Oral Questions

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he told Mike Hosking, in July last year, that “food prices are falling really quickly”, which food prices was he referring to, given staples like milk, cheese, butter, and bread have all skyrocketed in price, under his leadership, some by as much as 50 percent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was referring to the 12.5 percent under his Government, when he was Prime Minister, versus the 4.7 percent under my Government, when I’m Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So does he regard a 4.7 percent increase in food prices as “food prices falling really quickly”, and does he think that most New Zealand families would feel that way?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: From 12.5 percent to 4.7 percent, that is a much better result.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think that the price of an average family’s grocery shop is cheaper or more expensive under his leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the member, hopefully, does understand inflation, which is a thing where prices keep going up. Food prices have gone up 4.7 percent. It’s because dairy and meat prices and global coffee prices, in particular, have been contributing to that result. But what I say is that when food prices go up 12.5 percent, each year, under his Government, versus 4.7 percent under our Government, and inflation is at 3 percent, that is a better result and a better outcome than what he achieved.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that between November 2020 and November 2023, food prices rose a total of 22 percent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can, and that was a function of a Government that increased wasteful spending, drove up inflation, and drove up interest rates. This is a Government that has taken inflation down, has had eight interest rate cuts, and food inflation at 4.7 percent—we’d love it to be lower, but it’s much better than 12.5 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his Government has fixed the cost of living crisis, as he’s claimed, why are there now 650,000 New Zealanders—one in seven—who cannot afford to go and see their doctor?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say, under this Government, we have made the biggest investment around primary GP care by capping it at 3 percent and putting $175 million in. Ninety percent of New Zealanders, if they don’t have a community services card, can access a GP for $70 or less. But, again, the member wants to gaslight his record, but under his Government, GP prices went up 30 percent. Again, the simplest thing that the member could do is come on board and support the extended prescriptions, because, of course, that would free up $105 and actually make sure that a 12-month period, rather than a three-month period, means more GP appointments are made available to everybody.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So will New Zealanders pay more for their prescriptions or less than they would have had the Government not scrapped free prescriptions, as they did when they first became the Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: New Zealanders who have long-term medical issues and who need regular medicines can now extend those medicines out to 12 months, meaning they don’t have to go back to the GP to get repeat prescriptions. That saves them $105. It’s a pretty simple issue. It’s not ideological. Just come on board and support it.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government has committed billions of dollars into filling fiscal holes and funding dozens of new medicines for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders through its careful economic management?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can confirm that the Pharmac management has got infinitely better. I want to thank the Minister for his contributions around that. We actually did plug a fiscal cliff that was left behind by the previous administration. We put forward $605 million into cancer drugs. We have made a big investment in GP visits. We’re very, very focused on all of our metrics in healthcare, unlike the last Government where it went backwards on everything.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how does increasing the price of going to your doctor and introducing fees for prescriptions help New Zealanders struggling with the cost of living?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it went up over 30 percent under Labour, under your Government. That’s how much the GP fees went up—over 30 percent. We have capped them at 3 percent. We have put $175 million in. We are simply saying to people who have long-term prescriptions: extend them out to 12 months and save GP visits, freeing up opportunities for other folk to be able to get into their GP much faster.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept responsibility for the fact that there are now 98,000 more New Zealanders smoking or vaping daily than when he became Prime Minister and that New Zealand has plummeted from second in the world to 53rd in the world, when it comes to the Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index, falling further and faster than any other country on Earth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, first and foremost, if I could deal with the last bit first, the Tobacco Industry Interference Index, which, actually, is not a credible report, because when Brunei is ranked number one in the world and they’re smoking rate is 17 percent, it’s not the best thing I’d be putting my store of knowledge into. But I’d also just say to the member that New Zealand has the third-lowest smoking rate in the OECD, and we are at 6.8 percent. That is very good progress when you consider the UK is at 11.9 percent, the US is at 11.6 percent. When you look at Australia, it’s at about 8.3 percent; Canada is at about 8.2 percent. We are making good progress, but we are now dealing with a small group of hard core smokers that we actually need to continue to work hard at, and, encouragingly, when you look at 15-to-24-year-old smoking rates, they are well below 5 percent—well below 4 percent—at 3.2 percent. That’s a good thing. That’s a generational shift.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Prime Minister is correct with respect to that false report that had, for example, Burkina Faso way ahead of us, when their smoking is far higher than ours—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It is an indictment on this Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —the question is: why did Morning Report run that rubbish, unchallenged, earlier this week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know, but it’s clearly not a credible report.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: Point of order. I’ll have to say that I’m tempted to actually ask for the question to be asked again because there was a comment made across the House during that question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yesterday, sir, you required a member to commence a question without statement and with a question word. That is consistent with Speakers’ ruling 187/7. We would ask that that direction be applied consistently across all members.

