Oral Questions to Ministers

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

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

Yes, and especially our decision to restore interest deductibility, which has led to the lowest rent increases in 20 years, after rents went up $180 a week under the Labour Government.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many of the 33 pay equity claims his Government extinguished unilaterally, under urgency, have been settled under the regime that he told this House was now “workable and affordable”?

As you know, we made a much more workable, sustainable pay-equity programme. We have those laws in place, and people are free to put claims forward. I am aware of a couple that are going through at the moment. But if I can come back to the member with an answer, I’m happy to do so. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on, who’s asking the question?

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does cutting a further 8,700 public sector jobs help New Zealand families who are struggling with the cost of living, when there are already tens of thousands of fewer people in employment today than when he became Prime Minister?

I’ll tell you what does help families that are struggling with the cost of living: not putting more taxes on them. When you see a capital gains tax that’s going to hit businesses and Kiwis up and down the country; when you think about a bed tax where two thirds of it will be paid for by New Zealanders—that’s not the way forward. No new taxes is the way forward, in which we get people to keep more of their own money, in their own pocket.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he’s committed to no new taxes, why is he proposing to increase fuel tax by 25c per litre?

Well it’s not a new tax; it’s an existing mechanism. We’ve said very clearly, we won’t have it in place. But, as I note, the member is very excited about tax. Which roads are you going to cut to have $4.5 billion? I am looking forward to seeing the $18 billion worth of new taxes that will fund all the unfunded spending that he has on the plan.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will it be cheaper or more expensive for a young New Zealander to begin an apprenticeship or a degree next year than it was when he became Prime Minister, particularly given tuition fees alone are up by almost 20 percent since he became Prime Minister?

💬 Hon Simeon Brown: Are you bringing back fees free? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Excuse me, just one person answering.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He’s practising for Opposition already.

💬 SPEAKER: That doesn’t help order. Or give comfort to the Speaker. The right honourable Prime Minister.

Well, actually, that’s what—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement in the House just last week that “most importantly, wages will be growing faster than inflation and prices”; if so, why do the latest treasury forecasts suggest it’s going to be at least two more years of pain for working New Zealanders before that happens?

I’d just say to the member, isn’t it exciting that we had a 2.6 percent GDP growth over the last year. Isn’t it fantastic to see manufacturing on full song and actually doing incredibly well. Isn’t it great to see services returning to expansion, a record number of exports, tourism back on track again, wholesale electricity prices going down 35 percent, and building consents up over 20 percent. Look at the progress we’re making on construction and jobs, there, too.

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When real wages have fallen; power prices have been going up; insurance prices have been going up; rates have been going up; and other household costs, like food, have been going up—all by more than 20 percent under his leadership in just the last two years—will he now admit that the cost of living crisis is not only not over, it’s been getting worse under his leadership?

I refute the characterisation in that question, but what I’d say to the member is that if he feels so strongly about rates increases, why doesn’t he come out and reverse his position again and vote for the rates cap.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not he knows anyone, or if anyone’s been reported to his department, who took 34 months to understand the interest deductibility policy?

Well, I think the member raises a very, very good question, which is that under the previous administration, rents went up $180 a week, and that hurts working New Zealanders. Under this Government, we’ve restored interest deductibility, and, lo and behold, we’ve had the lowest rent increases in 25 years.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

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

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

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

Yes, and especially our decision never to introduce a capital gains tax.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does he think that New Zealand fell in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index in 2025?

Well, I’m actually proud of the actual policies that we have in place to make sure we manage conflicts, the way that we engage with stakeholders from all sorts as we develop policy. I’m actually proud of that progress.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree that we need better regulation of lobbying practices, and, if not, why not?

Well, again, it’s not something that I’ve considered deeply at this point, but I’d just say to the member: I notice that, you know, there’s a lot of union influence on Green Party policy, and I don’t know what the definition of a lobbyist would be under their proposal, but that’s something that I’m sure they’d give consideration to.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So does he not agree, then, with his finance Minister, who in 2024 said, “There’s more that should be done” on regulating lobbying, and, if so, why has nothing been done—but, worse than that, his Government came to office and stalled work that was already under way to regulate lobbying?

