Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen about the cost of living?

Last week, the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee published its Monetary Policy Statement where it discussed recent economic and financial developments and their implications. The Reserve Bank is confident that after three long years, inflation is now expected to fall back within the 1 to 3 percent target band in the September quarter. In other words, the era of extreme price increases is over.

Greg Fleming: What does this mean for Kiwi households?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, getting inflation under control for the first time in three years has a number of benefits for New Zealand households. With wages growing faster than prices for the first nine months of this year, real incomes are finally increasing again after three years of going backwards. With the cost of living no longer rising at such a frightening pace, including annual food prices actually falling for the first time in six years, Kiwi budgets will stretch just a little bit further. With the inflation genie finally back in the bottle, the Reserve Bank last week cut the official cash rate for the first time in four years with more cuts projected, meaning lower mortgage costs for thousands of Kiwi homeowners.

Greg Fleming: How has the Government helped bring down the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the sky-high inflation we’ve seen over the last few years was caused by too much money chasing too few goods. That was a result of the Reserve Bank cutting interest rates to stimulate the economy during COVID and—despite the Opposition’s denials—of the previous Government increasing spending from around $80 billion in the 2017-18 financial year to $138 billion in 2023-24. Since coming into office, the Government has taken many steps. We’ve refocused the Reserve Bank on a single objective of fighting inflation. We stopped adding unnecessary costs on businesses, like the ute tax, the regional fuel tax, and tenant taxes. We’ve reduced economic bottlenecks and cut red tape by restoring 90-day trials, abolishing fair pay agreements, and fixing the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. More importantly, we are putting financial discipline back at the heart of Government spending. With our recent Budget being the tightest in the past five years, with an operating allowance of $3.2 billion and savings worth $24 billion over the forecast period, we are doing our bit to bring an end to Labour’s cost of living crisis.

Greg Fleming: What other support has the Government provided to Kiwi families dealing with this cost of living crisis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In addition to playing our part in bringing down inflation, we were also able to deliver tax relief to hard-working Kiwi households, including the first reduction in personal income tax in 14 years, and 83 percent of New Zealanders will benefit from this Government’s tax relief package. For more than 100,000 low and middle income families who have childcare costs, we delivered FamilyBoost, which means those families can claim back up to 25 percent of their early childhood fees to a maximum of $150 a fortnight. An end to the era of extreme price increases, mortgage costs coming down, food prices stabilising, income tax relief, and more support for families with children—these are the things that can be achieved when a Government stops treating taxpayers like a bottomless ATM, reins in the wasteful spending, puts a stop to the fantasy projects and white elephants, and starts spending taxpayers’ money as carefully as households do.

Question No. 2—Energy

2. to the Minister for Energy: Has he received advice on the cost of purchasing liquefied natural gas from overseas markets; if so, what is the estimated price range provided in that advice?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, I have been advised that the answer to this question is likely to be a longer response than usual.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealand needs more energy, and this Government is currently receiving a range of advice on how to stabilise energy prices and achieve affordable, secure energy. Importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) is one of the options currently being explored to support the electricity market during times when peaking, or firming, is needed. Advice I have received is that the estimated price range for importing LNG to New Zealand using the spot market is between $17 a gigajoule and $24 a gigajoule. The price range is well below the New Zealand gas spot price, which traded at an average of $55.27 a gigajoule on Wednesday, 14 August 2024—an all-time high. If we use a potential price of $25 a gigajoule for importing LNG, this equates to an electricity wholesale price of about $260 a megawatt hour, which is well below the $808 a megawatt hour average wholesale electricity spot price for the week ending 11 August, and the $457 a megawatt hour average wholesale spot price for the week ending 18 August. One of the advantages of importing LNG is that it puts a cap on peak prices. LNG prices are currently cheaper than current natural gas prices, which adds competition in the fuel supply for electricity peaking, ensuring that New Zealand can have more competitive electricity prices and critical supply of generation when the wind isn’t blowing, the sun isn’t shining, and we’re facing a dry hydrological year. The Government’s role is to reduce barriers to the supply of secure and affordable energy so that New Zealand can have competitive electricity prices, and this is important, particularly in the situation we have right now, which is 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. We need more energy, and the Government is focused on ensuring the security of supply in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What advice has he received on the cost of building the infrastructure required for New Zealand to be able to import LNG?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there’s been a range of estimates. Ultimately, this Government is focused on what the barriers are to this issue. We are seeking advice around what those potential barriers are. Ultimately, the market is responsible for ensuring the security, alongside the Electricity Authority, and we want to ensure that the Government is removing barriers so we can have the energy that is critically important, so that we can have competitive prices for electricity in New Zealand to keep our businesses and our households avoiding the significant prices that are currently flowing through the spot market.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What other solutions or technologies other than LNG has he sought advice on to plug the current energy shortage?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there is a range of different options. Some of the things that are already taking place are playing a role. For example, Transpower this morning announced they are bringing forward contingent supply of water in the lakes, which is going to play a role. There is potentially more that needs to be done around some of those rules.