SPEAKER: Yes, most certainly. That last question started with the word “can”. Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve answered it.

SPEAKER: Oh, you’ve answered that one. I missed that part.

Question No. 4—Infrastructure

4. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s Infrastructure Pipeline?

This week, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission released its quarterly snapshot report on the infrastructure pipeline for the quarter ending 30 September. It shows the value of infrastructure initiatives in the pipeline has grown to $275 billion, an increase of $38 billion from the previous quarter. It’s great news for the construction sector and for economic growth. The value of initiatives with a confirmed funding source increased from the previous quarter, up by $56 billion to $181 billion. Overall, the pipeline now contains over 12,000 projects that are under way or being planned.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why is the national infrastructure pipeline important?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The pipeline signals upcoming activity to the market, helping people plan ahead for major projects so they can hire, train, and retain key staff. We are working hard with infrastructure providers to improve the quality of information into the pipeline and also to raise the visibility of the pipeline itself. It is quite common to hear some people, including commentators and MPs in this House, say, “What we need is an infrastructure pipeline.” I agree. The truth is we have one.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How many infrastructure projects are under construction?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are 2,500 infrastructure projects under construction across the country, with a further $10.5 billion of initiatives in procurement that will begin work shortly. In the September 2025 quarter, New Zealand was building over 680 water projects, 590 transport projects, 80 school projects, and 35 health and hospital projects. Around 320 initiatives under construction are valued at over $25 million each. We’re looking forward to seeing this grow over time.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How many infrastructure projects are under construction in Auckland?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I know that the member will be very interested in Auckland. The infrastructure pipeline shows there are around 800 projects being delivered in Auckland, with a further 100 projects in procurement that will begin work shortly, including a couple of major transport projects in South Auckland that I know the member will be interested in, alongside his colleagues.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Is the national infrastructure pipeline growing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed it is. We’re looking forward to seeing it grow further as we address our infrastructure deficit. We’re looking forward to the publication, in the new year, of the National Infrastructure Plan currently under way and under development by the Infrastructure Commission.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statement made by his Minister of Climate Change at COP-25 today that “We must keep 1.5 alive, Mr President, and New Zealand is committed.”, and, if so, is he aware that with every action his Government takes to increase our domestic emissions, we will be required to pay more to other countries to reduce their emissions?

