Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: ORIINI KAIPARA, Answered by: Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN

to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that the Government’s health and safety reforms will “better protect workers and support a continued reduction in serious workplace injuries and fatalities”?

Yes. This coalition Government’s health and safety reforms will better protect workers by focusing the health and safety system on critical risks—those are the risks that are likely to result in serious injury, illness, or death—rather than treating health and safety like a tick-box exercise. These reforms focus everyone’s attention and energy on the risks that matter most. This is a change that both workers and businesses should be able to get behind.

Oriini Kaipara: What assurance can she give workers and their whānau, following the death of a worker in an Ōtāhuhu meat processing plant just this week, that their safety remains the Government’s first priority?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Firstly, what I would say is that any death at work is an absolute tragedy, and my heart goes out to the family members who will be grieving the loss of their loved ones. All members of this coalition Government wish that every worker comes back home safe at the end of each work day for their families. What we are prioritising under this legislation goes to the heart of that matter, which is that too many people currently are dying at work. That’s why our Government believes that when too many people are dying at work, we need to refocus our system on those critical risks—those risks that could lead to death or serious injury and illness—and focus on stamping those out, managing them, or eliminating those risks. That is right at the heart of this law.

Oriini Kaipara: What assurance can she give workers that WorkSafe has sufficient capacity to investigate workplace deaths and prevent further harm, given that WorkSafe has undergone repeated restructures and its headcount fell from 603 to 562 in the most recently reported year?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The assurance that I can give all members of the public is that while the headcount at WorkSafe has fallen, that is because of a lot of back-office clean out. We have, under this Government, the highest number of inspectors at WorkSafe than ever before.

Oriini Kaipara: How does reducing WorkSafe funding for plant and structures regulatory reform by $8.561 million make workers in high-risk industries safer in light of media reports that the worker who died at Auckland’s Ōtāhuhu meat processing factory was trapped in machinery?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My understanding is that the plant and structures work was put on pause by the previous Government, not by this Government. However, what I can say is that as a Minister, I have directed WorkSafe to ensure that all inspectors have new training when it comes to the processing and manufacturing areas. You can look at my most recent Beehive announcements on that. All inspectors have new capacity and capability in this area.

Housing

Question No. 2

Asked by: TAMATHA PAUL, Answered by: Hon TAMA POTAKA

to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies on housing?

on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes, including his statement this morning that the City Rail Link, which is opening on Sunday, 13 September, is fundamentally about the people who will sit on a train heading to a first day at a new job, going to the doctors, heading to school or to shop, or to catch up with friends. It’s about the new homes that will be built and the new jobs created.

Tamatha Paul: Is he aware of how many families with children have been evicted from their homes as a result of his Government’s decision to remove the Sustaining Tenancies framework?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m aware of the number of whānau, including the numbers of children, that have had their tenancies terminated over the past couple of years.

Tamatha Paul: Did he seek any advice on how, and how many, households with children may be affected by removing the Sustaining Tenancies framework?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, I am not aware of that specific matter, but what I am aware of is that a number of tenancies that have been terminated were as a result of non-occupancy.

Tamatha Paul: Is he comfortable that 33 percent of the 324 tenancies terminated between July 2024 and June 2025, following the removal of the Sustaining Tenancies framework, had children in the home, meaning 258 children were evicted?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, I am aware that a number of tenancies have been terminated, but not necessarily as a direct consequence of a change in framework. What I am aware of is that there are instances, across a variety of tenancies, where people leave their house without terminating their arrangements and those arrangements are thereafter terminated.

Tamatha Paul: Was it his intention when removing the Sustaining Tenancies Framework that, according to Kāinga Ora documents, “the presence of a child does not change the decision about whether to end the tenancy”; if not, will he change his direction to Kāinga Ora?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: What I am aware of is that, in the instance that Kāinga Ora is terminating tenancies and there are children involved, they have advised me that they will be very careful and cautious to ensure that the appropriate connections are made with community housing providers and others who may be able to house those whānau that have tamariki and children in them.

Tamatha Paul: What is his message to the 258 children who have been evicted from their homes following his Government’s decision to remove the Sustaining Tenancies Framework?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Again, this is combining the change in framework and alluding to that change as being the cause for the eviction. Often, it’s been very clear about the reasons why tenancies have been terminated. My understanding is that over half of the tenancies that have been terminated were actually terminated for non-occupancy. Whānau have left those homes and, as a result, those tenancies have been terminated.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 3

Asked by: Hon CARMEL SEPULONI, Answered by: Hon LOUISE UPSTON

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. What is the total number of unemployed people in New Zealand in the June 2026 quarter, and how does this compare to the September 2023 quarter?

