Oral Questions

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

A fortnight ago, the Reserve Bank released its latest Monetary Policy Statement. This contained the bank’s decision to reduce the official cash rate (OCR) to 2.25 percent, making it the ninth OCR reduction since August last year. The Reserve Bank’s forward track for the OCR indicated that this was likely to be the last reduction; certainly, that is how markets are now appearing to see it, but monetary stimulus will continue to flow through the economy as more and more homeowners roll off fixed-term mortgages and refix at lower rates, particularly if they’re prepared to shop around and hold their banks to account for giving them the lowest rate possible.

Nancy Lu: What did the Reserve Bank say about the performance of the economy this year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank points out that New Zealand’s economic recovery was disrupted in the June quarter as greater uncertainty, particularly around tariffs, led to increased precautionary behaviour by households and businesses, dampening consumption and investment. Since then, the indicators of economic activity have improved, and the Reserve Bank is expecting the economy to recover in the September and December quarters of this year. Its forecast is for GDP growth of 0.4 percent in the September quarter just gone, and we’ll see what that number really is next Thursday when Stats NZ release the latest figures.

Nancy Lu: What did the Reserve Bank say about the outlook for the economy next year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank’s outlook for 2026 is very positive. Its forecasts support the widespread consensus that the economy is strengthening. The bank expects growth to build next year, and this is driven by the stimulus from lower interest rates continuing to transmit to higher domestic demand and as the effects of global economic uncertainty wane. As the economy picks up, unemployment falls. The Reserve Bank is expecting unemployment to start falling early in the first half of the year and to steadily drop after that. This is not me expecting higher growth and lower unemployment; this is the independent Reserve Bank.

Nancy Lu: What did the Reserve Bank say about the outlook for inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank expects annual Consumers Price Index inflation to return to near the 2 percent target midpoint by the middle of 2026. It says that inflation for food, household energy, and local rates is currently well above historical averages, which is why headline inflation is currently at the top of the 1 to 3 percent target range. However, it expects these particular pressures to reduce in the near future, alongside a continued broad-based easing in underlying inflation. This is obviously good news for Kiwi households, and while current inflation pressures are higher than most people would like, it is a far cry from inflation of 7.3 percent under the previous Government.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Nicola Willis that his Government has “delivered more social homes in our first two years in office than the last Government did in three.”, and, if so, how is the 197 homes his Government has actually funded and built greater than the 7,228 additional homes that the previous Government built over three years?

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

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is 197 a bigger number than 7,228, or is his ability to count even worse than Chris Bishop’s?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have built 7,000 homes in the last two years.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can he claim that they’ve built nearly 7,000 additional houses under his Government when all but 197 of those were already funded and already under way when he became the Prime Minister, and his Government has, in fact, cut funding for thousands of additional house builds that could have been under way, with some even finished by now?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance: if that question can stand with reference to a previous Government, does that mean answers can make similar references?

No. I think the reference in any of these things is the answers given by Ministers, which did reference that previous Government, so that brings it immediately into context. But thank you for your inquiry.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No disrespect, but I won’t take lectures from that member on social or community housing because he came to Government and he had a fourfold increase—a fourfold increase—in people on the social housing wait-list; and, already, in two years, this Government is taking 5,000 to 6,000 people off the social housing wait-list, because, actually, what matters is outcomes, getting things done, getting people into houses. That’s what we’re doing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t he take lectures from a Government that delivered 14,000 additional social homes to his Government’s 197, and doesn’t that say everything about his Government’s priorities: all talk, no action?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, let’s talk the record, shall we? Why don’t we do that? Because that would be fun. What we’ve got is a previous Government that ran up housing and made housing so unaffordable. House prices went up 30 percent in one single year. Rents went up $180 per week. You inherited a wait-list of 6,000, you turned it into 24,000, and we’ve already taken it down by 5,000 in two years. You had 3,200 people in households sitting in motel accommodation, and we’ve put people into warm, dry houses. I’d stack our record on housing any day of the week. [Interruption]

That’s enough—that’s enough, from both sides. The noise level for that answer was ridiculous. The Prime Minister doesn’t need the assistance of his backbench or fellow Ministers to answer questions.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many of the 3,000 additional social houses across Auckland that Nicola Willis signed a pledge to deliver will be delivered by the next election, given that, so far, they’ve only delivered 197 across the entire country. Or was that pledge, like all of the pledges that they made pre-election, a promise they never intended to keep?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, if the member would like to put the question in writing, I’m sure we can get a detailed answer.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, no—you don’t know the answer. Sit down. Answer the question or sit down.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: But the big point I want to highlight here, and this is the difference between Labour and our side of the Government: house prices went up 30 percent in a year, rents went up $180 a week, and you had a quadrupling of the social housing wait-list.

Hold on—hold on. There needs to be a lot more restraint from that side of the House. I know that one member there is very eager to end her week and has made a request that I assist her in doing so, but I’m not impressed by the efforts that are currently being made.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he begins an answer with “What I would say to you is:”, will he ever follow that with an actual answer to the question that’s being asked?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’ll follow it up with is [Interruption]—what I’ll follow it up with is: outcomes, outcomes, outcomes. I mean, it’s unbelievable to me that a Labour Party supposedly caring about housing as a core equity did it so badly. You managed it so badly; you made it more unaffordable for people to get into a house. You made rents go up $180 a week. You put a fourfold increase in people on the social housing wait-list. Your record is abysmal; you should be ashamed of it.

The Hon Chris Bishop, when the House is giving you the respect of asking a question in silence, go ahead.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, between 2018 and 2021, the then Government was very fond of claiming houses were built under that Government that were, indeed, funded between the 2014 and 2017 period?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, thank you, the member, for his question, but what’s important is actually getting houses built, getting people into houses, and making sure housing is more affordable. I want to say a big thank you to that Minister, because he’s done a very good job in two short years compared to six years under Labour, where it was a debacle.

I’ll tell you what: the whole week could end early if I were to take drastic steps, pleaded on her behalf by a member on the front bench of the Labour Party, for the entire party.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Are you keeping a list?

It’s all on the naughty side, believe me.

Question No. 3—RMA Reform

3. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What feedback has he seen on the Government’s new proposed planning system?

Yesterday, the Government announced its new planning system to make it easier to build the homes and infrastructure New Zealand needs, give farmers and growers the freedom to get on with producing world-class food and fibre, and strengthen our primary sector. Some of the responses to the reforms have been quite remarkable. Business New Zealand said that they were “transformational and should result in fewer consents”. It’s critical that this new system is enduring and has broad support. There are clearly areas of disagreement between the Opposition and the Government. However, it is pleasing to see some generally positive remarks coming from the Leader of the Opposition, and I’m sure that as we get into the debate, there will potentially be more remarks like that.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has he seen from developers and businesses?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Our development community and our business community has been tied down in red tape for so long. The Employers and Manufacturers Association said that the proposed reforms “will provide impetus to economic, business and infrastructure development”, and Civil Contractors lauded the approach as “clear, sensible, and pragmatic.” Infrastructure New Zealand said that the proposals “will provide certainty and drive infrastructure development.” The Property Council said, “A clearer, more consistent planning framework means more land uses will no longer require consent, saving time [and] reducing cost,”. It’s great to see these positive remarks.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has he seen from the primary sector?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: A key theme of the reforms announced yesterday is to make sure that farmers and growers spend less time burdened with paperwork and more time actually farming. Federated Farmers called this “a huge win for common sense”, and I thank them for their advocacy on this issue. DairyNZ welcomed the new proposed legislation, saying it would lead to “[reduced] complexity, fewer consents, greater consistency, better use of farm plans,”. The primary sector’s success is critical to New Zealand’s prosperity, and we are unshackling them from burdensome and unnecessary regulation through these reforms.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has he seen from other important stakeholders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The New Zealand Planning Institute, who I have previously had remarks to say about, welcomed yesterday’s changes, saying, “We agree the system should get back to basics and focus on what’s important”—I welcome that—as well as “The results the Government is seeking will only eventuate if all actors involved … make changes to their approach to resource management”, and I agree. Driving a culture change through planners, councils, and resource management practitioners is critical, and I thank the Planning Institute for their leadership on this issue. I also want to highlight the comments made by the Environmental Defence Society, who, again, are not a group that I have necessarily been complimentary about in the past, and I do want to caveat that by saying that they have concerns about certain aspects of the bill, but they’ve also said, “There are bright spots … for example, existing water conservation orders are preserved … and new ones are still possible.” I think it would be fair to say yesterday that the feedback coming through is that basically everyone wants a better system. People acknowledge the Resource Management Act has failed. This is the biggest economic reform in a generation, and I’m proud to be getting on with it on behalf of the Government.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement about the Government’s ownership interests in State-owned assets that “all advice will be taken to Cabinet and Cabinet collectively will make decisions”; if so, has she directed Treasury to start work on this Cabinet paper?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, in the full context of my quote, which was “all advice will be taken to Cabinet and Cabinet collectively will make decisions about the ownership statements;”. As I said yesterday, Treasury advised in its briefing to incoming Ministers that most OECD countries already have ownership statements. New Zealand does not, and we should close that gap. Ministers have already agreed at Cabinet that that work should progress, and Treasury is preparing that advice for both the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and relevant Associate Ministers of Finance, or the Minister of Finance. We will then take that advice to Cabinet at some time in the new year, and, therefore, drafting has not yet commenced.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why would she even consider taking a paper to Cabinet—a paper she describes as “basic financial stewardship”—if not for further discussion on asset sales?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because we like to keep our Cabinet informed of the work that we are doing on financial stewardship, and we intend to update them on the work that we are doing, including any priorities for further work to enhance the performance of assets which we own.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she expect feedback on her Cabinet paper from the Rt Hon Winston Peters like his public statement: “Well, actually, just getting rid of assets built up by our forefathers to try and balance the books—that is an admission of potential failure before you even start”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I expect a lot more feedback from Mr Peters between now and the election, but I think some of his best feedback will be for that member and her leader, who, I believe, he is on the record for having some very, very strong feedback for.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister imagine being part of a Government—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did you ask the Minister about what they are imagining?

Hon David Seymour: —where people were afraid to even—

SPEAKER: Just a moment—sorry, just a moment. We don’t call out, or anything else, while questions are being asked. That was a pretty egregious sort of intervention—just keep it quiet. Thank you. The Hon David Seymour will start again.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister imagine being part of a Government where people were afraid to even have a discussion about the purpose of owning assets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Mr Speaker, I’m tempted to repeat a quote that got me into trouble last week, which is “Those who are conspiracy theorists see conspiracy theory everywhere”.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she taking asset sales to Cabinet when the Rt Hon Winston Peters has described it as a “failed economic strategy that Treasury has pushed for a long long time.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am doing no such thing, and it is beneath the credibility of that member to repeat false claims.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she taking this matter to Cabinet just so she can get the Treasury to work on National Party policy to sell State assets in the next term?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I appreciate that the member prepared her questions in advance, but I have answered that question and addressed it directly, which is that the purpose is to inform members of the Cabinet on the work we have done to define ownership purposes and to see what further work may be required to enhance the performance of these commercial assets. So the member should stop mischaracterising our intention.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. 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: How can his climate Minister stand on the world stage and say that we are committed to keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees after his Cabinet had signed off on changes months ago to emissions targets that are consistent with Aotearoa New Zealand contributing to 2.7 degrees of warming, which the UN Secretary-General has described as “catastrophic”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, what we are committed to doing is delivering on net zero 2050. We look at our emissions reduction plans, we look at our emissions reduction budgets, and it looks like we’re on track to do that. We may even do that a bit earlier.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he accept the official advice given to his Cabinet that his weakened methane target will double the emissions shortfall in emissions budget three, requiring other sectors of the economy and households to significantly increase their contributions and, therefore, costs to meet our targets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I acknowledge is that we have the very best farmers in the world and we have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world, and shutting down production in New Zealand, as the Labour-Greens Government plan to do, and shifting that production to somewhere else in the world only makes global greenhouse gas emissions worse.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with the official advice that his Cabinet received that his decision to enable more super-heating methane emissions will increase the costs for all New Zealanders, who have to pick up the slack?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What will increase the cost is shutting down farming in New Zealand and actually shifting that offshore and making every single man, woman, and child in this country poorer. We are not punishing our farmers, and we are not punishing New Zealanders. We’re proud of our farmers, who are the most carbon-efficient in the world, and, therefore, moving that production anywhere else other than New Zealand only makes greenhouse emissions worse, not better.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So does the Prime Minister intend to either miss the emissions budget out to 2035 by over 18 million tonnes as a result of the official advice that his Cabinet received on reducing methane emissions, or create additional costs of hundreds of millions of dollars for everyday New Zealanders through higher emissions trading scheme prices if we are not to miss that target?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member, what we look for is delivery of our net zero 2050 goal. We take it budget by budget and emissions reductions plan by plan. There’s often more work to do in the outer years, obviously, but that’s coming into shape, and we’ve got efforts to do that. But we’re on track to deliver net zero 2050. We’re doing our part to make sure we’re doing it. I’m sorry to the member: we are not going to shut down farming in New Zealand. We are not sending that production overseas. That was the plan from Labour-Greens in the previous administration. It’s not this Government’s plan. We’re proud of the farmers. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why would his Government reduce the methane target in line with contributing up to 2.7 degrees in global warming when the independent expert Climate Change Commission made clear, in their advice to Governments, that we could actually increase the ambitions of our climate targets, which would not only be completely compatible with his stated aims of economic growth but also reduce the risk of a far harsher and more costly transition in the future?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Quite simply, as I’ve said in my previous answers, we have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world. We are not shutting down food production in New Zealand and shifting it to one of any of the other 195 countries in the world only to make global greenhouse gas emissions worse. We are proud of our farmers. They are the best in the world. They’re the most carbon efficient in the world. They’re embracing technology and innovation. We might be able to increase production and lower emissions at the same time, going forward.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Not one of my questions asked about food production. In fact, all of them were about the mathematics of the Government meeting its emissions budgets, and the Prime Minister did not even address any of those questions.

SPEAKER: No. I’m sorry, I can’t agree with that. I think the questions—and Hansard will show—made assertions about what is likely to happen in the member’s opinion, and some advice that has been provided to the Government. The Government doesn’t have to accept that, and by putting the answers as the Prime Minister has, he’s explaining why they don’t accept it.

Question No. 6—Māori Development

6. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he agree with Reikura Kahi, chairwoman of Te Māngai Pāho, that funding cuts to Te Māngai Pāho will be “catastrophic” for te reo Māori and the media sector; if not, why not?

Tuatahi me mihi ka tika ki a Reikura me tōna momo e hāpai nei i tō tātou reo māhorahora.

[First it is appropriate to acknowledge Reikura and those like her who are promoting our monumental language.]

No, I do not agree with that statement. There are no funding cuts to Te Māngai Pāho. It is actually facing a fiscal cliff birthed by the previous Government who provided time-limited funding for Māori media. This Government has retained baseline funding for Māori media through Budget 2024 and Budget 2025 as part of our continued support for te reo Māori.

E mihi ana ki te Minita Pūtea.

[I acknowledge the Minister of Finance.]

Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister—

Just wait.

Hon Willie Jackson: How many jobs will be lost across Māori media as a result of a 25 percent funding cut to Te Māngai Pāho?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I repeat my statement. There has been no funding cut. We have retained the baseline funding. The number of jobs is a matter for operational decisions across various Māori media organisations.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with Whakaata Māori that “Whakaata Māori has proven it delivers unmatched cultural, social, and economic returns, yet we continue to be resourced at levels disproportionate to our proven impact.”; and if so, why won’t he fund Whakaata Māori accordingly and prevent further job losses in the sector?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Whakaata Māori has produced some amazing talent and some amazing programmes like Hunting Aotearoa and Homai te Pakipaki, a great sing-song programme, and they continue to provide serious value for te reo Māori and across the identity of New Zealand. What I can say is this: a number of broadcasting entities that have been funded by Governments over time are facing very, very strong challenges by people on Facebook and Instagram and a whole range of content subscribers and producers, and I encourage Whakaata and others to maintain the agility and the nimbleness that they are well known for.