Well, I just reject the assertion in that question. This is a Government that’s made sure that we’ve got great conflict management, particularly in respect to how our Cabinet and our Ministers operate. We’re very proud of that. Of course, if there are things that we can do to improve going forward, we should all be up for that conversation. But I just put it to the member: how are you going to classify a unionist? Are they a lobbyist?

💬 Hon Members: Yes!

💬 Hon David Seymour: Would the Prime Minister—

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Oh, OK—Greenpeace?

💬 SPEAKER: Just a moment—

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: No more meeting with Greenpeace—your mates.

💬 SPEAKER: Woah, hold on. You don’t want to make it two weeks in a row, do you? I’ve called David Seymour.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Would the Prime Minister characterise free business-class trips to London, paid for by a lobby group, as lobbying?

I’m not in the best place to do that, but we make all of our diaries transparent and it’s on the record as to who we meet with, and that’s a good thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he expect his office’s failure to record lobbying from Fonterra and Z Energy on climate liability to improve or worsen the public’s perception of corruption?

Oh, look, I think the public can be very reassured that this is a Government that’s been highly transparent. We release our diaries, we have very good conflict management processes in place, and I’m pleased at the progress we’ve made.

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Prime Minister given consideration to proposals by some parties that donations of over $30,000 be banned, and is he aware that those same parties have received multiple donations over that amount in this very term of Parliament—could this be a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”?

Well, those are obviously decisions left for individual parties, but I’d just say if they believe so strongly, they should reject those donations; particularly, I’ve seen ones of $100,000, $132,000—send them back.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with the average hard-working New Zealander paying double the effective tax rate of multi-multimillionaires and billionaires?

What I’m absolutely comfortable with is that I’ve got a Government that doesn’t labour them up with new taxes. That’s really important, because the single biggest thing we can do is let New Zealanders keep more of their own money in their back pocket to spend it as they see fit and with their own choice.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister consider it improper lobbying when members of the Government such as Chris Bishop and Simon Court met with Greenpeace and Forest & Bird and the World Wide Fund for Nature in preparing the resource management laws which will triumphantly pass this afternoon?

No, and I just say, you know, the member raised this issue last week and he was dead right. I mean, which Government wouldn’t want to talk to as broad a set of Kiwis as possible when they develop policy?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why should hard-working New Zealanders pay income tax on every dollar that they earn while those who earn millions from returns on investment don’t?

Well we just think the best way forward is to grow the economy, make life more affordable for people, and invest in the things that will set the country up for our kids and our grandkids. The way forward is not to spend more, tax more, borrow more, as all the Opposition parties propose to do.

💬 SPEAKER: Can I just say that the people supporting the questioner don’t really need to do the bellowing that they are to get the points made.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister declare that it is “communism” when the Greens propose divestment of the supermarket duopoly, but not “communism” when his party proposes exactly the same thing?

Well, I’m very happy to get into that with the member—I mean, there’s a very big difference with bureaucrats running a supermarket that’s costing us $3 billion and then finding the taxes and increasing taxes to fund that $3 billion versus letting the market actually compete more strongly.

Finance

Question No. 3

Asked by: NANCY LU, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

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

Stats New Zealand’s monthly selected price indexes came out on Friday. These showed annual rent increases of—wait for it—zero. This, members, is the lowest annual rent inflation in the history of the data series, which goes back 20 years. In comparison, rent inflation when this Government came into office in 2023 was 4.3 percent a year. At the time of note, there was no interest deductibility for residential rental properties, despite officials warning that that policy setting—which flies in the face of good tax policy—could reduce rental supply and put upward pressure on rents. Well, our Government listened to that advice and restored interest deductibility, and, of course, the lesson, members, is that housing tax settings have real consequences for Kiwi renters.

💬 Nancy Lu: Has there been any criticism of the Government’s policy to restore interest deductibility?

Oh, yes, there was a constant barrage of criticism from some people about so-called “tax cuts for landlords”. This was nonsense, of course, as tax should be paid on profit, not on revenue, and so the Government was simply restoring normal business tax settings. None the less, “tax cuts for landlords” became a mantra that was recited ad nauseam, with one member of Parliament stating that “This Government has consistently made the wrong choices. They’ve prioritised tax cuts for landlords.”, another stating that “We certainly wouldn’t be giving tax breaks to landlords.”, another saying that “It makes no sense to me.”, and another saying that “It’s about what you choose to prioritise.” Those members were all members of the Labour Party.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, good—OK.

