Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially our fast-track changes, which will make it much, much easier and much faster to get stuff done. We need more homes, we need more energy, more jobs, and more exports, and fast track will make it easier to deliver all of that and more. Fast track, of course, started life as an inspired piece of thinking from the “Piketty pirate” David Parker, and we have proudly stolen it and made it even better. Now we are making sensible changes—sensible changes—before it comes into law later this year, by shifting the decision making back to expert panels. So, if you care about climate change, care about energy security and a thriving economy, my message to Labour and the Greens is to get on board and vote for the fast-track legislation.

SPEAKER: Just before the supplementary gets asked, we are going to have a little bit more civility around the question and answer session. Some of that yelling out from over this side and the response from that side is not on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who is correct: Christopher Luxon, who said, “We’ve ended up creating a whole new series of addictions to nicotine that I think we’ll regret very strongly”, or Casey Costello, who received advice of an undisclosed provenance that was later forwarded to health officials, claiming “Nicotine is as harmful as caffeine”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are doing the job in this Government of lowering daily smoking rates. We’ve made tremendous progress, and I know the Minister is working incredibly hard to do that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Casey Costello that nicotine is as harmful as caffeine, and, if not, why is he comfortable with his Minister presenting that advice to officials to inform the development of future Government policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member that Ministers are responsible for their own policy development processes and how they work with their agencies, and each Minister will operate differently, as we have seen with Erica Stanford, as Minister of Education, operating very differently from that member as Minister of Education.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked him two things: one was whether he agreed with the statement, and the second was whether he was comfortable with his Minister presenting that advice to her officials to inform the development of Government policy. As he repeatedly does, he has attacked me but he hasn’t actually addressed the questions that I’ve asked.

SPEAKER: Well, look, I think there were two legs to the questioning. He picked up the second leg pretty well, saying that Ministers are responsible for their own programmes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Hon Casey Costello that nicotine is as harmful as caffeine?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we both agree about is that we’re going to lower daily smoking rates.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t the question.

SPEAKER: I think the Prime Minister could perhaps address the question directly.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Could he ask the question again?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Hon Casey Costello that nicotine is as harmful as caffeine?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think that nicotine is more harmful than caffeine.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who acted properly: Judith Collins, who warned Shane Jones and David Seymour that their criticism of the judiciary broke Cabinet Manual conventions, or Shane Jones, who renewed his attacks last week calling a High Court judge a communist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: You’d have to ask the Minister about that, but what I’d say is that he was being descriptive, not critical.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. When it comes to questions of the Minister’s conduct, the Prime Minister cannot say, “You’d have to ask the Minister that.” The Prime Minister is responsible for the Minister’s conduct. A Minister calling a judge a communist—

SPEAKER: That’s true, but you did ask a very direct question. Think about how you ask the question and, without penalty, ask again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, I can shorten the question if you’d like, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, if you’re capable, go for it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he comfortable with a Minister in his Government calling a judge a communist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he comfortable with a Minister in his Government calling a judge a communist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Minister was being descriptive, not critical.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

SPEAKER: We’re on a point of order, and I will call that point of order. I’d just say that you’re going to dance on a pin if we keep on having semantics around words—but please ask your point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: This is a pretty substantial issue. There is a separation between the Parliament, between the executive, and the judiciary. It is well respected that not only Ministers but members of Parliament should not be criticising the judiciary. A Minister calling a judge a communist is a legitimate question to ask of the Prime Minister around ministerial conduct, and I think we could expect more than just a flippant answer like that.

SPEAKER: I don’t think it was a flippant answer. The answer was that he was being descriptive, not accusatory, which is a pretty reasonable answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it acceptable for a Minister in his Government to describe a judge as a communist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the comments are descriptive, not critical. That’s exactly what has happened. It’s on the public record. They might not be the words that I’d use, but he’s perfectly free to do so.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister surprised that the leader of the Labour Party believes “communist” is a critical term?

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think we’ll let that go.

Hon David Seymour: Sorry, comrade!

SPEAKER: We’re just going to come to order. Everyone might find everything highly amusing; you’re just taking up your own time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he, as Prime Minister, satisfied that Shane Jones’ comments are consistent with Cabinet Manual requirements around Ministers not criticising the judiciary?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, Fitch Ratings announced it was maintaining New Zealand’s long-term foreign currency debt rating at AA+ with a stable outlook. AA+ is a very strong rating, being only one notch below the highest possible rating of AAA. Fitch is one of the big three credit rating agencies; of the other two, on foreign currency debt, New Zealand is rated AA+ by S&P and AAA by Moody’s.

Tim Costley: What reasons did Fitch give for this decision?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In its press release, Fitch said that the AA+ rating reflects its view that the Government’s commitment to return to surplus will stabilise and then reduce Government debt to GDP in the medium term. It noted that tax relief has been offset by spending cuts, and future operating allowances have been tightened, with the aim of reducing core Crown expenses to 30 percent of GDP over time. And it praised New Zealand’s strong policy institutions and sound macroeconomic policy framework, which enhance its resilience to economic and financial shocks.