Hon Shane Jones: Coal—coal.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Coal is playing a role in terms of the coal-fired power station at Genesis, but I would make the point: up until Methanex shutting down last week, we had 450 megawatts of gas-powered generation which was available but not able to operate because there was not enough gas in the system. We need enough fuel to be able to supply the energy system so we can have the security of supply that New Zealand businesses and households need.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice on how the cost and time line of building LNG facilities compares with the rapid deployment of solar batteries and flexibility products to plug our current energy shortage?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we’re receiving a range of advice on a number of things that can be done. Ultimately, what we need is enough energy to be able to support our economy with competitively priced electricity for our business and our households, and this Government is agnostic around what the fuel is, whether it’s sun, wind, geothermal, hydro—

Hon Shane Jones: Coal.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —gas, and, if it needs to be, coal. We would prefer gas because it has half the emissions, but if we don’t have enough gas it will be coal, and that’s the legacy that we’ve had left behind by the last Government. So on this side of the House, we want to ensure the security of supply and are getting rid of the roadblocks which are currently in the place of building the generation capacity New Zealand needs.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I am asking very straight and specific questions. The Minister gave a long answer, but what I’d specifically asked was had he sought advice on the rapid deployment of solar batteries and flexibility products, and he did not answer whether that was the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the Minister said that he was looking at a range of products across the board, so we would hope that those would be included in that. If the Minister wants to clarify that, yes, those things are included in the range of things he’s looking at—

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No, I didn’t.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No? OK.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice on the flow-on industrial impacts of the estimate that at current international prices, buying gas from overseas to make up the domestic supply shortfall would cost $11 billion to $14 billion by 2035?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary question, if we use a potential price of $25 a gigajoule for imported LNG, this equates to an electricity wholesale price of about $260 a megawatt hour, which is well below the $808 megawatt hour average wholesale price for spot price for the week ending 11 August and $457 a megawatt average wholesale spot price for the week ending 18 August. So the point is that New Zealand needs security of supply, and if we don’t have enough gas, well, we’re going to be burning coal. Gas has half the emissions. It’s a cleaner fuel. It can be used to peak and firm electricity supply from renewable sources. It is critically important, and we are going to ensure the security of supply for New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, given the multifaceted issue and energy crisis that he’s dealing with: does the failure to stop the closing of Marsden Point in any way help or otherwise look anything but irresponsible?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: What New Zealand needs is a flexible supply of energy into the New Zealand market and we need to also make sure that we’ve got the domestic production of fuel, as well, and that’s why the work that the Hon Shane Jones is working around in actually making sure we can explore for fuels here in New Zealand is critically important to security of supply in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does the Minister agree with Andrew Eagles, who said, “New gas discoveries will not plug the shortfall. The existing fields are producing less than expected despite billions of dollars in investment. Offshore exploration prior to the ban was drying up due to lack of finds. If new exploration is undertaken and if new discoveries are made, it will be at least a decade until they are producing at scale, which likely still wouldn’t be enough. Importing fossil gas would require billions in investment in infrastructure, increase emissions, and expose New Zealand to international price shocks.”?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Madam Speaker. This is question time. That is a long diatribe from somebody else, that’s meant to be posing as a question. Surely, that member could have truncated or abbreviated that question to keep the process of the House operating much more efficiently.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Peters.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, it was a direct quote. I wasn’t going to truncate or rework someone else’s words, and given the very long answer we had to the primary question from the Minister—much of which was not necessary to answer the question—I think that was actually quite a short question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, and, look, when a member is quoting, it is important that the context of the quote is in scope. So that question is OK, in my ruling.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that was quite a confused question, because on one hand it was saying that it’s going to take a long time to get the gas that we need from indigenous sources, and yet, on the other side, we shouldn’t be importing it from offshore. Well, I would just like to say that I agree with the Climate Change Commission, which has a demonstration path which says that 0.9 terawatt hours of electricity generation coming from gas will be required in 2050. So we need the supply of natural gas. We’d prefer it came from indigenous sources, and that’s why we’re going to be repealing the oil and gas exploration ban, but because of what the last Government’s policies did, we’re in a position where we are actively having to explore the option of importing LNG for the security of supply of energy and electricity in New Zealand.

Hon Shane Jones: Given the Minister is now exploring the importation of liquefied natural gas, what lessons are to be learnt through the period of time over the last five years, where the domestic gas industry was vilified and destroyed by the member who is asking questions?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t want this to turn into an attack on the Opposition. So if the Minister has a constructive way of answering it, the question about the last five years needs to be answered in a constructive way and not in an attack.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the answer to that question—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can’t hear the Minister.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The answer to that question is that we need a secure energy system in New Zealand and we need a bipartisan approach from the Opposition to support the exploration of natural gas so we can have a secure energy and electricity system in New Zealand, and I encourage them to support this Government and that ambition.

Hon Shane Jones: How does the importation of LNG, or the option being pursued, rhyme with the Just Transition?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, the Climate Change Commission has made it clear that 0.9 terawatt hours of electricity generation in 2050 will be needed from gas. So we need the gas supply to ensure that we can firm our electricity sector. When the wind’s not blowing, the sun’s not shining, and we face a dry hydrological year, we need the gas peaking and firming capacity to be able to do that. That last Government’s approach was simply to have a lake built in a mountain. We have got far more practical solutions.

Hon Shane Jones: In the exploration of this option, what reports has he seen about the decrease of our sovereign reputation as a consequence of foolish decisions of the past?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The number one issue which is raised is the fact that since those decisions were made, sovereign risk has increased, and that has made it harder to attract the investment needed in the security of supply in New Zealand. So, once again, I invite the Opposition to join with this Government so that we can ensure secure and affordable energy prices for New Zealand households and businesses.

Question No. 3—Children

3. to the Minister for Children: What feedback, if any, has she received about Oranga Tamariki’s work to ensure taxpayer money is being directed to where it can achieve the best outcomes for children and young people?