They should eat their words.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, you know the rules about using supplementaries to attack the Opposition, and so we’ll go straight to question No. 4, the Hon Barbara Edmonds. [Interruption] Yeah, no one else talk while your member, your Minister, your—

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: “Minister”—yeah!

💬 Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Not yet—a few more weeks.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, well it could be months or it could be years—you never know—but the Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Finance

Question No. 4

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

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

Yes, particularly this Government’s decision to restore interest deductibility, a decision which has proven the test of time.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is real GDP per capita higher or lower since she became Minister of Finance?

Well, as I traversed in detail in the House this week, the New Zealand economy had a protracted downturn which, in part—according to an independent review released today—was because of monetary policy mistakes made by the Reserve Bank under the mandate of the previous Government. Subsequently, however, as our policies have come into effect, we have seen real GDP per capita grow more strongly, reaching almost 2 percent in the previous year, which shows that as our policies come into effect, growth is recovering.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is unemployment higher or lower since she became Minister of Finance?

Well, as the independent review into monetary policy makes clear today, ill-judged decisions by the Reserve Bank in response to COVID, in part enabled by the loosening of the guard rails by the previous Government, meant that unemployment is now higher than it was during the pandemic, and this independent report notes that that could have been prevented if better guard rails had been in place and better decisions had been made by the Reserve Bank. We all share the intention for more Kiwis to be in work, and it is my view that more Kiwis would be in work today if the Reserve Bank hadn’t made such terrible mistakes under the guidance of the previous Government.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the cost of living higher or lower since she became Minister of Finance?

Well, that depends on which aspect you’re looking at, and for which household. For households who have received tax reduction, it is the case that their incomes are higher than they would otherwise be. For renters, the fact that rent increases have reduced so dramatically and have been zero in the past year, that is better for their cost of living. What is clear, overall, from our policy programme is also that targeting inflation and not letting it reach 7.3 percent, as it did under the last Government, during which it went out of target for 33 months—that, fundamentally, is what’s required to ensure that the cost of living is controlled; and that’s also combined with very clear stats that show that, under the previous Government’s watch, food price inflation reached over 12 percent, and today it’s at 1.9 percent. This shows that orthodox economics matters and you ignore it at your peril.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, when she promised to get the economy moving, to get people back into work, and to lower the cost of living has she failed to meet her promises and has just made things worse?

Well, I’d utterly reject that conclusion. What is very clear, based on the independent analysis of experts, is that decisions made by the previous Government made the downturn following COVID much, much worse and much longer than needed to be the case. Our Government has heeded the lessons of history. We have restored a single mandate for the Reserve Bank, we have brought spending under control, we have restored inflation targeting, and the worst decision that New Zealanders could make is to go back to the policies that created hardship in the first place. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Good. Whenever we’re all ready.

Prime Minister

Question No. 5

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

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

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

Yes, and particularly our decision not to introduce a gift or death tax.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with his response to my question on 15 September 2026 that “The best way to meet our obligations under the Treaty is to focus on delivering better outcomes for Māori, and that’s what this Government has been doing.”?

Yes, I do. I think actually delivering improved outcomes rather than just performative statements is always a good course of action.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does he think that increasing the Māori unemployment rate from 6.8 percent in 2023 to 10.8 percent in 2026 is a better outcome for Māori?

There is more work to do, as we’ve just talked about. We’ve got spending under control, we’ve got inflation down, we’ve got interest rates down, we’ve got an economy growing, and what follows after that is growth and employment, and that’s a good thing. We look forward to all of that happening, but what I am proud about is Māori youth offending is down 28 percent.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: There it is. Does he think that having tamariki Māori experiencing severe material hardship at double the national rate is a better outcome for Māori, and, if not, what is he doing to address the Children’s Commissioner’s call for a Tiriti-led approach to child poverty reduction?

Well, that’s why I’m very proud that we’ve taken 1,000 plus Māori families out of emergency housing. That’s been really important for them.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: How can he continue to deflect legitimate questions around his Government’s constant attack on Te Tiriti o Waitangi by saying that he is focused on better outcomes for Māori when outcomes for Māori have only got worse over the past three years?

I reject outright that proposition. I mean, the number of tamariki Māori immunised at 24 months is up from 60 percent to 71.5 percent. I’m sure the member would think that would be a good thing.