Tim Costley: Can the Minister tell us what Fitch said about the fiscal outlook?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said, Fitch expects Government debt to stabilise as a percentage of GDP and then start to reduce. It noted that the Government’s return to surplus had been delayed until 2027-28 as a result of worse than expected economic performance. It also pointed the finger at large spending increases by the previous Government during the COVID period that had not been reversed. This Government is working hard to get Government spending down.

Tim Costley: What factors could lead Fitch to re-evaluate its rating of New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Fitch points to a few factors. One could be a build-up of external vulnerabilities—for instance, from continued high current account deficits. Another could be a severe housing market correction or difficulties in household debt servicing. And, importantly, Fitch also points to the risk of insufficient fiscal consolidation. To my knowledge, ratings agencies don’t do counterfactual analyses. If they did, I think they would be horrified to find that in the current economic circumstances, if we continued with the future Budget operating allowances which were set by the previous Government, there would not be a surplus posted in New Zealand until at least 2030-31.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are these ratings by Fitch higher, lower—or the same—than what the previous Government left them?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, that’s precisely my point. Despite all of those cries of wolf, they are the same.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “On this side of the House, we take economic management extremely seriously”; if so, have her decisions since the Budget exemplified that?

Yes, and yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she give the tobacco industry a $216 million tax break when the Treasury was already warning that there will be difficult funding trade-offs with other areas of the health system and suggested any extra investment “could be prioritised in areas such as primary care or acute mental health”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Cabinet made a decision on the possible funding source for cancer medicines. Treasury provided advice on possible funding sources for those medicines. They included taking money from a tagged contingency for bowel screening, taking money from a tagged contingency for the Well Child / Tamariki Ora programme, taking money from the extension of breast-screening eligibility, taking money from emergency department security, taking money from Gumboot Friday, and taking money from a tagged contingency for heated tobacco products. The Government decided to do none of these things. It decided to keep funding intact for these initiatives and increased the combined pharmaceutical budget and charged this against the Budget 2025 operating allowance.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why has she prioritised the $216 million tax break for the tobacco industry, instead of ongoing operational funding to deliver the new drugs, ongoing?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the characterisation at the beginning of the member’s question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How did she get Budget 2024 so wrong that she had to rewrite it weeks after and has spent 74 percent of Budget 2025 nine months before it is due?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, again, I reject the characterisations in the member’s question, and I’d point out the following things: tax relief out the door, fiscally neutrally; inflation down; interest rates down; stable ratings from the ratings agencies—the Budget was pretty good.

Question No. 4—RMA Reform

4. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What recent announcements has he made about the Government’s one-stop-shop fast-track legislation?

Well, over the weekend, I was pleased to announce, alongside my colleague the Hon Shane Jones, the huge interest there has been in this Government’s one-stop shop fast-track process: 384 projects have applied to be listed in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill. These applicants come from every corner of the country and almost every major sector. There have been multiple applications. I can give you the breakdown: 40 percent of the applicants are housing and urban development, 20 percent—over 70—are renewable energy projects, 25 percent infrastructure projects, 8 percent primary industries, and 5 percent each are quarrying and mining.

Nancy Lu: What recently announced changes to the Fast-track Approvals Bill has Cabinet recommended be made to the Environment Committee?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The positive feedback we’ve had so far confirms what we’ve been hearing around the country: New Zealanders want to see progress in their towns and cities. However, we’ve always said we’re open to sensible changes as a Government. We have listened to the concerns of submitters to the committee, and there have been two major changes to the bill I’ll highlight to the House. The first is that projects we’ve recommended will be referred to an expert panel by the Minister for Infrastructure, rather than the three Ministers, who will be required to consult with the Minister for the Environment and other relevant portfolio Ministers. And final decisions on projects will sit not with Ministers but with the expert panel, which is the same process adopted by the previous Labour Government.

Nancy Lu: How does the Fast-track Approvals Bill align with this Government’s priorities?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we are determined as a Government to cut through the red and green tape holding this country back to make it clear we’re open for business, and build a pipeline of projects around the country. Here are the simple facts: we have an infrastructure deficit, we have a housing shortage, and we have an energy shortage and very ambitious climate targets. Our planning system does not have a hope of allowing us to meet those challenges without serious reform. That’s why we have the fast-track bill.

Nancy Lu: What are the next steps for the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I’ve laid out, Cabinet has recommended a series of changes to the Environment Committee. It will be over to the committee as to whether or not they accept those recommendations. The bill is due to come back to the House by 18 October, and it is the Government’s intention to pass it into law by the end of the year so we can get on and rebuild this economy.