Unemployment has been rising since 2021 and was always forecast to increase above 5 percent. In September 2023, 119,000 people were unemployed in New Zealand, and in June 2026 this figure sat at 171,000. Importantly, the June 2026 quarter marked the third consecutive quarter of increasing employment growth. Over the year to June, total employment increased by 33,000. This is the highest annual growth rate since the end of 2023. We acknowledge that many Kiwis are finding it tough at the moment. That’s why our Government are so focused on fixing the basics and building the future, and we are seeing positive signs that our economy is growing.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Are 22,000 more women unemployed in New Zealand since the September 2023 quarter?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I don’t have that figure in front of me, so I can’t confirm that, but what I think is really positive is the fact that we have seen job ads experiencing annual growth rate increases for the last four quarters. We do know that annual increases in job ads—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very narrow, specific question. At the beginning of that answer, she said she didn’t have the figure, and she’s gone on to provide other comments that are just completely irrelevant to the narrow question that I asked.

SPEAKER: Well, I never heard the end of the answer, so I can’t tell whether it was irrelevant or not. Have you got another supplementary?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Are 10,000 more Māori unemployed in New Zealand since the September 2023 quarter?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I acknowledge that, in terms of unemployment, Māori are disproportionately affected, but what is really encouraging is to see that we have had a fall in the Māori unemployment rate in the recent quarter down to 10.8 percent. So we are seeing progress, which is good news.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was she advised that the reason Māori unemployment dropped in the June quarter is because so many left the workforce, likely heading to Australia in search of work and opportunities that they could not access here in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, I’m far more optimistic than that member and I can say that employment growth is being led by fields like manufacturing and like the primary sectors—up by 28,000 and 15,000 respectively—and construction employment has also grown. This side of the House knows that it’s positive to see that there is growth in sectors of the employment. Growth ads are going, and so we are seeing some improvement. It’s not taking away that there are some New Zealanders doing it tough, but I do want to say that there are some positive signs.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Are nearly 8,000 more Pasifika unemployed in New Zealand since the September 2023 quarter?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I’ve said with Māori, Pasifika are also disproportionately affected by unemployment, but we’ve seen an improvement this quarter in the Pacific people’s unemployment rate, which I think is good news, and I’m surprised that that member is not celebrating that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Are over 26,000 more Aucklanders unemployed since the September 2023 quarter?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We do know that we’re seeing quite a difference in regional unemployment figures. If we look at Canterbury, it’s at 3.6 percent. Auckland is not that low, and we are seeing a much slower recovery in Auckland, which is why when we make announcements like today that the City Rail Link (CRL) will open on 13 September, infrastructure projects are paying off.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she think—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just hang on. The House needs to compose itself, and I’ll call you when we have done so.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she think that the more than 22,000 women, 10,000 Māori, 8,000 Pasifika, and 26,000 Aucklanders unemployed over the last three years deserve a real plan to get them back into work, rather than a Government whose only response seems to be that they simply should not take it personally?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, this side of the House does have a strong plan for economic growth: fast-track consenting, infrastructure projects like the CRL, more development, Investment Boost—which actually grows business opportunities, and I’m shocked that there are parties in this House who would get rid of that at a stroke of a pen and stop our small businesses investing in growing. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s the end of the barrage sort of interjections.

Auckland

Question No. 4

Asked by: GREG FLEMING, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister for Auckland: What recent reports has he seen on the opening date for the Auckland City Rail Link?

Today, alongside Auckland Council, the Government announced that the Auckland City Rail Link—or the CRL—will open to passengers on 13 September. After a long and patient wait—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. That’s just unacceptable. You may have views, but you’ve also got questions. So ask those, and don’t interrupt in such a voluminous sort of barrage as that. The Hon Simon Watts.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. After a long—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, we accept your guidance, but the problem there was that the Minister made an error. He said that the Government announced this, but, in fact, it wasn’t announced by the Government; it was announced on a billboard three hours earlier than the announcement.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, it would have been more appropriate for you to take a point of order to point out that mistake, rather than for your entire caucus deciding to yell the answer at him, which really makes the question a waste of time. But, anyway, the Hon Simon Watts.

Hon SIMON WATTS: I’m sure that when the member listens and reads the Hansard, he will see that his statement—

SPEAKER: No, no, no—you don’t need to make those comments. We’ll take one more supplementary, and then we’ll move on.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, take the next supplementary.

Greg Fleming: What does the CRL—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—Greg Fleming, and no one else.

Greg Fleming: With these recent reports, what does the CRL mean for Aucklanders, and how will the CRL support Auckland’s wider economic growth?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The City Rail Link will fundamentally change the way Auckland’s transport network operates, with faster journeys, more frequent services, and better connections across the city. That means getting around the city faster and easier than ever before. The CRL is one of the most significant transport investments in New Zealand’s history. It was started under a National Government and, in just a few weeks, Aucklanders will see it opened under a National-led Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can the Minister confirm that the CRL announced by the Rt Hon John Key is opening this week, and that the slow tram down to Dominion Road announced by Jacinda Ardern is not?