Housing

Question No. 6

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

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

As I’ve said eight or nine times now in the last month or so, no.

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

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: They can’t talk about anything they’ve done because they’ve done nothing.

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on, wait a minute. Interjections should be rare and reasonable, the Hon Sepuloni, not a barrage like that before the Minister even starts.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: That wasn’t a barrage. You haven’t heard it.

💬 SPEAKER: If Dr Megan Woods is threatening a barrage, then I’ll just say this answer is to be heard in silence.

No. The Government is not considering what some would call a double tax quagmire. A capital gains tax plus removal of interest deductibility creates a double tax, because they both apply to the same income. In 2021, when interest deductibility was removed, the previous Government had an explicit carve-out to allow deductions when the property was taxable on sale. That comes directly from the IRD’s 2021 regulatory impact statement (RIS).

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

I have seen many reports. Obviously, there is the classic, the IRD’s 2021 regulatory impact statement, but there have been many reports over the last three years of people calling interest deductibility a so-called tax cut for landlords. It seems that position no longer holds.

💬 Rima Nakhle: What other reports has he seen on interest deductibility?

Well, let me quote from the IRD’s 2021 regulatory impact statement. The first point was the recommendation: don’t do it. IRD said every option to remove or limit interest deductions on residential property was worse than the status quo. They said it would put upward pressure on rents; have negative impacts on housing supply and high compliance costs for 250,000 taxpayers; and erode the coherence of the tax system. They said the people who would pay would be leveraged property investors but also renters, including low-income households, young people, Māori and Pacific peoples, and the 42 percent of children who live in rental homes. The highest performing criteria in the RIS was raising tax.

Education

Question No. 7

Asked by: Hon GINNY ANDERSEN, Answered by: Hon ERICA STANFORD

to the Minister of Education: Is she confident that her staff and her officials have always met their obligations under the Official Information Act 1982; if so, why?

With respect to my staff, I’ve always made my expectations clear that we are to comply with the Official Information Act (OIA) and have done so to the best of our ability. Regarding officials at the Ministry of Education, I’ve also made my expectations clear that they are to comply with the OIA. My staff and I have never suggested or directed otherwise. I’m aware of recent media about a particular ministry official, and I have reiterated to the Secretary of Education the importance of complying with the Official Information Act. I’m confident that she is taking this matter seriously. She’s contacted the Public Service Commissioner and the Ombudsman, she’s undertaking an internal review, and an internal employment process is under way.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Who instructed her senior official to tell staff working on the curriculum rewrite to refrain from putting information in writing to hide that it went “backwards and forwards” between the ministry and the Minister’s office?

Well, as I’ve already raised in my primary answer, neither myself or any of my staff have ever either intimated or asked anybody not to comply with the OIA. What I can say, though, is the Secretary of Education is undertaking an internal review to get to the bottom of this.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Was the political adviser in her office aware of the arrangement with the Ministry of Education not to put feedback from her office in writing in order to avoid the Official Information Act?

Absolutely not.

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Check your Gmail.

💬 SPEAKER: Just one person asking a question only.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did her senior official state, “What we do not need is anything in response in writing that shows that this stuff has gone backwards and forwards between them and us.” when talking about her office’s involvement in developing the curriculum?

Well, this meeting that is being talked about in the media is in relation to the 74 Phase 5 curriculum documents that have been finalised and are needing ministerial sign-off. It is an entirely normal process for all documents that come from the Ministry of Education to go first to the Ministry of Education private secretary, who is seconded to my office and who is not a political staffer. It is their role to ensure that the documents make sense before they are processed through to the Minister, and they asked questions about the material in anticipation of any questions I might ask. This is a normal process for any papers that come to my office. These papers have not been given to me or my political staff as yet to sign out or to review, but I expect that all of these processes are covered by the OIA, and anybody who is suggesting that they are not is now going to go through a process with the Secretary of Education.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she expect New Zealanders to actually believe that her senior official was acting entirely on her own, and, if so, will she commit to proactively releasing all communications between her office and ministry officials regarding the curriculum, including summaries of instructions that weren’t provided in writing?

We will always comply with the Official Information Act, and if any of those requests come to our office, we will comply with them, as we always have done.