Question No. 5—Energy

5. to the Minister for Energy: Does he agree with Mark Ogge, a climate and energy expert at the Australia Institute, that “only import liquefied natural gas if you like your energy very, very expensive, and if you want it to be very emissions intensive. Otherwise go for renewable energy, with storage, which is cheaper and virtually zero emissions”; if not, why not?

No, but I do agree with the Labor Party Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, who said, “Gas in particular has a key role to play as a flexible source of energy, helping to smooth the transition to renewables.” I want to be very clear—New Zealand currently has an energy shortage. Electricity generators are having to burn coal and diesel to keep the lights on while factories close their doors and working people lose their jobs because of the energy crisis we have inherited. If the member opposite had continued to read further into the article which she—

SPEAKER: No, stick to your own stuff.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Sorry?

SPEAKER: Stick to your own stuff, not the previous Government.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Sorry. If the member had continued to read the article which she—

SPEAKER: Reference to past Governments is not helpful in this situation.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m referring to a Radio New Zealand article that she was quoting the quote from this morning.

SPEAKER: Oh, that’s a different matter. But make it clear you’re quoting, that’s all.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Absolutely, yes—the source for her question, that’s right. She would have noted the comments from New Zealand energy analysist John Kidd, who said, “LNG enables dynamic dispatch into the market when it is required, which fits very well with the requirements of power generation.” I know it’s a hard truth for members opposite, but the reality is we need more gas to enable intermittent renewables in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What advice, if any, has the Minister requested or received in the last three months on renewable energy storage, such as grid-scale batteries, as an alternative to importing expensive and emissions-intensive liquefied natural gas (LNG)?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Government has welcomed, in the last few months, announcements by some of the generators around actual construction and financial investment decisions on grid-scale batteries, such as Genesis, who are actually investing in that infrastructure. And one of the announcements we made yesterday was actually to ease some of the restrictions on electricity distribution businesses to be able to actually invest in generation on their own assets. That could include more batteries. So we need more batteries, we need more gas, we need more wind, we need more solar, we need more geothermal, we need more hydro—we need all of the above to have the affordable, secure supply of energy for New Zealand. That’s what this Government is delivering on.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: How does the cost of generating electricity using LNG at between $200 and $300 per megawatt-hour, compare to the cost of generating electricity from renewables—such as hydro, wind, and solar—and firmed with renewable storage?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The answer to that question is if you look at the energy shortage that we currently have and the prices that we’ve been experiencing, with spot prices averaging up to $800 a megawatt-hour on the week of 11 August, LNG comes in a lot lower than that cost, and the good thing about it is all of those renewable energy sources, their long-run cost of production, is cheaper than that. So this is about providing the firming capacity so that people investing in renewable energy can have confidence that they can firm that energy source so we can have the renewable energy that New Zealand needs, as the Prime Minister of Australia—Labor Party Prime Minister of Australia—said.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What, if anything, has he done to accelerate work based on advice from Genesis that estimated they could produce 600 gigawatt-hours of electricity with biomass in the range of $140 a megawatt?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This Government is focused on ensuring that we are reducing the red and green tape needed to be able to invest in generation up and down our country, to allow generators, whether they are the four gentailers or new gentailers—we need a more competitive market—to be able to invest whether it’s in biomass, whether it’s in solar, whether it’s hydro, whether it’s geothermal, whether it’s gas—we need all of the above. But we’re not going to sit here and pick winners. We’re going to ensure the market is operating competitively so that New Zealanders can access affordable, secure, reliable energy.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why has the Minister not sought advice on renewable energy solutions as an alternative, given it costs $200 to $300 per megawatt-hour to generate electricity from LNG and the 2023 Generation Investment Survey put the cost of new generation from renewables at $90 per megawatt-hour?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: When the sun’s not shining, the wind’s not blowing, and we’ve got a dry year in the South Island, and we don’t have enough gas, we need to be able to firm the energy that is being produced. The member opposite might still be thinking it’s 2023 and she’s the Minister—well, she ain’t. We have an energy crisis in New Zealand caused by the policies that she left behind. She should take some responsibility.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially this Government’s action to unleash renewable energy. Between 2018 and 2023, when the Greens were in Government, New Zealand imported 5.6 million tonnes of coal and nearly a million tonnes a year. Now with a Government actually fighting climate change, not just burning coal, we’ve got a plan to unleash investment in gas and renewables to keep the lights on. You heard it from the Minister: we have 71 applications for renewable energy projects so far under fast track. It’s a fantastic result for our economy and our climate change agenda, but the Greens, of course, we hope, are not voting against it. We want your support. We know that you care about renewable energy and you care about climate change, so support our bill; end the oil and gas ban. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a general comment: just calm it a little bit more.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister keep saying, as he did just then, that consenting is the issue, when 33 solar and wind projects have already been consented to be built, and would he perhaps reflect on how the economic incentives under the status quo do not stack up when profit-driving fossil fuels continue to stay in our energy mix?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how to explain it to the member, because we have been in a place where we have had the driest—[Interruption]—year on record since the 1990s.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I’m not going to have those outbursts. You ask a question, you should expect an answer. And, frankly, questions being asked aren’t enhanced by any sort of cheering from the bleachers, as it were.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: But he began with a very inflammatory comment; he was speaking with his mouth full.

