Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by the Government’s policy to ban enrolments in the final 13 days before an election, despite the Attorney-General warning that more than 100,000 people may be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by this proposal?

Thank you for the question. The answer is yes, and I’ve got every confidence that New Zealanders have the capability of responding to a change in the signal that is sent. They’ve got a year to get enrolled, and I’ve got every confidence that they will be able to get enrolled 13 days before the election.

Oriini Kaipara: What impact will the prisoner voting ban have on wāhine Māori—Māori women—who are one of the most over-incarcerated groups in the world?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, if they’re imprisoned for more than three years currently, they don’t have a vote. After the legislation is passed, if they’re imprisoned after the passing of that legislation for less than three years, they will lose their vote. That’s about sending a clear message to those who are victims of crime that we take that seriously and there are consequences for crime, and one of those consequences is temporarily losing one’s vote while one is in prison.

Oriini Kaipara: Does the Minister dispute evidence that shows that denying prisoners the right to vote undermines rehabilitation goals, increases social exclusion, and, ultimately, increases the risk of offending?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, of course, I tend to think more about the needs of the victims of crime who are trying to put their life together after having been bashed or stolen or murdered, or the many other victims of crime that live in this country. Look, we have a robust, strong democracy. There are many countries around the world that have various restrictions on prisoners voting. Currently, it is the law that if you’re in prison for three years or more, you lose your vote. We are extending that earlier, and we think that’s fully justified.

Oriini Kaipara: Does his Government truly care about democracy, or do they only care about democracy when it can be—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on—wait on.

Oriini Kaipara: —weaponised against Māori—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, stop there.

Oriini Kaipara: —such as when they remove the Māori wards—

SPEAKER: Stop—stop. The House will listen to a question in silence. Start again.

Oriini Kaipara: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister’s Government truly care about democracy, or do they only care about democracy when it can be weaponised against Māori, such as when they removed Māori wards, dismantled co-governance, and introduced the Treaty principles bill?

SPEAKER: OK, that question should be ruled out because it doesn’t comply with the requirements of the Standing Orders. However, in so much as the Minister is able to make a statement, he can.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can assure the House that this Government does care about democracy—very much so. The good news about democracy is that Governments are held to account, and we are perfectly willing to put our record before New Zealanders, particularly in the justice space, where we’ve seen 38—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Things have to settle down. There are people just yelling for no particular purpose. They’re not interventions; they are just boorish barracking, and it’s got to stop. The Minister will briefly end his answer.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was just continuing about the virtues of democracy and the accountability and where we lay our performance before the people of New Zealand at the next election, and we’re very proud of the progress that we’ve made on many fronts.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that it’s actually a legal obligation to be enrolled to vote with an up-to-date address from the age of 18—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No—sorry, Minister Seymour. Someone called out then and interjected while a question was being asked. The question can be asked again, and you will be given the silence of the House.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm it’s actually a legal obligation—one of the few blanket obligations that the law places on all New Zealanders—to be enrolled to vote with an up-to-date address from the age of 18 and so it shouldn’t be much of a problem to be enrolled 13 days before an election, and, if so, does he believe that New Zealanders of all races are equally capable of fulfilling this basic requirement?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, and yes. I have always been troubled by a particular party claiming that their voters are disadvantaged by any changes, which would imply that their voters are less capable than other voters of getting themselves enrolled—which is a strange way to talk about your voters.

Question No. 2—Economic Growth

2. to the Minister for Economic Growth: What recent changes has the Government made regarding economic growth and supermarket competition?