Revenue

Question No. 8

Asked by: CATHERINE WEDD, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister of Revenue: Is the Government considering implementing a comprehensive capital gains tax?

Any form of capital gains tax would, in fact, be the wrong move, and Kiwi households and businesses will pay more. That is why we are not considering a comprehensive capital gains tax.

💬 Catherine Wedd: Has he seen any reports on a comprehensive capital gains tax?

As a matter of fact, I have. I’ve seen recent reports by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions with input from Craig Renney, calling for one with work behind it. The sad reality is that this report is completely detached from the reality Kiwis are facing. Kiwis need a growing economy that creates jobs and lifts wages, so that they have more money in their back pockets, not a comprehensive capital gains tax that will take money away from them.

💬 Catherine Wedd: What is the difference between a comprehensive capital gains tax and a capital gains tax?

Well, any capital gains tax in any form would hurt Kiwi households and businesses. A comprehensive capital gains tax, however, would apply to potentially all types of assets, including KiwiSaver, shares, land, and the family home. If a comprehensive capital gains tax or any capital gains tax is introduced, it would be to the detriment of every hard-working New Zealander.

💬 Catherine Wedd: Would a capital gains tax be bad for the hard-working Kiwis in the fruit bowl of New Zealand?

Well, a capital gains tax would be bad for all New Zealanders. If one was to be introduced, anyone with a home, a business, an orchard, or a store would face new costs. That means less money to invest higher and to grow, and less opportunities for economic growth. The responsible thing for any Government to do is to not introduce any new taxes.

Public Service and Digitising Government

Question No. 9

Asked by: Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government: What public services, if any, on which Kiwis rely is the Government planning to cut?

None.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How will cutting almost 9,000 jobs, including services that Kiwis rely on, help families with the cost of living?

As the member well knows, the member is assuming that fewer staff automatically means worse or fewer services. We want to ensure we’re investing in high-quality public services that are modern, focused, productive, and financially sustainable over the long term, with a core focus on front-line delivery. We also want to be attracting high-quality talent and ensuring the Public Service is always an attractive place to work. Our goal is better services and better value for money, not fewer services.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When he said to Mike Hosking last week, “We need to keep going further. There is no question about that.”, did he mean he would cut even more jobs?

Now, on behalf of the Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government, the Minister is focused on making sure that we get efficiency out of Government expenditure, because, ultimately, every single dollar that the Government spends is paid for by taxpayers, and they expect to get good services and they expect money to be spent wisely.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Now that Public Service chief executives have reported back, what programmes will he cut?

As I said in the primary answer, the Government is not cutting public services.

💬 Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why should New Zealanders trust a Government who promised public service cuts won’t impact the front-line services, and who now face crowded emergency departments, nursing vacancies, and a crumbling fire service?

This Government is focused on ensuring we get good outcomes and improved outcomes. The previous Government saw the number of public servants in the core public service grow from around 47,000 to more than 65,000—three times faster than the workforce at large. Ultimately, at the same time, people saw their public services and the outcomes go backwards across health, across education, across law and order, and we are turning that around, focused on outcomes, focused on value for money, and making sure that every single dollar of taxpayers’ money is respected.

Resources

Question No. 10

Asked by: JENNY MARCROFT, Answered by: Hon SHANE JONES

to the Minister for Resources: What reports, if any, has he seen on the resources sector?

Multiple reports. Of course, we set an ambitious target to double New Zealand’s exports in a decade and I can report, within three years, sadly, my characteristic modesty called me to underestimate the period of time that would elapse before we achieved $3.1 billion worth of product to the world, 5,520 jobs, and now the sector represents export revenue that has jumped ahead of export sectors such as wine and seafood. It is an extraordinarily positive result reflective of a deregulatory approach and not backing down or cowering in the face of misinformation from ill-informed green creatures.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: Why is the resources sector important to the regional economy?

The regional economies are the backbone. They are happy that I record in this House that mining is responsible for 22 percent of economic activity in the Hauraki region, despite the presence of certain discordant, loud, ill-informed voices; 17 percent in Buller; 27 percent of GDP in Waitaki. Now, of course, those who want to stop this legitimate activity of mining, and hobble the growth of those regions, do not take account of the unemployment, social dislocation that takes place in the absence of this industry. Of course, because we have stopped the weaponisation of contrivances related to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the catastrophising of green things, we’re full steam ahead.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: How many petroleum and mineral permits were approved in the last year and how does that compare to previous years?