SPEAKER: It was self-deprecating. He said he didn’t know how to explain. I would have thought you might have liked to know how much he didn’t know how to explain.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, should I repeat the question?

SPEAKER: No, you can’t repeat the question. Just carry on.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how to be clearer. We as a Government have talked about this in this House over the last few weeks. We have a dry year with low lake levels, no wind blowing, no sun shining, and we have no gas supply thanks to ending the oil and gas ban by the previous administration. The just transition was clearly a plan to move from domestic gas to imported coal.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—just wait for the House to get itself in a bit of order. OK.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that because gentailers are currently incentivised to keep fossil fuels in the mix due to them being paid for the most expensive source of generation in any 30-minute period, that by his Government choosing to keep fossil fuels on life support, his Government is actually actively undermining investment in renewable energy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member, we have an energy security problem right now. It is a function of having ended an oil and gas ban—put the ban in place.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Stop making stuff up.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It is. We have no gas supply, and, as a result, we need that in our system and we’re going to need it for a long period of time. The answer is that we’ve got really high electricity prices. It’s putting businesses out of business. That’s not acceptable. Hard-working Kiwis are losing their jobs—the people that the Opposition used to care about but don’t. The reality is, we have an energy crisis; we’re sorting it out. We want cheap, abundant supply of both renewables and also gas, and that’s what we’re going to do.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is an energy system that is run on fossil fuels or on renewable energy more profitable for our gentailers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want to see an energy system where we double the amount of renewables and we also turn on huge quantities of gas so that we actually have the security that we need in this country to keep the lights on, to keep people in work, and to make sure that working New Zealanders don’t pay high electricity prices.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That didn’t even go close to addressing the point of profitability of gentailers.

SPEAKER: Well, I think it did.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, I would really appreciate your reflection on the Hansard because this is a really basic thing that we are consistently, as the Greens, trying to get straight answers out of our Prime Minister and are completely unable to.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m very grateful to be appreciated by the member. I’ll ask the Prime Minister to answer the question again.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Could the member ask the question again?

SPEAKER: Yeah, sure.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is an energy system that is run on fossil fuels or on renewable energy more profitable for our energy gentailers?

Hon Shane Jones: Reliability equals profitability.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can say is, yeah, reliability of energy supply is very important to determine profitability of our gentailers. We’ll keep an eye on how much money they’re making; we have a bit of a review going on within the energy sector, but they need confidence to invest. They need to have cash to be able to spend money on the capital projects to drive more renewables. But I want to be clear to the House and to the member: this is an issue around supply, and the lack of supply has driven up electricity prices. When you see mills going to the wall, and hard-working Kiwis losing their jobs because of that and paying more in electricity prices, that is utterly unacceptable. We care about working New Zealanders, we care about hard-working Kiwis; we’re going to do something about it.

Hon David Seymour: Is the price gained by a particular type of generation, such as gas, partly a feature of it being available to run on cold nights when people want energy and there’s nothing else, and, if so, is this an example of how keeping the lights on requires an understanding not of Instagram bumper stickers but the real, practical world?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would agree with the member that the bumper sticker end-of-oil-and-gas ban didn’t think through the second- and third-order consequences. It was classic, old-school Government, wasn’t it?—made a statement, made a bumper sticker, but didn’t follow through with the plan.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Infrastructure Commission produced a report in 2022 that shows New Zealand is on track to miss between 11 and 15 percent of emission reduction targets from energy due to resource consenting delays, and that’s why the Greens should support fast track?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. Resource consenting times have increased dramatically, and the cost has too. That’s why we’ve got fast-track legislation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why would the gentailers currently invest in renewable energy when, under the status quo, since partial privatisation under the former National-led Government, they have paid out nearly $11 billion in dividends by burning fossil fuels, nearly 2½ times more than what they invested in new power generation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member, whose party was part of the previous Government, if you felt so strongly about it over the last six years, why didn’t you overturn the mixed-ownership model as a consequence?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. This is unbelievable. Can we just really have a bit of a break on things?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you’ve got a legitimate point, but I’d also encourage you to think about the answers and the sort of reaction they’re going to provoke. Almost every one of the Prime Minister’s answers is talking about the previous Government, rather than the Government that he’s the Prime Minister of. That is going to provoke a certain sort of reaction.

SPEAKER: Well, I appreciate that, but it’s not prohibited. If a circumstance goes back through that time, then, obviously that’s something you can mention. I’m also listening to some of the back and forth as well, and all I would say is it’s perhaps not overly helpful in getting any answers for the public.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is the Prime Minister and his Government actively pursuing a climate-burning, anti-evidence fossil fuel strategy which actively contradicts and—[Interruption] Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: No, we’re just going to start your question again and people are going to listen, and people who don’t listen won’t be staying.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps it’d be helpful to reflect on Standing Order 390, which states that questions should not include arguments or imputations beyond what is necessary to make the question comprehensible. Now, we’ve just heard a whole lot of word salad that, frankly, is going to get a reaction from the Government benches. Upholding that rule, 390, might actually lead to more harmony in the House.