Last night, the Government passed amendments to the Fast-track Approvals Act. The changes streamline the fast-track process, making it more efficient and delivering important projects that will grow the economy. The changes also promote greater competition in the supermarket sector by speeding up consent and approval processes to get a new supermarket open. The Government is serious about lifting economic growth and getting a better deal for Kiwi shoppers. Our fast-track changes do both of those things.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why did the Government make changes to support supermarket competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We heard loud and clear from a range of people that standard resource consent processes can hold new supermarkets back and tie them up in red tape for years. Restrictive zoning, slow consenting, and cumbersome regulations have caused widespread frustrations that have seen less choice and higher prices for Kiwi shoppers because of a lack of competition. The fast-track process will shorten the time required to gain consent for a new supermarket to just a few months, increasing grocery competition. This is good news for shoppers—it’s about saying yes.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What else is the Government doing for supermarket competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government’s focus is on regulatory enforcement and structural areas. Our work includes improving the Overseas Investment Act to better support grocery investments and amending the Commerce Act to better combat predatory pricing. We are also looking to trial the use of digital labels for lower-risk imported goods to reduce onerous food-labelling requirements on new supermarkets who seek to enter our grocery market, we have selected Christchurch City Council to be a single building consent authority to standardise decisions for grocery developments, and there is a wide range of other work under way, which, together, will help enhance grocery competition for shoppers.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will the changes to the Fast-track Approvals Act help grow the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The fast-track regime will support growth by kick-starting projects right across the country—projects that will create jobs and help lift the incomes of Kiwi families and communities. The Act is generally working well, with six projects already consented and three more expected to have decisions before Christmas. Over the past few months, expert panels and panel conveners, applicants, Government officials, and councils have identified areas where improvements could be made. Many of those were reflected in the changes made in this House last night. Officials estimate that the amendments could reduce the combined processing and consideration times by a further six weeks. That means more projects coming through the pipeline faster and that’s good for growth, and all those in this House who stand on the side of job creation and income growth should have voted for that bill.

Question No. 3—Women

3. to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding women’s pay?

Yes, in the context they were given.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did she claim that Australia’s mandatory pay gap reporting system costs the Australian Government billions?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: That was the number that I had been advised at the time. That has since been revised, and we understand the set-up costs of the Australian regulator were substantial; only to deliver very minimal gain.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What has changed since August 2023, when she said that she supported large companies being required to report on their gender pay gaps?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Nothing’s changed. I do support large companies registering their pay gaps, but we don’t believe in compulsion. In fact, we have a voluntary pay gap calculator, which has had 80,000 page visits and 11,500 unique visitors, and, as a result, we’ve seen the pay gap drop a full 3 percent to the lowest ever on record, at 5.2 percent.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What proportion of reduction in the gender pay gap is due to collective agreements or pay equity settlements?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I would have to get that question put on notice for the exact figure, but what I would say is that the representatives of those very hard-working union members who dutifully pay their levies to those union representatives really should start to try to utilise the new framework and raise claims again to prove that it works.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the chief executive of her ministry correct that at no point since the Government passed pay equity changes under urgency has she asked for or received advice from the Ministry for Women on pay equity?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Yes, she is correct.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is she concerned that the chief executive of her ministry was unable to confirm her claim that changes to pay equity and cancelling 33 pay equity claims “can only be a good thing for women”?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I have absolute faith in the Chief executive of the Ministry for Women, but—as has been traversed ad nauseam in this House, but that member still does not seem to understand—pay equity and the pay gap cannot be conflated. There are multiple factors that go into the pay gap in New Zealand, and I’m explaining this slowly so that it might sink in.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why, when, effectively, Pasifika women have been working for free since 9 October, Māori women since 18 October, Asian women since 25 October, and Pākehā women since 25 November, has she cancelled 33 pay equity claims, locked out secondary teachers from future pay equity claims, and won’t support mandatory gender pay gap reporting?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I have absolutely no responsibility for a number of those situations that that member has raised.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. It’s pretty simple. If someone is asking a question, no one else is talking, and there was a lot of talking during Tom Rutherford’s question. [Interruption] No, we don’t want to hear it again, but it would be a good idea just to at least let the Minister start before deciding to commentate on his answer.

We’re making great progress. We had a target of reducing the number of victims of serious violent crime by 20,000. It’s already down by 38,000, but we know that there is a lot more work to do, and we don’t rest on our laurels for a moment because there are still far too many victims of crime. That’s why today’s Crimes Amendment Bill, which will have its first reading, will bring in a number of initiatives to ensure that criminals face stronger penalties for attacking first responders, for coward punches, for human trafficking, and for retail crime.

Tom Rutherford: What will the Crimes Amendment Bill do?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It creates specific offences for assaulting first responders and prison officers, as committed to in the National - New Zealand First coalition, so that those who commit acts of violence against these people who rush towards danger to help their fellow New Zealanders will face greater consequences. It also fulfils the coalition commitment to create two new, specific coward punch offences, where people can be killed or suffer life-long injuries from these atrocious acts, and yet often the perpetrators receive lenient sentences. The Government is also seeking to strengthen trafficking and people-smuggling laws to stop criminals using loopholes to evade consequences that often affect the most vulnerable people.