I’m extraordinarily happy to report that in 2025, there were 434 petroleum and mineral permit approvals, the highest number on record. Of course, that has been a steep climb to recover from the fateful day that this industry was cancelled. The momentum is continuing, and, since the beginning of 2024, more than 1,000 permits have been issued. This Government is bringing about the golden age of extraction, and we mean to continue at pace.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: Why has there been such strong growth in the extractive sector under this Government?

Undoubtedly related in part to my advocacy—worked tirelessly against considerable challenges of misinformation. But we’ve sought to bring confidence back into New Zealand for investors. Yes, there may be loud voices jumping up and down on Queen Street, but they have no conception that without the extractive sector, all of the tools, the accoutrements, the gadgets that they flash around would not be possible. Investment follows confidence, and confidence is built on not only clear policy but clarity from politicians; not saying one thing on a Tuesday, doing something on a Wednesday, or—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Tell us about the oil and gas ban.

—sorry, I won’t respond to more Luddite contributions—

💬 SPEAKER: No, just conclude the answer. It’s been a long one.

I beg your pardon?

💬 SPEAKER: I just suggest you conclude it shortly. I mean, we’re all very impressed by the modesty being exhibited, but—

The mineral sector is no longer treated like a red-haired stepchild and has returned to its rightful place at the centre of New Zealand’s economic narrative. Not only is this good news but it shows after the last three years, we are at the forefront of nations who are prepared to use our extractive resources, including oil and gas, to overcome these fairytales that the lights will stay on purely through green dreams.

Agriculture

Question No. 11

Asked by: DANA KIRKPATRICK, Answered by: Hon TODD McCLAY

to the Minister of Agriculture: Is the Government considering a comprehensive capital gains tax on farms and orchards?

No. Not only have we ruled out a comprehensive capital gains tax on farms and orchards; we’ve ruled out any new taxes. The Government is keeping taxes low so all New Zealanders, including rural New Zealand, can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their families can spend their money on.

💬 Dana Kirkpatrick: What reports has he seen about a capital gains tax on farms and orchards?

Well, I’ve seen a report from Craig Renney of the Council of Trade Unions that talks about a tax system that ensures all sources of income, including capital, are properly taxed. It says the starting point is to introduce, and I quote, “a comprehensive capital gains tax”. It’s clear that this would include farms, forests, orchards, packhouses, farmhouses—everything. This would significantly harm the New Zealand farming sector. That’s why the Government has ruled out any new taxes.

💬 Dana Kirkpatrick: Has he seen any other reports about a capital gains tax?

Well, yes. An expert at the Auckland University of Technology said economists have identified potential downsides, including the added compliance costs, valuation challenges, and incentives for investors to defer asset sales. A capital gains tax would increase uncertainty and add considerable cost to farmers and growers—complexity that they would either have to absorb or pass on to consumers and households. That’s why we’ve ruled out a capital gains tax, a land tax, a wealth tax, a ute tax, a fertiliser tax, a methane tax—in fact, every one of the taxes that we’ve been hearing about for rural New Zealand and all New Zealanders.

💬 Dana Kirkpatrick: Has he seen any other reports about taxes on farms and orchards?

I’ve seen questions about the effects a capital gains tax would have on rural New Zealand. For instance, would worker accommodation on an orchard be included if a house was exempt? Would the worker accommodation that was near a farm be included or not? Would a dairy farm be included if it didn’t have a house? What about a processing facility on a farm or nearby? The primary sector will be responsible for $64 billion worth of exports this year, and they are already taxed enough. That’s why we will not introduce any new taxes, including no capital gains tax.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Question No. 12

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

to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Is the Government’s policy still “sustainable food price increases”, as he has stated, and is that why the Government has been unable to increase competition in New Zealand’s supermarket sector dominated by two giants with 80 percent market share?

I reject the premise of that question. The Government has done many things to increase competition in the grocery sector. As the Commerce Commission and OECD have identified in numerous reports, this is a highly concentrated market with significant barriers to entry. The Government has acted on those barriers by making it easier to build supermarkets, strengthening supplier protections and competition sectors, and commissioning detailed analysis of structural reform. But there is still much more to do. That is why we commissioned the cost-benefit analysis, which identified restructuring Foodstuffs as an option worth testing for consumer benefit.

