Oral Questions

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

Yes, and can I just personally extend the member a very warm congratulations on his recently announced engagement and wish him and his fiancée all the very best for the future.

SPEAKER: I’m surprised it wasn’t a snap debate application.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I can assure the Prime Minister there were no Government actions involved. Does he agree with the immigration Minister that over 200,000 people leaving the country is just due to “normal economic cycles”; if so, how much more exodus of talent do we need to see before the Government will stop treating it as simply business as usual?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as we have discussed in recent weeks, people go overseas to earn more money, and the reality is we have been through incredibly difficult and challenging economic times—not helped by that member’s previous Government that created a huge amount of economic pain and suffering for people—but, as I have said before, if the member really cared about this issue, he would back mining because there are a lot of New Zealanders going overseas to Australian mines for high-paying jobs. I haven’t heard him categorically rule out the Greens’ recent madness.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that rising unemployment in New Zealand, including 20,000 fewer jobs in building and construction, under his leadership is one of the reasons that Kiwis are giving up and leaving?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said before, it’s been a very difficult time. Unemployment rising is a function of wasteful Government spending, driving up inflation, driving up interest rates, putting an economy into recession, and that’s why this Government is doing everything it can to balance the books and to make sure we have prudent economic management. It’s been good to see commentators reporting that unemployment is now peaking. We obviously want to see that coming down, but one of the ways we do that is we create opportunity for our people here at home. That means supporting fast track so we can create job-rich infrastructure projects, it means supporting mining, and it means repealing the oil and gas ban—good things that create high-paying jobs in regional New Zealand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he regard infrastructure spending as wasteful spending, given it is one of the areas where his Government has reduced public spending?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t. It’s great to see the infrastructure pipeline has increased, yet again, this quarter. More projects are being financed, more projects are under way, and that’s a good thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has his Government agreed to a policy on financial support for unemployed 18- and 19-year-olds that, potentially, offers more financial support to low-income parents who reduce the amount of paid work they undertake?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We stand by our policy on 18- to 19-year-olds because we’re not prepared to consign young to a life on welfare unlike the previous administration. At a time when there was 3.2 percent unemployment and 60,000 more people put on unemployment benefit, that is utterly unacceptable. We care about those young people. We love them deeply. We want them connected to work, education, and training.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how is telling their parents that if they stay home and work less, their families will be financially better off, a way of addressing that issue?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have greater faith in parents than that member because I think that any parent that actually thinks that’s the way that they advance the interests of their 18- to 19-year-old—that’s not the way forward.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon that “people skipping meals because they can’t afford food—that’s serious”; if so, why, under his leadership, are one in four households with children regularly missing out on the food those kids need to grow?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because my comments are about the fact that that is the reality when you don’t run an economy well, when you crank up Government spending by 84 percent, when you add in $43 billion of new taxes, and you triple the debt so that we end up paying $9 billion to $10 billion worth of interest, which is money that cannot be used to support out fellow Kiwis. That is utterly unacceptable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he still think it isn’t “rocket science” for parents to buy bread and fruit for their kids, given that those basics are now too expensive for many families, with the cost of bread and kiwifruit up 50 percent in just the last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’ll just say to the member, food price inflation is up about 4.7 percent. It was up 12.5 percent under his Government. There are global prices around dairy, red meat—that has been well recorded—and coffee that has driven that number, but that is a lot better than 12.5 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What happened to his promise of a “comprehensive plan to rebuild the economy, to end the cost of living crisis, to lift incomes, and to give Kiwis a reason to stay” when, after two years of his leadership, the economy’s shrunk, the cost of living’s worse than ever, incomes have only stagnated under his watch, and the number of Kiwis giving up and leaving is now at a record high?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m proud of this Government: a 35-year-low recession that we inherited, and, importantly, a long COVID hangover because of the actions of the previous Government. But isn’t it fantastic that we’ve cut back on wasteful spending? We’ve got inflation down from 7.5 percent down to 3 percent, and we’ve got interest rates having been cut eight times. We’re now growing our economy, and we want to see people put into work.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister continues to claim that the Government inherited a recession. I seek leave to table the Statistics New Zealand data that shows that the economy was not in recession under Labour; it went into recession under National.

SPEAKER: I’m sure that that information is publicly available.

Tākuta Ferris: Given the overwhelming pushback from more than 200 schools and the Iwi Leaders Forum, does the Prime Minister—

SPEAKER: Hang on—wait on. Start with a question word, and ask a question without the statement.

Tākuta Ferris: Does the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in his education Minister, given the significant pushback by schools—more than 200—and the Iwi Leaders Forum to retain Te Tiriti o Waitangi in education legislation and delivery?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. She’s done more in two years than the previous Ministers in the last six. But I want that member to be under no illusions: if you actually think about upholding the obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi, your first obligation is to get your kids to school and to teach them the basics brilliantly—some maths and some reading—and that’s what the focus needs to be. We make no apologies—none whatsoever—for the number one priority of our school boards to be to get your kids to school and get them educated.