SPEAKER: That would require me also to uphold the mirror of that particular Standing Order with regards to answers; in which case, Government Ministers would be saying very little at any point during any question time on any day.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, Mr Speaker, with regard to the member’s point of order, you might like to consider whether that should apply to the supplementary question that the member himself just asked of the Prime Minister literally about three questions ago.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Oh, look, I’ve already got an awful lot of homework to do after this session. Is it really necessary?

Hon David Seymour: I can see that my supp is still a sore point for the leader of the Labour Party, but so be it.

SPEAKER: No, no, don’t go down that track. Could everyone just take a take a breath for a minute.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is the Prime Minister pursuing a climate-burning, anti-evidence fossil fuel strategy which actively contradicts and undermines renewable energy development and building in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just say I reject the characterisation of that question. What we are not doing is we’re not shutting off domestic gas to import foreign coal so that we can make emissions even worse. That was the strategy of the last Government; it failed. It created the problem that we’re in. You know, we know that gas is much better than coal, and as a result we’re very happy to expand the amount of gas and expand the amount of renewables, but we’re not doing what the last Government did—and what a mess that you left us.

Question No. 7—Energy

7. to the Minister for Energy: What steps is the Government taking to bolster New Zealand’s energy security?

Cabinet has agreed quickly to approve a raft of immediate actions to address the serious risk to New Zealand’s energy security and affordability, including urgently reversing the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration and cutting red and green tape to allow for liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports so we have the supply of gas required to be able to firm renewable sources. New Zealand has an energy shortage. We’re facing the driest hydrological year since 1992, with less wind generation than forecast and a 25.8 percent downgrade in gas production this year, following a 12 percent downgrade last year. The Government is acting urgently to bolster our energy security.

Mike Butterick: What actions is the Government taking?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government is taking a number of actions: firstly, acting with urgency to reverse the decision to ban offshore oil and gas exploration, led by my colleague the Hon Shane Jones; secondly, removing regulatory barriers to the construction of critically needed facilities to import liquefied natural gas; third, easing restrictions on electricity lines companies owning generation; fourth, ensuring the rules for access of hydro contingency are fit for purpose; and fifth, reviewing the electricity market regulations to ensure that New Zealanders have an affordable electricity system.

Mike Butterick: Why is the Government removing regulatory barriers to allow the importation of liquefied natural gas?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we don’t have enough gas in New Zealand to firm our electricity system. We need more to be able to enable intermittent renewables so that we can firm these sources of energy and provide secure and affordable energy to New Zealanders. We know that around 50 countries around the world already import LNG, including Japan and the UK, with Australia set to open its first terminal this year. New Zealand needs abundant, affordable energy. That’s why we’re taking immediate action to cut red and green tape to allow for these liquefied natural gas imports so we can restore much-needed confidence in our energy sector.

Mike Butterick: What other actions are being taken to increase generation of electricity?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are taking the energy shortage incredibly seriously. Electrifying New Zealand’s economy is a key part of our Government’s plan to grow our economy and reduce emissions. To make it easier and cheaper to electrify our economy, my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop and I are working on a package of policies which will enable this, including establishing a one-stop shop fast-track approval and permitting regime, amending the Resource Management Act to speed up resource consenting, delivering stronger national direction for renewable energy, enabling a new regime for offshore wind, and updating the regulatory settings for electricity network and new connections.