💬 Arena Williams: Why has the Government made no move to respond to its own official advice to break up the supermarket duopoly that he referred to just then?

We have commissioned a cost-benefit analysis—an independent cost-benefit analysis—which sits on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website for all to consider. What the Opposition had was a chance of six years to push through reforms, and, as we know, food prices, in one year alone, increased 12.5 percent in the year to June 2023; that compares to just 1.9 percent under this administration, in the year to July 2026.

💬 Arena Williams: Is it a surprise to him that food prices are still higher under this Government, with lamb up 28 percent, mince up 36 percent, and beef steak up 39 percent, when the Government’s only concrete action on supermarkets actually benefits the incumbent supermarket giants by fast tracking and centralising their consents, as he has read out to this House?

Again, this Government is doing a lot more than the last Government achieved, and the fact that the increases in food prices have slowed is evidence of that. I know the member likes waving around tins of spaghetti, but, under this Government, spaghetti has actually fallen; under that Government, in one single year, a tin of spaghetti increased by nearly 35 percent.

💬 Arena Williams: Where is the third entrant that Nicola Willis said she wanted to get on and work with to get them in the door, who she would do a deal with to give them the VIP treatment?

What we won’t be doing, as—[Interruption] oh, well, if we want to look at new entrants, you can have a look at the Annual Grocery Report, and, as the member knows, that Annual Grocery Report shows a number of entrants coming in and competition increasing. It shows a lot of middle-sized supermarkets coming in, such as Kai Co, for example; it shows—

💬 Arena Williams: Because of the last Government’s regime.

💬 SPEAKER: Woah, woah!

—the impacts of Costco; and it shows the impacts of the likes of the Chemist Warehouse on different category ranges.

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that, in the past year, the following foods have reduced in price: chicken, pork, bacon, tomatoes, lettuce, butter, and eggs; and does the Minister have any view on why those somewhat significant reductions—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just a minute. That was a question being asked. You don’t call out or interject when a question is being asked. Please start the question again.

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that, in the last 12 months, the following foods have reduced in price, according to Stats NZ data: chicken, pork, bacon, tomatoes, lettuce, butter, and eggs; and has it occurred to the Minister that the member asking him questions today from the Opposition regularly fails to mention those facts?

💬 SPEAKER: You are not responsible for other members’ questions. The first part of the question may get some response.

I can confirm those increases—[Interruption] ah, decreases, at least. The increase I can confirm is the 22 percent that fruit and vegetables went up in the year to June 2023 under Labour—22 percent. That compares to a 1 percent decrease in fruit and vegetables in the year to July under this Government. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. We’ll go back on this side of the House, so we’ll go to Ricardo Menéndez March.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he support the creation of KiwiMart, a publicly owned, fair competitor with a starting market share of 15 percent, to immediately compete with the supermarket duopoly and bring down food prices?

I do not agree with any concept that might be named “Pak ’N Soviet”, nor would we agree to or lead a wholesale-retail split. That is because analysis commissioned by MBIE under the previous Government ranked wholesale-retail split the lowest of every option considered and called it—this is MBIE—“fundamentally flawed.” The Commerce Commission found a wholesale-retail split was not “necessary or desirable”.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister stand by the answers to his last three questions that many new competitors are entering the market at the margin; that critical food prices are falling, as he answered in response to the Minister of Finance, and that heavy-handed Government intervention might be described as “Soviet”; and if so, what does he make of proposals for heavy-handed intervention in the market?

I welcome that question and I can confirm that we as a Government, a tripartite Government, agreed in Cabinet to commission an independent cost-benefit analysis, which identified restructuring Foodstuffs as an option worth further testing for consumer benefit. Not only can we thank the National Party Cabinet Ministers and New Zealand First New Cabinet Ministers—

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, good. Just get on with it.

—but also the ACT Party Cabinet Ministers.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, excellent. Arena Williams—we’ll go side to side.

💬 Arena Williams: Is the price of a basket of goods from the supermarket lower today than on the day that Nicola Willis promised to lower grocery prices?

Food prices have increased at a much slower rate under the last three years compared to the last three years of a Labour Government. In the last three years, under a National - ACT - New Zealand First Government, food prices increased 6.8 percent—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Just, sorry—just stop.

