Oral Questions

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

Yes. [Disturbance in gallery]

SPEAKER: To our friends in the gallery, that was an impromptu performance—a little bit of poetry and lots of performative art as well. I think we’ll now progress to questions for oral answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who actually speaks for the Government: the Prime Minister, who says that he wants “modest, consistent house price increases”, or the Housing Minister, Chris Bishop, who says the Government is “trying to drive house prices down”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What this Government doesn’t want is a 30 percent growth in house prices in a single year, as we experienced under the last Government. House prices have come down, I think about 13 percent on average. What we want to see is gradual, moderate, consistent house price growth, while we want to see wage growth obviously growing faster than house price appreciation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Chris Bishop wrong when he said only recently that the Government was “trying to drive house prices down”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What this Government is doing is we are radically increasing the supply of land available for housing, and I would just say to that member, I would put our record on housing up against his any day of the week, because housing is more affordable for purchase; rentals—[Interruption] Just remember, house prices went up 30 percent in a single year under Labour. Rents went up $180 a week. There is 5,000 fewer people now on social housing waitlists under this Government; kids are out of motel rooms, and, actually, this Government’s record on housing beats his record any day of the week.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When Nicola Willis said, “I agree with him that house prices need to fall; I’m with him.”, was she admitting that her alignment on housing policy is with Chris Bishop and not the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a country that has been experiencing a housing crisis for many, many years, and it’s a function of having not enough supply in the market. It is not a demand-side problem, it’s a supply-side problem, and that’s why I’m very proud of what this Government is doing, launching its new Resource Management Act reforms today to make sure that we can actually get more houses built for New Zealanders. I think that member should be thankful that we have actually done a good job of making sure house price affordability is down—that’s a good thing. Rentals are down—that’s a good thing—not up $180 a week. We’ve got 5,000 fewer families on the social housing wait-list now in housing. We’ve got 3,000 kids and families out of emergency housing. I’m proud of our record on housing.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the Government’s desire that wages grow faster than house prices, and that requires sound economic management from this Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. That’s what I was saying in answer to the first question, which is that we want to see wage growth, income growth, be faster and higher than house price growth so it becomes more affordable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the Government’s policy position: his position that the Government wants “modest, consistent house price increases”; Chris Bishop’s position, where he says the Government is “trying to drive house prices down”; or Nicola Willis’ position, where she says that she agrees with Chris Bishop that house prices need to fall?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position is to unlock growth in this country, to open up more land available for housing so it becomes more affordable. We’re not interested in KiwiBuild—remember that one? It didn’t go so good. What we’re interested in doing is systemic reform of our planning laws so that we can get more houses built so they become more affordable for people.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is his reluctance to answer the question on whether he speaks for the Government on house prices, or Chris Bishop or Nicola Willis speak for the Government on house prices, because he’s not sure whether they do actually support his position?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think the bigger question the member should be concerned about is: what’s happening with house prices? They are more affordable under this Government in two years than they were under his Government in six years. What’s the situation with rentals? They went up $180 a week under his Government; they’ve come down under this Government. When you think about the position on social housing, we actually have 5,000 fewer families now on a social housing wait-list, and that is a good thing. We’ve got 3,200 families out of emergency hotels, where they were sitting, now in houses, and we’re also supporting the homeless as well. I line up our record on every dimension, every component, any day of the week. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I appreciate that members will be a little unsettled due to the theatrics we experienced at the beginning of question time, but you do have to keep it reasonable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he not calling out Chris Bishop for contradicting him on falling house prices and not calling out Nicola Willis for saying that she’s with Chris Bishop on falling house prices because he’s worried that Nicola Willis is also going to end up with Chris Bishop when he tries to replace him as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. Look, I’ll just say, I think the member should worry less about the National Party and worry about his mates in the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, don’t you think? I think that’s what you should be worrying about, son.

Question No. 2—RMA Reform

2. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcement has he made about replacing the Resource Management Act 1991?

SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Bishop. [Interruption] Just hang on. Let him at least get a couple of words out.

Today, the Government has announced its new planning system to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 to make it easier to build the homes and infrastructure our country needs, give farmers and growers the freedom to get on with producing world-class food and fibre, and strengthen our primary sector while protecting the environment. The Resource Management Act 1991 has been a failure. It’s slowed down energy and infrastructure projects and has fuelled a housing crisis in a country the size of the United Kingdom but with only 7 percent of its population. It’s created uncertainty for developers, councils, farmers, and growers, yet hasn’t protected the environment. The reforms announced today are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to free ourselves from a millstone that has weighed on both our economy and our environment. Of course, the foundation of the new regime is the centrepiece of liberal democracies: property rights.

Catherine Wedd: What are the major features of the new system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The system will need fewer and simpler consents, with fewer activity categories, so low-impact activities no longer require consents. We will move from over 100 existing plans to 17 regional combined plans integrating spatial land use and natural environment planning. Spatial planning means 30-year regional spatial plans to identify growth areas, infrastructure corridors, and areas needing protection. There will be clearer national direction and more consistency through nationally set policy direction, and the system will be more proportionate—consent conditions must be necessary and proportionate, reducing red tape.

Catherine Wedd: What other major features are there?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The new planning system will include more standardisation; planned national standards on zoning and common activities will cut red tape and speed up the system; consultation will only occur where necessary; councils will also be required to provide practical relief mechanisms when imposing restrictions on heritage and on things like significant natural areas; a new planning tribunal will deliver faster, low-cost conflict resolution; and it will mean better environmental protection, enabling community decision-making over water quality and improving the efficient use of resources.

Catherine Wedd: What does this mean for New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This all adds up to an easier, cheaper system. It means less paperwork, less cost, and faster and easier progress for those who want to do basic things like putting a deck on a house, building a fence on a farm, constructing some townhouses, or even—even, Marama Davidson—a wind farm. This means a planning system that works for New Zealanders and their aspirations rather than against them. More land will be unlocked for housing. Long-term spatial plans will give investors certainty. For farmers, it means less red tape; farm plans to manage environmental risks. It means making planning simpler, faster, and fairer so we can build homes, grow food, farm animals, and deliver the infrastructure that New Zealand needs while caring for the environment. If we get this right, the 2030s can be New Zealand’s decade.

Simon Court: How is introducing a regulatory relief mechanism for property owners—subject to significant natural areas, heritage, culture, and landscape overlays—strengthening private property rights?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for his excellent question. I’ll just reflect on the fact that at the moment, it is costless for councils to impose quite significant controls on private property. I think about my own electorate of Hutt South, where the council imposed significant natural areas, in some cases on 70 to 80 to 90 percent of people’s private land, thus diminishing the value of that land and what they could do with that land. That was costless for the council but comes at real cost for people and their private property rights. We are tilting the balance back in favour of property rights by requiring councils to actually think about those things and think about offering regulatory relief in those circumstances. Individual cases and individual councils will vary, but, clearly, there is a shift in balance back towards the idea of private property.

Simon Court: How does introducing a planning tribunal strengthen the rights of property owners?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Many members of this House will have experienced people who have approached them who are having arguments with their local council about, often, quite simple things. Again, I think of my own electorate and a man who was arguing for nine months with the local council about replacing the garage on his house or on his property, where there was an existing garage, and the council didn’t like the design of the new garage. Again, almost every member of this House will have examples of people who’ve approached them complaining about similar experiences. Now, at the moment, you can go and complain to the council, who’s creating the problem in the first place, or you can go off to the Environment Court at vast expense, time, and money. The planning tribunal sits between the council and the Environment Court and will be like the Disputes Tribunal, which will offer low-cost access to justice for people who are being screwed over by councils. Of course, the whole point is that there will be less ability for councils to do that, because the system will manage fewer things in the first place.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s comments about asset sales that “we’d take it to the election, and it would be part of our programme”; if so, what advice, if any, has she received on the Crown’s ownership interest in State-owned companies?

I agree with the Prime Minister’s full quote, which was: “We take it to the election and it would be part of our programme that we’d want to talk about and be upfront with New Zealanders about. The Government is not selling State assets this term.” As Minister of Finance, my job is to ensure the Crown’s half-trillion-dollar asset base is working for New Zealand. What we are doing is asking whether the assets we own are performing and how we can get better value for taxpayers. When the Government took office in November 2023, Treasury proactively advised in its briefing to incoming shareholding and responsible Ministers that Ministers should consider being clearer about the purposes of the Crown’s ownership of several Government-owned companies. Treasury noted that “OECD guidelines recommend that countries also set out an ‘ownership policy statement’, and many OECD countries do so,”. Shareholding Ministers accepted Treasury’s suggestion and have been receiving advice on the ownership purposes of a number of Crown-owned companies. This advice has not been considered by Cabinet.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she requested any further advice on options to sell State-owned assets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I’ve said, we are evaluating the Crown balance sheet, which I would point out Crown companies are a very small portion of. New Zealanders collectively own many assets, which are social assets—schools, hospitals, houses, roads. I would point out to the member that it is the case, for example, that on our watch, Kāinga Ora has sold many multimilliondollar homes in Ponsonby and Herne Bay so that they can reuse the proceeds to build homes in areas of highest need. Similarly, under the last Government, Kiwibank sold Kiwi Wealth, releasing $225 million in capital to improve its growth prospects, potentially increasing lending to New Zealanders by 14 percent.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The question was a relatively straightforward one: has she sought any additional advice? We are none the wiser as to whether that is the case. That particular aspect of the question was not addressed by that long answer.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the start was by saying what the Government has decided to do. You can go around this stuff for ever, but, you know, have another supplementary.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are all Associate Ministers of Finance receiving all the advice on the ownership interest in State-owned assets; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That would depend on the advice. But as I made very clear in my answer to the primary question, all advice will be taken to Cabinet, and Cabinet collectively will make decisions about the ownership statements. That has not yet occurred.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it an appropriate use of public sector resources to do the groundwork on asset sales, given the Government has ruled out asset sales this term?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I utterly reject that assertion. The member is confusing basic financial stewardship with privatisation, because, unlike the previous Government, we take seriously our role as stewards of public assets, and we believe it is in the interests of New Zealand taxpayers to ensure they are performing well and to their purpose. Where they are not performing well or to their purpose, you can bet we will be holding their boards and chairpeople to account for lifting that performance on behalf of New Zealanders. You sat back—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s enough—that’s enough.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she rule out asset sales while she is Minister of Finance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Crown has made very clear that we will not be selling Crown companies this term. What I’ve also made clear is that it is the case that we have, for example, sold multimillion-dollar homes previously owned by Kāinga Ora so that we can recycle that capital into better-value homes for people in need. This is consistent with the practice of the previous Government, which also did the same thing, selling assets owned by Kāinga Ora to put the dollars to better purposes. It’s also the case that within entities that the Crown owns, from time to time they will divest some of their assets in order to better recycle that capital, as is the primary example: Kiwi Wealth, a $225 million asset owned by Kiwibank, sold by the previous Government—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Not true.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —with the proceeds recycled to Kiwi Wealth. Mr Hipkins says that’s not true. I can assure him the statements I make in this House are accurate. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on—question being asked.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many homes has she funded and built this year from the recycling of the funding from the sales she mentioned in her previous response?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That’s a question probably both better put to the Minister of Housing and better put in writing, but what I can confirm is that on this Government’s watch, we have delivered more social homes in our first two years in office than the last Government did in three.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why must she lie? Every time she lies about this.

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on—that will see you leaving the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, I’m happy to stand by that, so I’m not going to retract it.

SPEAKER: Well, if you’re going to stand by it, then you’re going to get yourself in a lot of trouble. Think of another way of putting it.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that the proceeds from the sale of the house in Trinity Street, Ponsonby, next to Lorde’s mansion, has funded the retrofit of six to seven other Kāinga Ora properties in Auckland?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can confirm that. What I am surprised to also have to confirm to members of this House today is that there are some members here who would prefer we sat on those multimillion-dollar homes in a very expensive part of Auckland than deliver more homes for families in need. I stand by our Government’s decisions.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister of Finance aware of any other investor that’s been around for 170 years, like the New Zealand Government, that only ever buys and never sells to get a better deal?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As the Deputy Prime Minister rightly points out, that would be the worst sort of financial stewardship, and it is a reflection on the economic capability of others if they’re to suggest that we should never, ever decide that an asset is no longer serving taxpayers to its best purpose. It has been the case of successive Governments that they assess the value of assets and how they are performing.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for rough sleeping in Auckland nearly doubling between September 2024 and May 2025, during which his Government’s emergency housing changes came into effect?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as we’ve discussed before in the House, I’m very, very proud of this Government’s progress on removing and getting rid of emergency housing in motels. We’ve been able to move families and kids into dry, warm homes. This is also a Government that cares deeply about the challenges of homelessness, and as that member well understands, they saw an increase in homelessness of 37 percent after spending a billion dollars when they were in Government. It’s a complex issue. We’re doing everything we can to work on that, too.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he accept the community organisation’s concerns reflected in the open letter which I passed him before question time today began that Government choices to cut access to emergency housing, cancel State housing developments, cut funding for rangatahi housing support, and weaken tenants’ rights are directly linked to more Aucklanders sleeping in our streets, our parks, and their cars?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As we’ve talked to before, we have actually met with key stakeholders in Auckland’s CBD to see what more we can be doing around the homeless situation there. These are complex issues, with people with complex needs, but this also a Government that has opened up 300 more Housing First places, we’ve got 200 of them going into Auckland, and we also now are talking to the NGOs that we partner with to make sure that they are doing everything they can to make sure they are managing vacancies and vacancy management within their own system, by which, of course, the Government is working with them and providing them with contracts to do so. There is a concerted effort to do everything that we can. But I’d just ask the member to stop and reflect on the fact that we have 5,000 fewer families on a wait-list waiting to get access to a State house or a community housing provided house. We have 3,000 families out of emergency housing in motels after that being a systemic problem for a long period of time, and we should be very proud about that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can he guarantee that every single New Zealander experiencing rough sleeping can access emergency housing or whatever support they may need if they were, today, to walk into a Work and Income office?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As we’ve talked before, this is a Government that has actually put together 300 more Housing First places; 200 of them are available in Auckland, and we’re also now getting the NGOs to record their vacancy rates daily and weekly so that we can make sure that they are actually delivering those dwellings and that accommodation for those people that need it. But we’ve also put in place $10 million of additional funding for support services for rough sleepers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can he guarantee that every New Zealander who is currently experiencing rough sleeping could today walk into a Work and Income office and get access to the emergency housing and support services that they need?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member is aware, and we’ve talked about in recent weeks, we’ve also directed the Ministry of Social Development to show greater discretion to support people who are in need. But I’d just say to the member again, when you see housing affordability at the best it’s been in a long period of time, when you see rents coming down, when you see people off a social housing wait-list, when you see people out of emergency accommodation in motels, and you also see support with 300 more Housing First places, $10 million available for rough sleepers, and coordination between Government and key agencies, that’s good work.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister rule out the much-discussed move-on orders, which community providers have said will result in them struggling to reach homeless rangatahi in Auckland when they are pushed out to further suburbs and afraid to enter the city centre, where the services are?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as we’ve discussed this before, the Minister for Auckland has met with other key Ministers and agencies. There is a six-point plan, developed in conjunction with Auckland Council and the Government and others, about housing for rough sleepers. We want increased police and council presence. We want safer public spaces, targeting of criminal behaviour, targeted support services, and cleaner streets. Yes, we are exploring move-on orders, and we’ll have more to say about that shortly.

Question No. 5—Oceans and Fisheries

5. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What reports has he received on the fisheries sector?

I have received a report that shows 87 percent of our stocks, according to a scientific analysis, are definitely sustainable, and it’s backed up by the United Nations. We should remember that over 9,000 people are employed in this sector—$1.5 billion in exports—and despite the best efforts of my critics, the furry Luddites, we stand strong with this industry.

Andy Foster: How will the fisheries reforms help sustainability and increase the value of fisheries?

Hon SHANE JONES: Earlier this year we announced some reforms that will make their way through Parliament during the course of next year. Of course, it’s important that we have balance and that when catch limits for our various species of fish are set, it’s driven by science. But also we stand against the demonisation and the tainting of the commercial fishing sector. The rules that will be put in place via our upcoming reforms will be consultative, but they will also enhance science to ensure that sectors seeking to taint this important sector do not get a free pass.

Andy Foster: What actions has the Minister taken to increase exports from the aquaculture sector?

Hon SHANE JONES: Our Government has, during the course of our rule, as a consequence of far-sighted voters in 2023, extended marine farming permits by 20 years. This enabled the industry and the holders of those permits to dedicate capital, take a risk, and grow the footprint of aquaculture in New Zealand. It has been a key improver in terms of productivity, and we will be working very closely as a Government in a cohesive fashion to ensure that the Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms identified today do deliver for coastal-based industries.

Andy Foster: How will those Resource Management Act reforms support the aquaculture sector?

Hon SHANE JONES: The RMA, as our colleague Minister Bishop stated, is broken. It has become a major drain on productivity. It will provide an opportunity for people to go about their business, celebrate the fact that they have property rights that can be utilised to grow the wealth of the country. We will also ensure that the Coastal Policy Statement, a failed attempt to balance the needs of the coast, does not continue and blight the development opportunities, and ensure that ports, aquaculture, and other related matters continue to grow. I look forward to the submissions that may come from the industry through the select committee process, as I am aware that they hope to see one day a bespoke aquaculture type of legislative outcome to grow that industry.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Did he or the Minister of Police have any knowledge of allegations made against former deputy police commissioner Jevon McSkimming before 6 November 2024?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to myself, no.

Rawiri Waititi: Did he have any knowledge of the allegations made against his former deputy chief press secretary Michael Forbes before June 2025?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rawiri Waititi: Were these cases examples of police negligence, or were he and his Ministers being wilfully ignorant to the behaviour of their high-ranking colleagues?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’m very proud of the police. I think the 15,000 men and women of the police force do an amazing job each and every day. I’m very proud of the work that they’ve done in undertaking to remove 38,000 serious and violent criminals from New Zealand—the number of victims of serious and violent crime has been down. I’m very proud of the fact that they’ve got a 16 percent lower level of serious youth offending. Yes, we have 1,900 more people in prison, but they’re not out in the community causing pain and suffering to fellow New Zealanders.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he commit to initiating a royal commission of inquiry into the New Zealand Police in response to these obvious failures to identify serious misconduct?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, because this Government has moved incredibly quickly to the outcome of what a royal commission of inquiry would generate anyway, which is the strongest statutory oversight mechanism possible, which is, of course, an inspector-general.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his actions in the health portfolio; if not, why not?

On behalf of the Minister of Health, yes, particularly the action of setting targets for delivery in the healthcare system. For too long before this Government was formed, Government and Ministers tended to show their aroha for the patient by throwing money at the problem rather than setting targets for productivity in order to actually get people the results, the vaccinations, and the appointments they need in a timely manner, which is this Government’s action.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Which action does he stand by: his cuts to graduate nursing roles or his partial reversal of those cuts?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I can’t speak to the Minister’s allegations, which seem to be more of an attempt at making social media. What I can say is this Government has hired 2,000 additional nurses. I don’t know if the member’s ever seen 2,000 additional nurses in one place, but that’s a lot of nurses.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his plan for digital investment or his unsafe cuts to hospitals’ digital systems?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I absolutely, on behalf of the Minister, stand by this Government’s plan to invest in digitisation. The reason for that: I happened, in my own capacity, to be visiting Waikato Hospital a time ago, and they explained to me that as an Aucklander, if I was to be in a car crash in Hamilton, I would need to have my records emailed from Auckland, potentially while I was bleeding out on the table. I asked them, “Didn’t the previous Government merge the DHBs together?”, and they said, “Well, that was just the letterheads. They didn’t do the hard work of investing in a patient record.” That’s what this Government is doing, and, yes, I stand by that—yes, I do.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by decisions to centralise hiring outside of local hospitals, causing months of delay to doctors’ recruitment?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is certainly true that under the previous Government’s centralisation and merger of the DHBs, the hiring of staff had to be routed through Wellington, leading to enormous delays. The Minister of Health has reversed that change and decentralised hiring so that the people at the coalface can make the decisions about who to hire. That is actually an improvement, and I’m starting to wonder if this member is trying to make the Government look good.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it the case that the Minister is unaware that that decision to centralise hiring outside of hospitals, as well as the cuts to nursing graduate roles and digital infrastructure, were all under that Government?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is simply untrue, and the simple facts are 2,000 extra nurses, 600 extra doctors. You can’t argue with results.

Question No. 8—Economic Growth

8. to the Minister for Economic Growth: What impact will resource management reform have on the economy?

For too long, the Resource Management Act (RMA) has been a handbrake on the New Zealand economy. It has created costs and complexity, headaches and confusion. It has stifled growth and competition, and the changes Minister Bishop announced today will release that handbrake. To improve living standards, create jobs, and lift incomes, New Zealand needs to stop saying no and start staying yes—yes to investment, yes to innovation, and yes to growth. That’s what these changes are all about: making it easier, faster, and cheaper, whether you’re building a deck or a wind farm.

Cameron Brewer: How will these changes improve economic performance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The changes the Government has announced today will improve economic performance in three main ways. First, they will lower the costs at each step of the planning system—in fact, reducing dramatically the number of circumstances in which a consent will even be required. This will put a stop to the gravy train of consultants and lawyers that has characterised the RMA. They will help ensure that New Zealand’s scarce resources are being used in the most valuable way they can, and they will establish a more flexible and enabling system that promotes innovation, investment, and adaptation. Together with other reforms from this Government, these changes will help lift New Zealand’s productivity, reduce regulatory burdens, and get the economy growing.

Cameron Brewer: What effect will these changes have on costs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The changes announced today will generate administrative and compliance savings for all participants in the resource management system—users of the system, of course, but also local and central government. From the mum and dad wanting to renovate their home, through to the farmer wanting to grow vegetables for our plates, fewer activities will require consents in the future. I am advised that close to half of consent applications may become unnecessary. There will be fewer hearings, fewer appeals, fewer delays, and economic consultants Castalia have calculated that the net administrative and compliance benefits, in present value terms, will amount to $13 billion over the next 30 years.

Cameron Brewer: What wider effects will these changes have?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Of course, cost savings are just one part of a bigger story. Most importantly, projects that under the current system would be delayed, deferred, or not happen at all, despite those with capital eager to get started and make things happen, will in the future go ahead in a timely way. There are huge benefits, for example, for making housing supply more responsive to demand. Instead of tying up, in court, proposals for new houses for New Zealanders, the new law will make it faster for them to get built. There are huge benefits from infrastructure projects in low-risk locations proceeding at a greater pace and scale than they are now, not tied up in the current multiyear delays which have plagued so many Government transport projects. The complexity and uncertainty of the current resource management rules is costing New Zealand in terms of growth, incomes, and opportunities. The changes that Minister Bishop announced today will get things moving again.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, “Our Government does not accept that a life on welfare is as good as it gets for our young people”; if so, why?

Yes, and we know that people under the age of 25 on the jobseeker benefit are estimated to spend another two decades on a benefit over their lifetimes. Our Government has far greater hopes and aspirations for young Kiwis than a life on welfare, and we make no apologies for encouraging them into education, further training, or employment. That’s why we are delivering more early intervention, clearer expectations, and stronger partnerships with employers to help more people move from welfare into work. We’ve seen over 26,000 young people leave welfare for work in the last 12 months. The steps we are taking will put New Zealand and young New Zealanders on a better path.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she launch her community coaching pilot at Youth Inspire in the Hutt Valley, which helps young people into work, and then subsequently cut their funding?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said in the annual review last week to that member, the Ministry for Social Development (MSD) runs their procurement basis, as most Government agencies do, on the all-of-Government procurement guidelines, and when they go out to tender for services and for products, they want to make sure that what they are purchasing delivers Government outcomes and also provides value for money.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What are the other programmes that have been funded by MSD in the Hutt Valley to specifically support young people into employment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, what I would say is that the provider that is going to be providing the youth job coaching in the Hutt Valley will be announced in the coming weeks, and, as I said to that member, we have great providers all over New Zealand who are doing fantastic work with young people. That’s why 26,000 young people in the last year alone have exited from welfare into work.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Chris Bishop, who said that “Youth Inspire do a great job in our community”; if so, why did they have their funding cut when they are the only provider in the area that supports young people into employment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, the member is completely wrong. There are other services in the Hutt Valley that deliver services to young people, whether it’s driver licensing or the youth coaching that is up for renegotiation. What that member fails to realise is that Youth Inspire will continue to have contracts available through MSD.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What message does it send to young people when she cuts the only programme in the Hutt that gives young people the skills and confidence to get a job, and even the local National MP is at a loss as to why their funding has been cut?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, the member is just blatantly wrong. There are other service providers in the Hutt. MSD has run—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Name them—name them.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —a programme, and the programme provider that will be replacing the youth coaching will be announced in the coming weeks—so, no, I’m not going to do MSD’s job in announcing—

Hon Ginny Andersen: They’re not youth.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —who they have procured the services from.

Hon Ginny Andersen: We know who they are, and they’re not youth.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: They are—they are absolutely, because when a procurement is reissued, it is based on the services that MSD is buying. They are buying job coaching for young people. I’m really proud of the work MSD do all over New Zealand. I accept that for individual providers, it’s challenging when they have a change to their contract, and I’m really excited that they will continue to provide He Poutama Rangatahi services. I’d be surprised if that member isn’t pleased that they’ll continue to do that.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made on capping council rates?

For too long, Kiwis have seen unsustainable double-digit rate rises at a time when they can least afford it. Last week, we said enough is enough and announced that we will cap increases to council rates, at a time when central government, businesses, and households are tightening their belts. Councils need to do the same.

Ryan Hamilton: How will the proposed rates cap work?

Hon SIMON WATTS: We’ve adopted a target band approach, similar to the way the Reserve Bank approaches inflation. This will mean that rates increases can only be between 2 and 4 percent per year. These numbers are linked to the midpoint of the inflation target and long-run GDP growth. The upper band ensures that rate increases remain affordable and sustainable, while the lower band ensures councils keep up with investment.

Ryan Hamilton: Can councils exceed the target band?

Hon SIMON WATTS: We acknowledge that unique circumstances may arise in which rates may need to exceed 4 percent, such as natural disasters. The rates target model allows councils to apply for a temporary deviation from the target band. But, let me be clear, deviation will be the exception, not the rule.

Ryan Hamilton: What comments has he seen on the Government’s proposed rates cap?

Hon SIMON WATTS: You might imagine that this has been very much welcomed by ratepayers, who have been hit hard by rates increases. I’m also pleased to see that even some councillors and mayors welcome this announcement. Thames-Coromandel mayor Peter Revell welcomed the announcement, saying, “The move to a target range gives council a clear and workable framework.” Christchurch city councillor Sam MacDonald said, “This is a significant step forward in reining in the cost of living crisis. Our council is up for the challenge, and we have already got a programme in place and under way.” A rates cap is a pragmatic policy, and I encourage the whole House to get behind it.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will it be communities and the environment who benefit from his Government’s pushing through of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill or will this solely benefit the corporations seeking to undermine communities and the environment to rush through their projects?

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

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is his Government further expanding unchecked ministerial power over large-scale projects when the original fast-track bill was criticised widely for concentrating power in the hands of Ministers without meaningful public or environmental oversight?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. We’re very proud of the fast-track legislation and the implications that it’s now having. There’ll be probably about nine projects that’ll be approved before Christmas. I just take the example of the Auckland ports, who needed to build two wharves. It would have taken five years under the old Resource Management Act, but thanks to the work of Minister Bishop and Minister Jones implementing fast track, it was done in 55 days, and on the 56th day, they started digging.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response, then, to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who said that the fast-track bill is a “thinly veiled attempt to guarantee a favourable decision; executive overreach for which no case has been made” and that there are “no guardrails.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. What is exciting about fast track is that we are going to get things done and built in this country. We have been tied up in red tape, green tape, just a bunch of bureaucrats, and we need to unblock the joint and get the show on the road and get it moving.

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he think it says, then, about his Government when the most controversial amendments in the Fast-track Approvals Act were only supported by corporations who are current and past applicants, with the other 95 percent of submitters opposing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s actually New Zealanders that are winning because of fast track and because of our Resource Management Act reforms, because it means that they’ll get renewable energy faster. It means they’ll get homes faster. Farmers will be able to get on with farming and growing. We’ll be able to get hospitals, schools, and roads built much quicker. That’s great stuff.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is the Prime Minister simply of the opinion that the Government knows best and that communities, the environment, and hapū and iwi all deserve less of a say on fast-track projects than the corporates submitting applications?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I listen to the voice of everyday New Zealanders who say, “It’s just too hard to get things done and built in this country.” They can’t understand why it costs 50 percent more to build a three-bedroom house here in New Zealand than it does in Australia—because of our Resource Management Act, because of our slow track, because we’ve clogged the joint up with red tape and green tape. We’re getting rid of it. We’re prioritising economic growth and we’re going to grow.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Prime Minister please confirm that there are at least two Māori-led fast-track projects that have been approved, one at the top of the South called Maitahi and one at West Auckland called Rangitoopuni?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can, and I can also confirm that iwi businesses and organisations are beneficiaries of fast track and our new Resource Management Act reforms, as well. All Treaty settlements will be upheld, but they will also be able to use their land as they see fit, exercise their property rights, and get things done and built.

Question No. 12—Media and Communications

12. to the Minister for Media and Communications: Does he stand by his commitment on 2 July 2024 that “The Government is taking immediate action to support New Zealand’s media and content production sectors”; if so, what immediate action has the Government taken to date?

I thank the member for the question. Yes, I stand by that statement, and the immediate focus back then was the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Of course, as is highly obvious to everybody, circumstances changed somewhat at the end of 2024 with the US presidency changes, and a more cautious approach was adopted. But since then, we’ve made excellent progress on a whole host of other areas, such as finally passing legislation to remove outdated advertising restrictions on Sundays—and I do want to thank the member of their party for their bipartisan support for that, notwithstanding some snide comments made during the debate. We also made changes to the screen production rebate to help Shortland Street continue on its way, and in a period of intense fiscal challenges, we continued our funding for NZ on Air and the screen rebates alongside Minister Willis. There is much more that I could go into.

Reuben Davidson: Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait for your colleagues—I mean the whole House—to give you silence while you’re asking a question.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Does he stand by his statement that “Firstly, the Government will progress the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill with amendments, to support our local media companies to earn revenue for the news they produce.”, and, if so, given that other countries have taken steps in that direction, why has the legislation still not had its second reading more than a year later?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It’s important for politicians to be light on their feet. That member, of course, did hear the answer to that question in the previous answer, and I’ve given them the answer, and I think it makes perfect sense. I’d encourage him to try and be a bit more light-footed next time.

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Wait on. That’s not an acceptable thing. You can’t determine what he knows. If he wants to ask the same question over and over, he can. You should answer it over and over as well. Reuben Davidson, ask the question again.

Reuben Davidson: The same question again?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Well, if you can’t remember it, just move on.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Luckily, I have it written down. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he still stand by his statement that—and I repeat—“Firstly, the Government will progress the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill with amendments, to support our local media companies to earn revenue for the news they produce.”, and, if so, given other countries have taken steps since, why has the legislation still not had a second reading more than a year later?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: As I said in my answer to the primary question, that events have changed since I made those statements, and to paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, when the circumstances change, I change, and what else would he do?

Reuben Davidson: How many New Zealand jobs could be protected if the Government did what they promised to do more than a year ago and passed Acts like the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it’s impossible to calculate.

Reuben Davidson: Does he share the concerns of his National Party colleague Greg Fleming regarding the impact of a 25 percent reduction in funding to multimedia, and, if so, has he raised these concerns with the Minister for Māori Development?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We all know that Mr Fleming has a wide range of concerns and he passes them on to us regularly and we are very supportive of those concerns. What I would say, of course, is that the most important thing we can do for the media is to get the economy growing again so that advertising revenue grows, and that is what our Government is absolutely committed to do. I would also make the point that there’s been a lot of work that’s been done in this area, and I encourage Labour to continue on in the spirit of bipartisanship, which they showed on the Sundays and public holidays. There’s much more that we can do together.

Reuben Davidson: How can the media and content production sector have any confidence in him when his party didn’t even turn up to vote on the only legislation he has introduced to support the sector since he became the Minister, and now even his own MPs are second-guessing his Government’s cuts?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m not quite sure what the circumstances are that the member is referring to, other than to say that notwithstanding all the fiscal pressures, we continue to fund NZ on Air, we continue to fund the screen rebates, and we’ve also put some extra resources into the local democracy and the open justice initiative, which have been great initiatives and I’m sure will be welcomed right across the sector. I’d leave it at that—oh, by the way, no, I won’t leave it at that. One thing that we haven’t done is waste $20 million on a failed RNZ and TVNZ merger—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough—no, that’s enough. Thank you. That concludes oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds for those who have other items of business to go to to leave the House quietly, without conversations on the way.