Tākuta Ferris: Supplementary. Does the Prime Minister believe—

SPEAKER: No, we’ve had enough. We’re moving on to question No. 2.

Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, have you got a question?

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the absence or otherwise of the Treaty of Waitangi—we are still seeing an improvement in Māori numeracy, given that some Māoris don’t know how to count?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say, I am very, very proud, and I think all members, the independents that are here, Te Pāti Māori—it’d be fantastic to say congratulations. Isn’t it fantastic that five-year-old, young Māori students have seen such an improvement in their literacy in their first 20 weeks at school? That’s something that all members of this House should be celebrating.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about fair trading?

On Sunday, commerce and consumer affairs Minister Scott Simpson and I announced that the Government is increasing penalties for breaches of the Fair Trading Act. The purpose of the changes is to deter unfair trading that disadvantages both consumers and other businesses that do play by the rules. Common examples of unfair trading include misleading advertising, inaccurate pricing, refund refusals, non-delivery of goods, and subscription traps. Legislation giving effect to the changes will be introduced to Parliament early next year and is expected to pass into law later in the year.

Cameron Brewer: What is the difference between existing penalties and the proposed new regime?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: At the moment, the maximum penalty for a breach of the Fair Trading Act is $600,000. The changes we are proposing will increase the maximum penalty to the highest of either three times the value of the commercial gain, the value of the transactions, or $5 million. This means that serious offenders will be liable for fines of up to tens of millions of dollars if they have gained significantly from breaching the law.

Cameron Brewer: Does this mean penalties for all offences will automatically increase?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The courts will continue to have discretion to consider a range of factors. These include the nature of the conduct, whether the party has breached the Act before, the size and scale of the party, and the breach it made. The courts seldom impose the maximum penalties, but lifting the ceiling gives them more room for discretion.

Cameron Brewer: Why are these changes necessary?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, penalties under the Fair Trading Act were last updated in 2014—so more than a decade ago—and they are no longer fit for purpose. Over the past five years, the number of complaints received by the Commerce Commission has increased significantly to more than 10,000 in the most recent year. Some businesses have breached the Act multiple times. There are circumstances in which the gains to be made from breaching the Act can currently outweigh the penalties for breaching it. The new regime will eliminate those incentives, and these changes will give New Zealand consumers more confidence that they are being treated fairly by the businesses they buy from.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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: Does he think it is possible to protect the environment and create new jobs, or is relying on extractive industries the only way to create jobs?

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

Hon Marama Davidson: How would he respond to concerns that he is leading a Government that is willing to risk permanent and irreversible damage to our land, oceans, and fresh water through his Government’s courting of policies of offshore mining?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to that member is I think their actions are economic vandalism and insanity. I think the recent statement and policy we’ve seen around mining makes no sense. You are literally, as a Labour-Greens coalition, telling regional New Zealand—

SPEAKER: Just answer from a Government perspective.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it’s acceptable that his fast-track process could be excluding the voices of communities like those in Otago, Northland, and Coromandel who don’t want to see their local whenua or moana turned into an ecological wasteland?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question, but I’m incredibly proud of our fast track. We make no apologies: we are going to get things done and built in this country, and we are prioritising economic growth above everything else.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Government very careful not to do permanent and irreversible damage to New Zealand’s reputation by avoiding even the threat of tearing up consents already issued?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are. I think that is very dangerous when you send a message to regional New Zealand that “You don’t deserve high-paying jobs; you can go on the benefit.” I think it’s a very dangerous message sent to international investors that creates a chilling effect for all investors. I think it’s a very dangerous thing when you say, “We won’t do those high-paying mining jobs here in New Zealand, but we will do them in Australia, so go over there.”

Hon Marama Davidson: Is the Government’s message to people in regional New Zealand that their future is in the boom and bust of mining, instead of backing them with long-term, sustainable industries that won’t disappear when all the profits have been extracted from our environment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our message is very clear to regional New Zealand: you deserve high-paying jobs, not just being consigned to a life on a benefit.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that genuine economic security for workers comes from sustainable industries like wood processing, renewable energy, or Jobs for Nature, and not from gambling the future of our regions on the fluctuating price of gold and coal?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think job security comes from actually respecting the rule of law and not ripping up contracts you don’t like the shape of. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Shane Jones.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Prime Minister—

SPEAKER: No, just wait till the House shows some respect for people who are about to ask a question.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Prime Minister: what is his response, given that the message has gone to international and domestic investors that their rights will be expropriated after the next Government, heaven forbid that the last member who spoke should be in a Cabinet?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think it sends a chilling effect, as we saw with the oil and gas ban. That is what happened. It sounded like a great bumper sticker, but the second and third order implications were not thought through and, as a result, we have a shortage of gas which we desperately need. This just sends a chilling effect to investors—all investors—for a country that struggles to attract foreign direct investment.