In the last three years of Labour—

💬 SPEAKER: Stop—stop.

—they increased nearly 22 percent.

💬 SPEAKER: OK, well, if you’re not going to follow instructions to stop, then you’re going to get the barrage all through the question.

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware of reports received from orthodox economists at the IMF and the OECD highlighting that New Zealand’s grocery sector is a global anomaly in its degree of consolidation and recommending that pro-competition measures are needed to address these challenges, including, in the OECD’s case, a specific recommendation that structural solutions may be required?

Yes.

💬 Arena Williams: Are the small grocers gaining market share from the incumbent supermarket giants that the Minister has pointed to accessing wholesale because of the Labour Government’s rules for grocery supply?

We can see—and I know you like props—in the 2025 grocery report that the middle-sized players are making a small difference. Yes, we’ve got a lot of work to do, but we also know any proposal, whether hypothetical or not, to split wholesale and retail is not going to work, nor was it what they commissioned in the previous Labour administration, where MBIE and the Commerce Commission spoke out against it.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister aware of the country of Finland, which has a similar population, topography, and size to New Zealand and has two supermarket chains with 82.5 percent market share, and yet their Ministers have all read widely and resisted getting their knickers in a knot about supermarket concentration?

💬 SPEAKER: This should be a very brief answer.

Again, as the Minister of Finance has said, we have commissioned independent analysis that has made several suggestions and shows exactly what can be achieved, and a future Government will have the ability to unleash the Commerce Commission to look at this and make recommendations.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he agree with Daniel Shields, owner of chilled distribution company Cool & Fresh, who said, “We’re probably one of the only countries in the world where individual supermarket owners can be on the rich list.”; if so, why won’t he back a publicly owned supermarket that prioritises affordability instead of letting their owners go into the rich list while Kiwis struggle to put food on the table?

💬 SPEAKER: A brief answer.

We will not support “Pak ’N Soviet”.

💬 Arena Williams: If the Minister is so convinced of the efficacy of a supermarket break-up, as his own officials have advised, why won’t he move to do that now?

As has been articulated, the independent analysis is on the MBIE website. This Government will seek a mandate and then we will unleash the Commerce Commission to do the necessary work. If there are benefits for the New Zealand consumer, then we will proceed. We make no apology for putting more competition into the supermarket sector in New Zealand and backing New Zealand consumers.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Have any of the actions he has taken enabled a third competitor with enough of a market share to genuinely compete with the duopoly and bring food prices down, or will he just use terms like “Pak ’N Soviet” to hide the fact that his actions haven’t resulted in meaningfully lowering food prices?

Again, I’m happy to articulate what we’ve done as far as opening the fast-track process to supermarkets, creating a nationwide consent pathway, increasing penalties for fair-trading breaches, and, of course, making it easier for new entrants to use proven supermarket designs. We will continue to turn every stone over to get a better deal for New Zealand consumers.

💬 Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Minister agree that a fundamental underpinning principle of effective market capitalism is workable competition that ensures that suppliers and owners in an economy are competing to offer the best deal to consumers, and that it should be enforced by a Commerce Commission and competition regulator, or does he prefer the Soviet preference for monopolies and duopolies?

Yes, creating more competition is the best way to lower prices, not asking a regulator to decide the correct pricing. If, for example—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, just a moment. Minister, sorry. What’s wrong over there? [Interruption] Well, then, just keep the noise to reasonable interjection, not screaming and yelling. And wind it up quickly.

Yep. Thank you, Mr Speaker. If, say, just hypothetically, banning price gouging actually worked, it would have been done a long time ago. In fact, Australia’s experiences—

💬 Arena Williams: It was in every other country!

💬 SPEAKER: Woah. Listen, just stop again. Hang on. That’s just completely unnecessary. That’s just straight out yelling and screaming. Are you finished?

💬 Hon David Seymour: Was he aware the Soviet Union allowed duopolies before just now?

Again, I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for helping us to commission that work that’s now on MBIE’s website. I hope he reads it closely, and, after the election, I hope he can help us push play on getting a better deal for consumers.

💬 SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Before I call on the Hon Ginny Andersen to move a matter of urgent public business, we’ll just take a slight break while all those who need to leave the House for other activities and other parliamentary business can do so quietly and very quickly, please.