SPEAKER: No, he can’t announce that. So far three Ministers today have. So we’ll move on to question No. 5.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 5

Asked by: RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH, Answered by: Hon LOUISE UPSTON

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “They should be the responsibility of their parents” in response to questions regarding restricting income support for 18- to 19-year-olds receiving jobseeker support (health condition, injury, or disability)?

Yes. Our Government expects 18- to 19-year-old jobseekers who are not in work, education, or training to be supported by their parents. Around a third of jobseeker (health condition, injury, or disability) clients are already working, actively seeking work, or wanting more hours. Recent modelling suggests people under 25 on jobseeker support will spend on average another 20 years on a benefit over their lifetime. That is why our Government is building a more active welfare system that supports more young people into work. Young people will have better future outcomes if they remain close to the labour market, or are studying, rather than being on jobseeker support.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Would she support amendments to exclude jobseeker recipients who are sick, injured, or disabled, including those battling with cancer or ill mental health, from the cuts to benefits for 18- and 19-year-olds, and, if not, what message does she send to parents who may struggle with the cost of living as a result of those cuts?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I accept that when a family member has a child—an 18- or 19-year-old—that has a challenging issue, whether struggling with an illness or mild to moderate mental health, which is why we actually want to see opportunities for those young people. If their parents are on the low income, there is a parental income test that is available so that they could get support. The other thing that I would add, is for a young person in that set of circumstances, they would be entitled to additional support, whether it’s things like accommodation supplement or hardship grants and other allowances.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is a household with a combined income of $68,000 a year able to afford their current expenses, such as power bills, food, rent, or other accommodation costs?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Mr Speaker, I’ve just answered that question in terms of their being a parental assistance test for an 18- or 19-year-old in that set of circumstances, and confirmed they would be eligible for additional forms of assistance if they required it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that there is not a job available for every single unemployed person, and, if so, what is the point of leaving young people, who are battling cancer, ill mental health, or musculoskeletal disorders without income support when there’s not even enough jobs for them?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, we have been clear about the policy being about young people being in employment, education, or training. What we do know is that when people are preparing for work, it increases their opportunities. The other thing I would add is that New Zealand isn’t out of step with other countries, where there are age restrictions on access to jobseeker or an equivalent. In Australia it’s up to 22, Ireland up to 24, and in France up to 25.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What does she say to young people struggling with their mental health who have been deemed by Work and Income to be unable to work full time because of those very same health conditions, who may lose their income support as a result of her changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, it can be incredibly challenging for a young person who is dealing with mild to moderate mental health, and what many professionals would say, actually, for a young person to be participating in something like training or further education—whether part time or full time—is a really important part of someone returning to better mental health.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can she name a single mental health professional who has told her that cutting income support for people on jobseeker (health condition, injury, or disability) or someone who may be struggling with their mental health will lead to better outcomes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s pretty obvious that if somebody’s participating in training or education, it improves their opportunities to find work. And, as I said, in many instances we do know that somebody’s mental health improves when they are connected to opportunities, whether it’s part time or full time. If they are unable to do that in the first instance, they would be looked after by their family. There is a parental assistance test, and there is access to additional support if they require it. As I have put on the record today, New Zealand is not out of step with other countries. In fact, the fact that this policy is only for under-20s shows it’s very different from other countries like France, where there is no support under the age of 25.

Health

Question No. 6

Asked by: GRANT McCALLUM, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about improving access to diagnostic services for people living in Northland?

This Government is delivering better healthcare closer to home for Northlanders. I recently announced a $5.5 million investment to install a CT scanner at Kaitāia Hospital. This means people living in Kaitāia and surrounding communities will be able to access CT imaging locally, rather than having to travel to Whangārei. Around 7,000 patients each year are expected to benefit from the service, which will support the diagnosis and treatment of conditions such as cancer, stroke, injuries, and respiratory illness. This is another example of this Government fixing the basics and building the future by improving access to healthcare.

Grant McCallum: How will this investment make a difference for patients and families in the Mid North and Far North?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Currently, many patients face a round trip of more than 250 kilometres to Whangārei Hospital for a CT scan. For some, that means taking a full day away from work, arranging transport, or relying on ambulance transfers. Bringing CT scanning to Kaitāia means thousands of patients each year will be able to access vital diagnostic services closer to home. This will mean less travel, less disruption, and faster access to the care they need. For rural and regional communities in our Far North, this represents a significant improvement in healthcare access.