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

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister requested, or been provided with, any estimate on the cost of offshore mitigation, which is becoming increasingly necessary to meet our nationally determined contributions (NDCs), as a result of Government decisions to enable more domestic emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said to the member yesterday, we know that NDC target is tough, but we are doing everything we can to meet that goal, and, importantly, we’re prioritising domestic action to do so. But, as I said, we’re not going to send billions of dollars overseas.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why has the Prime Minister not requested information on the potential multi-billion dollar cost of meeting our nationally determined contribution, which he has previously said he is committed to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re doing everything we can to meet that. We’ll continue to do so. That’s why we’re taking domestic action to do so, but, importantly we look at our emissions budgets—one and two—we look at our emissions reductions plan, we look at our track in progress towards net zero 2050, and we’re comfortable with the progress we’re making.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statement made by his Minister of Climate Change at COP today that “We are committed to transparency arrangements.”, and, if so, when will he be transparent with New Zealanders about our potential $24 billion offshore liability, by recording it in Crown accounts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I want to reassure the member and all New Zealanders that we will just simply not be spending billions of dollars and sending it offshore.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister then commit to transparency and accountability by ensuring that that constructive liability under the Paris Agreement nationally determined contributions is recorded on Crown accounts in May next year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we have a series of mechanisms in place to make sure that we’re delivering on our net zero 2050 goal. That’s what we’re very focused around. As I said yesterday—I keep saying to the member; I don’t know how many more ways there are to say it—we’re going to give it a good go. But I just want to reassure New Zealanders that we are not sending billions of dollars offshore, and we’re not sending jobs offshore, either.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the reference to a constructive liability is actually mythology and there is no legal, enforceable duty that can be imposed on New Zealand to send $24 billion to the Congo in some green, fanciful pursuit?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is correct, and I just want to say to the member: we are very focused on delivering net zero 2050. Our plan, which is our domestic plan—we’re doing everything we can to take domestic actions—is making sure that we can deliver that, maybe even a bit earlier. That’s a good thing.

Hon Shane Jones: Dreamers! Dreamers!

Hon Marama Davidson: Don’t say that about Treasury.

SPEAKER: Just wait, everyone. Those conversations across the House are not to occur.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with Nicola Willis in March 2023 that “National will take action to get food prices under control once more”; if so, are food prices now higher or lower than October 2024?

Well, in answer to the first part of the question: yes. In the year to March 2023, when I made that statement, food prices had risen a whopping 12.1 percent in one year. That, of course, was the highest annual food price increase since 1989. As the member knows, since then, food price inflation has come, in the year to October, down to 4.7 percent. While that is higher than anyone would like, I will take 4.7 percent over 12.1 percent any day of the week.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did the Prime Minister claim last year that food prices were “falling really quickly”, when the price of mince is up 18 percent, lamb 22.6 percent, and bread is up 52.5 percent in the last year alone?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As the Prime Minister already explained in answer to an earlier question, it is because one of the marked things that has occurred in the economy under this Government is that food price inflation has come down from its record highs. To put that into context for members: in the period from November 2020 to November 2023, just three years, food prices rose a total of 22 percent. Since November 2023, just shy of two years, they’ve risen a total of 6 percent. So it is an objective fact that food price inflation is under much better control under this Government than it was under the last.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, despite her announcement in March of the “next steps in the Government’s mission to deliver better grocery prices for Kiwis”, has the price of cheese increased by 30 percent, eggs by 18.5 percent, and butter by 27 percent, in the last year alone?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I do not wish to patronise the member, but, of course, she will be aware that tradable food items, including particularly dairy items, have been impacted by the strength of global commodity prices. I’ve been advised by Treasury that with export prices recently levelling off, food price inflation is expected to ease next quarter. It is a fact that a lot of food is imported and is also influenced by global markets. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, international dairy prices have recently been rising at more than 20 percent a year. The member may also wish to celebrate with me that veges fell by 10.7 percent in price this month. That is the largest monthly price decrease for veges since November 2021.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she claim in July 2024 that “cost of living relief is on the way”, when the cost of electricity is up for the 11th month in a row, 11.8 percent higher than the last year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because this is the Government that delivered cash to the wallets of every working New Zealander with tax relief, that would have been denied to them by a previous Government—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on, stop. There’s interjection and there’s barrage—that’s barrage. Just calm it down.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because we’ve delivered tax relief, we’ve ensured that families with children in early childhood education are able to get up to 40 percent of their fees rebated, because we’ve ensured that inflation has come back into target, that interest rate reductions have been so significant that it is worth hundreds of dollars a fortnight to many families—that is real cost of living relief.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Well, how many families have actually received the full $250 tax cut that was promised by her in 2023?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m pleased to advise the member that more than 11,000 New Zealand families in the last quarter got a $150 payment out of the FamilyBoost. Now, fortunately, many of those families will have also benefited from the full impact of our tax relief plan, which in some cases also gave them $50 a week. So you add the numbers up—a skill I know that is, you know, a little lacking over there—and you get to $250 a fortnight.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How would she rate her cost of living performance out of 10, and would that be higher or lower than the 3.9 the New Zealand public have given her Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would describe our work on the cost of living as work that must constantly be in progress. We are not there yet, and anyone who would sit back on their laurels and say they had got that job done would be the wrong person to be a Minister in this Government because we’re a Government that aspires to a lot more for New Zealanders: a faster growing economy, higher incomes, a lower cost of living, more opportunity.