Question No. 8—RMA Reform

8. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he stand by his statement that “we’ve replicated … the same law that Labour adopted” about the proposed changes to the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Yes, in the context with which it was given. Let me read out the full quote from what the member said in her primary question: “The expert panel process is specifically designed to set environmental conditions that will apply to projects as they go through the fast track, and that’s exactly the same way the Labour Government COVID-19 fast track worked as well, where the Government—the Minister—picks projects. In Labour’s case it was the Minister for the Environment; in our case it would be the Minister for Infrastructure. They pick the projects, send them off to expert panels which will be constituted very similarly to the way Labour’s fast-track process worked. They set the conditions for those projects and then have the final sign-off over those projects, so we’ve replicated the same law that Labour adopted.” So I stand by my full comment, which is accurate.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Is it correct that Labour’s fast-track law included in its purpose to support the economy, the requirement “while continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.”, whereas the purpose clause in his bill does not refer to sustainable management?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member doesn’t need to ask me that. She’s sitting right next to the guy who designed it. I encourage her to turn to her right and ask the question, but the member already knows the answer is yes—there is a difference in the purpose statements as currently drafted, remembering that the bill is before the select committee.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Why was the reference to sustainable management removed from the purpose clause of his fast-track bill between policy papers and the bill as introduced?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because the purpose of the fast-track bill is to facilitate the development of regionally and nationally significant projects; because we have an infrastructure deficit, a housing crisis, and an energy shortage, and we need to rebuild this economy. The purpose of the fast-track bill is to make it easier for all of the projects in the areas I’ve just mentioned to be built.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Why did he say in this House that there’s many protections for the environment in the Fast-track Approvals Bill when the clear scheme of the bill, as he’s just outlined, is to override protections found in the Resource Management Act such as water conservation orders, the Conservation Act, and the Wildlife Act?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I said that because it’s true. The purpose of the expert panels will be to set conditions for the projects that are referred to them and take into account all of the environmental factors, including many of the factors the member just mentioned.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Is the panel going to be able to decline the secret pet projects to be listed in Schedule 2, Part A?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member’s characterisation is offensive and wrong. We are running a very clean and transparent process when it comes to the projects we listed in Schedule 2. I might contrast that with the COVID-19 fast-track legislation where David Parker—again, I’d invite the member to turn to her right and talk to the Hon David Parker—was authorised by Cabinet to hand-pick 19 projects that made their way into the legislation and then got passed into law by Parliament. We are running an advisory group process chaired by Mr Tapsell, who has provided advice to Ministers, and we are working our way through.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can they decline it?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’ve already said that the expert panels will, as recommended by Cabinet—again, it’s over to the select committee, but Cabinet is recommending to the select committee that the expert panels will have the ability to decline projects referred to them.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the applications for the fast-track consenting process include tens of thousands of new homes and multiple renewable energy projects, and does he share my view that when these successful projects are built, then Labour will want to take the credit for the original legislation?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. Without getting into too much detail about the projects that have been applied for, I can tell the House that the sum total of houses that would be developed by the fast-track proposals that currently have been applied for numbers 80,000 new houses as a result of the over 100 applications for housing and urban development. Now, it will be over to the Government and then, ultimately, over to the Parliament as to whether or not those projects take place. But I think the point that the House should bear in mind is that our planning system is so stuffed that there are over 380 applications that have come in to Government to build more renewables; develop more housing; yes, build more mines and build more quarries; and build infrastructure that this country needs. That’s a sign of how stuffed the Resource Management Act is, and that’s why we’re fixing it.

Question No. 9—Resources

9. to the Minister for Resources: What reports has he seen regarding the need for more resource extraction to support New Zealand’s energy security?

Energy security now trumps all sorts of falsehoods and woke-ism. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment determined that NZ cannot produce enough gas to meet the level of demand experienced over the last two years. The long-term gas prices will continue to follow an upward trend unless there is significant investment that can bring gas to market. There are no options in the short term, despite assertions to the contrary. We’re going back to granular facts. This is why the Government is overturning the dangerous, juvenile, ridiculous oil and gas ban.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As has been established in this House a number of times, it is appropriate for Ministers to make comparisons with policies of previous Governments, but there is no way that that commentary could be considered a factual statement. That is clearly a debatable issue, and shouldn’t be included in a response to a question from his own party.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’d just suggest the Minister might calm some of those comments down a little bit. There was the idea that you can criticise a policy, which is not out of order, but some of the descriptors that were used are probably a bit borderline.

Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking to the point of order. Sir, what is happening with this House that the beauty of language and robust expression suddenly are turning the other side into sobbers?

SPEAKER: I’m sorry that that’s your opinion, but it’s not mine. Do you have another supplementary, Jenny Marcroft?

Jenny Marcroft: What reports has he seen on the consequences of the oil and gas ban on New Zealand businesses?

Hon SHANE JONES: In 2018, on a distant political planet, Business New Zealand issued a press statement warning that businesses would be affected by bans, especially those using gas. Exporters such as Fonterra, New Zealand Steel, Methanex, and Refining New Zealand—well, that’s now gone, sadly—would suffer higher gas prices and a restriction of supply. This would have a chilling impact on confidence amongst domestic investors and overseas investors. They are the casualties of that historic—I won’t describe it with colourful language—ill-conceived decision.

Jenny Marcroft: What work is he doing to address sovereign risk for investors in resource extraction?

Hon SHANE JONES: Sadly, we do have members in Parliament making wild, indiscriminatory threats—should democracy prevail and this side of Parliament pass a piece of legislation—that entities seeking statutory, enforceable consents will have them stripped and expropriated without compensation. It is a very bleak day that members of this House feel they have the right to threaten and further undermine sovereign risk of investment. Sadly, I was also sad and disappointed to hear that that side of the House will not join to save the jobs by giving better energy resilience, which is currently showing—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That question must fall foul of both your rulings and longstanding rulings about Government Ministers not using patsy questions to attack the Opposition, but it’s also full of factual inaccuracies. Nothing that the Minister has just said is true, and he would not be able to verify or authenticate any of the statements that he has just made.

Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking to the point of order, it is beyond cavil, it is beyond debate, that a member, admittedly, gone—gone from this House—made those very statements when he was a parliamentarian pertaining to the expropriation of rights that might be gained under the proposed fast-track legislation, and an offer has gone from this side of the House to that side of the House to join with us, save jobs, and boost energy security. That is an unassailable fact.

SPEAKER: If any member of the House feels as though they have been deliberately misrepresented, they know that there is a course of action they can follow.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. That particular ruling applies to when a member feels that their statements or actions have been misrepresented. Shane Jones has been misrepresenting the actions of an entire Government, of which he was part.

SPEAKER: Well, people will, obviously, pick up, as you have, and make their own decision about that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Beyond the sort of exchanges around the factual inaccuracies, I’m still none the less quite concerned about the Minister being allowed to, basically, make a whole rambling answer attacking the Opposition straight off the bat, and I’m just calling on you to make sure that we actually have clear constraints around that, because it just keeps happening.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but, look, with all due respect, this is a Westminster Parliament, where there is a certain amount of that across the House. I was listening very carefully to what the Hon Shane Jones has said, and in light of what I’d previously said, I didn’t find him to have transgressed. I know people might not like what he’s saying, but he’s got a right to say it. Is there another question?

Jenny Marcroft: Supplementary—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order, Mr Speaker. So can I just get clarification that it’s OK for Ministers to start, in answer to a patsy question, launching directly into political attacks on the Opposition and previous Governments?

SPEAKER: Well, he expressed, as I recall it, some disappointment about some statements made by a member, and I think that that is why I made the point that if a member feels personally affected, then they have a course of action. But you can’t stop people speaking in this House generally, and I think that’s all that the Minister has done at this stage.

Jenny Marcroft: What is his message to potential investors in resource extraction?

Hon SHANE JONES: My message to investors is that in the unlikely event that you did pay any attention to members from the Opposition threatening to expropriate rights, that may be—

SPEAKER: No, I think you can just—

Hon SHANE JONES: No, no, no—that’s a fact, Mr Speaker. That’s a fact.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s not a fact that’s on the Table here at the moment, so I think it would help the order of the House if that answer was put in a different way.

Hon SHANE JONES: My message to investors is that we are open for business. Obviously, if you are coming from overseas, there is a threshold to go through that tests whether or not not only is your investment legitimate but how it will grow in New Zealand. We need more investment to save our energy system. It is in peril. Security risk has collapsed, and New Zealanders are losing their jobs because of them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Shane Jones has made several repeated allegations about members on this side, potentially in a future Government, breaching a contract—so cancelling a contract that had been entered into with a previous Government. That’s a serious allegation of which there can be absolutely no foundation in fact, because no members on this side of the House have made that claim. In fact, to my knowledge, the only example of that happening in recent history was the incoming National Government cancelling the order for Interislander ferries entered into by the last Government. There has been no claim on this side of the House that we would cancel contracts already entered into.

SPEAKER: And I’ve just pulled the Minister up for making that statement.

Hon SHANE JONES: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to talk to the former Minister of oceans—

SPEAKER: No, hang on—wait on. A point of order would be addressed in relation to the Standing Orders in relation to proceedings of the House.

Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, the assertion has been made that this statement has been made devoid of facts. I am responding to that assertion. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to talk to Rachel Brooking—what did she say—and the Green Party to talk to their own members about threats of expropriation. It’s—

SPEAKER: OK, well, that’s—

Hon SHANE JONES: —there on the public record.

SPEAKER: Good—sit down. That’s the end of that.

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her response to written question No. 405 (2024), “There was no specific document written. A range of information was provided to officials, including material like Hansard reports, the Coalition Agreement and previous NZ First policy positions”; if so, how is this consistent with her having now released the document in question under the Official Information Act?

Yes. As I first answered to the member on 31 January, a range of information from various sources was provided to officials. This was then scanned into a single document by officials and subsequently released to Radio New Zealand on 9 July 2024 under the Official Information Act (OIA). But I’d also remind the member that this document—the document in question—that she’s referring to was previously released to the Labour leader’s office on 27 March this year.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by the part of her response to written parliamentary question No. 405 “There was no specific document written.”?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yet again, as I’ve stated, it was a compilation of information, which was subsequently scanned by the health officials to form a document.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did she release this single document as a document under the Official Information Act if it is, as she has just claimed, not a document?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m not sure if I should speak slower, but it was a compilation of information—[Interruption]—a compilation of information—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Your job’s on the line.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not. Take your time.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: It was a compilation of information that was subsequently scanned by health officials, which turned it into a single document.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When did she first become aware that the document exists?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: There was a range of information that was provided to me as an incoming Minister. I would assume it would have been prior to my first bringing this matter to the House—

Hon Shane Jones: Historical data.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Historical data, definitely. It was definitely prior to the first action I took as a Minister of Customs, in which I raised the excise tax for tobacco.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by her response to an OIA request from Radio New Zealand that the document was delivered to her office as hard copy on 6 December 2023?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, you undertook to ensure that the line of questioning did not violate Speakers’ ruling 230/4. We now have this member repeating falsehoods and using question time as an echo chamber to undermine natural justice.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order. Well, sir, there’s no possible grounds to make the claim that the member is asking falsehoods when she’s simply asking the Minister to stand by a statement she has previously made. This question is entirely in line with the primary, which you yourself have ruled to be appropriate.