Grant McCallum: What impact will this new service have on the healthcare workforce in Kaitāia?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This investment is not just about new equipment; it’s also about strengthening local health services. As the CT service is established, additional staff will be recruited, including medical-imaging technologists, nurses, and support staff. This will help build local capability, support the expansion of diagnostic services at Kaitāia Hospital, and ensure the community has access to a highly skilled workforce closer to home, as part of our commitment to growing the health workforce and ensuring regional hospitals have the people and resources they need to deliver quality care. I’d also like to thank the member asking for his continued advocacy for this project.

Grant McCallum: What other investments has the Government recently made to improve diagnostic and cancer services in Northland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Alongside the new CT scanner for Kaitāia Hospital, we recently opened a new CT scanner and Northland’s first linear accelerator as part of the new radiation oncology facility at Whangārei Hospital. This investment is helping bring life-changing cancer care closer to home for Northlanders by improving access to the diagnostic imaging that is essential for cancer diagnosis, treatment planning, and ongoing care. Together, these investments demonstrate the Government’s commitment to ensuring Northlanders can access modern healthcare services closer to home, where they live, reducing travel and improving health outcomes across the region.

Justice

Question No. 7

Asked by: Hon WILLIE JACKSON, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes, in the context with which they’re given, particularly my statement that this Government is fixing the basics in law and order so that New Zealanders continue to feel safe in their communities.

Hon Willie Jackson: What are the apparent benefits to the review of Treaty clauses, when his own officials, along with the Waitangi Tribunal, have said that there are none, and that it will only result in posing a significant risk to the Māori - Crown relationship?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The benefits that we anticipate are providing greater consistency and clarity when we’re referring to the Treaty. Over the last 30 or 40 years, all manner of concoctions have been put together—honouring, having regard to, giving effect to, taking into account—so we’re trying to get some consistency into that.

Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister: does he agree with the Hon Shane Jones’ view that the Waitangi Tribunal’s opinion of the review is fearmongering and an attack on New Zealand First, when the Ministry of Justice, the Auditor-General, the Human Rights Commission, iwi chairs, and his own former colleague Chris Finlayson are all saying that this is a backwards step?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Sometimes I agree with the Hon Shane Jones, and on this occasion, I do.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that “Māori will be significantly prejudiced by the Crown’s proposed reforms, which, if enacted, could result in poorer environmental and health outcomes for Māori”; and if not, why?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I certainly don’t believe it will result in poorer outcomes for Māori. What it is, is trying to get some greater clarity in the legislation that we pass. What will make the real difference, in terms of outcomes for Māori, is a strong growing economy, and that relies on investment—and one thing that it shouldn’t be doing is taking away Investment Boost.

Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister: does he agree with Waitangi Tribunal Chief Judge, Dr Caren Fox, when she suggested that the Ministers had acted in complete disregard for the Treaty partnership, and if not, why?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We always take notice of the Waitangi Tribunal reports, but, respectively, we don’t agree with that assessment.

Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister: why did he not attend the National Iwi Chairs Forum last week when he had the opportunity to discuss—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We did.

SPEAKER: No, hang on—wait a minute. Sorry, Mr Jackson. No one comments while a question is being asked. Start again, Mr Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister: why did he not attend the National Iwi Chairs Forum last week, when he had the opportunity to discuss the Treaty clause legislation directly and to explain to iwi why he is ignoring them and progressing with this review anyway, knowing full well that it undermines their interests?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, first point of correction: I have not ignored the iwi leader’s forum. Just because one doesn’t agree, necessarily, it does not mean that one is ignoring. In terms of whether I was to travel to Queenstown to attend that meeting: I had every confidence that my two colleagues the Hon Tama Potaka and the Hon Nicola Willis were more than capable of carrying the conversation with those people. We are very proud of the progress that we’ve made on many issues confronting Māori over the last 2½ years.

Hon Tama Potaka: Mr Speaker, supplementary question—supplementary?

SPEAKER: Wait.

Hon Willie Jackson: Waste of time.

SPEAKER: Wait—the Hon Tama Potaka.

Hon Tama Potaka: To the Minister: can the Minister please confirm that this Government has introduced Treaty principles clauses, such as that in the mental health legislation and also the Hauraki Gulf marine protection legislation, which are consistent, descriptive, and clearly commit to the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Absolutely. I think what we find is that the Opposition likes to jump up and down on a whole range of issues, but this Government carries on its work—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on—hold on. If you’ve got a question, ask it when you’ve got the opportunity; not while a Minister’s giving an answer to someone else’s question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. When a Minister starts talking about the Opposition in response to a question from his own side, and there is no intervention, I think a bit of disorder is expected.

SPEAKER: I don’t—I’m sorry, I didn’t pick up that the was talking about the Opposition.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s exactly what was happening.

SPEAKER: Well, he should avoid doing that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in my defence, they were yelling and barracking, and that is why I—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. There is no defence. Have you finished, Mr Jackson? We’ll move on.

Justice

Question No. 8

Asked by: CARL BATES, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

to the Minister of Justice: What initiatives is the Government progressing to reduce retail crime? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Paul Goldsmith—and no one else, including members from his own side, who seem to think he needs assistance.

The Government is progressing a raft of changes to the Crimes Act to deal more effectively with retail crime. As part of our effort to restore law and order in this country, we want to see retailers more effectively protected and empowered to stop offending, where appropriate, so that offenders can be caught and deterred from doing it again. That’s why, very shortly, businesses will be able to detain and arrest those stealing from them, and shoplifters will be faced with instant fines. This is part of our effort to help retailers in this country continue to prosper in the absence of retail crime.

Carl Bates: How will businesses be able to detain and arrest those stealing from them?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It has long been the case that people have been able to perform citizen’s arrest after 9 p.m., and we are changing the law because we think it is possible that, on occasions, it may be relevant at 8.55 p.m. and at 7 p.m. and at 2 p.m. There may be circumstances where retailers will be able to hold on to somebody that is attempting to steal from them, then ring the police, and then follow the instructions of the police. This, of course, is not compulsory—nobody is required to do this—but it is an option that will be available and something that was called for by the retail crime advisory group that came up with a number of very useful suggestions.

Carl Bates: What additional powers will be provided to target shoplifters?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the reality is that shoplifters will soon face stronger penalties for their actions, with the introduction of an infringement regime. Lower-level offending has often gone unreported and unpunished because it involves a lengthy court process. If you’re caught stealing, this sometimes has led to insufficient consequences. That’s why we’re introducing an instant fine, and it’s part of the coalition commitment between National and New Zealand First, and another idea recommended by the ministerial advisory group.

Carl Bates: Why is the Government progressing initiatives to reduce retail crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because the economic cost of retail crime is very significant and runs into the billions, and we are concerned that retailers, more often than not, are small businesses just trying to make a living and are the basis of our economy. One of the most useful things we’ve done beyond this portfolio, of course, is give them the ability to have Investment Boost so that they can get tax reductions from their investment straightaway—

SPEAKER: Good; that’s great. That’s enough. [Interruption] No, that’s enough.

Food Safety

Question No. 9

Asked by: Dr PARMJEET PARMAR, Answered by: Hon ANDREW HOGGARD

to the Minister for Food Safety: How is the Government making it easier for food businesses to comply with the Food Act 2014 while maintaining New Zealand’s food safety standards?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. After I became Minister for Food Safety, I visited dozens of food businesses and industry organisations and asked them what changes to the regulatory system they wanted to see. All agreed that high standards of food safety were a non-negotiable, and we quickly identified 13 actions that will make life easier for small businesses and unlock their potential. Some simple changes can make a big difference. For example, I heard from small businesses that food safety training can cost up to $200 per staff member, and in a sector with many part-time and short-term staff, this soon adds up. New Zealand Food Safety, together with the sector, has now developed a suite of online food safety training models, without additional cost to businesses. Two are available now, and the rest will be live in coming months.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other changes has the Government delivered to support food businesses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: In addition to increased access to staff training, we are also supporting food businesses with ongoing advice about compliance. I heard from many that it’s not easy for businesses when regulators sit back and say, “These are the laws. You decide what you need to do, but we’ll punish you if you get it wrong.” New Zealand Food Safety has put more people in place to give food businesses advice on how to comply. Most food businesses are inspected by local councils for food safety, and many food councils can mean many different approaches. The Government has addressed inconsistency across different areas by delivering centralised training and resources to local councils, and updated guidance on common food-safety issues, like multi-site verification. This won’t work as just a one-off, but it’s now baked into New Zealand Food Safety’s ongoing work. This will include looking at how we can standardise fees and charges.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What further actions is the Government working on to support food businesses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: As I said earlier, we identified 13 broad actions that will deliver value to small food-businesses. I can’t go into a lot of detail there because you’ll get mad at me, but I will highlight three initiatives. We’re developing a range of specialist procedures for slightly niche businesses, like those making artisan sauces or frozen meals or delivering meals, who may find it hard to see where they fit into the regulations. We are simplifying all of New Zealand Food Safety’s templates, which will make them much easier to interact with for busy small-business people. And we will better support companies, especially in the animal products sector, that want to transition to exporting. They need the support because export brings additional market access requirements, which can be very costly when you’re starting out.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the most significant action the Minister has identified to unlock food businesses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Last year, we removed the requirement to register under the Food Act for home-based cake bakers because the compliance cost was not justified by the risk. This was a reasonably straightforward change following a series of submissions to the Red Tape Tipline. But I want to make sure that all businesses are regulated in a way that is proportional to their food safety risk. That’s why I’ve asked officials to review the relevant schedule in the Food Act so that businesses are not subject to needless red tape that adds costs without any benefit to food safety. I expect that this will see significant cost reductions, especially for small businesses. That initial review is now complete, and I expect to see advice on potential changes before the end of the month.