SPEAKER: Look, I just want to reiterate that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the Government only and that while I did let that question go because of the way it was structured, it’s not appropriate to use supplementaries from the Government to attack Opposition parties.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister whether he finds it ironic that the Nordic countries are the world’s leading environmentalists but they believe massively in extraction because you can’t get to being one without the other?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Minister’s exactly right: if we want to make the transition to clean energy, we actually need mining—we need mining for electric vehicles, we need mining for solar panels—and Norway is a great example of that.

Hon David Seymour: How important does the Government believe confidence, continuity, and certainty are for investment, jobs, and growth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely important. It’s important, as I said, to respect the rule of law and to ensure that there is certainty, that there is clarity, because these are investors making long-term investments that end up ultimately creating high-paying, high-income jobs for Kiwis, and that’s a good thing.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What process does she undertake to ensure that ministerial conflicts of interests, perceived or otherwise, are managed appropriately when it comes to joint ministerial funding decisions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The management of conflicts of interest is a matter for the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: On what date did Minister Bishop, the MP for Hutt South, first approach her regarding using Kāinga Ora funding for the RiverLink bridge project, and in what capacity did he approach her?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: With that question on notice, I’m happy to get a written answer to the member. If the member wants specific questions on a particular line of questioning, she should make it clear the subject of her questioning in her primary question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Did she, given the ministerial funding decision did not go to Cabinet, seek specific Cabinet Office advice regarding any potential or perceived conflict of interest for Minister Bishop jointly signing off the use of Kāinga Ora funding for the RiverLink bridge project; if so, what did that advice say?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. I did concur with the advice from Kāinga Ora, who advised that the course of action I agreed to was the right course of action. I am pleased that our Government has actually delivered the funding for the Melling project, which the last Government talked about, never funded, and never started.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Did she seek any advice from Treasury regarding using Kāinga Ora funding for the RiverLink bridge project, given that the request for funding was dated 12 March and she signed it off on 21 March?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I did receive a cover note from my Treasury secondee with their views on the proposal.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can the New Zealand public have confidence in her decision making, given she sought no Cabinet Office advice, only received a Treasury private secretary cover note, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development opposed a funding transfer, but she proceeded to sign off funding for the RiverLink bridge project with Minister Bishop, given his conflict of interest as the MP for Hutt South?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There are many statements in that long question which are wrong—in particular, the advice that I received was both from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Kāinga Ora, who provided the full advice on this decision; and also, the member’s continued assertion that I am responsible for the management of any perceived or actual conflicts of interest.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister not think it’s extraordinarily novel that helping one’s electorate is regarded as a conflict of interest these days in the Labour Party?

SPEAKER: No. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What!

SPEAKER: The Minister has no responsibility—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: She said it.

SPEAKER: —for the other side.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: She may well have alleged that she was—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: She threw that into the debate.

SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That entitles me to work on that and use that information. I didn’t introduce it; she introduced it.

SPEAKER: That’s right, in context of the Government—the Minister answered it in the context of the Government. But I think—the member’s been here a long time. He knows he’s made his point. The Hon Shane Jones. Did you have a supplementary?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s quite clear, in Standing Order 390, that the member of the Labour Party is not allowed to throw those epithets. There is no conflict of interest in looking after the constituency who sent you to Parliament. How can that possibly be admitted?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s a matter for debate—that’s the point. I’ve already ruled; it’s not going to be debated further.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the Minister aware of paragraph 2.81 of the Cabinet Manual that states that “Where the member also holds the relevant portfolio or is the Associate Minister, further measures” in relation to conflicts of interest are set out in the Cabinet Manual, but “If the matter is more significant, the Minister may instead pass ministerial responsibility for it to another Minister”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and I’d suggest that the member really wants to ask questions of someone else and is putting them to me. I can only assume that that’s because she’s afraid of the debating skills of the person she should be putting the questions to.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. During the line of questioning just put to the Minister of Finance, she continued to claim that she is not responsible for managing conflicts of interest. The Minister of Finance has the ability to change appropriations made by the House. It is a relatively serious matter. In many cases, they don’t receive further scrutiny; they simply report it back to the House at some future point. Therefore, the management of conflicts of interest in that process is quite a significant matter that the Minister should be answering questions on and not simply dismissing them out of hand. The matter here concerns a Minister who has two different ministerial portfolios that were in conflict and an electorate responsibility which was also in conflict. There can be conflicts of interest between someone’s ministerial portfolio and their local duties as a member of Parliament. It’s a question of how those are managed. They happen all of the time. Some of them don’t need management, but some of them do need management. When you’re talking about millions of dollars of public money, it can be a very real conflict, and the Minister who signs that off, in this case, is not the Prime Minister; it is the Minister of Finance.

SPEAKER: The Speaker’s role, as you know, is not to judge the quality of the answer, but simply to make sure that there is an answer provided in the nature of an address, which is not always satisfactory to all members of the House.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made about the Hawke’s Bay Expressway?

I’m thrilled to advise the House that construction has begun on the State Highway 2 Hawke’s Bay Expressway project, one of the first new roads of national significance to reach the main works stage, and I thank the local member and her colleague Katie Nimon, who joined me last week to celebrate this occasion. It’s a major milestone for Hawke’s Bay and for the Government’s transport investment programme.

Catherine Wedd: What are the benefits of this critical project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As the member knows so well, the expressway is a critical lifeline route, linking people to the regional hospital and, indeed, the busy airport and the port. It’s a national freight corridor. It will deliver an average peak-time travel improvement of 21 percent and an average 18 percent improvement in reliability. It’s a very important project for the lovely part of the world that the member hails from.

Catherine Wedd: What does the Hawke’s Bay Expressway construction corridor include?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It includes 7 kilometres of four-laning between Links Road, Pakowhai Road, and Taradale Road, duplicate two-lane overpass at Meeanee Road, a duplicate two-lane overpass at Kennedy Road—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Walking and cycling?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —a duplicate two-lane bridge over the Tūtaekurī River, and a four-lane grade-separated interchange at Links Road and Pakowhai Road. I invite the member who is calling out to go for a cycle or a walk in the Hawke’s Bay and maybe just calm down. She will enjoy—

SPEAKER: That’ll do—that’ll do.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —the experience.

SPEAKER: That’ll do.

Catherine Wedd: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait.

Catherine Wedd: What are the next steps to the delivery of this project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Initial construction focuses on the section of road between Taradale Road and the Tūtaekurī River. Four-laning is expected to be completed in 2028. Work on the new overpass on Meeanee Road is planned to start in January 2026. The full project will be completed in December 2029. It has a construction budget of between $600 million and $700 million, and alongside the investment in the Waikare Gorge bridge replacement, it is over $1 billion worth of infrastructure investment in this wonderful part of the country.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. 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: Is his Government committed to contributing to the global effort under the Paris Agreement to limit global average temperature increases to 1.5 degrees?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are doing everything we can to meet our international commitments, but, of course, our most important one is net zero 2050, and it looks like we’re on track to deliver that maybe a little bit early.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are our domestic climate targets—especially with the Government’s halving of our methane target—sufficient to meet our Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius or not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the NDC target is tough, but we’re going to give it a good go. We’re going to prioritise domestic action. The good news is that NDC2 is now aligned with net zero 2050—that’s a good thing—and, of course, this is a Government that has actually looked at the science and made a very good decision around methane emissions.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does his plan to untether the emissions trading scheme (ETS) from our Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement mean that the Government is conceding that we will not be able to meet our international commitments through domestic action alone, and, if so, how many billions of dollars is he budgeting to pay other countries to reduce their emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, linking the ETS to align with our domestic budgets and targets is just a sensible thing to do. It was a domestic policy tool that was created before the Paris Agreement. It’s absolutely critical for us to deliver on our net zero 2050 goals. With respect to NDC1, I just want to reassure the member that we are not sending billions, or jobs, overseas.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry for the Environment and Treasury have estimated that our country could be liable for anywhere up to $24 billion to pay other countries to reduce their emissions, which becomes more and more likely with every action that his Government undertakes to increase our emissions, such as those policies announced last week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just want to reassure the member, in answer to her questions, that there is no way that we will be sending billions of dollars overseas—period.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister now telling the House and committing the country to not paying offshore mitigation to meet our NDCs under the Paris Agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m saying NDC is tough, we’re going to give it a good go, and we’re going to prioritise domestic action, as I answered in the first question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically about the commitment that this Government is making to meet our NDCs and the billions that need to be budgeted to do so. The Prime Minister didn’t even address the question.

SPEAKER: No, your question asked if he was telling the House, and then it made a statement. He responded to that. Is there another supplementary?

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement, “It’s part of the Government’s work to ensure New Zealand has a credible pipeline of high value infrastructure projects extending into the future, and that they’re ready to go as funding becomes available”?

Yes. The Government has committed to building a long-term pipeline of transport infrastructure investments to address our infrastructure deficit and build jobs and growth for Kiwis.

Tangi Utikere: How can he stand by that when he used Kāinga Ora funding to push through a bridge in his own electorate, a project his Government had already cut?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I reject the characterisation of that. Firstly, the decision was made in relation to that as Minister of Housing, not Minister of Transport. Secondly, the member asserted, this morning, it was for State housing. The money was not for State housing, even though that’s been pointed out to him at least twice by journalists. The third point is that I have acted in accordance with Cabinet Office advice throughout this.

Tangi Utikere: Did anyone advise him that his involvement in the funding transfer could constitute a conflict of interest, and, if so, who?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve acted in accordance with Cabinet Office advice throughout this process. Right from the time I became a Minister, I have sought and taken, and acted in accordance with, Cabinet Office advice in relation to local advocacy projects. The short story here is actually not a complicated one, which is that the Hutt council asked the Government to allow them to swap some money allocated for water infrastructure into another form of infrastructure. It was not dissimilar to a separate request from the Hamilton City Council made a few months previous, in which they sought permission to transfer money that had been allocated to them in relation to the infrastructure acceleration funding given for a cycleway across the river in Hamilton. Ministers agreed to transfer that money from a cycleway, in that instance, into waste-water infrastructure in the Hamilton CBD.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister reference the very credible pipeline of a high-value infrastructure project near Palmerston North, and what did Tangi Utikere say about that?

SPEAKER: Well, he can talk about a high-value pipeline, but he can’t reflect on a member of the Opposition.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no. I’m talking about the Manawatū-Tararua development, which everybody is saluting.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there are lots of things happening in Palmerston North, particularly around freight, which I know the member asking the question is an advocate for, and I suspect also the member who asked the original primary is as well.

Tangi Utikere: On what date did he seek the Cabinet Office advice on potential or actual conflict of interest management in relation to the decision to redirect $27 million of Kāinga Ora funding, and what did that advice say?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as the member, I suspect, does know or perhaps should know, Ministers have regular meetings with the Cabinet Office, right from the time they are sworn in as Ministers, in relation to conflicts of interest, at least every six months. I had my first one soon after—[Interruption] Just listen: I had my first one soon after being sworn in as a Minister, and I have acted in accordance with Cabinet Office advice the whole way through.

Tangi Utikere: Why did he not recuse himself and delegate responsibility for those decisions, given the conflict arising from the project being in his own electorate?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member is making an assertion there that is not borne out by the facts. I have acted in accordance with Cabinet Office advice and guidance the whole way through.

Tangi Utikere: How can the Minister maintain that he is ensuring a credible approach to infrastructure while he intervenes in funding decisions for projects in his own electorate without recusal or adequate conflict of interest safeguards?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, three points: firstly, I followed the advice from the Cabinet Office; secondly, the decision was made by two Ministers; and, thirdly, last time I looked, that member supports the decision.

Question No. 8—Regulation

8. to the Minister for Regulation: What does the passing of the Regulatory Standards Bill mean for New Zealanders?

Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just hang on—hang on. Why so much talk? The Hon David Seymour.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It means when politicians bring legislation to this House and officials make regulations that affect New Zealanders’ lives, the impacts on them, on their property, and on their liberties, and the question of whether the law was made properly and thoughtfully will be crystal clear to those New Zealanders so that they can put pressure on politicians and choose better laws for their future.

Simon Court: What are the next steps in bringing the Regulatory Standards Bill to life?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The House passed the Regulatory Standards Act last Thursday. It will come into effect progressively from New Year’s Day 2026. There is work to be done, creating guidance that the Act provides for so that officials and Government departments can make sure that they are properly following its requirements. There is also a Regulatory Standards Board to appoint, who act as a watchdog to ensure the declarations for the public benefit are made properly.

Simon Court: How will the Regulatory Standards Act be helpful to decision makers?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’m sure I speak for many people on both sides of the House who have been subject to long, ponderous, and ultimately ineffective regulatory impact statements. This will be changed, to a large extent, with the Act’s introduction of consistency accountability statements, which have legislative requirements for what they must contain, and no more, so that decision makers and the public can clearly see what the impacts of a Government’s initiative on the people of New Zealand actually is.

Simon Court: How will the Regulatory Standards Act be useful to public servants developing policy?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, right from the beginning, public servants will be required to think hard about what the impacts of rules and objectives they pursue on New Zealanders actually are. I was just reading an excellent opinion piece on The Post about an Epsom electorate constituent we’ll call Robyn, who lost her life-savings and her livelihood because of a totally irresponsible piece of legislation that came out of this House. People in New Zealand will enter an era of transparency and accountability where if politicians want to do things like that to people, at the very least, we as a country will be making those decisions with eyes wide open thanks to the accountability and transparency brought by the Regulatory Standards Act.

Question No. 9—Tourism and Hospitality

9. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made on tourism in New Zealand?

Last week, we announced the first tranche of the successful recipients of the second round of the regional tourism boost. Four successful campaigns will attract more international visitors from Australia and Asia to explore, stay, and dine in our regions. We also announced that we are investing $2 million to extend the Dunedin Tunnels Trail. Tourism is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth, so these announcements mean more international visitors exploring our regions, which is good news for small businesses, jobs, and the local economy.

Joseph Mooney: What are the successful regional tourism boost initiatives?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Three regional tourism organisations will launch four campaigns focusing on attracting international visitors, between January and March next year. RotoruaNZ, along with other North Island regional tourism operators (RTOs), are partnering with Ctrip to attract travellers from China, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea. RotoruaNZ, in partnership with 14 North Island RTOs and major airlines, are targeting people travelling from Australia’s eastern seaboard. WellingtonNZ’s Classic New Zealand Wine Trail is promoting wine, food, and star-gazing to Australian visitors across Wellington, Wairarapa, Hawke’s Bay, and Marlborough. Lastly, but not least, the Great South’s Southern Way will encourage Australians from the Gold Coast to explore the southern and lower South Island.

Joseph Mooney: What benefits does she expect to see as a result of these announcements?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The benefits of these investments will reach beyond our cities and into our regions. Our regional tourism boost package is part of a bigger plan to create a thriving, resilient economy. There is an appetite for growth in our regions to encourage more international visitors to explore the special experiences New Zealand has to offer outside of our main tourist hotspots. By investing in the Dunedin Tunnels Trail, we will attract more visitors to the Otago region, helping to unlock the region’s full tourism potential. More visitors means more income for local businesses, more job opportunities for Kiwis, and a stronger economy for all of us.

Joseph Mooney: What feedback has she seen on these announcements?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: RotoruaNZ’s chief executive, Andrew Wilson, has said, “We’re really grateful to the Minister for making some further money available to run a few more campaigns.” Fifteen regions, from the top to the bottom, and the breadth of the North Island—we’ve got a bunch of communities that will really welcome the value that tourism brings to them. There will be more to come. These campaigns are about more than promotion; they’re about helping visitors feel welcome, stay longer, and explore further. Every time an international visitor comes to New Zealand and spends money at a local shop, restaurant, or cafe, it’s good for jobs and it’s good for our local economies, and that’s why we’re doing it.

Question No. 10—Housing

10. to the Minister of Housing: What are the total proceeds received from the sale of Kāinga Ora properties under this Government?

Kāinga Ora advised me that, so far in 2025-26, a total of $99.5 million has been generated through the sale of 297 homes. In the 2024-25 financial year, Kāinga Ora sold 119 homes, generating total proceeds of $53 million. For the period from 27 November 2023 to 1 July 2024, which is the balance of the time this Government has been in office, Kāinga Ora has been unable to work it out in the available time for this question, as it would require a manual process. From 1 November 2023 through to 1 July 2024, there were 15 house sales. If the member wants the exact balance from the 27 November onwards through to 1 July, that will have to be done through a written question—apologies.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Has this or any other funds administered by Kāinga Ora been redirected to purposes other than housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Kāinga Ora sales programme, as a result of the Kāinga Ora turnaround plan, is focused on selling older properties in high-value areas with the proceeds going to provide multiple other units in different areas. That process is managed by Kāinga Ora.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How can he justify redirecting funds administered by Kāinga Ora towards building a bridge in his own electorate—a project his Government initially declined to fund—when the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development advised him not to?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This is a wee way away from the primary, but the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund used to be administered by Kāinga Ora. We’ve now taken it away from Kāinga Ora because we want them to focus on their core business, which is running the social housing portfolio of the Government. I think I’ve dealt with the issue in relation to the City Link Bridge, in relation to his colleague’s questions.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to questions from Tangi Utikere, the Hon Chris Bishop said that this is a matter more related to the housing portfolio, not the transport portfolio, and now that we’re asking questions of him in that capacity, he’s saying he’s already dealt with those questions. He can’t have it both ways, sir.

SPEAKER: No, quite right. You can have another crack.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, does the member want to repeat the question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What day is it?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Don’t be so hard on yourself, sir. I know you’ve been here a while, but I’m sure you know what day it is. How can he justify redirecting funds administered by Kāinga Ora towards building a bridge in his own electorate—a project his Government initially declined to fund—when the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development advised him not to?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are a couple of errors there. Firstly, the Government didn’t decide to decline to fund it; it did not come up for funding approval by the New Zealand Transport Agency through the Government policy statement, which is a separate decision. As I’ve already said, it was a pragmatic decision. The Hutt council wrote to the Ministers and wrote to the Government and asked for the funding swap to take place. As I said, in relation to Mr Utikere’s question, it’s not dissimilar to the Hamilton City Council asking for exactly the same thing not a few months previous, and Ministers approved that as well. Ultimately, the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, which was set up by the previous Government, gave money to a variety of local councils for local infrastructure. This is still being spent on local infrastructure.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is it correct that the total number of Kāinga Ora houses will have reduced by 177 by the end of the year, as confirmed by his responses to written parliamentary questions Nos 39322 and 39321?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That is probably true at a particular date and point in time. On balance, over the next few years, Kāinga Ora stock will stay at around 78,000 units. At any one point in time, it will be up or down a bit, depending on the sales process, depending on demolitions, and depending on construction timelines. As the member knows, these things oscillate a bit. There was a point, at one point, during the previous Government when there had also been net demolitions and sales compared to construction. But ultimately, over time, you’ve got to look at the smooth glide path into the future.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he believe that the growing number of people experiencing homelessness in the Hutt will take comfort from the fact the number of Kāinga Ora houses will go backwards by the end of the year, at the same time that funding intended for housing has been redirected for unrelated projects?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it wasn’t intended for housing; it was funding intended for infrastructure into the CBD. It is, essentially, a funding swap from one form of infrastructure to another, as the member well knows, and, actually, I think all members of the Opposition support that project, so it’s a bit strange to criticise it. I’m also advised that since this Government came into office, the social housing wait-list in the Hutt Valley—as, indeed, it has around the country—has fallen.

Hon Nicola Willis: Could the Minister please expand on the “smooth glide path into the future”, which he has described for Kāinga Ora?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, because I used a term most commonly found in the bureaucracy, and I’m regretting using it already.

Question No. 11—Building and Construction

11. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing to make building easier?

The Government’s doing a lot to make building easier because that means more affordable homes for families, more economic growth, and more jobs for Kiwis. This includes the overseas building product regime for more affordable, quality building products to enter New Zealand, common-sense changes to insulation rules, and allowing Kiwis to build a granny flat of up to 70 square metres—a single-storey, simple dwelling—without a building or resource consent.

Dan Bidois: Why is the Government allowing plumbers and drainlayers to sign off their own work?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Today, a bill will have its first reading that will enable plumbers and drainlayers to certify their work. This policy is backed by sector groups such as Master Plumbers and will bring plumbers and drainlayers into line with the work that electricians and gasfitters can already certify. The relevant plumber or drainlayer must meet certain eligibility criteria, and the work must be relatively simple, low-risk, and routine. We know that about four inspections per build are undertaken for plumbing, so this will make a meaningful difference for tradies.

Dan Bidois: What else is the Government doing to speed up the consenting system?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, one of the biggest frustrations that I hear from tradies is that it takes many days and sometimes even weeks for a building inspection to take place. These delays are frustrating, costly, and get in the way of the building of homes that this country desperately needs. That’s why, in August, we introduced a new requirement for 80 percent of building inspections to take place within three working days.

Dan Bidois: Is the Government doing anything to help encourage greater uptake of solar panels or homes that are more energy-efficient?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Why, yes, we are. We know that, in order to encourage the uptake of more solar, in the name of energy efficiencies and also lower energy bills for families, we require building consents to be issued in half the statutory time frame—that is, 10 working days rather than 20. We will allow that where a building has solar panels in its plans or meets the definition of being a sustainable building such as a Homestar certification. This change will see homes built more quickly, more affordably, with lower power bills and lower emissions—all of which are good for Kiwis.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: “Rawiri-no-mates.”

Rawiri Waititi: You done? Empty vessel. Does he agree the McSkimming case involved an abuse of power at the highest level and that this abuse of power was covered up by the New Zealand Police?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, there’s been a tremendous breach of trust and integrity, and I’ve made public comments to that effect. But also, this was appalling, this was shocking, it was utterly unacceptable. I’m proud of the Government’s rapid response to put in place an inspector-general; the highest mechanism we have, the strongest mechanism we have, of oversight.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he guarantee that the police are not abusing their power in our streets when they are so willing to abuse their power in the office?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because there are 15,000 men and women associated with the Police who do an incredible job coming to work each and every day to keep this community safe. It’s the same police force that has ensured that we have 30,000 less victims of violent crime, which I’m sure that member appreciates. It’s the same police that has delivered a 16 percent lower level of youth offending, which I’m sure that member appreciates as well. The men and women of the Police force do an outstanding job. They have been tarnished of the actions of a few. This is a Government that is taking serious action against that leadership group.

Rawiri Waititi: Has he read the Understanding Policing Delivery report that shows that Māori lodged over half of all complaints to the Police about use of force, and that Māori are more likely to be stopped, tasered, arrested, and prosecuted by the Police than any other group in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I haven’t read the report, but I would say to that member that I am very proud of our Police force. I think they do an exceptionally good job. I also note that the victims of crime are disproportionately Māori as well. That’s why anything that lowers crime rates, serious violent crime, youth offending—as a result, we are a Government that has put in place tougher sentencing, more corrections officers, and more investments in prisons, because we’d sooner have people there than out in the community bashing and hurting and harming Kiwis.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that abuse of power can be seriously contagious and politically infectious?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It is something in organisations that must be stamped out.

Rawiri Waititi: Does the Prime Minister accept that last week’s Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report, alongside decades of findings of structural racism against Māori, shows that the New Zealand Police require systemic reform, and does he support establishing an IPCA that is completely independent of Police and the Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is what the role of an independent IPCA actually does. This is a Government that has taken that report incredibly seriously. It was a very good quality report laying out very, very clearly the hit to trust and integrity at the top of the Police force. Importantly, this is a Government that has acted with tremendous speed to reach for the strongest mechanism possible, which is an inspector-general to have oversight of the Police as we have in intelligence, as we have in defence, and that’s the appropriate action.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Environment Committee

1. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) to the Chairperson of the Environment Committee: Why did she explain advertising an 11-day submissions deadline for the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill on the basis that “Under Standing Order 198, I opened submissions to meet the expectation of the timeframe”, when Standing Order 198 makes no reference to the time frame for submissions?

I was advised by the clerk of the committee that in my role as chair of the committee, I could call for submissions under Standing Order 198. This call for submissions, and the submission deadline, was endorsed by the majority of the committee.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. We’ve got an issue here in the respect that the question asked the chair to justify her decision to call for the deadline for submissions, referring to the Standing Order which does not give her that ability and in the context of her original response to the first question to her, on Tuesday last week, which was that this was done because the Government wanted this bill to pass by Christmas. That was literally the first thing she said. Now, that, in my view, is counter to what she is providing to the House now.

SPEAKER: Well, what she has provided the House is the factual authority for her opening the submissions. Whether the second part of it was answered or not is a matter of, perhaps, at least one further question.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a mystery, sir, to a number of us why this question has even been permitted. When you look at Speakers’ ruling—and, already, Speaker’s Ruling 116/3 covers this off: the chair has the authority. This issue was canvassed in Hunt’s time, and I put to you, sir, that the question is actually superfluous, if not inconsistent, with the traditional practices of the House. It’s wasting our time.

SPEAKER: The member will know that the question was actually held over from last week, when the chairperson of the select committee was not here to answer it. The question itself is a legitimate question.

Catherine Wedd: Point of order. I seek leave to table advice I received from the clerk of the committee about Standing Order 198 and parliamentary process about calling for submissions.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? [Interruption] Is there an objection? No, there appears to be none.

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

Hon Rachel Brooking: Why, as the select committee chair, is she prioritising Government objectives over instructions from the House?

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think that’s a question you can ask. Under questions to members, that’s not a question you can ask.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Questions to members, quite rightly, is relevant only to the roles that they have relevant to parliamentary business, but they also relate to responses that were provided to other questions. Now, that question that was just asked by my colleague is in direct link to responses that that member provided to questions last week. The nub of the issue is that we are not disputing her ability to call for submissions, which is why we are asking why that extended to not only placing a deadline on the call but following the objectives of the Government, despite an instruction from the House to do so.

SPEAKER: The member will be—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Just a moment, I’m dealing with one. The member will be aware that the rules for members’ questions are the same as for questions that are asked in a supplementary sense, and that is that the member answering a question can choose to answer one of the legs of that question, which the chairperson of the select committee did.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 116/3: “It is common for the initial advertisement calling for submissions to be placed on the chairperson’s authority rather than waiting until the select committee has met and formally resolved to place an advertisement.”—game, set, match.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, the member is making an awfully strong bid to end up sitting where I am, but can I just say that that’s not in dispute.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, sir. That is indeed correct—Speaker’s ruling 116/3 is not in dispute. My previous point of order was in relation to your ruling that my colleague’s question was not in order. It was simply to point out that it did flow from the responses that the member had provided, which is consistent with the requirements for questions to members, which are actually identical to questions to Ministers, as long as the topic is about the behaviour or decisions made by that member in their capacity as chair, which, indeed, that question was.

SPEAKER: OK, I’ll allow one more supplementary question.

Hon Rachel Brooking: The same one?

SPEAKER: Try to put it differently.

Hon Rachel Brooking: I’ll do a different one. How can she defend a decision to indicate an early report-back date when Standing Order 198 does not give her that authority?

CATHERINE WEDD: I was advised by the clerk of the committee that this course of action was appropriate and in accordance with Standing Orders. I’m also advised that as the rules of this Parliament stand, there is no required minimum time frame for submissions.

SPEAKER: Thank you. That concludes oral questions. Those who need to leave for other businesses should do so quietly, and without that sort of discussion. It’s an opportunity for people who have other business to move to that business as quickly as they possibly can, Ms Brooking.