SPEAKER: That is right, and if I listen to the answers that have been given so far, they are fairly clear. So, without penalty, ask the question again.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by her response to an OIA request from Radio New Zealand that the document was delivered to her office as hard copy on 6 December 2023?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Recalling back to that period, I would definitely say, if I answered the question at that time, that was when I received the information, which, as I referred to, later was compiled into a single document.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Lan Pham: Does he stand by his Ministers’ statement that “Cabinet has agreed to recommend a suite of sensible changes to the Fast-track Approvals Bill”, and, if so, would he say it is sensible for Cabinet to allow prohibited activities, such as mining on conservation land or areas where critically endangered species call home, to have a consenting pathway through the bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of your question, yes.

Lan Pham: Did his Cabinet consider it sensible that local communities, iwi, and hapū who have fought for decades to protect their local rivers, beaches, and forests from damaging development will be locked out of having any voice on fast-track projects in their own neighbourhood?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we thought was sensible was to address the infrastructure crisis, the housing crisis, and the energy shortage that we have.

Lan Pham: Is the Prime Minister concerned that the sole Minister tasked with referring projects to the expert panel under the fast-track regime found it “very difficult to distinguish between private and public benefit”, and, if so, can the Prime Minister outline for the benefit of his Ministers who the beneficiaries are of a public housing development, versus the beneficiaries of fossil fuel mining in untouched indigenous forest?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want to get more jobs, we want to have an economy growing, and we want people to have more houses.

Hon Shane Jones: How does the Prime Minister respond: “Any companies thinking of taking advantage of a fast-track process that shortcuts our democracy, side-steps the scrutiny of our processes in Parliament, should be well aware a change of Government could result in the loss of consent, possibly without compensation.”, says Lan Pham?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we want to encourage investment in this country to get the infrastructure built that we need.

Lan Pham: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister for Infrastructure that “Even things like mines—they have public benefits”, and would he consider the fluorescent, severely polluted Ōhinemuri River a public benefit of mining?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, because, you know, if you think about mining, every electric vehicle (EV)—in answer the first leg of the question, yes, because you need mining to make sure you’ve got an EV, you’ve got a smartphone, you’ve got solar power, and you need to make sure, wind farms need minerals. And I’ll just say to that member, the Greens should back fast track to double renewable electricity; they should end the oil and gas ban so that we can lower emissions; they should back mining so we can have more EVs and more solar panels; and they should back GE, gene tech regulation as well, so that we can reduce on-farm emissions.

Hon Chris Bishop: Does the Prime Minister accept that a wind energy project—for example, developed by privately owned Contact Energy—might be a private project but that there is clear public benefit in increasing renewable electricity to address our energy shortage?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. This Government takes its net carbon zero 2050 goals very seriously.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made on getting councils back to basics?

Last week, the Prime Minister and I announced new measures to ensure councils get back to basics, reduce the pressure on rates, deliver core services and infrastructure, and improve decision-making efficiency. We are committed to ensuring that ratepayers’ money is spent wisely, with councils focusing on essential services that matter most to their communities.

Dan Bidois: What measures has the Government taken to get councils back to basics?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are implementing several key measures, including refocusing the Local Government Act to ensure councils concentrate on core services such as picking up the rubbish, fixing the pipes, filling the potholes. This involves scrapping the four wellbeings, which have distracted councils with nice-to-have pet projects instead of focusing on the must-haves. Our goal is to ensure councils are delivering the essential services and infrastructure their communities need.

Dan Bidois: Why is the Government considering an introduction of a rate cap for councils?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we want to protect ratepayers from excessive rates hikes and prevent councils from wasting money on nice-to-have pet projects like rain gardens on top of bus stops, and $490,000 speed bumps by implementing a rate cap similar to those in some Australian states. We aim to balance the financial need of councils with the interests of ratepayers, ensuring funds are directed towards essential infrastructure and services.

Dan Bidois: What reactions has he seen in response to these announcements?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the public response has been overwhelmingly positive. Ratepayers who are facing an average rates hike of over 15 percent this year have welcomed our call for councils to tighten their belts and focus on core services. The New Zealand Herald editorial described our announcement as “timely”, resonating with those frustrated by wasteful spending. Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger supported the move, viewing it as a much-needed war on waste. This feedback confirms that New Zealanders want their money spent wisely, aligning with the Prime Minister’s strong emphasis on fiscal responsibility.