Health

Question No. 10

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

to the Minister of Health: Does the Minister stand by his appointments to the Medical Council, and what information did he or his office consider before making these appointments?

Yes. Under section 120 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, the Minister of Health is responsible for making the ministerial appointments to the Medical Council of New Zealand. The Ministry of Health administers that Act and runs the appointment process, providing the Minister with information on candidates, including, but not limited to, their qualifications, experience, skills, and ability to serve in their role.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did the Minister or his office ask Roderick Mulgan how he would approach council decisions on doctors who are found guilty of sexual assault or disciplined for sexual misconduct when Dr Mulgan’s professional website advertises his skill in allowing them to continue practising?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Ministry of Health went through a process and provided me advice. I went through the process of taking their advice and making decisions based on section 120 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What assurance did the Minister seek that Dr Mulgan would protect patients from practitioners with a history of sexual misconduct?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Ministry of Health provides me with advice in relation to the qualifications, experience, skills, and ability for individuals to serve in the role. They undertake due diligence of the individual member and take that into account prior to giving me advice.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did the Minister or his office discuss with Dr Mulgan how the council should uphold professional standards of behaviour when he had said on The Platform, on 12 September 2023, “This is the sort of thing that needs to be smacked down.”, in relation to proceedings against a nurse who spread anti-vax misinformation?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the member is aware that I make appointments under section 120 of the Health Practitioners Competency Assurance Act. The Ministry of Health administers that Act and runs the appointment process. They do due diligence of the individual. They provide the Minister with information on candidates, including, but not limited to, their qualifications, skills, experience, and their ability to serve in the role. That’s what I undertook in this process.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. It’s clearly articulated both in Speaker’s rulings: that member does not have a free pass to cast aspersion, denigrate, or stigmatise a member of the public.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No, you don’t need to, because in this case it’s not a member of the public as such. It is a member of the public who has been appointed to a statutory body, and the member, therefore, does have the right to question relating to that appointment.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When was he made aware that Dr Mulgan’s advertising of nutritional supplements was potentially in breach of the Medical Council’s rules on doctors promoting commercial products?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Matters regarding the Medical Council’s own policies and procedures are a matter for the Medical Council.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he consider Dr Mulgan’s endorsing pills that he formulates and sells containing turmeric, olive, and pepper extracts for “protecting long-term health” consistent with good medical practise or quackery? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry, just a minute. While it’s interesting, and an enormous number of New Zealanders do use supplements which contain all of those ingredients, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the Minister, who is not a medical practitioner, to answer what was effectively a medical question. Use the question again to ask a different one.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Speaking to your ruling just there, Mr Speaker. That is not a question that is asking the Minister to make a medical judgment. It is clear and it’s already in the public domain that the person appointed to the Medical Council—

SPEAKER: Hang on, just let me be clear. The way you put that was, when you listed those ingredients, you asked him if they were consistent with good health outcomes or words to that effect. There are other ways you could ask the same question without requiring that, because that would be an opinion that I don’t think is appropriate for him to give.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did the Minister seek advice on the appropriateness of Dr Mulgan’s endorsing pills that he sells and formulates containing plant extracts, and making claims about them protecting long-term health, when he was appointing that man to the body responsible for regulating doctors?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, the Ministry of Health administers the Act and runs an appointment process providing the Minister with information on the candidates including but not limited to their qualifications, experience, skills, and ability to serve in the role. That process was undertaken. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Only Dr Verrall will be speaking.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he take responsibility for making appointments to the Medical Council that are in line with public safety and good medical practice?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, and I’m advised and I received advice from the Ministry of Health that the named individual was appointable.

Resources

Question No. 11

Asked by: Dr DAVID WILSON, Answered by: Hon SHANE JONES

to the Minister for Resources: What recent reports, if any, has he seen on the minerals royalty regime?

Mr Speaker, before I give this answer, I appeal to the benevolent side of your nature because the initial answer will be slightly longer than usual. Yes, one of the actions that we agreed to undertake as a Government as a part of our minerals strategy—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Longer or slower?

Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t want to hear any more from the arse-end of the vacuum cleaner over there. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry. Because there was so much noise there—I know who made the initial comment—I did not hear the reply. We’ll hear the rest of this without anybody saying anything other than the person answering the question.

