1.4 billion people, the FTA will help farmers, growers, manufacturers, and service exporters. It will expand sales and it supports the goal committed to by Prime Ministers Luxon and Modi of doubling two-way trade by 2030. This is one of New Zealand’s most significant trade agreements in decades, and I thank every member of this House who voted in favour of it.

💬 SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Those who have to leave, please leave quietly.