I received the following email from someone who works in the sector: “I know from my own experience as a family criminal youth lawyer that the media often get things wrong. However, I feel the negative spin that is being put on these proposals completely lacks merit and comes from a place of ignorance. Clearly those complaining don’t know what is happening in agencies such as Oranga Tamariki, or they are agencies who have been milking the system for years and now that’s being brought to an end. A significant portion of work I do involves OT and the care of children, and I have been appalled over the past few years at how much taxpayer money has been wasted on agencies that make big plans yet deliver nothing but sometimes a glorified babysitting service. It was your proposal that gave us a bit of hope.” This is the reason that Oranga Tamariki needs to focus on outcomes where the money makes the most difference so we can assure taxpayers and workers within the sector that the money is going towards the best outcomes for children and young people.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other feedback has she received from people working in the sector?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Another piece of correspondence I have received from the sector reads as follows: “The more those agencies and the other side of the House complain, the more confident Karen and her team should feel that they are on the right track. I believe it should be a condition of all OT funding contracts that agencies are required to identify up front their targets for outputs and outcomes achievement under funding contracts. I further believe that they should be required to report back to OT annually on what they have actually achieved. As someone who has worked in the sector, I have seen gross inefficiency and ineffectiveness in many of these organisations.”

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is Oranga Tamariki (OT) trying to achieve by taking a more rigorous approach to investing taxpayer money?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I want to assure New Zealanders that Oranga Tamariki is not closing down providers. Some providers have funding from multiple services and multiple agencies. Oranga Tamariki has identified services that are either underdelivered, duplicated, or could have been delivered by other providers or agencies. Providers will still be funded for the other services that they provide. I’ve asked Oranga Tamariki to take a more rigorous approach to contracting to ensure the $500 million worth of services that it funds each year gets to where it will have the greatest impact. Under the last Government, OT was allowing providers who were underdelivering on contracts to keep unused funding, they were funding services that weren’t core business, and they were duplicating services in various parts of New Zealand. Some people seem to believe that we should keep giving money to organisations for services that haven’t been delivered. That will only put more children at risk.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a long answer. I just will say that if I’m having a little trouble hearing the Minister, I’m sure that the Opposition members are having trouble hearing her answers as well. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Questions will be heard in silence, please.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What feedback has she received about Oranga Tamariki’s funding decisions for children and young people from the Chief Children’s Commissioner; the Independent Children’s Monitor; Social Service Providers Aotearoa, representing 200 members; the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, representing 250 organisations; E Tipu E Rea; Tai Poutini Whanau Po Kite Ata Trust; Family Start Nelson; Franklin Family Support Services; Women’s Support Motueka; North Shore Women’s Centre; Manukau Friendship House—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a very long question.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: —Homebuilders West Coast Trust—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we’ve had enough examples.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: —Presbyterian Support Canterbury; and the many, many other valued community services across the country?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think that is a question that should be put in writing so it can get a substantive answer.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement, “we have delivered lower inflation”; if so, what specifically can she point to in the August Monetary Policy Statement that supports the claim that her Government has caused lower inflation?

Yes, and I can point the member specifically to page 51 of the Monetary Policy Statement, which shows annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation of 6.9 percent in March 2022, 7.3 percent in June 2022, 7.2 percent in September 2022, 7.2 percent in December 2022. Gosh! Those are high numbers. The table then shows inflation dropping to a much lower level with annual CPI inflation being 3.3 percent in the last quarter and forecast to be 2.3 percent in the current quarter, which is within the target band.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Reserve Bank statement that “Spending reductions in the public sector will reduce inflationary pressure, and income tax threshold changes will increase inflationary pressure. The net impact for monetary policy is expected to be small and highly uncertain.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agree that fiscal restraint and spending reductions in the public sector are reducing inflationary pressure, and I agree that these were not things that were in place under the last Government.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the real reason why the Reserve Bank had to unexpectedly cut rates because, as the BNZ chief economist Mike Jones has said, the updated forecast reflected “extraordinary weakness” being seen in the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s a little bit hard for New Zealanders to get a break with this lot, isn’t it? You’ve got inflation coming under control, you’ve got interest rates coming down, and somehow they’ve still got reason to complain about it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is her plan, if any, to mitigate the impacts of the forecasted recession—given unemployment is now forecast to be even higher at 5.4 percent, economic activity has weakened materially—and weaker output gap that has been assumed in the August Monetary Policy Statement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On this side of the House, we take economic management extremely seriously. We have viewed it as our job to get inflation under control, and we are delivering ahead of schedule. We have taken it as our role to reduce inflationary pressure so that interest rates can come down and restore confidence in households and businesses, and we’re delivering that ahead of schedule, too. And we are then taking steps to make sure that fiscal restraint and value for money are ongoing. We’ve already delivered $23 billion worth of reprioritisation over the next four years, and there will be more to come. And then I would say this: every single Minister along this row, behind me, and over there thinks every day about how we drive economic growth in this country, how we get the barriers out of the way, and how we enable people to have the confidence to invest, to hire, to innovate, and to export. We believe in growth; you believe in red tape.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the real reason why inflation is lower because she is tanking the economy, as described by the Reserve Bank as a “weakening in domestic economic activity observed in the July Monetary Policy Review has become more pronounced and broad-based.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member needs to decide what her line of argument is. Is it that the Government cannot take any credit whatsoever for lower inflation and lower interest rates or is it the latter supplementary, in which we have driven it down to levels that it shouldn’t be? The member can’t have it both ways. Choose a line of attack and stick to it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to recap for the media and doubting Thomas’s, is it a fact that with the implosion of expenditure and hope and borrowing by the previous administration, inflation more than doubled, but it’s come down dramatically under the coalition—yes or no?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: These are the facts. And if the Deputy Prime Minister will indulge me, it is absolutely more than a yes or no answer, because there are these facts: there were three years of out-of-control inflation, of rising interest rates, of wasteful spending, of debt accumulation. Then a new, three-party coalition is elected, fiscal restraint comes on board, inflation comes down, interest rates come down, and soon growth will revive—there’s your story.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is the Minister taking credit for the lower cost of living achieved by a drop in the official cash rate, when public transport subsidies for under-25s have gone up, rates have gone up, rents have gone up, insurance premiums have gone up, and her Government have done nothing to mitigate these?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, again, here’s the table—this is inflation coming down. Now, what inflation did for the past three years was prices across the economy rose dramatically. For example, when people went to the supermarket, they faced higher and higher prices every time they went. Well, in the past year, food prices have actually fallen. And when I look at the Government’s track record on delivering for the cost of living, it’s not just inflation, it’s not just reducing interest rates, which free up incomes for mortgage holders; it’s also that we have reduced costs. The regional fuel tax, the ute tax, tenant taxes, personal income tax—we are a Government on the side of those who care about the cost of living.

Hon David Parker: Point of order. It seems to be apparent in all of the answers today that the only thing that is inflating around this place is the length of answers. You’ve allowed extremely long answers from a number of Ministers today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, thank you for the point of order. And, yes, some of the answers have been longer than usual, but we’ve actually been on some fairly tense topics as well, so thank you for the suggestion.

Question No. 5—Public Service

5. to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she agree with the comments made by the Prime Minister yesterday that “central government focuses on must-haves, not nice-to-haves”; if so, were the more than 6,500, and counting, public servants whose jobs have been cut simply “nice-to-haves”?

I agree with the Prime Minister’s full quote from his speech to Local Government New Zealand, which was “For ratepayers, it’s simple. The central government focuses on must-haves, not nice-to-haves, and we expect local government to do the same.” To the second part of the member’s question, I would dispute the member’s number and I would not use that characterisation, nor would the Prime Minister. In fact, I find the inference that any member of this House would refer to a human being as “nice to have” as objectionable. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question will be heard in quiet.

Francisco Hernandez: Is staffing the Ministry for Regulation a must-have, but staffing the Police, the Environmental Protection Authority, and Oranga Tamariki nice-to-haves?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Again, I reject the characterisations in the question. For one thing, this is a Government that is increasing the front-line police officers by 500 and, for another, I would put to the member that while his party may be of the view that there’s never a piece of red tape that the Government shouldn’t say yes to, we on this side of the House are pro-growth, pro-development, and anti - red tape and that’s the approach we’re taking to regulation.

Francisco Hernandez: Is the fact that she only found out about the average salaries of the Ministry for Regulation yesterday a sign that she’s happy to justify cutting thousands of jobs while being ignorant of what happens in her coalition partners’ pet ministries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the member is asking me to assess average salaries by cohort, I could share with him that I’ve had some work done in my office, and, apparently, the average salary of a Green MP is a little over $180,000, although I would note that that number excludes the salary of Darleen Tana.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know what the point of order is going to be. I would make note that the last comment that the Minister used was unnecessary in the context of the question that that—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Excluding the final comment, the Minister did not even get close to addressing the question and launched on a political attack. I think the bare minimum we should expect is at least addressing the question before she launches on political attacks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Well, I’ve expressed my ruling about the member’s comment. In terms of answering the question, there is a difference of opinion between the two groups, and the members might not like the Minister’s answer but the Minister did give an answer. Rt Hon Winston Peters—is this a point of order or a supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it’s a supplementary question. By the way, finance Minister, is it a fact that those $180,000 salaries are the highest salaries they have ever earned in their lives or will ever earn in their lives?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. The Minister does not need to answer that question. That question will create chaos.

Francisco Hernandez: Supplementary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Francisco Hernandez—[Interruption] Quiet please. We have a question.

Francisco Hernandez: How can she justify finding out about the eye-wateringly high average salaries at the Ministry for Regulation yesterday when her Government has justified cutting thousands of jobs as wasteful spending?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I have said in answer to other questions in question time today, our Government has been on a mission to drive more value from Government spending, and as part of that we have delivered $23 billion worth of reprioritisation over the next four years in our Budget. That included a significant exercise to reduce the baseline costs of Government agencies. We view it as our responsibility to do that so that we can deliver better outcomes and more responsible economic management.

Francisco Hernandez: Does she agree with ACT Party leader David Seymour that “Ministers can be so focused on their pet projects that they lose sight of whether they will improve New Zealanders’ lives.”, and, if so, how will she, as Minister for the Public Service, ensure that hard-working public servants are not sacrificed in the name of pet projects like the Ministry for Regulation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think that David Seymour makes a good point and we have only to think about the energy crisis we are now experiencing to understand what can happen when Ministers have pet projects at the expense of good decision-making.

Question No. 6—Local Government

6. to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made about getting local government back to basics?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced measures to ensure councils get back to basics to reduce the pressure on rates, deliver core services and infrastructure, and improve the efficiency of decision making. These proposals include refocusing the purpose provisions of the Local Government Act, investigating performance benchmarks for local councils, investigating options to limit council expenditure and nice-to-haves, and reviewing transparency and accountability rules. Council rates are increasing by around 15 percent on average this year, which is more than four times the rate of inflation. This is unacceptable, and councils must ensure they are doing everything they can to reduce pressure on ratepayers.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government investigating rate capping for councils?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government is investigating rate capping for councils. This is similar to some Australian states, like New South Wales, where revenue caps are applied to non-core activities to control rate increases. We’re interested in how a similar approach could work here in New Zealand, ensuring the right balance between ratepayers’ interests and councils’ financial positions.

Rima Nakhle: What is the Government doing to investigate options to limit council expenditure on nice-to-haves?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are removing references to the previous Government’s four wellbeings in the Local Government Act. These distracted councils from the core activities facing their communities, which we simply cannot afford at a time when Kiwis are doing it tough. The evidence is clear. Following the four wellbeings being introduced in the Local Government Act in 2002, rates averaged an increase of 6.8 percent. Following the wellbeings being removed in 2012, rate increases averaged 4.6 percent. Since they were reinstated in 2019, the average rate increase is back up at 6.5 percent. As the Prime Minister outlined yesterday, central government is leading by example in focusing on the must-haves, not the nice-to-haves. Our expectation is local government does so too.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government reviewing transparency and accountability rules?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s unacceptable that the rules as they stand today allow unelected officials, in many cases, to prevent elected members from accessing the information they need to represent their communities. I have been shocked and appalled at situations such as the Wellington City Council recently refusing to provide information on key decisions to elected members, and those members having to use the Official Information Act to access that information. Councillors and mayors are elected on behalf of their communities. They should be empowered to access this information so they can make good decisions and hold officials to account.

Question No 7—Health

7. to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her answer to my oral question No. 8 on 23 July, confirming that the vast majority of heated tobacco products sold in 2022 were by Philip Morris, and by the decision to grant a $216 million tax break for heated tobacco products?

Before I respond to the question, I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge the quit-smoking service providers that I met with across the country last week.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Answer the question.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: They are the contributors—[Interruption] I think it’s appropriate—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister is about to answer the question.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: And I would like to acknowledge their hard work to achieve the smoking rates success we have. It was the first time they’d ever met with a Minister, so I thought it was good to acknowledge their hard work. In regards to the member’s first question about standing by my answer of 23 July, yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by her view that heated tobacco is “definitely a lot less harmful”, and is it a coincidence that a Philip Morris strategy document includes plans to promote heated tobacco as a harm minimisation tool despite the total lack of evidence that it helps people quit?

Hon Shane Jones: Making it up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s unnecessary, Mr Jones.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yet again the member reads a news story and decides I care one iota about what the tobacco industry feels or believes. Our stance has been unequivocal: this Government wants smokers to quit smoking, to reduce harm from smoking, and to achieve the smoke-free 2025 target. For long-term smokers, that requires access to safer nicotine products and, from the meeting with the quit-smoking providers, there is much opportunity to encourage those who have previously been unable to quit to try again, and alternative products will be a tool to achieve that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: So does she stand by her statement that she has no relationship to the tobacco industry, and, if so, how does she explain having been chair of an organisation identified as a partner in a Philip Morris strategy document and now implementing the objectives of that document in her role as Minister?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think we are conflating so many issues here that it’s almost time to get dizzy. I can understand why the member doesn’t want us associated with that organisation, because they stand for lower taxes, less waste, and more accountability. We are committed to achieving the smoke-free target. We will do so. It is absolutely our duty to meet the smoke-free 2025 target.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What actions will she take as Minister to address concerns that commitments in the New Zealand First and National Party coalition agreement on tobacco arose from the actions planned in the Philip Morris strategy document?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The actions I will take will achieve the smoke-free 2025 target.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is she going to have regard to the four-decade-old anti-smoking campaigners ASH and the very esteemed Professor Beaglehole or someone who puts out an incoherent press release, like today, where she can’t even spell the word “in thrall” properly or its meaning, and gets all the mathematics wrong?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, I will take good notice of the work done by ASH and their true dedication, beyond soundbites and virtue signalling, to achieve a really important target of smoke-free 2025.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: So are New Zealanders expected to believe it’s a mere coincidence that her actions in Government are in lockstep with the objectives of a Philip Morris strategy document?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The New Zealand public should believe that this Government is committed to achieving smoke-free 2025, and we will deliver on that commitment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I accept the Minister has—just a moment, Rt Hon Winston Peters—answered the question a number of times. There’s a Cabinet Manual, and the Minister has been answering the questions, and it seems to me that the repetitive questions to the Minister about this are starting to become a little bit too much. So, Rt Hon Winston Peters, did you have a question or a point of order?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m just checking, because I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters had a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no; supplementary question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, OK, so I’ll take the point of order.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: With the utmost respect, Madam Speaker, the job of the Opposition is to choose their questions, and they shouldn’t be edited by anyone.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not editing the questions; I’m just saying that I think that particular question has been asked a number of times now this afternoon. It’s becoming repetitive.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: And that’s for the member to decide.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, well, the member obviously didn’t give another answer to that because it’s been asked several times.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether it’s a chronological fact that, by the looks of this report, Philip Morris put out a document over eight years ago, at which time that was to be followed by a then coalition where Labour was passing the law on this very matter about which she now complains?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not sure that the Minister has any responsibility for what happened back in the coalition with Labour. So—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—point of order. She’s got responsibility for a present complaint being made by Ayesha Verrall right here in this House, and I’m just putting the record straight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I think that’s the record now; the Minister has no responsibility for answering that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is acting contrary to official information laws, as the Ombudsman has found; not taking challenging interviews on this topic; and choosing to evade, with repetitive answers, questions in this Parliament the behaviour of a Minister who has nothing to hide?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The allegation being made there—I completely reject the premise of the question. I have not evaded media interviews. The fact that she has—I have given numerous interviews; I have been on television numerous times. This topic has been traversed to the full extent. It has become distracting from the objective of this Government, which is to deliver smoke-free 2025.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you and, on that basis, if the member has a different question we will take it, but I’m not taking any more questions on that front. The Minister has been very clear in that answer.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Madam Speaker. In my view, it is my right as a member of Parliament to be able to choose my own questions, to be able to repeat questions if I wish, because that may at times—and has with this Minister at times—elicit different answers. This is a House where we should be free to investigate whether ministerial powers have been used in a way that promotes the interests of tobacco companies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member can ask her supplementary questions. All I’m saying is if the same question is going to be asked a number of times, then you can’t expect a new answer from the Minister, if she doesn’t wish to. OK, so ask your question.

Simon Court: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, is it not correct that it’s at the discretion of the Speaker, in terms of Standing Order 397, whether a member is granted a supplementary question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the member is entitled to her supplementary questions at the discretion of the Speaker. I have basically said that if the Minister has already felt that she’s given an answer to a question that’s the same as what it was before, then it’s up to the Minister’s discretion whether she answers that question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does the Minister feel any obligation to take further steps to show to the people of New Zealand that she has not been influenced by the tobacco industry?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have taken further steps in that I have made a genuine commitment and undertaking that I have had no association with the tobacco industry. The fact that the member refuses to believe that is not my problem.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made on investment in road policing?

On Sunday, I announced that drunk and drugged drivers will be heavily targeted through our new $1.3 billion Road Policing Investment Programme to improve safety on our roads. The Road Policing Investment Programme shows a significant step up in road policing and reinforces our Government’s commitment to ensure there is strong enforcement on our roads to keep Kiwis travelling around our country safe.

Tom Rutherford: Why is the Government targeting drunk and drugged drivers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is focusing road policing on seven key areas over the next three years, targeting investment towards the highest contributing factors in fatal crashes. Alcohol and drugs are the leading contributor to fatal crashes on our roads. During 2019 and 2022, crashes involving drugged drivers tragically claimed the lives of around 105 people each year, and alcohol is a contributing factor to around 13 percent of fatal crashes. We’re cracking down on the most high-risk behaviours rather than forcing Kiwis to drive at a snail’s pace on our roads.

Tom Rutherford: What actions is the Government taking against drunk and drugged drivers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re taking significant action. Our plan has a clear focus on outcomes and has clear targets to ensure police are focused on the most high-risk times, behaviours, and locations. We’re increasing alcohol breath tests with a target of 3.3 million tests per year, requiring that 65 percent of breath tests are done at high-risk times. And we’re passing legislation to roll out roadside drug testing, with $20 million of funding for the delivery and implementation of these tests, and a target of 50,000 tests per year.

Tom Rutherford: What is the Government doing to ensure there is a consistent number of alcohol breath tests undertaken each year?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Spending more money will not in itself deliver a consistent number of breath tests. Despite increases in spending in past years, New Zealand has had an inconsistent record with breath tests. Over the past 10 years, there are only two in which police have conducted 3 million tests. Some years have delivered less than half of that number and we’re determined to turn this around. That’s why, for the first time, $72 million of this funding will be made available to police once those targets are reached, to ensure we have a consistent number of tests done every year.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with Lifewise, who say cutting benefits for minor misdemeanors, including a missed appointment, would hurt the most vulnerable; if not, how will the traffic light system not hurt the most vulnerable?

No, because it is one part of our plan to help people into work. The traffic light system makes it crystal clear when action is required to comply with obligations. If someone fails an obligation, they move to orange and have five days to re-comply or dispute their obligation failure. This is a fair chance to re-comply with an obligation before moving to red, where sanctions are applied. Sanctions for missing appointments are longstanding, including during 2017 to 2020 when the Greens and Labour confidence and supply agreement committed to, “remove excessive sanctions”. Given that sanctions for missing appointments remained during this time, just like this coalition Government has done, presumably the Greens and Labour determined such a sanction was fair and reasonable.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Who’s more likely to be correct on the use of sanctions: beneficiaries and the front-line organisations who support them, or a Minister who has failed to produce any research or evidence that benefit sanctions support people into employment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I can say is that we are really clear that work obligations and steps to provide people with opportunities to step towards a job help, and I’d be surprised if that member disagreed.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she yet know what happens to a beneficiary when their income is cut, or is it easier to ignore the hardship that her reforms will inflict?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m really pleased to announce to the House that 98 percent of beneficiaries who are in the traffic light system are at green, which shows the system is working.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What does she think works best for parents: finding caregiving arrangements that work best for them and their kids or being forced into a full-time job that may compromise the care of their children because they may lose half of their benefit if they don’t accept it?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What is clear is it doesn’t work to have large numbers of children in New Zealand growing up in benefit-dependent households. Today, it’s one in five. We want to see more parents, more individuals, in work to improve the chances and the lifelong outcomes of their children.

Kahurangi Carter: Will disabled people on the jobseeker benefit who are waiting for a doctors appointment to move on to the supported living payment be subject to work obligations and sanctions under the traffic light system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are individuals who provide work capacity certificates, and requirements will be for some that they have no work obligations, they have part-time work obligations, or they have full-time obligations as deemed by an independent medical person.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she accept the view of CCS Disability Action, who say that “The barriers to accessing the [supported living payment] are numerous, and until they are adequately addressed, any benefit sanctions imposed on people on the Jobseeker Support will exacerbate the struggles faced by disabled people.”?; and, if not, how will her reforms to increase sanctions and compliance requirements not punish disabled people?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I’ve said in this House, and in my answer previously, for some beneficiaries, there are work obligations; for some, there aren’t. What we are proud to say is this side of the House believes in the value of work, and we will focus on what people can do and what they can’t.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. The question is very specifically about the barriers that disabled people face to enter supported living payment. At no point did the Minister talk about disabled people or the supported living payment, and instead went on a completely different tangent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Minister’s fairly addressed the answers to those questions.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Minister of Justice: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Ko taku pātai i roto i te reo Māori ki te Minita Take Ture. Nō reira, ka whakaae ia, pērā i ētahi atu Minita, kia arohaehaehia tōna whare, arā Te Tāhū o te Ture, hei whakapūmau i te whakatutukitanga o āna whāinga?

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question, in the Māori language, is to the Minister of Justice. And so, does he agree, similar to other Ministers, to the review of his house—i.e., the Ministry of Justice—to ensure it is meeting its objectives?]

Like every Minister in every portfolio, I’m constantly reviewing what we’re doing across the justice system to ensure it meets its objectives. There is, of course, a lot of work to do. Too many New Zealanders are victims of crime and too many New Zealanders have to wait too long to receive justice or to have their disputes resolved.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to get a transcript of that question, which is set out there as being question No. 10 on the Order Paper today, and you can be certain that’s not what he said, which he’s required to say and follow to the word when he’s in this Parliament. Why is there a separate rule for Te Pāti Māori and the rest have to comply with a longstanding, decades’ old rule that what’s written down there needs to be repeated and only that, and not all the add-ons as he feels like it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, can I just take the member’s word that the question to the Minister was—because I didn’t quite get this up in time—what was directed off the paper?

Tākuta Ferris: Te ritenga? [The corresponding meaning?]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. The Minister obviously understood the question that you were asking—is that correct?

Tākuta Ferris: Well, he uaua te whakamāori i te kupu Pākehā me tōna ritenga kau ki te kupu Pākehā.

[Well, it is difficult to translate into Māori the English words and their corresponding meaning with English words.]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Rather than delay the House’s time, I seek you to get a transcript—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll have a look—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, let me finish off. I am the person that raised the point of order because I picked it up—you didn’t. With respect, I want you to compare the transcript and tell us next week what was the answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will commit to do that, but with respect also, the Minister answered the question and there was no confusion there. So I call on Tākuta Ferris to ask a supplementary question.

Hūhana Lyndon: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Speaking to the point of order. E tino tautoko ana au i a Tākuta me tāna pātai. [I absolutely support Tākuta and his question.] We should not be putting barriers in place for members to be able to speak te reo Māori in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, under Speaker’s ruling 42/5, interpretation is not word for word identical to the English version. So I rule that the Minister understood what was being asked and answered the question, and I would like Tākuta Ferris now to ask his supplementary question.

Tākuta Ferris: What actions will he take to eliminate structural racism in the justice system, which continues to see Māori men being stopped, tasered, prosecuted by the State more than any other group, as revealed by the Police yesterday in their Understanding Policing Delivery report?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think everybody across the justice system is very focused on achieving equitable outcomes. But I don’t think it’s fair or helpful to suggest that the tens of thousands of New Zealanders, including Māori New Zealanders, who work across the justice system are racist or are part of a system that’s motivated by racism. I think they’re New Zealanders who are doing their very best, and we’re very focused on achieving the best outcomes that we can in the justice sector.

Tākuta Ferris: Is he therefore saying that structural racism does not exist in New Zealand’s justice system?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, what I’m saying is I don’t think it’s a helpful suggestion to imply that the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who work across the justice system are—

Tākuta Ferris: Point of order, Madam Speaker. That’s not what I asked. I didn’t say anything about the people who work in justice. I asked the member if he thought that the justice system was systemically racist.

Mark Cameron: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we all wanted to actually hear what the Minister was going to answer by virtue of that, and I think it would help the House and the commentary if we allowed the Minister to answer the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. So Tākuta Ferris, please ask your question again and the Minister will answer it. Thank you.

Tākuta Ferris: Is he, therefore, saying that structural racism does not exist in New Zealand’s justice system?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m saying that there are academics and people that would like to use that phrase. I personally don’t think it’s a helpful way of describing a system, because the justice system is created and operated by tens of thousands of New Zealanders in the courts, in the police, in corrections, in the Ministry of Justice, our judges—all New Zealanders; many, of course, are Māori New Zealanders—who are doing their best to deliver justice, and to imply that they’re part of a racist endeavour or a system that is racist, I don’t think is very helpful.

Tākuta Ferris: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Well, that was no answer. But is he saying—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please take a seat. The Minister answered the question. That was the Minister’s answer. There’s no requirement that the member who asked the question likes the Minister’s answer, but the Minister answered the question.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB when he marked crime 2/10, saying, “For all the noise, promises and headlines, I’m pretty sure the stats show it’s going the wrong way”; if not, why not?

No, but I can understand why Mike has said that. The incoming Government inherited the worst violent crime this country has seen and it is a big job that will take time to turn around. The good news is that after eight months we are starting to see early signs of positive change. I’ll have more to say on this next week, but I’m happy to share with that member that when comparing the first six months of last year with the first six months of this year, we have seen aggravated robberies reduce by 10 percent, we have seen knife crime drop by 10 percent, there have been 5 percent less serious assaults, Auckland Council reported earlier in the week a 35 percent drop in crime, and Heart of the City also reported that retail thefts and robberies in Auckland had fallen 50 percent. Additionally, advice from police shows that we have slowed the increase in retail crime by half. This is a result of this Government’s focus on back-to-basics policing with increased visibility and presence. We are very realistic that these problems will not be fixed overnight and I’m not saying that the problem is solved, but I’m encouraged by these early signs of progress and improvement.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How are New Zealanders in Waikato safer when there has been a 350 percent increase in non-aggravated robberies and a 53 percent increase in aggravated sexual assaults since he took office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the people of Waikato will start to feel safer, I hope, when they see that the police are being extremely proactive in terms of dealing with crime on the street, in terms of visibility. I’d reiterate again to the member that in the first six months of this Government, there’s been a reduction by 10 percent of aggravated robberies, there’s been a reduction by 10 percent of knife crime, and there’s been a reduction of 5 percent of serious assaults.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How are New Zealanders in Canterbury safer when there has been a 164 percent increase in aggravated robberies since he took office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the people in Canterbury will be feeling safer because, again, they’ve seen a big increase in visibility and presence of their police officers in the street. They’re feeling safer in their CBD. The police have been extremely proactive and they’ve run big operations to deal with boy racers. They’ve been very proactive in the way that they’re dealing with gangs. Like I said, I’ll have more to say on this next week; there’s some good news on the way. I will bring the member back to the fact that there’s been a 10 percent reduction in aggravated robberies in the first six months of this Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why have police foot patrols in Canterbury decreased by 39 percent since he took office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: There’s just been additional resource put into Canterbury to increase the number of police on the street, and the feedback that I get from members of the public every day is that they’re seeing their police officers back on the street, highly visible, providing reassurance, and they’re loving it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How are New Zealanders safer when there has been a 25 percent increase in thefts from retail premises between November 2023 and May 2024 compared to the previous year?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, like I said to the member, we know that we’ve got a lot of work to do. We inherited the worst violence this country has ever seen via the previous Government. But I would bring her attention again back to the fact that police advise that retail crime has slowed down by half in the first eight months since this Government came in.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can he guarantee to New Zealanders that the 248 job cuts to New Zealand police will not affect the front line and therefore further contribute to these stats going the wrong way?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, this Government takes services to the community that we serve really seriously, and any savings that we’ve taken out of Police National Headquarters are being reinvested back on the front line so that people see police officers highly visible out on the beat, which they’re seeing now and they’re loving, to make sure that we make our country safer.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he made about reforms to corporate governance?

Last Thursday, I announced a package of reforms that will update corporate governance arrangements. One of the key reforms is to amend the Companies Act, a piece of legislation that hasn’t been substantially updated for 30 years. The Companies Act is a foundational piece of legislation for our economy. The reforms include five key components: first, modernise, simplify, and digitise the Companies Act; second, improve director identification while suppressing the public disclosure of home addresses; third, update insolvency arrangements and specifically address the phoenixing of companies; fourth, increase the use, function, and uptake of the New Zealand Business Number; and separately, with the agreement of Minister Goldsmith, request the Law Commission to review company director liabilities and duties.

Carl Bates: What protections are proposed for creditors and investors?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: A very good question. I’m sure many Kiwis have heard the stories of companies that go bankrupt, leaving behind debts, only for the owners of those companies to pop up somewhere else under a new name. This is often referred to as “phoenixing” and is clearly neither fair nor right. The Government’s package of reforms includes giving company directors a unique number, which will improve transparency and make it easier for creditors and law enforcement to trace the activities of directors. In addition, we’re proposing to update insolvency arrangements, which will mean better protection for creditors, including employees.

Carl Bates: What protections will be put in place that will encourage people to be directors?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: One of the key concerns we’ve heard from directors is the disclosure of their private addresses on the Companies Register. We’re proposing to allow an address for service rather than a home address on the publicly accessible elements of the Companies Register, while still ensuring directors are locatable and accountable. The changes are comprehensive, as it deals with both director and shareholder addresses. I do want to acknowledge MP Laura Trask and the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for their work on this issue.

Question No. 13—Housing

13. to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does the Minister stand by his statement relating to the drop in children living in emergency accommodation, where he said, “I’m not worried that some are now homeless”?

Madam Speaker, mālō e lelei. I am very concerned about homelessness, especially with tamariki. In the context in which the relevant question was asked of me by media and understood by me and in relation to this Government’s very successful priority one programme, I’ll remind the member, who may inadvertently mischaracterise the context in which the question was asked, that I am very proud that the 1,110 children who have come out of emergency housing by way of the priority one programme have now gone into warm, safe, dry homes. Every single tamariki of the 1,110 have now gone into warm, safe, dry homes.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister also not worried that social services are directly attributing a recent increase in homelessness to his decision to make it harder for people to access emergency housing, as reported this week?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. I am not advised of any substantiated evidence or reports of increased homelessness. Our officials continue to monitor homelessness very carefully. Let it be known in this House—again, for the fourth time this week—that emergency housing and the capacity of emergency housing in the majority of city centres throughout this country is available for those with a genuine need for short-term stay, for temporary accommodation.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does his indifference to homelessness explain why he ignored official advice that his policy of making it harder to access emergency housing will result in more people living on the streets?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. Early on in the process of establishing the new way of doing things, we were advised by the Ministry of Social Development that there may be a risk of increased homelessness by the actions that we were taking, but there are no substantiated reports or evidence of increased homelessness. There continues to be capacity in the majority of city centres in Aotearoa New Zealand for those with a genuine need for a short-term stay, for temporary accommodation.

Hon Willie Jackson: Who should New Zealanders trust: social services, who have reported an increase in homelessness because of the Minister’s policies, or the Minister, who isn’t worried about an increase in homelessness?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Madam Speaker, mālō e lelei. Certainly, it’s blue shoots—that this Government has made decisions that have resulted in a decrease of over a thousand whānau in emergency housing from the time we came into Government until the end of June, and 1,110 tamariki who have left emergency housing since April 2024—

Hon Member: Where have they gone?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —and we do know and my officials do have the information of the locations where those tamariki have gone to.

Hon Willie Jackson: If, as has now been established, the Government has slashed Kāinga Ora funding, significantly reduced funding for community housing providers, cut back on Māori housing and made it harder for whānau to access emergency housing, and the Minister isn’t concerned that some are now homeless, doesn’t this just confirm that he’s actually more focused on ensuring landlords get $2.9 billion in tax breaks than actually housing vulnerable families?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. The Minister must have turned his ears off earlier on when I described that I am very concerned about homelessness in this country. However, there are a number of aspects of his question that would be better directed to the Minister in charge of various funding for Kāinga Ora.

Hon Willie Jackson: Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry. There’s no more supplementary questions.

Hon Willie Jackson: One more? One more?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. There’s no more supplementary questions. That concludes oral questions. I’ll stand with tradition and give everyone 30 seconds to quietly move on.