Hon SHANE JONES: We have had a review undertaken by Deloitte New Zealand providing a base of information from a neutral source pertaining to royalty levels and company tax, and how this regime, pertaining to the minerals sector, compares with other jurisdictions. The report found that 97 percent of mineral royalty revenue came from permits operating under legacy regimes that predate the current framework. That has led people, from time to time, to make observations that the Crown does not get a fair return. The report lays out the other sources of income that the Crown does derive from mining. The royalty regime was comprehensively reviewed in 2012. The report provides a basis for all political parties and communities in New Zealand to debate and discuss as to how the Crown may, or may not, collect more revenue via the royalty regime.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I’ve waited until now because you made it clear that you wanted that question to be completed without interruption. Earlier—certainly over the last couple of weeks—there have been instances where you’ve said that you did not hear and were not made aware of at the time. Therefore, I ask you to reflect on whether it is appropriate for Ministers to refer to other members as “the arse end of a vacuum cleaner”—and indeed if it isn’t, whether you will take action on that.

SPEAKER: I’ll certainly look at the Hansard—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, sit down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You need to hear this.

SPEAKER: No, no, I’m not listening; I’m talking at the moment. The member asked me to look at matters yesterday. I did, and they weren’t quite as was presented to me, and that’s why there’s been no comment today. But I will look at that, and see what is recorded in the Hansard. New point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, it’s a new point of order. The “a-f-t” end of the vacuum cleaner is a responsible comment.

SPEAKER: I suppose it is if you’re going door to door and hoping people will buy it off you, but that’s not the situation we’re in here.

Dr David Wilson: How does New Zealand’s royalty regime compare internationally?

Hon SHANE JONES: In some areas, where there have been precipitous changes to royalty regimes, such as Queensland, it has had the effect of shrinking and undermining ongoing investment in mining. However, it needs to be borne in mind that 80 percent of every dollar spent on mining stays here in New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Right, that’s unfortunately the lot, so we’ll going out to question No. 12—

Maureen Pugh: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, supplementary—Maureen Pugh.

Maureen Pugh: Why are the royalties important to regions such as the West Coast?

Hon SHANE JONES: I would like to acknowledge the diligence of that member, as having been a great advocate and a voice of common sense in that part of New Zealand, in contrast to other representatives, on the need for us to grow mining. An emphasis should be placed on the many skilled jobs—the high paying jobs associated with mining, not the least of which is engineering—and the social contributions that mining does make to that part of the country. I, by that, refer to the local schools and the community facilities that have been supported by mining companies, who have a legitimate role to deliver their services, extract material, and earn money for the country and for the benefit of the West Coast.

Miles Anderson: What benefits, other than royalties, does mining bring to regions such as Otago?

Hon SHANE JONES: Once again, I would like to acknowledge the dedication shown by that member and his patience in the face of the misinformation floating around Otago associated with mining applications and, indeed, the existing mine at Macraes—a location where over $12 billion has been generated through that enterprise and related enterprises that are a part of the owner Oceana’s broader portfolio. We will see more mining development with careful guardrail establishment, but we’ll only see it when politicians are prepared to stand up against the numpties who oppose extractive mining.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s good. We were going well there for a while.

Small Business and Manufacturing

Question No. 12

Asked by: DAN ROSEWARNE, Answered by: Hon CAMERON BREWER

to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: What recent advice has he received on the cost pressures facing small businesses, and what actions is he taking in response?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have received and seen a range of advice on small businesses in my role as small business and manufacturing Minister. When I am out there talking to businesses, the one thing that small businesses consistently tell me that they can’t afford is a change of Government.

SPEAKER: Sorry, sit down—sit down! That’s the end of that—

Hon CAMERON BREWER: This is why—

SPEAKER: No, hang on—that’s the end of that answer. Sit down! Next supplementary.

Dan Rosewarne: What “conditions”—[Minister rises from seat]

SPEAKER: Sit down!

Dan Rosewarne: —“for economic growth”—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Start again, and the whole House will be quiet.

Dan Rosewarne: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What “conditions for economic growth” did he create for hospitality businesses that face an almost 50 percent rise in liquidations—the highest rate in 11 years?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: This gives me an opportunity to answer the second part of my primary, which is that we are putting in a number of initiatives—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —and the most successful initiative—

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sir, you have cut this Minister off because he was abusing question time—and quite rightly so. For him to then stand up and state that he is going to continue with the answer that you prevented him from doing so, I think, is actually trifling with your judgment.

SPEAKER: Except it will come with a penalty for the Government when the House resumes after the recess. I’m not going to cut him off from answering questions from the Opposition, which is the legitimate purpose of question time. Dan Rosewarne—you can ask that question again, and hopefully the answer will start with a little bit of a difference.

Dan Rosewarne: What “conditions for economic growth” did he create for hospitality businesses that face an almost 50 percent rise in liquidations—the highest rate in 11 years?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: One good policy that is widely acclaimed—from our hospitality businesses right through to our manufacturers—is the policy that was announced in Budget 2025 to much acclaim and has been put into heavy practice, called Investment Boost. That is accelerated depreciation—20 percent off your taxable income on any piece of plant or asset across the hospitality sector, restaurant sector, and right through to manufacturing. It’s been hugely successful—Investment Boost. [Interruption]

Dan Rosewarne: When he said small businesses—

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Sorry, Mr Rosewarne, we’ll just wait for everyone in the House to give you the respect of hearing your question.

Dan Rosewarne: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When he said small businesses should succeed through innovation and adaptation, what exactly does he expect small businesses to do?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I have been encouraging small businesses, and they have been encouraging us to continue with the good work that this Government is doing. That is the trades academies policy that we announced; that is the “Earn as You Learn” policy that we have announced earlier this week for an expansion; again, Investment Boost, that accelerated depreciation policy; lower taxes—that’s what they want, too. They also want the certainty of lower inflation and stabilised interest rates; they want us to continue on reducing compliance; they appreciate the Regional Business Partner Network that we provide—

SPEAKER: Yep, that’s good—

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —and they appreciate the law and order initiatives which have tidied up retail crime.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The question was actually quite clear: it was asking the Minister to back up a comment that he’d made; it was not an invitation to list things that he thinks this Government has succeeded at. The question was quite clearly focused on small businesses.

SPEAKER: Yes, it was, but the question asked what he has either done or, presumably, supported, because he doesn’t do anything on his own—no one does in a Government. That list, whether you like it or not, is not unreasonable as an answer.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir. With respect, that was not the question—that was not the question at all. The question was asking the Minister to outline what his expectations of small businesses are, to live up to the quotation that was used in the question. It wasn’t a list of what this Government has done.

SPEAKER: You can’t ask a question that is incredibly subjective like that and not expect that you’re going to get a somewhat subjective answer. I think the question was addressed. Have you got another question, Mr Rosewarne?

Dan Rosewarne: Does he think it’s fair and reasonable that big businesses do not have to pay invoices to small businesses within 15 days?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We have done some great work as a Government on what we call e-invoicing, and we are now seeing Government pay its suppliers within 10 working days—96 percent of Government are paying their suppliers, across the whole of Government. We are taking a leadership role on e-invoicing. That is going to transfer through the economy. I am part of the e-invoicing leadership team, as are big business and small business. We’re going to get it done; we’re not just going to talk about it for six years, like they did.

SPEAKER: Before I get another point of order, the question did ask the Minister for his opinion on that matter. It would be good if it was very concisely given.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: In my opinion, as far as invoicing, whether it’s small or big, we are looking at a number of innovative solutions, including e-invoicing, which we are leading the charge on. We know the productivity gains that will be made through invoicing, and that is why we are taking the charge and leading the e-invoicing team. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. We could be here all afternoon if we like. Ask the question again.

Dan Rosewarne: Does he think it’s fair and reasonable that big businesses do not have to pay invoices to small businesses within 15 days?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: My opinion on who should be paying their invoices and when they should be paying them is, frankly, not appropriate here, nor is it relevant. What we’re focused on is reducing compliance, reducing cost, reducing regulation, getting out of the way of businesses, encouraging businesses, not coming out of the Koru club and talking down business.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Speakers’ Rulings is very clear that opinions can be sought from Ministers, so the guidance I’m seeking from you is whether it is appropriate for a Minister to state that their opinions on matters that are directly linked to their portfolios are irrelevant, as was stated. It is an appropriate question to ask.

SPEAKER: It most certainly is, and opinions, as I made clear, can be asked, and they can be given by Ministers. In this case, I would have thought the answer itself was patently clear.

Dan Rosewarne: Will he commit to supporting small businesses by lifting the GST registration threshold?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I’m not privy here to start talking partisan political policies, and I am not about to. I know they have got a big focus on tax this election, but we have got a big focus on making it easier for business, on lifting productivity, on lifting their profitability, and on getting in behind and supporting small business. We are the Government of small business.

Dan Rosewarne: Why has he not assisted small businesses by increasing the asset write-off threshold?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I will quote a comment that was circulated today: Labour is taking out $6.6 billion of support—

SPEAKER: No, sorry—[Interruption]

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —by cutting Investment Boost—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —to fund their tax hole.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Every question time, we’ve got to put up with this.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and so we will end this, Mr Rosewarne, and you’ll see, when the House returns, just what that little exercise has meant for Government questions.

That’s the end of oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds for those who have to leave to go to other business. [Interruption] Without any calling out or other silly nonsense.