Tom Rutherford: What other changes will the Crimes Amendment Bill make?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There’s a number of areas in the retail space, which has been an ongoing—

Hon Shane Jones: Gangs, gangs.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, gangs have been dealt with in the previous legislation, Mr Jones, but in so far as they are connected with retail crime, they will suffer the consequences here, as well. Too often, business owners have been left feeling helpless as thieves walk out with whatever they please. We’ll clarify the citizen’s arrest powers so that if it’s safe and appropriate to do so, people can hold on to these offenders until the police arrive, and that will make a difference. It also introduces a new shoplifting regime with an instant fine to bring about swift consequences in that circumstance.

Tom Rutherford: How will the Crimes Amendment Bill make a difference for victims?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The victims of retail crime will now have greater ability to hold those who steal from them—and not just from them but from their fellow law-abiding customers—to account by holding on to them until the police arrive, if it’s safe to do so, but also by bringing swift consequences through an infringement regime.

Tākuta Ferris: How has the Government progressed in 2025 with its plan to lower Māori overrepresentation in the justice system?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Very well, in the sense that we’re very much focused on the fact that Māori are overrepresented in the number of victims of crime. That is why we are very focused on reducing the number of victims of crime, which will have a bigger impact on Māori communities as they continue to be overrepresented as victims of crime. Everything we do in our Government is done to reduce the number of victims of crime—Māori, Pākehā, and every other ethnic group in this country.

Tākuta Ferris: Has the Minister’s focus on lowering the percentage of Māori as victims of crime had any impact on the Minister’s goal of lowering Māori overrepresentation in justice?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, and that is the thing: if they’re more likely to be victims of crime, our reducing the overall number of victims of crime has a real impact and success for Māori, and when I go about the country—most recently, I was in Huntly, in an audience of, largely, Māori New Zealanders. They were pushing me to be even firmer on consequences for crime because they wanted to live in a safe community and they want their families to feel safe, and Māori are no different to any other New Zealanders in that desire. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’ll make the point that the Minister doesn’t need the complementary support from his own side. He’s very capable of answering on his own.

Hon Louise Upston: Can the Minister advise what progress has been made to restore real consequences for sexual violence?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, there’s been very significant progress in this area over the last three years. We brought back three strikes so that that very small number of perpetrators of serious sexual violence are kept out of circulation for longer; we’ve restricted the ability to have massive discounts on sentences so that those people who are convicted of serious sexual crimes actually face real consequences for those; we’ve changed the rules so that permanent name suppression is not available to adult sex offenders unless the victim agrees; we’ve brought in stalking legislation, which has been talked about for years, and that now sends a very clear signal to them; and we’ve ended the culture of excuses that was exemplified by funding cultural reports, which seemed to send the idea that it wasn’t your fault but it was somebody else’s fault for the crime that was perpetrated. I can’t think of another Government recently that has done more to make excellent progress in sending a very clear message around our society’s expectations on sexual violence.

Question No. 5—Disability Issues

5. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement that the Government is committed to “breaking down barriers and improving the lives of disabled people”; if not, why not?

Yes, and that’s why we took immediate action to stabilise the disability support system and invested a record $2.1 billion funding boost to Disability Support Services (DSS) in the last two Budgets. That’s also why we’ve released the New Zealand Disability Strategy, which shows the measurable actions that we will take over the next five years to improve the lives of disabled New Zealanders. Whaikaha has also recently launched the first all-of-Government internship programme that will see a group of disabled people employed in the Public Service. Our Government is committed to improving the lives of disabled people and their families.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why was the national Enabling Good Lives (EGL) leadership group downgraded such that it is no longer a ministerial advisory group?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I would disagree that it’s been downgraded. I’d like to actually quote from a letter that has been received just recently—just this week, in fact—from the chair of the EGL national leadership group. It says—and I quote—that they are “writing to express our appreciation to Whaikaha and the Ministry of Disability Issues and to Cabinet for formally acknowledging Enabling Good Lives as a foundation, touchstone, and guide within the New Zealand Disability Strategy”.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why did the chief executive of Whaikaha tell a select committee during scrutiny week last week that the core relationship with the national EGL leadership group will no longer be with the Minister, but will be with the ministry?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because that’s accurate, and, as I’ve just quoted from the chair of the EGL leadership group, they have acknowledged the work that is going on. I don’t agree that it’s downgraded; I think it’s a really important relationship, and, as I’ve said, the EGL principles are a cornerstone of our New Zealand Disability Strategy and are fundamental to not only the stabilising but the strengthening work of DSS.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why did she choose to stop work on My Home My Choice, a programme that works on alternatives to residential care for disabled people?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That was a pilot initiative that was started by Whaikaha, and when we have focused our efforts on the disability support system, it is first about stabilising—and, as I said, we’ve invested a record $2.1 billion into Disability Support Services. Part of that—and the really exciting news in terms of what comes into effect in February next year with the changes we have made—is greater choice and control for disabled people, including for residential care. I’m surprised that that member isn’t celebrating a record investment and greater choice and control for disabled people, which is exactly the EGL principles.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is she concerned that she has stopped My Home My Choice at a time when young people are increasingly being forced to live in aged-care homes because there aren’t any alternatives?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I’m not sure that that member listened to the answer that I gave around the stabilisation and the strengthening of the disability support system, along with a record investment of $2.1 billion, which is all around how we ensure that the lives of disabled New Zealanders who access DSS have greater choice and control and that there also is a stable system that is fair and consistent throughout New Zealand.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What has she done about the increasing number of young disabled people living in aged-care homes, other than cutting the one programme designed to address the issue?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I would reject that assertion, and I do agree that it is challenging for younger people who, because of a lack of access in the area they live, there is access to suitable residential care. But I would just put on record that that was a pilot. It was not across New Zealand; it was in a couple of locations, and what we need to do is to stabilise access to residential support, which is exactly what we’ve done. That’s why the record investment of $2.1 billion into DSS is so important, and the changes that come into effect in February next year give greater choice and control for disabled people in terms of where they live and how they live, and what services they access to support them.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How can she say that her Government is committed to improving the lives of disabled people when she’s taking away disabled people’s choice and control over where they live, she has withdrawn Government support for the EGL approach, and the disability unemployment rate is at an eight-year high?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I absolutely reject the comments that that member has made, and I’m not sure that she listened to my answers in terms of how important the Enabling Good Lives principles are. It was a former National Government that introduced them in the first place, they are woven through the New Zealand Disability Strategy, and they are fundamentally at the heart of the changes we have made that come into effect on 1 February next year around flexible funding, which means there are zero—zero—purchasing guidelines, and total and absolute choice and control—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: No one wants that, either.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —for disabled people. That member is saying that disabled people don’t want that—well, that’s not what they’re telling me. They want choice and control, and our Government is giving it to them.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How can the Minister claim the Government is breaking down barriers when the Whaikaha—Ministry of Disabled People annual report for the last financial year confirms significant data gaps for Māori disability outcomes and no clear funding breakdown for kaupapa Māori providers, leaving tangata whaikaha Māori without transparent accountability or targeted investment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I would say that, across many areas of Government, data needs to be improved in terms of the breakdown for Māori, and I’m happy to go away and have a look at what improvements we can make.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Why has the Government failed to set a clear timeline for closing the significant data gaps on accessibility and Māori-specific disability outcomes identified in the Whaikaha—Ministry of Disabled People annual report for the last financial year, and when will the Minister commit to delivering disaggregated data that enables targeted action for tangata whaikaha Māori?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I would just say that our Government is focused on improving the lives of disabled New Zealanders from one end of the country to the other. As I’ve said, I’m happy to look at what improvements can be made around data, but our Government is absolutely focused on improving their lives.

Question No. 6—Tourism and Hospitality

6. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made to support major events in New Zealand?

Last week, I announced the first tranche of events from our major events package. The line-up includes many exciting international and home-grown music acts, sports matches, and arts and cultural events kicking off in 2026. The first round is an integral part of the $70 million major events and tourism package designed to drive economic activity and confidence throughout the country. Tourism and major events are a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth. More world-class events means more visitors, more jobs, and a growing economy.

David MacLeod: What are the successful events?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The first tranche includes 20 events, and, amongst the highlights, American rockers Linkin Park will play in Auckland, the Ultra Music Festival brings its Miami-famous electronic dance music to Wellington, and our local legends Six60 are collaborating with Synthony for the very first time in Christchurch. In total, we will be supporting over 70 events either directly or indirectly through the Events Attraction Package and the Events Boost Fund. This is just the beginning. We’ll continue to set the stage for a massive year in 2026, and I’m looking forward to announcing other high-profile events in the new year.

David MacLeod: What benefits does she expect to see as a result of this announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: When major events come to town, the economic ripple effect is huge. For every dollar spent on live performance, $3.20 is returned in benefits to the wider community. We know it’s looking positive, with the latest visitor stats showing an increase of 22,500 visitors in October 2025 compared to a year before. Events don’t just bring more visitors and economic benefits; they bring life and energy to our cities, creating vibrant communities and unforgettable experiences. That’s why we’ve invested in an exciting calendar of events designed to strike a chord with everyone.

David MacLeod: What feedback has she seen on this announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The feedback has been incredibly positive. David Higgins from Duco Events has said, “Having support from the Government is very helpful. It enables us to confidently go big and put on massive shows that otherwise might not happen, and it makes New Zealand a nice place to live.” The Otago Rally organiser, Roger Oakley, was ecstatic, and said, “We’re heading into the 50th anniversary event for the Otago Rally next year and this funding will help us to bring it to the next level—something this remarkable milestone deserves.” New Zealand has an excellent global reputation for delivering world-class events, and I’m looking forward to announcing even further events in the coming months.

Question No. 7—Māori Development

7. to the Minister for Māori Development: Is he concerned by the warnings of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that New Zealand is at serious risk of weakening Māori rights and entrenching disparities for Māori, and, if so, what is he doing to address these warnings?

on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: The Government takes its international human rights obligations seriously and remains committed to ensuring equitable outcomes for Māori. We acknowledge the concerns raised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—CERD—and we’ll continue to engage constructively with the committee through a regular reporting process. Te Puni Kōkiri are contributing to the cross-Government response to CERD’s concluding observations, which is led through the Ministry of Justice.

Teanau Tuiono: What will he do to address the concerns of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that many of the Government’s policies, including scrapping Te Aka Whai Ora and budget cuts to Māori services—and I quote—“may seriously risk weakening the legal, institutional and policy framework for the implementation” of the racial discrimination convention?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I said in my primary response, the ministry is working through the concluding observations, but as it relates to the Māori Health Authority, I’d also note that the committee recommended established bodies composed of Māori and Pacific health experts; the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee is exactly that.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree with Lady Tureiti Moxon that this report is “unprecedented in its length and its language” and “CERD is clear: New Zealand is moving backwards on racial equality, and Māori rights are under serious threat.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: No, I do not, and I enjoyed the conversation with her this time last week.

Teanau Tuiono: Is he embarrassed that unlike the last review, this report finds virtually no positive progress by New Zealand on Māori rights or racial equality?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: No. I’m pleased by the positive recommendations that the report does resolve to, including noting the initiatives taken by the New Zealand Police to address systemic bias in policing practices, and the increase in the number of Māori judges in the District Courts.

Teanau Tuiono: Have any Government policies worsened outcomes for Māori?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Our ambitions are to improve the outcomes and improve equitable positions for Māori.

Hon Shane Jones: Is the Minister aware that a number of the people who sit on these UN pettifogging committees come from countries with far worse race relations—

SPEAKER: No, hang on—hang on. Wait—

Hon Shane Jones: —problems than New Zealand?

SPEAKER: You can have a go at asking the question again without the sort of emoluments in it that rule it slightly out of the Standing Orders—as the member himself has pointed out to me in recent days.

Hon Shane Jones: Thank you for that elucidation—

SPEAKER: It’s an opportunity. Carry on.

Hon Shane Jones: Is the Minister aware that a number of the people that sit upon the United Nations committee hail from nations who have their own race relations problems that are worse than in our nation State of New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I said in my primary answer, I acknowledge that we have work to do and we have a process to do that, and I believe other members of the committee also have issues that they’re trying to work through also.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Justice had an extensive and constructive conversation with members of the committee over the course of their inquiry, and pointed out many of the areas where this Government is making excellent progress in advancing outcomes for Māori?

SPEAKER: That’s great—now, where’s the question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he aware—is he aware?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know—well, good. Are you aware?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I am aware. I am aware of the—

SPEAKER: That’ll do then. That’s fine.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: —CERD process that the Ministry of Justice has.

SPEAKER: No, that’s fine.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he accept the finding that the Government’s efforts to remove Treaty clauses from legislation—and I quote—“risk entrenching historical, structural, and systemic discrimination against Māori.”, and, if so, will the Government finally leave Te Tiriti o Waitangi alone?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is that concerns of this nature as expressed by CERD are being worked through by the Ministry of Justice, which has the lead, and we remain committed to reducing inequalities and to having better outcomes for Māori.

Question No. 8—Universities

8. to the Minister for Universities: What recent announcement has he made about the Waikato Medical School?

Last week, myself and the Minister of Health, the Hon Simeon Brown, announced that construction is now under way on Waikato’s new medical school. With $82.85 million in Government funding, this new school represents a major long-term investment in medical education across the Waikato region and New Zealand and it will change the medical education landscape. It’s an exciting development and a major milestone in the Government’s plan to train more GPs. This Government is focused on fixing the basics and I’m proud to see the construction start on this exciting new school, and I want to acknowledge the many people over many years who have nourished this vision.

Ryan Hamilton: How will the new school strengthen medical education in New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We are building for the future, and this new school will help develop the health workforce New Zealand needs. From 2028, the Waikato medical school will train an additional 120 doctors each year, making the medical school one of the most significant workforce investments in a generation. The school’s teaching model places particular emphasis on primary care and rural GPs—areas that are currently challenging. It’s a good example of how universities are working to align students’ skills with the needs of the country, and it will provide a significant boost to tertiary education, as well as creating opportunities for the local workforce.

Ryan Hamilton: How will this approach strengthen primary care in New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This new school supports the Government’s clear focus on strengthening primary care, especially for regional New Zealand. Providing access to medical education locally means students can train closer to home, while helping build a resilient, regionally connected workforce. After their first year on campus in Waikato, students will spend three years undertaking clinical placements in a regional or provincial setting. Under a wider “train in place, stay in place” model, these trainees are more likely to then live and work in the regions, and this will help people see a doctor more easily and will improve the distribution of doctors across the country.

Ryan Hamilton: What feedback has he seen about the new school?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have received positive feedback from academics, practitioners, and some of the parents of the over 300 New Zealand citizens currently training in Australian medical schools. The Waikato Chamber of Commerce expressed their support for the school, highlighting its transformative potential. The Rural Health Network expressed delight with the announcement of a third medical school. The message from throughout the country is clear that this new medical school is a game-changer.

Question No. 9—Veterans

9. to the Minister for Veterans: Is he committed to ensuring that veterans receive their full entitlements from the Crown following the High Court rulings on Tā Harawira Gardiner’s case; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Minister for Veterans: Yes.

Greg O’Connor: Will he rule out any legislative change that will override the High Court’s ruling on veterans’ entitlements; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf of the Minister, the Government is carefully considering its response. We need to fully understand the impact on claims before making a decision, and I’m not in a position to rule any response in or out.

Greg O’Connor: Does he agree that when the High Court has twice clarified how Veterans’ Affairs should be deciding veterans’ claims, any attempt to relitigate or legislate to narrow veterans’ rights would be an act of bad faith towards those who have risked their lives for New Zealand?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think it’s very important to allow the Government to do its job, just as the previous Government had to wrestle with exactly the same issue when it also appealed against the decision of the Veterans’ Entitlement Appeal Board. I think it is a very serious issue, and the Government is taking it seriously. The Minister will of course, as a very astute and careful Minister, put his best efforts into this.

Greg O’Connor: Why do veterans who have been injured or who have died from having served their country—and their families—have to repeatedly go to court to receive the care and support they’re entitled to?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, the member might wonder why the previous Government also appealed the decision. I think what is very important to understand is that—[Interruption] Just calm down. I think it is very important for this to be taken seriously, as the previous Government had to, and to consider all the implications of this. It’s a very serious matter and the Government is carefully considering its response—and instead of getting excited about it, just wait, listen, and work with the Government.

Greg O’Connor: What does he have to say to all those veterans and their whānau who have been declined support as a result of an interpretation of the Act which Justice Grau described as “the very opposite of benevolence and instead appears to be about resources.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I’d say that it’s a good thing that this Government is in charge, and not the previous one. Since the High Court’s decision, Veterans’ Affairs has been processing claims in line with the court’s interpretation, and additional funding was made available in Budget 2025 to do this—not something that had happened under the previous regime.

Greg O’Connor: Does the Minister realise that to qualify for veterans’ support, a veteran must have served in a war zone?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I’d just suggest that that member not try and tell his grandma how to suck eggs.

SPEAKER: That could be described as a scrap between the grandparents, but—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I’m sure you and I would never have such an argument.

SPEAKER: Lucky it’s Christmas!

Question No. 10—Energy

10. to the Minister for Energy: Is he confident in the viability of the offshore wind industry in Taranaki?

Yes.

Scott Willis: Is the decision of JERA Nex bp Ltd—a company registered in England and Wales, which was intending to build a 500 megawatt to 1 gigawatt of offshore wind farm in South Taranaki Bight—to withdraw from operations in New Zealand a sign of the good health of the industry?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the entity that has been referred to is owned by BP and it is based out of the UK. Investment decisions are matters for individual companies. I am confident that offshore wind in New Zealand is viable. The Government is committed to creating a regime to support offshore wind, and we’re taking significant steps to make that a reality.

Scott Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a letter from JERA Nex bp Ltd to me, confirming their intention to cease operations in New Zealand from the end of 2025.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Scott Willis: What are the implications for the offshore wind industry, with Taranaki Offshore Partnership indicating that the planned seabed-mining operation would make offshore wind in the area unfeasible, and BlueFloat, already having withdrawn from New Zealand, citing Trans-Tasman Resources’ seabed-mining as a leading reason?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I’m very happy to help the member with a little bit of positive news in regard to developments in the offshore wind area. Only a week ago, Genesis and the entity which the member just noted—Taranaki Offshore Partnership—have entered into a memorandum of understanding to explore offshore wind development in New Zealand. More electricity generation has been commissioned in the past 18 months by this Government than in the entirety of the last 15 years, and so if the member wants a little bit of advice: support the Resource Management Act reform, support fast track, and make sure he supports liquefied natural gas.

Scott Willis: Is he aware of the submissions from the offshore wind developers on the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed-mining fast-track application showing the incompatibility of seabed mining and offshore wind, and does the failure of the fast-track panel to seek comment from him, as Minister for Energy, indicate a significant failing of the fast-track regime?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Again, I’d be very happy to send the member a copy of a press release that I issued probably a couple of months ago, I think, in regard to decisions by this Government to draft an amendment to deal with the reality that we are going to be undertaking offshore exploration in conjunction with undertaking offshore wind, and making sure that those two economic growth opportunities for this country can coexist in the Taranaki region. This Government wants economic growth, we are looking to enable that through an amendment, and that’s currently being worked through.

Scott Willis: Does the over six-month delay in passing the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and the withdrawal of yet another offshore wind developer, mean that the Minister for Energy has capitulated to the Minister for Resources, and offshore wind energy is simply dead in the water under this Government, which is instead prioritising seabed-mining?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No. The reality is that this is a very busy Government. We’ve got a significant work programme under way. As I noted, we are currently drafting the Amendment Paper required to deal with the exclusivity issue that the member has noted and the industry has noted, and I will reinforce again that if the Green Party really wanted to see more renewable energy in this country, then they would support fast track.

Scott Willis: Will the Minister be renaming the Electrify NZ programme the “Mining NZ programme” on the basis of his Government’s actually revealed priorities?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcements has the Minister made regarding the wool sector?

On Monday, I had the privilege to announce and attend the completion of the first commercial consignment of deconstructed woollen particles at Wool Source’s facility at Lincoln University. It is a shipment now bound for Japan for use in haircare products, showcasing this revolutionary new process, supported by $3.5 million in funding through the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Dr David Wilson: Why are these announcements significant for the wool industry?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Deconstruction of wool and fibre technology is the moonshot for the New Zealand wool industry. Deconstructing woollen pigments, particles, and powders into bioagents for inks, dyes, and nutraceuticals takes wool on to a whole new commercial playing field. It has the potential to capture very high returns and support much higher farm-gate returns, and, importantly, it has the potential to scale up and take significant quantities of New Zealand wool. Importantly, this world-leading technology has been developed by WRONZ—the Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand—at Lincoln University, and the intellectual property is owned by New Zealand farmers and the industry.

Dr David Wilson: What other initiatives are currently under way in the wool sector?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: One of my priorities has been re-establishing mandated leadership for the wool sector. Since the demise of the Wool Board and the industry levy in 2011, the sector has been fragmented, lacking coordination and leadership. The Wool Alliance has been formed to explore an enduring industry model: a collaborative initiative designed to develop a sustainable, long-term industry model. The alliance brings together Wool Impact, Campaign for Wool New Zealand, and the Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand, with support from Beef + Lamb New Zealand, and it is chaired by John Monaghan, a former chairman of Fonterra. I’m pleased to report that farmer and industry consultation is under way, with the aim of having a formal structure formalised by the end of June 2026.

Dr David Wilson: What have been the highlights of the wool sector in 2025?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Look, the ultimate highlight and result has been the increase in the wool price, which is up 25 to 40 percent—depending on the micron—year on year as there is a return to natural fibres and woollen products. A particular highlight—and I must acknowledge the Hon Nicola Willis, as well—was the Government’s announcement to preference woollen fibres in Government buildings. It has been well received by farmers, by industry, and by the public, and it has attracted international recognition. But the greatest reward for me has been witnessing the revival of the sector, with the return of pride for our wool growers and our industry and a sense of collaboration and purpose, and they are able to see investment starting to flow back into this sector, with the knowledge that their Government is right behind them.

Jenny Marcroft: Can the Minister confirm that he has set a high “baa” for the wool industry?

SPEAKER: Well, next minute you’ll be asking him to demonstrate, and so we’ll just move on.

Question No. 12—Vocational Education

12. to the Minister for Vocational Education: Will Industry Skills Boards be able to carry out their full mandate from 1 January 2026; if not, why not?

The industry skills boards (ISBs) will be operational from 1 January 2026. The governance boards are in place now. They are currently going through the process of appointing chief executives and making offers to appropriate staff from the workforce development councils (WDCs). They will certainly be operational from 1 January 2026, but, like any new organisation, they will build capacity and capability as they evolve and progress. But, importantly, they have a very clear expectation of what their core functions are and what is most important for them to concentrate on early.

Shanan Halbert: Has she or any of the agencies she is responsible for provided the Minister of Education with advice on the feasibility of the industry skills boards being able to deliver on their role in replacing NCEA?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, of course, replacing NCEA and undertaking curriculum development for the compulsory sector is not a core part of the ISBs’ business, but, of course, we are incredibly supportive of the excellent work that Minister Stanford is doing to progress vocational pathways in schools, and we look forward to ISBs contributing positively to that work. While ISBs have a smaller number of core functions, it’s always been anticipated that there’ll be additional functions from time to time, like supporting the schools’ vocational pathways, researching apprentice success, and other specific industry initiatives. They’ll be undertaken as additional funding is made available for those tasks.

Shanan Halbert: Will industry skills boards need more funding and assistance to deliver on their part of the Government’s plan to replace NCEA?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I’ll just repeat some of the things that I’ve said in the previous answer, which is that they have core functions that they are core-funded for, and there will be other initiatives from time to time, like supporting the vocational pathways that Minister Stanford is doing such a wonderful job in bringing forward. We are delighted to be able to be part of that very positive work to ensure that there are pathways. There’ll be other functions and other initiatives—such as the research we’d like them to do on the success of apprenticeships—and there’ll be other workforce initiatives that industries will want, and we will do those from time to time when funding is available for those initiatives.

Shanan Halbert: Has anyone who will be on an industry skills board raised concerns with her around their ability to design curriculum with less funding and less staff compared to the workforce development councils?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, of course, the workforce development councils didn’t develop curriculum for the compulsory schooling sector either, and there will be less funding available for the ISBs than the WDCs, but I have high expectations of them being more efficient than the WDCs were. So, again, there will be the core functions that they will undertake from their core funding, and then there may be additional functions from time to time, with additional funding.

Shanan Halbert: Why has she done nothing to help ensure that industry skills boards will be able to deliver as part of the Government’s plan to replace NCEA?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, that’s interesting, because I’ve done a considerable amount to ensure there are boards in place, there are chief executives being appointed, and there are staff being appointed, and we are working closely with Minister Stanford in the wonderful work that she is doing on vocational pathways. We look forward to the ISBs being able to support those pathways from compulsory schooling into tertiary education.

Shanan Halbert: Did she have any input in industry skills boards being part of the NCEA replacement, or was she just told that it was happening?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Of course I had input into it. There were core functions that were set, and then we knew that from time to time there would be additional functions. We are not only pleased to be involved in it but we are absolutely delighted because what it means is there is now a pathway from secondary schooling into vocational education through the vocational pathways. It’s to enable a seamless movement, and so we’re delighted to be part of that initiative.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Members who have other duties that take them out of the House should leave the House quickly and quietly, with no conversations on the way.