Question No. 7—Tourism and Hospitality

7. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent reports has she seen on cycle trails in New Zealand?

The 2025 evaluation report for the great rides of New Zealand, released yesterday, shows New Zealand’s 23 great rides are pumping $1.28 billion a year into our local economies.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How much?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: $1.28 billion. The report also shows visitor spending attributed to the great rides jumped 35 percent for the year ending June 2025, compared to the same period in 2021. This is a significant boost for our local tourism market. Riders are spending more on accommodation, food, and hospitality, which is great news for local businesses, jobs, and our economy.

Miles Anderson: What other benefits does the report show?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The report shows that visitor nights in nearby accommodation tallied 4.9 million in the year ending June 2025, which is a 25 percent increase on the 2021 figures. Since being set up by Sir John Key’s National-led Government in 2009, these figures show the appeal of our cycle trails continuing to grow and the real economic benefits they bring to regional communities. Higher spending on accommodation and hospitality goes hand in hand with more people using the trails. We’ve seen over 2.5 million trips recorded for the year ending June 2025, up 18 percent on the 2021 figures. More visitors means more income for local businesses and more job opportunities for Kiwis, and a stronger economy for all of us.

Miles Anderson: Why are cycle trails important?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Together, the 23 great rides receive about a million visitors a year, of whom around 20 percent are international visitors. With these numbers expected to grow, maintaining and improving these trails is a must. That’s why we’ve made recent investments into cycle trail infrastructure, including funding two sections on the Mountains to Sea great ride in Ruapehu and extending the Dunedin Tunnels Trail. We are committed to ensuring that our great rides continue to attract visitors and deliver significant economic benefit so people can keep enjoying the unique experience and landscapes, pedalling throughout New Zealand.

Miles Anderson: How will more international visitors support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We know the benefits a thriving tourism and hospitality sector brings to our economy, as tourism directly supports nearly 200,000 jobs and contributes $44 billion to the economy. The data shows that our great rides are growing in popularity, both with international visitors and with Kiwis. We want to ensure that there is greater regional dispersal of visitors, and the great rides are proving very successful in doing this. Our Government is fully committed to supporting the regions to thrive, including by getting more visitors to New Zealand to experience all that we have on offer.

Question No. 8—Environment

8. to the Associate Minister for the Environment: How many jobs addressing wilding conifers did Jobs for Nature fund over the course of the programme, and how many roles will be lost when funding is discontinued?

I’m advised that 3,125 temporary positions were created as a result of Jobs for Nature funding for wilding pine control. The previous Government’s $1.2 billion make-work scheme was a time-limited, COVID-era measure, and cost taxpayers $77 per hour of work created. However, we are carrying on with the wilding conifer control programme and have actually maintained funding at a slightly higher rate than Labour’s 2023/24 Budget, but we’re also being careful with where we spend our hard-earned money, ensuring taxpayers get value for money. I’d also add that funding for wilding conifer control under the Jobs for Nature banner actually ended in Budget 2024.

Scott Willis: Does the Minister agree that Jobs for Nature funding for wilding pines and conifers has significant value by tackling a major ecological issue and providing meaningful employment for people?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, as I’ve said, we’ve carried on with that funding. We’ve managed to find additional funding in the last year for wilding conifer control, and so we obviously wouldn’t carry on funding if it wasn’t working well. That’s what we’re doing.

Scott Willis: Does the Minister accept that some of our regions and rural communities are dealing with significant environmental issues like wilding pines and conifers, and that addressing these problems with programmes like Jobs for Nature provides meaningful employment for people in rural communities?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: One thing we’re not interested in doing is make-work schemes. Where we’ve got a problem and an issue that needs addressing, we’ll address it. It doesn’t mean you have to spend lots of money to create a job to solve a problem. For example, for wilding conifers, one thing we could do is open up conservation land that was previously grazed to grazing again. That would actually generate revenue and actually control some of these wilding pines, at very little cost to the Government. We don’t have to employ sheep.

Scott Willis: What is his response to Federated Farmers of New Zealand spokesperson Richard Dawkins, who said that wilding pines posed an “ecological crisis”, such as through the increasing risk of wildfire, and that while the Government’s new funding was welcome, it “falls well short of what’s needed”?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I actually had a beer with Richard last night, so we discussed many things on this topic, but what I would say is that we have carried on with the funding. We are trying to ensure that we do it at a much smarter and a more efficient rate. As I said, grazing is a tool that needs to be utilised; using fire—again, a cheap way of getting on control. And, of course, where we’ve managed to find savings, we’ve invested them into this programme. [Interruption]

There’ll be no discussion or talk across the House while a question is being asked.

Scott Willis: Would he describe the 16,000 jobs and the billions in environmental and economic benefits from the Jobs for Nature programme a success; if so, why are there no plans to renew the programme to continue the success?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The Jobs for Nature programme was always a time-limited, COVID-era response. It was never intended to be permanent. That is how it was always set up, and it’s come to an end, as it was supposed to.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: What actions, if any, were taken to mitigate multiple clinical portals in Central and Te Manawa Taki regions described in Health New Zealand document HNZ00092045, and when were these actions taken?

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I’ve been informed that the answer to this question may be slightly longer due to the complexity of the question itself—although it’d be hard to be longer than some of the answers given today.

Our Government is focused on ensuring New Zealanders receive the care they need. That is why, as part of our record investment in health, Health New Zealand is developing a 10-year digital investment plan to deliver a modern, integrated digital health system that will put patients first. The action referenced by the member was to prioritise investment for consolidation of clinical portals. I’m advised by Health New Zealand that funding has been prioritised and that work has commenced this year. In the Midland region, a core clinicals road map has been developed that includes consolidation of clinical portals and access to diagnostic results. In the Central region, investment has been made in single clinical portal - improvements as well as improving access to diagnostic results and replacing paper-based hospital referrals. The current environment is a complex mix of multiple systems and processes. There are, in fact, over 6,000 data and digital systems at Health New Zealand—approximately one for every 15 staff members. That is the result of years of under-investment and complexity which will take time to fix, but we are absolutely committed to providing clinicians with the modern, effective digital tools that they require.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When he said in March that he had asked Health New Zealand to re-look at its proposal to cut data and digital staff and projects, how did he scrutinise the proposal to build a single clinical portal?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There was advice provided to me back in March. There is a digital investment plan under development by Health New Zealand. They continue to invest in our data and digital systems at Health New Zealand, knowing how important that is to clinicians and patients to ensure they get the timely access to healthcare that they need. But as I said in the primary answer, there are thousands of data and digital systems at Health New Zealand. That has not happened overnight and it is going to take time to fix it. The previous Government thought they could simply amalgamate 20 district health boards, put a nice new letterhead on top, and say the job was done. Actually, we’re doing the hard work of making sure we fix the systems that are required, getting the systems in place. That’s the hard job; that’s what we’re doing.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he take responsibility for failed software initiated under his tenure that crashes frequently, delays patient care, is unsafe, and will now take months to fix?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I imagine she’s referring to the issues at Wellington Hospital, and there is a significant amount of work under way to address that. Recent fixes have improved patient search times. There is a multidisciplinary team being established that is dedicated to identifying and resolving these issues. The vendor is involved in making sure they resolve their issues. Health New Zealand is investigating and resolving access performance bottlenecks in real time and has infrastructure investment under way; it’s looking to accelerate parts of this work to free capacity and improve performance. Health New Zealand is also replacing PCs and hardware where it is identified as a contributing factor. I can assure the House there’s a significant amount of work to address those challenges. As I would say, it’s very easy to amalgamate the DHBs and put a new letterhead on top. It’s much harder to actually do the hard work of bringing the system together. That’s the work we’re doing.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why won’t he take responsibility for a failure under his tenure that led to a software programme that means people cannot be looked after now?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are addressing the issues as they arise. If we’re going to talk about responsibility, maybe she would like to take responsibility for the $100 million—

SPEAKER: No. No, no, no, no—

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —that she cut from digital when she was Minister of Health.

SPEAKER: The Government is going to lose a question today if the attacks on the Opposition continue. Carry on.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When his Government cut $330 million in funding from Health New Zealand digital, along with 400 staff, and 132 IT projects, what did he think would happen?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’d ask the previous Minister what she thought would happen when she cut $56 million of operating costs and $50 million of capital—

SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry. Sit down.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —in the 2023 Budget.

SPEAKER: You can’t ask that. Try again.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Do I get a repeat of the question?

SPEAKER: Yeah—or a different one.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When his Government cut $330 million in funding from Health New Zealand digital, along with 400 staff, and over 132 IT projects, what did he think would happen?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government is investing a record $16.68 billion additional over three Budgets into Health New Zealand. We are focused on fixing the problems in front of us, but the reality is, when you’ve got a system where the last Government thought you could amalgamate 20 DHBs and put a new letterhead on top—what did they think would happen? We’re focused on fixing the problems in our health systems, reducing wait-lists, improving the system for patients and clinicians, while they let the system fall apart under their watch.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does the Minister understand that surgeons need quick access to patient results because, unlike National Ministers, they need to see what they’re cutting before they operate?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that might sound very funny and be a good social media clip, but the reality is that what we’re focused on is actually fixing the broken system that the last Government left behind—their botched merger, where they thought they could put 20 DHBs together and put a new letterhead on top and say, “Job done.” Actually, we’re doing the hard work—we’re doing the hard work required to reduce waiting times for patients and improve access for New Zealanders so that all New Zealanders can get the timely, quality access to healthcare that New Zealanders need and deserve—something they forgot when they focused on bureaucracy over patients.

Question No. 10—Housing

10. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcement has he made about Rotorua?

I am pleased to announce that contracted emergency housing in Rotorua has, effectively, ended with the placement of the last household from CEH—contracted emergency housing—into more permanent accommodation. The number of households in contracted emergency housing has fallen from its peak of over 240 households across 13 motels—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on—wait—

Hon Shane Jones: Out with the gangs—out with the gangs!

SPEAKER: Just wait. That’s utterly ridiculous. You may as well just sit down and not bother, because no one appears to want to hear what you’re saying—particularly from your own side. Carry on.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The number of households in contracted emergency housing in Rotorua has fallen from its peak of over 240 households across 13 motels, prior to 2023, down to zero today. With the last whānau rehoused, the remaining contracted emergency housing motels are now preparing to return to commercial use and supporting the tourism aspirations that the city, the Government, and particularly Minister Upston share.

Tom Rutherford: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. You just need to calm it down slightly. The constant, constant comment is not an interjection; it’s a barrage.

Tom Rutherford: How were the emergency housing contracts brought to an end earlier than their original December timeline?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In spring 2023, the Hon Todd McClay—hard-working Rotorua MP—and I committed to close the contracted emergency housing by December 2025. In December 2024, I advised that all contracted emergency housing in Rotorua would be set to close by December 2025. This exit has been achieved a month ahead of schedule. The Government delivers on its promises and, importantly, with and alongside council, iwi, agencies, and providers—mahi tahi.

Tom Rutherford: What other housing actions has the Government delivered for Rotorua, alongside ending emergency housing motels?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Government continues to invest in housing in Rotorua and has a strong pipeline of new housing places, including the 150 social housing places in Rotorua, announced as part of Budget 2024 by the Minister of Finance; 100 new Kāinga Ora homes that are proposed to be delivered over the next year; and 120 or so homes by iwi providers to be delivered. Of course, the Prime Minister, Minister McClay, and I attended Ngāti Whakauē this year up at Wharenui Road, ongoing work alongside Te Pokapū. We are delivering housing.

Tom Rutherford: How does this result fit into the wider work the Government is doing to fix emergency housing across New Zealand?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This is part of the Going for Housing Growth that Minister Bishop has been articulating so well over the last couple of years. The community housing provision of 1,500 homes announced in Budget 2024; hundreds of homes that have been procured and collaborated alongside iwi and Māori providers in places like Ohakune, Te Tairāwhiti, Hopuhopu, and Waikato, and indeed other far-flung places in New Zealand. Of course, there have been recent announcements about continuing to support Housing First and transitional housing. This Government is doing the business, and we will not be responsible for a motel and hotel generation.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by the Government’s proposed changes to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development?

Yes. Those proposed changes were published in July last year, and, clearly, they will undergo some changes as we sync them into the new planning system, which we will unveil shortly.

Oriini Kaipara: Does he agree that upholding Treaty settlements in Plan Change (PC) 120 also means upholding several co-governance arrangements across Tāmaki-makau-rau; and, if not, can he name the specific co-governance arrangements which do not apply?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, PC 120 is a wee way away from the original primary, but, generally, yes. I’m advised that the Plan Change 120 that the member is referring to has followed a robust statutory process so far, and if the member thinks that it hasn’t, I invite her to write to me and explain why.

Oriini Kaipara: Does he agree that “te tino rangatiratanga o ō rātou kāinga me o rātou taonga katoa” [“the sovereignty over their estates and all of their properties”], described in article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, also applies to urupā and wāhi tapu?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as the member knows, article 2 of the Treaty is not incorporated into New Zealand law, and so I’m not going to give a jurisprudential discussion around that. I’m obliged, as Minister, to follow the law and we seek to do that, and councils in relation to their discharge of obligations are obliged to follow the operative provision at the moment, which is the Resource Management Act and national direction underneath it. I’m satisfied that that is the case at the moment, but if the member has evidence to the contrary, I’m happy to hear it.

Oriini Kaipara: Can the Minister provide assurances to this House, to the public, and to ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau that urupā and wāhi tapu in areas targeted for upzoning and high-density housing will not be affected by proposed changes in PC 120?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m not trying avoid the question, but if the member wants specific questions about a specific matter like PC 120, I’d invite her to put that on primary notice so that I can come prepared to answer those questions. I don’t have enough information to answer that coherently, because I am not responsible for the detailed elements of that plan. If the member wants detailed answers to that, she should have put that on notice, and she didn’t. So the short answer is that I don’t know, but if the member doesn’t think that the operative provisions are working as intended, she should write to me and I will investigate.

Hon Tama Potaka: Does the Minister stand by the immense work—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—wait. No noise, thank you, from the front bench over there—and over there.

Hon Tama Potaka: Does the Minister stand by the immense work undertaken by the Government on the national papakāinga standard and also the granny flat standard that will support Māori housing aspirations, as well as the significant Māori housing development across Auckland, in places like Ōwairaka, Carrington, Panmure, and elsewhere for Māori and all New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed, I’m very proud in particular of the papakāinga work. Soon there will be a national environmental standard on papakāinga, which will slot into district plans around the country, making it far easier for iwi to use their whenua in the development of papakāinga. I’m also proud of the work that the Land for Housing programme has done, working with post-settlement iwi and other groups in Auckland, and I’m pleased to pick up on the work that the previous Government did in relation to the Carrington development, which the member mentioned, in particular.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. The Minister is responsible for the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, which is overseeing wāhi tapu changes. It is expected that the Minister arrives here with the details, given that there’s only been 11 days for that bill to receive submitters.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be the expectation that the member has, but it’s unreasonable, given the primary question that was set down on the sheet today.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ve just ruled on it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member’s primary—

SPEAKER: Hang on, I’ve just ruled on it, thank you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s nothing to do with fast track.

SPEAKER: Good. Question No. 12—

Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, we’re moving on to question No. 12.

Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: I know you want to ask a supplementary, but you’ve run out of them for today. Question No. 12, Tangi Utikere. [Interruption] When the House is ready—your own side—to give you a bit of respect, you may ask a question.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. to the Minister of Housing: On what date, if any, did he make a specific request to the Cabinet Office for conflict-of-interest advice relating to the city link bridge funding transfer, separate from his regular six-monthly conflict reviews, and what was that advice?

I did not make a specific request to the Cabinet Office for conflict-of-interest advice relating to the city link bridge decision. Shortly after my appointment as Minister of Transport, I received advice from the Cabinet Office that I could make decisions on the Melling interchange as Minister, putting aside my role as MP. I acted in accordance with that advice in making the city link bridge decision and didn’t consider I needed further advice from the Cabinet Office. I am confident that I acted in accordance with Cabinet Manual guidance. For example, there is precedent for Infrastructure Acceleration Fund funding variations. As I said to the House yesterday, the Minister of Finance and I agreed to vary a funding agreement for Hamilton City Council, swapping $31.5 million of funding from a bridge to a water project. In this instance, Hutt City Council asked to vary their agreement because they identified a better value for money solution for their stormwater project—wanted to use the savings to fund a walking/cycling bridge, as the member knows.

Tangi Utikere: Did he disclose to officials that the city link bridge was a project he campaigned on, and, if so, how was that information recorded and assessed in the subsequent decision-making process?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as I’ve just said to the member, shortly after my appointment as Minister of Transport I received advice from the Cabinet Office that I could make decisions on the Melling interchange as Minister, leaving aside my role as the MP for Hutt South.

Tangi Utikere: Were any concerns raised about his potential conflict of interest in the reallocation of Kāinga Ora funding, and, if so, by whom?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.

Tangi Utikere: Did he notify either the Cabinet Office, the Cabinet secretary, or the Prime Minister of any perceived or real conflict prior to signing off on the reallocation; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, all I can do is repeat the answer I gave in relation to the primary, which is: I became Minister of Transport early in 2025 and there was a meeting—as there always is when there’s a reshuffle and Ministers take their portfolios—and I received advice from the Cabinet Office that I could make decisions in relation to the Melling interchange as Minister. I’ve acted in accordance with that advice and I’m confident I’ve acted in accordance with the Cabinet Manual.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Sir, we have a situation here that this is the second day where questions of this nature have been asked. Yesterday we covered where, as asked as Minister of Transport, those questions should go to him as Minister of Housing. We put this question in to the Minister of Transport and the Government transferred it to Minister of Housing. That’s all good. But now we have a situation where the Minister is answering questions as Minister of Housing saying that when he became Minister of Transport, he declared things. Given the nature of this question, I think it’s really important that the Minister is very clear in addressing this question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, speaking to the point of order. We transferred the question to housing essentially for completeness, because that is under the portfolio where that decision was made. But ministerial portfolios in relation to these—the portfolio in relation to the Cabinet Manual is essentially agnostic as to the portfolio; it’s about being a Minister.

Tangi Utikere: Did he comply fully with Cabinet Manual rule 2.76, including the requirement to declare any conflict of interest, have that declaration recorded, and transfer responsibility for the matter to another Minister; if so, what evidence exists to show that that was recorded to follow those courses of action?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, as I’ve said to the member a couple of times now, I’m confident I acted in accordance with the Cabinet Manual, and I’ve met with the Cabinet Office to discuss it.

Tangi Utikere: How can he maintain that his handling of the funding transfer met the required ministerial standards when he disclosed nothing, sought no independent advice as to conflict, and declined to delegate this decision?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ministers don’t seek independent legal advice in relation to these matters. They seek advice from the Cabinet Office, which is what happened.

That concludes oral questions. Members leaving the House are to do so very quietly. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill.