Oral Questions

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

Morningstar DBRS, the fourth-largest credit rating agency, recently released for the first time a sovereign credit rating for New Zealand. Morningstar has rated New Zealand with a triple A rating, the highest possible rating. Its view is that the Kiwi economy is rebalancing, economic growth is set to accelerate, and the Government is pursuing a gradual fiscal consolidation, designed in a way that doesn’t cut across this economic recovery. Morningstar’s triple A rating is in line with others. New Zealand also has a triple A rating from Moody’s and has an AA+ rating from both S&P Global and Fitch Ratings.

Suze Redmayne: Why does having a strong sovereign credit rating matter?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It simply means that the Government can borrow on international markets at reasonable rates. The Government borrows regularly for new purposes and to roll over existing debt. The regular weekly bond tender is for $450 million, with additional tenders, typically in the billions of dollars, occurring periodically. That debt has a cost. At present, it’s around $9 billion a year in interest. If our credit rating was downgraded, that interest bill would go up, as lenders would demand compensation for higher risk. That would of course flow through to retail interest rates, as New Zealand would be seen overall as a riskier country. Recently, S&P downgraded France’s credit rating, and French bond yields—that is, the interest rates on French Government debt—rose immediately.

Suze Redmayne: What impact would a ratings downgrade have on the cost of New Zealand’s debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it’s hard to isolate the direct impact of a ratings downgrade, because it’s likely that a deteriorating fiscal outlook—which is typically the driver of a downgrade—would already have been largely priced in by financial markets. In other words, interest rates on Government bonds would already have risen, at least in part. As I’ve said, however, French bond yields rose immediately on S&P’s downgrade, and I am advised that a one-notch downgrade to New Zealand’s credit rating could lead to an increase in bond yields of up to around 15 basis points on the day of the downgrade.

Suze Redmayne: What did Morningstar have to say about New Zealand’s ability to maintain its credit rating?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Morningstar said that New Zealand’s credit rating could be downgraded if there was an absence of fiscal consolidation over the medium term, or a severe financial or external shock. Another credit rating agency, Moody’s, has also said recently that downward pressure on New Zealand’s rating would develop if fiscal consolidation was not effective and there was a persistently higher debt burden. It is clear that we cannot take New Zealand’s strong credit rating for granted. Those who seek to ramp up Government spending and debt should think very carefully about what that would do to New Zealand’s hard-won international reputation and to interest costs, which ultimately fall on New Zealand households, businesses, and taxpayers.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he said that New Zealand needed to have an honest rather than emotional conversation about asset sales, was he referring to Winston Peters, who said that his proposed asset sales are wanton neoliberalism, failed economics, an admission of failure, and a disaster?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m just excited that the member’s come back overnight. He’s learnt a little bit about what a capital raise is versus an asset sale, he’s learnt the difference between equity and debt, and he wants to have another economic conversation—from the man that spent $66 billion and failed to take account for it and didn’t show up to a COVID inquiry. I’d just say to the member: I answered this question yesterday. It’s entirely appropriate that we actually have a more sensible, less political conversation to say, “Are our assets deployed in the optimal way to get the best return to New Zealand taxpayers and citizens and to deliver them benefits?”

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Winston Peters wrong when he said the Government’s proposal to sell down its remaining interest in Chorus was “creative accounting of the worst sort”, and, if not, in what ways was he wrong?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: On Chorus, again, I noticed the member was very confused about equity and debt. They’re two pretty basic concepts in economics, but having watched his public comments in recent weeks—but, again, what we have going on here is a legitimately good inquiry to ask for some advice to say, “Is there a different way to actually offload that debt now rather than later so that we can deploy that money into something—an asset—that would have more benefit to New Zealanders than being tied up in Chorus debt?” We’ll get that advice, take it to Cabinet, have a good chat, and we’ll see where we get to.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If Winston Peters calls the Prime Minister’s explanations “creative accounting of the worst sort” and doesn’t believe what he says on asset sales, why should New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think it’s a pretty petty line from this member on economics, right? He’s the guy that actually lit the fire. He’s the arsonist that put the economy on fire. Now, he’s complaining about the fire brigade putting it out again. His literacy on anything economics is abysmal. But I just say again: we are looking at things so that we can make sure that our balance sheet, as a Government, is used optimally for the benefit of New Zealanders. The member himself came up with a policy a couple of weeks ago called the Labour future fund. He said he’d based it off Temasek in Singapore. Temasek in Singapore—one of the key hallmarks of that economy is they are able to recycle assets. That’s all that we’re asking for a conversation to take place around.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister agree with Labour Party policy council member Craig Rennie that—

SPEAKER: No, no, sorry. Hang on. Stop right there. He’s got no responsibility at all for any view, and he can’t express it today. Is there another supplementary?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement “If you want a job, you go where the jobs are.”; if so, does he believe the thousands of people in regions like Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne—where there are 78 percent more unemployed people under his leadership than before it—should simply pack up and leave their communities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the member has a real problem, on any topic, asking questions of this Government, because he abysmally failed. At a time of 3.2 percent unemployment, he created a 60 percent increase in people on jobseeker support. That is unacceptable. We have ambition for young people in New Zealand. We’re not just going to consign them for the welfare list where they can sit there for 18 years. We want them connected to employment, training, and work, and if they have to move to do that, so be it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he saying to the 78 percent increase in unemployment in Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay that they should just pack up and leave the regions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m saying is that this is a Government that cares about young people on a jobseeker benefit, rather than the last Labour Government that just chucked them out there and didn’t give a toss. We care about them, we think they’ve got potential, we think they’ve got a future; we want them connected to work, employment, and education; and we’re going to do something about it, not just talk about it and watch the unemployment rates go up while unemployment was at the lowest it’s ever been.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he stand by—

SPEAKER: Just hang on. Don’t start until your own team calms down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement “If you can work, you should.”, given the number of unemployed 40- to 44-year-olds has doubled under his watch as Prime Minister, or does he think that people in their 40s are sitting at home playing PlayStation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m just not taking lectures from that member on anything to do with employment policy, given how badly he wrecked the economy. He may wish to be the great gaslighter, forgetting the record, but I’m going to prosecute you on your record, because you deserve to be attached to it. But the bottom line is that we care about getting people into work because we actually think that’s good for people, they have potential, and we are doing everything. We’ve got a great Minister making sure people are prepared and ready to work, and that’s great. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s clearly an important exchange that goes on, and there will be an animated position taken from both sides of the House, but it’s going to stop for the rest of the day.

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: Will he commit to implementing all Government-centred recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care, as called for by survivors?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, this is a Government that’s working its way through the 207 recommendations. We’ve already accepted or partially accepted 85 of those.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that not implementing recommendations in the way that the abuse in care report sets out undermines the dignity of survivors of abuse and the point of the sixyear-long royal commission of inquiry, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s important this is a Government that actually takes those recommendations very seriously. They need to be weighted and considered. There’s 99 more of them to be considered and actioned. But at this point, we have partially accepted or fully accepted 85 of the 207.

Hon Marama Davidson: Did he scrap the design group’s proposal, which would have been a pathway for meaningful redress for survivors, instead funding the broken and retraumatising existing system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We considered lots of different approaches to a redress system, but at the end of the day, we decided it would be time-consuming, expensive, and disruptive, and, frankly, these survivors have waited too long. I’m proud of the fact that we’ve put $770 million into Budget 2025 to move this forward.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that barring survivors of abuse who later committed crimes from receiving full redress minimises the violence they experienced and lets the Crown off the hook from taking proper responsibility for State harm?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’ve taken a similar approach to Australia and Scotland, with respect to serious offenders, and we also have an independent decision maker and a robust process for those cases to be considered.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can adults and children being abused in care today trust that they will be listened to and that things will get better under his Government if even a royal commission of inquiry into 50 years of historic abuse is undermined?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because they can see the Government apologised on behalf of previous and current Governments a year ago—genuinely, authentically, seriously; has put $775 million immediately into a budget to deal with the redress system; and has actually put a redress system that will ensure that survivors don’t have to wait longer than they have been in order to get action and be able to move forward.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister suspect that written supplementary questions means that no matter what his primary answer may have been, he is going to still get asked the same supplementary question?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I would just say I’m answering this question as it’s been asked. I think it’s a serious issue. I think it deserves serious and straight answers.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: What steps has the Government taken to improve productivity in our cities?

Yesterday, the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill passed its third reading in Parliament, marking a major step forward in tackling congestion and improving productivity on our busiest roads. This is an initiative that’s been talked about in New Zealand for years. I think the first report was back in 1994—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Unblocks congestion, guys.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I was just about to say something nice about you, but maybe I’ll—[Interruption].

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Just—don’t hold back, Mr Bishop. Carry on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In the spirit of generosity and bonhomie, I will say it is great to see that the legislation passed Parliament unanimously.

Joseph Mooney: What is the impact of congestion on our cities?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Travel times in our major cities are up to 30 percent longer than in comparable Australian cities. It’s estimated that congestion in Auckland alone costs up to $2.6 billion by 2026. Sitting in traffic wastes time, it costs money, drags down productivity. Time of use charging is a common-sense tool that encourages people to travel at off-peak times or by other modes. It is fundamentally about keeping our cities moving and improving growth and productivity.

Joseph Mooney: How do we know that time of use charging works?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There’s now a raft of international evidence that time of use charging reduces travel times and improves productivity. For example, the Manhattan congestion pricing scheme in New York has delivered measurable results—only started in January earlier this year. Traffic delays within the zone are down by around 25 percent, average speeds have improved, travel times have improved by about 20 to 30 percent on key corridors, and the net revenue for the programme is supporting major investment in New York public transport infrastructure. The real lesson is that we can do the same here in New Zealand. With the passage of this legislation, now we can.

Joseph Mooney: What are the next steps for time of use charging in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The legislation passed yesterday allows local authorities to partner with New Zealand Transport Agency on targeted time of use schemes. The Government has signalled that Auckland Council will be the first local authority the Government will be looking to partner with, given the importance of Auckland to the national economy. Work by council and Government officials has been under way for some months now. Finally, I do want to thank everyone who helped shape the bill during the select committee process. I think it’s a good scheme, and now we need to get on with it.

Simon Court: How did including the congestion charging proposal in the ACT-National coalition agreement contribute to policy development around the bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, including it in the coalition agreement certainly helped make it more likely it would happen.

Question No. 5—Finance

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

Well, yes, and in particular I stand by my statement this morning that after yesterday’s failed audition, I am glad to see Barbara Edmonds back.

Hon Members: Nasty!

SPEAKER: If it weren’t an Opposition question, and the Opposition’s right to question the Government, that might curtail the question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How will the Government’s decision to cancel 33 in-progress pay equity claims help women, given that—in comparison to men—Pasifika women have, effectively, been working for free since 9 October, Māori women since 18 October, Asian women since 25 October, and Pākehā women from 25 November?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has ensured that there is a fair pay equity regime in law that allows women to raise claims of under-pay on the basis of gender discrimination, and I note that there doesn’t appear to be a position from the member asking the question about whether she would, in fact, restore the old pay equity regime—so, brave question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are the 18,000 women now out of work since she became the Minister of Finance seeing “the green shoots of recovery”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Treasury analysis makes clear that there are fewer people unemployed now than was being forecast when Labour was in power.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What programmes has the Government delivered to help the 21.3 percent of women who work part-time and want more work since she became the Minister of Finance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Our Government is committed to fixing the fundamentals of the economy so that more jobs can be created. Most recently, we have put in place a fast-track regime that would allow major private projects to progress at pace. For example, there is now a port development occurring at Auckland port that could’ve been tied up for years, housing developments able to occur across the country—all of which create thousands of jobs. That member opposed that legislation and the jobs it supports.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who should Kiwi women believe: the Minister of Finance last week, that “a hard-won economic recovery now under way”, or Winston Peters yesterday, that her Government has “failed to run the economy properly”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, they should obviously believe both of us, because we agree that more work needs to be done to clean up the extraordinary mess our three-party coalition inherited from the Labour-led Government. We have to work hard every day to clean it up, and I know New Zealand women are too smart to let Labour trash this economy again.

Question No. 6—Tourism and Hospitality

6. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcement has she made on hospitality in New Zealand?

Last week, we announced that Michelin will be adding New Zealand to the menu for the very first time, showcasing our country’s incredible culinary scene to an international audience. This marks Michelin’s first ever expansion into Oceania after 125 years and is a vote of confidence in our hospitality sector. This announcement not only celebrates our talented people but it marks New Zealand as a go-to destination for international visitors. It means more visitors dining in our restaurants and enjoying all that New Zealand’s hospitality has to offer, supporting small businesses, jobs, and the local economy.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What impact will this announcement have on the tourism and hospitality industry?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This is an incredible opportunity for our hospitality and tourism industry. It will serve up some of our finest chefs and restaurateurs on the world stage. A Michelin selection will also fuel more than appetites; it will encourage more international visitors—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Come talk to my businesses.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —to come and experience New Zealand’s unique—

Chlöe Swarbrick: They do not think this is a good idea.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —food and hospitality offerings. I’m really sad that members opposite, particularly from the Greens, are disparaging our fantastic hospitality sector.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Far from it. We’re standing for them.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Don’t they realise how many people are employed in it, and the fact that it’s growing?

Chlöe Swarbrick: They think this is a waste of money.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Tourism New Zealand cites—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Come at me, Louise.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —87 percent of prospective visitors to New Zealand cite—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Come visit my businesses.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —trying local cuisine as their number one interest in visiting. This means more visitors frequenting our local food and hospitality businesses, which is a real boost for local businesses.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just a moment. That exchange across the House is not acceptable, and if it continues through the afternoon, then—on both sides of the House—those participating will be leaving.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has she seen on this announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The feedback from the industry has been fantastic. To quote a few: Steve Logan, from Logan Brown, has said, “Hats off to the Government for recognising how important food is to our country.”; Lisa and Simon Levy said, “The Michelin guide would put New Zealand on the world stage for culinary tourism.”; and Auckland chef Josh Emett said, “There was incredible value in bringing the guide to New Zealand, and kudos for actually getting it over the line and committing to it and seeing the value in it.”—yes, including Auckland Central.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will more international visitors support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We know that the hospitality sector is a significant part of New Zealand’s economy, with revenue reaching $21.4 billion for the year ended March 2025. Investing in tourism and hospitality is a recipe for growth, and with this announcement, we expect to bring in up to an additional 36,000 international visitors. Michelin’s presence in New Zealand will mean more visitors dining in our restaurants and experiencing what our fantastic food producers and growers have on offer. This is good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealanders.

Question No. 7—Children

7. to the Minister for Children: Is she reconsidering the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill in light of the final evaluation report on the military-style academy pilot; if not, why not?

In answer to the first part of the question: no. In answer to the second part of the question: because the recent independent evaluation report on the military-style academy (MSA) pilot showed that two-thirds of the participants reduced the frequency or seriousness of their offending in the six months after the residential phase of the pilot. Comparing the six months before the residential phase to the six months after, the pilot participants reduced their violent offending by 67 percent and had longer periods of non-offending compared to a matched cohort. I want to acknowledge these young people who have taken this opportunity to make better choices. The military-style academy pilot had a real focus on the transition back into the community, and we’ve seen some good results.

Tamatha Paul: Does she agree with the final evaluation report, which highlights that therapeutic interventions worked the best, and, if so, will she accept that the military element of the pilot was not even needed?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What I would say is that there is an approach to this that comes from multiple angles. The military part of the programme had a focus on health and physical activities, including drills, which young people responded to well, and they actually asked for more of those physical activities. The independent evaluation itself noted that the young people “Expressed pride and self-respect in cleanliness, tidiness, uniforms, and well-ordered living spaces.” The MSA stakeholders told the evaluation that the structure and routine was a “good fit for rangatahi because it was absent from the lives they were living in the community when they offended.”

Tamatha Paul: Why does the evaluation compare the boot camps with youth justice residences, when youth justice residences are underfunded and, in some cases, unsafe, instead of comparing it with community-based and evidence-based initiatives, which are proven to be more effective in reducing reoffending than the military approaches?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would just like to say that this Government is not running boot camps. We have piloted a military-style academy programme that had a focus on therapeutic support, mental health and wellbeing, education, whānau contact, and a real focus on transition back into the community. There are prevention programmes such as Fast Track that have a good rate of reduction in offending, but there are still members of young people that will reoffend. We can’t just stick them in the too-hard basket and allow them on the pathway to Corrections. We must intervene, and we must do something about this.

Tamatha Paul: Does she accept Mana Mokopuna, the independent children’s monitor’s findings in their monitoring report of Korowai Manaaki, a youth justice facility, that “Funding restrictions and reprioritisations have impacted on the availability and quality of programming, access to resources, and specialist supports for mokopuna to rehabilitate and have their needs met”, and will youth justice residences continue to be starved of resources so that she can focus on her own political experiment of boot camps?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What I would agree to is that what this Government inherited with the youth justice residences was absolutely disappointing. They had been ignored for far too long. These young people were stuck in the too-hard basket and ignored and allowed to go on to the pathway to Corrections with no intervention. We have put a lot of resources and support into youth justice residences, which means that these young people have a better hope now than they did in the past.

Tamatha Paul: What will she say in the decades to come when this national apology anniversary arrives and she has to explain to future generations why she chose to continue with military-style academies and the young serious offender label despite warnings from everybody: the Children’s Commissioner, the Youth Court, youth workers, social workers, forensic psychiatrists, rangatahi, and, of course, survivors themselves?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Well, that question alone just proves that member didn’t read the whole evaluation, because there were many members of those cohorts that she just spoke to who said that this programme was good for these young people and did give them hope for the future. I am proud that we have given these young people a better chance in life and an opportunity to turn their lives around. That’s what I will say in 20 years’ time—at least I gave a damn and tried to make a difference in their lives.

Question No. 8—Infrastructure

8. to the Minister for Infrastructure: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 8 on 6 November 2025, “there’s billions of dollars of construction jobs coming into the market over the next few years”?

Yes. Between July and Christmas this year, $7 billion of central government - funded infrastructure projects have started or will soon start. Construction, for example, of the Rolleston access improvements package started in October; Ōtaki to north of Levin started in September; the Melling Interchange project started in September; the Brougham Street package started in August; the Ministry of Primary Industries’ Plant Health and Environment Capability started in September; Defence’s Burnham regional supply facility started in August; and tomorrow I turn the sod on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. Overall, the Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Pipeline shows we have over 9,200 initiatives, worth $237 billion, under way or in planning across central government, local government, and the private sector.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many jobs have been created to date?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I don’t have that figure to hand, and it would be difficult to work out because it will depend on each specific project. As I think I’ve said to the member a couple of times now, projects take time to ramp up, so when you first start a project, you literally get on with the initial work and then over time you start building, and that’s why these things take a while. At the peak of a project, there’ll be thousands of people working on a job, depending on the size of the project, and then as the project finishes, things ramp down again. But the key is to get a consistent pipeline to address our infrastructure deficit, and that’s what the Government’s working so hard on.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If the Infrastructure Commission can ascertain how many jobs are created from infrastructure investment, why can’t he, as the Minister responsible, specify how many of those jobs have been delivered?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Infrastructure Commission’s numbers that the member references are an estimate, but it’s around 4,500 jobs per billion dollars of infrastructure investment. But at any given moment in any given project, there’ll be a range of people working on jobs. Halfway through an infrastructure project tends to be when the majority of the jobs are created; at the start they’re not there, but they ramp up. I think the member knows that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he promise New Zealanders thousands of jobs when he has no ability or inclination to monitor how many have actually been delivered?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, if the member thinks that $7 billion of infrastructure projects that start—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You asked us the same questions.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Unlike you guys, we’re actually building stuff. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Any further supplementaries?

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can he seriously promise thousands of jobs from projects that were already funded when unemployment is rising and the construction sector has lost over 20,000 jobs across New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, they might have been funded, but that’s different to actually starting. For example, the recladding of Middlemore Hospital was funded in 2018 but has only started in the last couple of months. Funding something seven years ago creates no jobs other than for the Treasury bureaucrats who have to administer the funding that sits there on the Crown balance sheet while no one is actually employed. To create jobs, you have to fund it, plan it, and actually deliver it, and that’s what we’re doing.

Question No. 9—Agriculture

9. to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has she seen on the horticulture sector?

I’ve seen multiple reports, from the likes of United Fresh, Zespri, and the Ministry for Primary Industries, confirming New Zealand’s horticulture sector is in outstanding shape, with export revenue reaching $8.8 billion in the last financial year, which is leading the primary industry’s growth at 24 percent. The kiwifruit industry is, obviously, a flagship success story, with exports reaching $4 billion for the first time, and New Zealand Apples and Pears have surpassed a billion dollars, at $1.2 billion, for the first time.

Sam Uffindell: What has the Government done to support the horticulture industry?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The Government is supporting this success by cutting unnecessary red tape, by streamlining resource management processes, and by ensuring environmental rules are workable. The industry has benefitted also from tariff removals achieved through our free-trade deals, strong global demand, and strategic partnerships.

Sam Uffindell: How is the Government supporting the sector to access new markets?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Trade is, obviously, critical to horticulture, and we have delivered on some significant wins. The New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement was brought into effect months earlier than expected, removing tariffs on the likes of kiwifruit. We saw a boost in those exports by 69 percent. We’ve also expanded opportunities through agreements with the UK, the United Arab Emirates, and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Labour!

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: These agreements, obviously, open doors to higher value markets. I would note that there is quite a difference between negotiating a deal and actually signing it and ratifying it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yeah, we signed it. Jesus Christ.

Sam Uffindell: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: Just wait a minute. I presume you weren’t referring to me with that last comment. I can understand it if you were, but try not to.

Sam Uffindell: What does this growth mean for regional economies and jobs?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: A strong horticulture sector delivers enormous benefits to regional New Zealand. It provides thousands of jobs, from orchard workers and packhouse staff to transport, logistics, and processing roles. Those follow-on effects are significant. Local businesses such as contractors, equipment suppliers, and service providers all benefit from the sector’s growth. With revenue forecast to climb to $9.8 billion by 2029, regions like Tauranga, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, and Northland are seeing increased investment in infrastructure, skills and development, and jobs.

Question No. 10—Public Service

10. to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the industrial action undertaken by public sector workers on 23 October 2025?

Yes, my statements and actions were reasonable, practical, and, more importantly, accurate.

Camilla Belich: Was her response to written parliamentary question No. 50726 (2025) accurate when she stated that the Prime Minister was informed in advance of the Public Service Commission’s advertising campaign?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Let me just find that one—what was the number again?

Camilla Belich: 50726.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Right, just a moment. It’s a communications strategy regarding the industrial action. Was that 50726? My answer was: “The Public Service Commission’s communications strategy regarding the industrial action held on 23 October 2025 was discussed with the Prime Minister and myself and our offices prior to the Commission’s advertisements”. It doesn’t say that the Prime Minister was advised of any paid advertising. I suggest the member go back to the answer before she asks a question like she just did.

Camilla Belich: Was the Prime Minister incorrect when, on 3 November 2025, he denied that he had been informed in advance of that campaign?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I don’t have the Prime Minister’s statement in front of me, and having just had to correct the member herself on the question that she just gave me, I’d have to absolutely ask to see the evidence—

Camilla Belich: Point of order. My question was very simple. It was asking whether the Prime Minister’s answer—and I provided the exact reference—was correct, and I believe that there is nothing incorrect about the way that was presented.

SPEAKER: I think you’re quite right. The answer to the written question was read into the answer to the question. That certainly brings that question into scope. If you want to ask that question again, so we all know what it is.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, it would be good, and if she could give me the exact—

SPEAKER: No, you don’t need to comment.

Camilla Belich: My first supplementary was: was her response to written parliamentary question No. 50726—

SPEAKER: No, no, we’re not doing that again—just your second supplementary.

Camilla Belich: Was the Prime Minister incorrect when, on 3 November 2025, he denied that he had been informed in advance of the campaign?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, the Prime Minister is never incorrect as far as I can see.

Camilla Belich: How can it be correct that in her written question, she said the Prime Minister was informed, when the Prime Minister himself says he wasn’t informed?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Right, a communications strategy is not the same as a paid advertising campaign, which I was not aware of—a paid advertising campaign—because, unlike many other people, I don’t need to pay for advertising on Facebook, because I’ve got so many followers! The other thing is that a campaign in terms of a communications strategy to get the truth out when there is misinformation out there in the public is not the same as a paid advertising campaign.

Camilla Belich: Which Government department raised a concern as to whether the advertising contravened social media guidance, and what reasons did they provide?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I’m not in charge of all the many Government departments there are, but I would suggest that the member, since she has now written to the Office of the AuditorGeneral asking the Office of the Auditor-General to investigate the Public Service Commission, should maybe wait until that investigation, if there is one, is undertaken, because I don’t know how many others.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: We’re not going to have a point of order. We’re going to have the question again, and we’ll see if we can get an answer.

Camilla Belich: Which Government department raised a concern as to whether the advertising contravened social media guidance, and what reasons did they provide? The Minister might like to know that is in reference to her written answer No. 51004 (2025).

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: For goodness’ sake. Honestly, Mr Speaker, I’m coming down to the House here trying to think of all the possible questions, and I don’t expect to have to then try and look for that member’s—so which number is it now?

Camilla Belich: 51004.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: 004?

Hon Member: This is shocking.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. The Public Service Commission, here, “advised that one government department raised a concern as to whether the advertising contravenes social media guidance.” I don’t know—I don’t know which one it was. I’ve answered the question honestly. I suggest that that member might want to do a written question or even Official Information Act request the Public Service Commission. That’s the normal way of doing it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could perhaps go and watch that question exchange again and consider the adequacy of those answers. This is a serious matter, where a member has actually prepared and asked written questions of a Minister and is seeking to get verification or elucidate those answers in the House. That is a very legitimate thing for a member to do, without the sort of abuse from the Minister, or the obfuscation from the Minister, that we’ve just seen. I think that was a very good example of a member being well prepared for question time and a Minister not being.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, you’re not. Are you speaking to the point of order?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, do you want me to? I’m happy to.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t want you to. The member will know that it’s not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answers or, for that matter, the content of the answers. We’re restricted to: has the question been addressed? It was. The adequacy of the address of the question will, of course, be a matter of judgment for the public.

Question No. 11—Resources

11. to the Minister for Resources: What reports, if any, has he seen regarding the resources sector?

A host of reports affirming that I have won the debate in the minds of New Zealanders about the importance of mining. Common sense has prevailed in the Otago Regional Council, for as long as they remain in place, with the approval of the OceanaGold five-year extension on their mining permit. No critters will snuff out economic development there. I welcome the OceanaGold fast-track application next year for further expansion of the Macraes Mine.

Jenny Marcroft: What does this mean for the region?

Hon SHANE JONES: J-O-B-S—jobs for Jones. At a time when unemployment is at a nine-year high, mining is an opportunity to ensure that employees in this area—nigh on 700; an additional 200 contractors—will be kept in employment. This extension is overdue. This entity is a leading contributor to the regional economy—something sadly forgotten and deprecated by too many loud, shrill voices on the other side of the House.

Jenny Marcroft: What other reports has he seen in the resource sector?

Hon SHANE JONES: The golden age, as I’ve been heard to remark, is well and truly upon us. Siren Gold has begun its fieldwork in Marlborough. Drilling is taking place in Waitekauri, in the Hauraki area. A Westport company wants to prospect gold offshore from the West Coast; they can learn from the errors of the protesters in Taranaki in that regard. KO Gold is continuing to undertake exploration in Otago, with plans to drill in the near future. The South Island and parts of the North Island are overwhelmed with interest in mining, and with the fast track, those permits should be delivered in short order.

Jenny Marcroft: What does this mean for the economy?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Burn and bust, baby!

Hon Member: Lots of money for the Australians.

Hon SHANE JONES: No, calm down. There is a mineral called arsenopyrite which has been found, which might be of relevance to you.

SPEAKER: No, no, don’t make those comments—particularly don’t direct them at me.

Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, it is an actual mineral.

SPEAKER: No, no. Think about what you just said.

Hon SHANE JONES: We are redeeming the prospects of regional New Zealand through mining. The approaches that have marginalised and undermined mining projects are well and truly over. Whether it’s critical minerals, whether it’s rare earth minerals, there is inordinate interest. The law has been changed to accelerate the allocation of permits. Men and women are being trained, and nowhere are they more sorely needed than in Taranaki. Shortly, we will be “drill, baby, drill” on the base of the Taranaki moana.

Question No. 12—Vocational Education

12. to the Minister for Vocational Education: How many more people aged 15 to 24, if any, are not engaged in education, employment, or training compared to September 2024?

I’ve been advised by Stats NZ that in quarter 3, 2024 there were 76,400 15- to 24-year-olds not engaged in education, employment, or training. In quarter 3, 2025 there were 86,900 15- to 24-year-olds not engaged in education, employment, or training. That is an increase of 10,500 15- to 24-year-olds not engaged in education, employment, or training in quarter 3, 2025, compared to quarter 3, 2024.

Shanan Halbert: Are there now more or fewer courses available for enrolment at New Zealand polytechnics, compared to when she took office?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, that’s a decision for the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology or individual business units of that, as they ensure that they meet the needs of their community.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The Minister is accountable to the House for these sorts of decisions. We’ve been down this road around operational responsibility, and you’ve ruled in the past that Ministers should address the questions on matters such as this.

“Matters such as this” is a subjective statement. The point that the Minister has just made is that these are decisions for local polytechs, where some time ago that was not the case.

Shanan Halbert: Is there enough provision of foundational learning opportunities so that every young person who wants to access it can?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Of course, that is quite a major issue, because we are facing a situation where many of our young people came out of compulsory schooling during the time of the previous Government, without the numeracy and literacy skills that we might expect of them, and so there is considerable catch up having to take place—remedial work particularly around that level 1 and level 2 numeracy and literacy training.

Shanan Halbert: Does the Minister understand that fewer courses at polytechnics and young people struggling to access foundational education are a result of her reforms?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I understand that institutes of technology, polytechnics, and every other tertiary provider must ensure that what they provide is relevant to their community, to the industries in their community, and that they deliver in a way that is financially sustainable. It is a pity that not all Governments have shown that same restraint.

Shanan Halbert: Does the Minister accept that fewer courses at polytechnics and young people struggling to access foundational education has contributed to the number of young people not in education, employment, or training being higher than any other time in eight years?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I’m very aware that in times of higher unemployment, young people are disproportionately impacted by that. That is why we have been so careful in terms of standing up the polytechnics again to ensure that we made strategically important provision of funding to enable polytechnics to have provision available in areas where there are high numbers of young people not in employment, education, or training (NEETs), to ensure that training that is important to provide pathways for NEETs into employment is available. That is why we made $20 million per year available for the next two years.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Environment Committee

1. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) to the Chairperson of the Environment Committee: Which Ministers or ministerial advisers, if any, did she communicate with about the submission deadline to the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill before the advertisement in her name opening submissions was issued?

None. I had a conversation about the submission deadline with the clerk of the committee, as per usual practice.

Hon Rachel Brooking: How does her statement yesterday, “The Government has been clear to the public that it expects the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill to be passed before the end of [this] year.”, as the reason for implementing a short deadline, comply with Speakers’ ruling 117/1 that the “chairperson should generally allow a minimum of six weeks. … [unless] the House [has] significantly limited the time available to a committee”?

CATHERINE WEDD: Look, the Government has made it clear—as that member has, rightly, pointed out—that it expected the bill to be passed by the end of the year. Under Standing Order 198, I opened submissions to meet the expectation of the time frame, and this was endorsed by the majority of the committee on 10 October.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, sir. There’s actually two issues here, and the Standing Order that the member refers to doesn’t actually relate to the first part of her response. That Standing Order relates to the chair’s ability to call for submissions. Her response linking to the desire of the Government, in the absence of a clear instruction from the House, was the report back. The Standing Order does not refer to a chair’s ability to determine that. This issue, where this chair made a decision in a corresponding press release on an earlier report-back, to which they were required by the House, is not covered by that Standing Order.

SPEAKER: That is quite correct. It would be appropriate for the select committee chair to answer that. There may be another supp.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Why did the select committee chair ignore the normal process, which is for the House to direct a select committee to report back earlier than four months, by a debatable motion?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a reasonable question. That’s not a question for the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: We don’t have further supps; it’s only between the two under this particular provision. But you can seek leave.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave for a supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the purpose of asking a further supplementary question. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, thank you very much. Could I ask the chairperson of the committee: did she get her authority by a majority vote on the committee for the time frame she agreed to?

CATHERINE WEDD: On 10 October, we had a meeting whereby that Standing Order was put to the committee—Standing Order 198—and we passed it. So that was by majority.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, that was actually a very, very—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute—points of order are heard in silence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It was actually a very helpful supplementary question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, asking the chair of the select committee whether she had sought the approval of the committee for the time frame that she put in the advertisement. It is clear that she didn’t do that. Her own statement says that only happened after the advertisements had already been lodged. She hasn’t answered the question that Winston Peters asked.

SPEAKER: I think she has. The member will be aware that it’s not unusual for select committee chairs to take this course of action and for an ad to be placed to give submitters as much time within the constraints of the time period set to make a response. I don’t think there’s further to discuss on this.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I seek leave to ask a question of the member.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the Hon Kieran McAnulty to ask a question of the member. Is there any objection? There appears to be.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, this is a serious matter. The House, through the Standing Orders Committee, has agreed that where the Government seeks to report back a bill in less than four months, it requires a debate in the House. The Government can’t get around that simply by a select committee chair unilaterally deciding, with no approval by the House and no approval by the committee at the time they make the decision, that they are going to truncate that process. Had the Government come to the House and said they wanted the bill reported back before Christmas, it would have had to be debated in the House. A select committee chair does not have the ability to circumvent that requirement unilaterally. This is a serious matter, because it means that a committee chair, without any authority from the House or any authority from the committee itself, has circumvented the rules of the House and infringed the rights of New Zealanders to participate in this process, and infringed the rights of the minority in the House at the same time. It is a matter, Mr Speaker, that I would suggest that you should consider and take seriously, because your job is to uphold the Standing Orders of the House, and that includes the rights of the minority, which, in this case, have been woefully inadequately overridden by the chair.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll just choose to ignore the admonishing tones of what you’ve just offered the House and make it clear that yesterday I spoke at the Business Committee, and, whether we like it or not, this is best described as a gap or a loophole in our Standing Orders. There is a problem with that, it is the Standing Orders Committee that will need to consider it, and I have said I will put it on the agenda for that committee to review.