Hon Willie Jackson: Has he met with long-time supporters of iwi radio and Māori media, the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Hon Shane Jones, to discuss funding options of iwi radio and Māori media in the regions particularly, and if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a range of kōrero and conversations that I have with various Ministers, stakeholders, and others to ensure that we continue to support te reo Māori, but make no mistake: the survival and the health of te reo Māori is not dependent on the taxpayer or the Government. It is more dependent on whānau speaking, singing, doing haka, and making assertions in te reo Māori. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with the comments from associate finance Minister David Seymour that if he had it his way, “there would be even less funding for te Māngai Pāho.”; and if not, what advice, if any, did he give to Mr Seymour about the Government’s responsibilities under the Maori Language Act 2016?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am unaware of the quote that is attributed to the Deputy Prime Minister, but what I am aware of is the huge effort that the Deputy Prime Minister made at Waitangi last year to say his entire kōrero in te reo Māori, and I hope to see that again. Tēnā tātou katoa.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. to the Associate Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards reforming New Zealand’s firearms laws?

This morning, the Arms Bill passed its first reading unanimously in this House and it’s on its way to the Justice Committee for public submissions. This bill has been five years in the making and responds to the rushed, knee-jerk laws passed in 2019. Those changes damaged the relationship between licensed firearm owners and Government. The Arms Bill will begin to rebuild that trust by removing impractical regulations, making compliance simpler, and focusing on broad public safety.

Cameron Luxton: What input has the community had in shaping the Arms Bill?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The community has had extensive input into shaping the Arms Bill. Public consultation earlier this year received over 8,500 submissions containing more than 700,000 points of individual feedback. This input has been critical to ensuring that the bill is fit for purpose, reflects community expectations, and helps rebuild trust and confidence in our firearms network. The community will have an additional chance to provide input during the select committee process.

Cameron Luxton: What are the next steps for the Arms Bill?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The Arms Bill has been referred to the Justice Committee for a full six-month process. After witnessing the consequences of a rushed three-day select committee in 2019, it is important that the bill receives proper scrutiny through a full select committee process. During this period, New Zealanders will again have the opportunity to make submissions and propose improvements, and I encourage everyone to have their say.

Cameron Luxton: Will there be opportunities for changes to be made to the bill?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Absolutely. A bill is by no means fixed, once introduced. The Justice Committee will consider all public submissions and make recommendations, if needed. If we want an Arms Act that can endure for the next 40 years, it is essential that New Zealanders take the time to read the bill and make informed submissions over upcoming months.

Cameron Luxton: Has input from the hunting community shaped the Arms Bill?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Most certainly. The hunting sector plays a vital role in managing introduced species and providing kai for New Zealanders. Hunters formed the largest group of submitters in this year’s consultation, representing 84 percent of all submissions. This reflects how important the bill is to those who rely on firearms for food gathering and sport. I encourage hunters across the country to engage through the select committee process and help shape how the tools of their trade are regulated.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “what is not at question here is the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi”; if so, why did she remove the obligation for school boards to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Yes, I stand by my statement that the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi is not in question. The Treaty was signed between Crown and iwi Māori, and the obligation for the Crown to uphold the Treaty in education is firmly established in section 32 and section 4 of the Education and Training Act. It was Cabinet’s view that the school boards are not part of the core Crown, and should not be delegated a legal requirement to give effect to the Treaty that rightly sits with the Crown. The obligations I rightly hold have driven a work programme that has been uncompromisingly ambitious for tamariki Māori and is now delivering results.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she accept that a petition signed by 24,000 people shows she got it wrong?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I was pleased to go out on the forecourt and meet with iwi chairs and Rahui Papa and accept the petition. The comments that I made there on the forecourt and also in a stand-up beside Rahui Papa afterwards on the tiles here in Parliament, were that—and he agreed—while sometimes we might disagree, we have exactly the same aspirations for tamariki Māori, and that is to raise achievement for all children across the country, especially tamariki Māori. I take that very seriously. Actually, I know that it hurts the Opposition that they couldn’t do it and that we are, but we are raising achievement for tamariki Māori for the first time in decades.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does 1,726 schools, 41 principals’ associations and collectives, and 725 early childhood centres saying they will uphold Te Tiriti show she got it wrong?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No. We’re asking boards to be laser focused on getting kids to school, keeping them safe, and raising achievement. If those school boards, over and above those obligations—those legal obligations—wish to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi because they believe that it will improve student outcomes, then that is up to them; that is a choice that they can make. But having lists of schools that are put together by activists is not helpful.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she ignore her ministry when they told her to consult with Māori?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It was Cabinet’s belief that we hold the Treaty obligations very clearly under the Education and Training Act, in section 32 and section 4; we hold those obligations. While I understand that the previous Government, in 2020, decided to delegate their obligation away to school boards, we do not believe that was the correct thing to do, and neither do the Crown. Unfortunately, if the previous Government had spent more time concerned about raising achievement and mathematics for tamariki Māori, rather than delegating away their core responsibility to school boards maybe, then, improvements would have been made for tamariki Māori. Unfortunately they weren’t, but they are under this Government because we take our obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi and the Education and Training Act very seriously.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister believe those improvements to the teaching of maths might avoid a situation where future generations of MPs think that 24,000 is a majority of 5.3 million?

SPEAKER: This needs to be a very brief answer.

Hon ERICA STANFORD:. Of course, raising achievement in mathematics across the country is vitally important which is why we are seeing results—for the first time in decades—in mathematics results under this Government.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why wasn’t Te Puni Kōkiri given enough time to meaningfully consult on these changes?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It comes back to the answer I already gave: there is already a very important Treaty obligation—in the Education and Training Act—that sits with the Crown. That is not in question; we are upholding it. Cabinet did not believe that it was a proper thing to delegate that obligation away to a school board.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. 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: When his Government proposed to give a near-blanket extension to all consents through to 2031, was any analysis done as to whether Ministers or MPs would benefit from this; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first question, we haven’t done that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence, then, that no Ministers or Government members hold consents that will benefit from these blanket extensions; and if so, on what basis?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have confidence that we manage our conflicts appropriately.

Hon Marama Davidson: How will communities living with polluted rivers, polluted lakes, and polluted drinking water benefit from delayed environmental controls as a result of the blanket extensions of consents to 2031?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They’ll be wealthier.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, that’s the second question the House has been required to endure that is absolutely not consistent with Standing Order 390. Not only was a wild allegation made about members of this side of the House but then further unproven, reckless statements were permitted.

SPEAKER: No—there was most certainly an inference in a question, but not a wild allegation, and I think it was adequately answered in relation to the Cabinet Manual. As for the second part of the question, well, that’s a question that can be asked in the House, and the Prime Minister can choose, if it’s in the public good, to answer it.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. “Questions must be concise and not contain … inferences,”.

SPEAKER: Yes, and so must answers, and if we had followed that dictum to the nth degree, then we’d have virtually no answers from the Government on anything.

Hon Marama Davidson: I’ll repeat my third question, Mr Speaker—it wasn’t answered. How will—

SPEAKER: No, you won’t. You won’t repeat it, thank you. Have you got another supplementary?

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it’s hypocritical to claim he cares about ratepayers when the near-blanket extensions of all consents make a mockery of the time, effort, and resources put in by communities and councils to better protect the environment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, actually, since the Resource Management Act (RMA) has been in existence, you could argue we, actually, have seen some environmental degradation, so it, arguably, hasn’t been working anyway. But what we are doing, on this side of the House, is we are disrupting the whole RMA process. We are not apologising for it; we want economic growth. We want New Zealanders to be wealthier. That’s what they’re going to get as a consequence of this RMA reform.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the consent extensions that Marama Davidson is referring to are part of a pragmatic and practical transition to the new planning system and making it easier for that transition to take place?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and I want to say to that member: thank you very much for actually making sure there are concession upgrades, because the new regime will be infinitely better. Imagine a world where 46 percent less consents are needed—that’s a beautiful thing.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that faster consenting of infrastructure projects, such as the forthcoming waste-water tunnel from Newmarket Park to Ōrākei, can actually help reduce pollution, such as the intolerable amounts of E. coli in the Hobson Bay, as just one example of how better infrastructure is actually good for the environment, but it has been held back by the Resource Management Act, which is broken?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree. I think we can get stronger environmental outcomes and better economic outcomes at the same time.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister agree that delivering faster consents for renewable energy projects, such as wind farms and solar farms, has the dual impact of not only reducing emissions but also enhancing economic growth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely, and that’s why I would hope that the Green Party would support these fantastic reforms.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding school property?

Today, I announced that we are continuing to supercharge school property. We’ve listened to the sector and as part of the first ever Ministry of Education tenure property plan, we are delivering a major increase to school capital funding so that our classrooms are well maintained. The Five Year Agreement (5YA), which covers upgrades, modernising or replacement works over a five-year period, will increase by 50 percent, and for our small schools, the minimum allocation will double from $45,000 to $90,000. This is the first increase in that FYA funding rate since 2010, and these changes are to give schools a greater certainty and flexibility to plan effectively and get on with more upgrades.

Katie Nimon: When can schools expect to benefit from this change?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The first group of 450 schools will receive an increased funding from 1 July 2026. Each year, 20 percent of schools will receive their new 5YA budget. So over the next five years, all schools will receive the 50 percent uplift as their new budget lands. The investment will support planning and deliver larger essential upgrades and modernisations over the long term, and that doubling of the minimum allocation is particularly significant for the smallest schools, 24 of which will double their existing funding in the first year. I’d like to express my thanks to the Rural Schools Association for their ongoing advocacy for small rural schools.

Katie Nimon: What feedback has she received?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, it’s been overwhelmingly positive, as you would expect. A rural principal said, “Thank you for your understanding of the realities of the rural context.” One principal emailed me to say, “What an outstanding Christmas announcement. This will have significant impact on upgrading our older buildings. Many thanks indeed for all of the great work you and your team are doing in both curriculum and capital works. It will be a world-class education system in the next while if, as a nation, we can keep this aspirational vision and strong leadership up.”

Katie Nimon: What other feedback has been received?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, electorate MPs like Suze Redmayne for Rangitīkei who got in touch with their local schools also received great feedback which they’ve passed on to me. One principal said, “This is massive news and the timing is amazing for us with our next 5YA due to start next year. We save and contribute to our property project, so this extra funding means we’re going to be able to deliver even more property improvements for our students. Best news ever.” Another said, “It was great to open my emails this morning to the email from Erica. It will make a huge difference in what we’re able to do in our school.”

Question No. 11—Internal Affairs

11. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions regarding Fire and Emergency New Zealand?

Yes, especially my statement last night following a meet and greet event with firefighters on the Parliament lawn. I thanked the firefighters and all first responders who worked tirelessly to bring the Tongariro fire under control over the past couple of days. I also thanked them for their dedication and service and hoped that they’re able to find some well-deserved rest over the coming days.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Does she stand by her decision, in December 2024, requiring $60 million in cuts from the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) budget at a time when firefighters say they don’t have the staff or equipment they need?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yes, I do stand by that because that $60 million is very important because we know that when there was an amalgamation of the urban fire service and the rural fire service, people expected to see some form of efficiency gain. No efficiency gain was found, and it’s important, in any amalgamation, to try and find an efficiency, so we’re focusing on efficiency within the back office, but I would also note that that $60 million that I’ve been asking FENZ to save is not going to be returned to the Crown. It will stay within Fire and Emergency and will be able to be reinvested in Fire and Emergency. In fact, the only money from Fire and Emergency that has returned to the Crown is the $70 million Crown loan that levy payers are still on the hook for from when the former Minister of Internal Affairs got involved in collective bargaining.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Does she stand by her decision to restrict Fire and Emergency New Zealand funding, given that professional firefighter Adam Wright estimates that there have been 800 fire truck breakdowns in Auckland alone over the past year?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: When it comes to the fleet and management and maintenance, I’ve been given assurances from Fire and Emergency that there have not been any deferments of maintenance this year or in previous years under my term. But I’d also note that when it does come to the fleet, I’m advised by Fire and Emergency that the term of the settlement of the collective employment agreement between Fire and Emergency and the Professional Firefighters Union in 2022 was the establishment of three working parties—one of which was fleet. This saw Fire and Emergency and the Professional Firefighters Union at the table in equal numbers, working on solutions for the future of the organisation’s fleet. Since then, we have had many trucks on order.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Why do members of Government boards deserve up to 80 percent pay rises while her offer to firefighters barely keeps up with inflation?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Those things are very, very different things. If you have governance of Crown boards, you need people who have good governance skills and strategic oversight who are in charge of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. New Zealand taxpayers expect that money to be used wisely and for there to be good strategy and oversight. When it comes to how Fire and Emergency is funded—and I would assume that the member should know this—it is not funded by taxpayers; it’s funded by levy payers. When we are setting the levy and when we are ensuring that Fire and Emergency can break even year on year, we need to ensure that people will reinsure their house content insurance, they will have reinsurance for cars, they will have content insurance, and that they will have commercial property insurance. That is what funds Fire and Emergency. If you set that too high, you have a higher likelihood of people not insuring and getting rid of the broad-based, low-rate component that funds the levy system. These are basic things, and they’re very different.

Hon David Seymour: Would the Minister care to answer the heckled question from Jan Tinetti as to why she is not inserting herself into the labour negotiations with the firefighters?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Well, one, Ministers should not be asking questions of their own which are clearly designed to have a crack at the Opposition; second of all, there’s a long-running convention that members cannot ask questions on behalf of other members.

SPEAKER: That’s very true, and the first point is that there is no prohibition on Ministers asking questions within their own party arrangements. The second point is that if you think about how the Hon David Seymour worded that question, he asked it in his own name, referencing where it had come from. That’s slightly different to what you’re asserting. The Minister responding can respond very, very briefly, given her very long answers so far.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can give a very brief answer as to why I won’t be inserting myself into collective bargaining in the same way that the previous Minister did, because the previous Minister appointed the former president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions to oversee bargaining on her behalf during the process. She also appointed an independent facilitation mediator that made a recommendation for a settlement that Fire and Emergency didn’t have the necessary resources and financial requirements to settle. It required Fire and Emergency and the Minister to go to the Crown to ask for a loan that they’re still paying back.

SPEAKER: That was a new definition of brief. [Interruption] Hang on. Just a minute. Ask the question.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will she reconsider cuts to Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s specialist wildfire roles, given that since the cuts were announced, two major fires have broken out in Tongariro National Park?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There are no cuts to front-line firefighters.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcement has he made on retirement villages?

I’ve recently announced proposed changes to the retirement villages framework that will improve transparency, clarity, and fairness for residents, including that when a resident moves out of a village, the operator will have to stop charging weekly fees and fixed deductions; clarity for the rules around chattels and fixtures; and an easy-to-access, independent dispute resolution scheme. For new residents, there will be a process to apply for early access to funds in hardship situations, interest being paid after six months if a unit remains unlicensed, and mandatory repayment of funds no later than 12 months after a unit is vacated.

Sam Uffindell: What changes are being made to improve fairness for existing and future residents?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: For existing and future residents, there will be increased transparency that will level the playing field, enhance trust, and strengthen consumer confidence, which will both encourage investment and innovation in the sector. It will also give operators greater clarity around reinvesting in places like The Pavilion at Pacific Lakes Village in Pāpāmoa.

Sam Uffindell: How will the change support the retirement sector to grow and innovate?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There will be a greater degree of transparency and clarity for both residents and operators alike, and I want to acknowledge all those that have been involved in the process so far.

Sam Uffindell: What is happening next?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Parliamentary Counsel Office will draft an amendment bill. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I expect to be able to introduce the amendment bill this parliamentary term. The select committee process will provide another opportunity for residents, whānau, and operators alike to have their say. Again, I acknowledge the Retirement Commissioner, Jane Wrightson, and a number of other individuals who have been involved in the process today. I expect they will contribute further as we move through the parliamentary stages.

Urgency is continued. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill.