Oral Questions

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

Today, Stats New Zealand released its September quarter labour market data. The data was in line with market expectations, with the unemployment rate sitting at 5.3 percent. The data shows the effects of an economic downturn which was caused by a period of sky-high inflation, followed by very high interest rates, as the Reserve Bank steeply increased the official cash rate in response to out-of-control inflation. Unemployment tends to be one of the last indicators to turn in an economic recovery. Economic forecasters are expecting it to fall next year as the economy strengthens.

Nancy Lu: How does the data compare with forecasts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The unemployment rate is broadly in line with forecasts, including the Reserve Bank’s August Monetary Policy Statement. Interestingly, it is also in line with Treasury’s pre-election forecast from 2023, in which Treasury forecast that at this point, 165,000 people would be unemployed. In fact, the number today is 160,000. That means that what we have just experienced in the September quarter was what was forecast by the Treasury to happen under the previous—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Explaining is losing.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —Government’s watch before it left office.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and so is calling out like that.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well said, Mr Speaker. Of course, this Government is not satisfied with that. We are working hard to drive growth in the economy, which will, in turn, drive more people into employment. Forecasters expect the economy to return to growth in coming quarters, which is good news for job creation and for every Kiwi looking for work.

Nancy Lu: Why has unemployment risen over the past few quarters?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The economy is where it is now because in 2023, New Zealand had, by independent measures, the most overheated, inflationary economy in the advanced world. Inflation was far above the target band, fuelled by reckless Government spending. The Reserve Bank had to raise the official cash rate to 5.5 percent—the highest rate since 2008—and that, of course, is why the economy went into a long, painful downturn. It is now recovering. Members on the other side of the House—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Still blaming everyone else.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —might want to look at the actions of the previous Government when judging today’s data, and, members—

SPEAKER: Good, that’s enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —I would also say this—

SPEAKER: That is enough, thank you—the end of the question, thank you.

Nancy Lu: What is the Government doing to address unemployment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait—just wait. You can’t start a barrage like that before there’s even one word out of the Minister’s mouth.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, a growing and strong economy is the key to getting more Kiwis into work. This is absolutely a time for backing effort, aspiration, and job creation. It is not the time for introducing broad new taxes and returning to reckless fiscal management. Our Government has been focused on rebuilding the economy to deliver more and better-paying jobs; fast tracking private sector projects that are job-rich, from housing to infrastructure expansion—opposed by my colleagues on the other side of the House—and delivering—

SPEAKER: Good.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —$7 billion of Government-funded construction work and the Investment Boost tax policy. These are the policies which drive growth and job creation. This is the prescription New Zealand needs.

SPEAKER: I’d just remind all Ministers that concise answers are good answers.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand the Prime Minister is in the building. He was on the tiles about five minutes ago answering media questions, so I seek leave for my question to be held until he’s available in the debating chamber to answer it.

Well, that’s an interesting reference you’re making to a member’s not being present, which is not appropriate. However, I will put the leave. Is there any objection to that course of action?

Hon Members: Yes.

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, absolutely, and particularly this Government’s very careful use of its own finances. We inherited conditions where Government spending had increased very rapidly, leading to high inflation and high interest rates that were hurting Kiwis in their businesses, their farms, their firms, and their families. We have set a very conservative operating allowance, forcing Minister’s to do more with less each year, just as families and households have had to do over the last few years. As a result of the Government being careful with its finances, we are able to see declining inflation, declining interest rates, and an economic recovery for the benefit of all New Zealand.

Hon Rachel Brooking: And a Prime Minister on the run.

SPEAKER: No, sorry, you can’t make a statement like that. Just calm it down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his claim six months ago that unemployment had peaked, given that it’s still rising, with as many people now out of work as the entire population of Tauranga?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I do stand by that statement, because clearly unemployment has moved very little since that time. It is peaking and will decline in good time. As the Minister of Finance has recently said, one of the last things to be fixed when you have to do an economic repair job is unemployment. First comes the Government spending blowout—thanks, Labour—then comes the inflation, then comes the interest rates, and this Government, just as the Labour Government knocked each of those dominoes down, is putting them up in sequence, but there are no shortcuts.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the unemployment was unacceptable, as he said in September 2023, is it now more unacceptable, given 37,000 more people have lost their jobs since then, or does he apply one set of standards for the previous Government and a different set of standards to his own?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We have always treated unemployment as a percentage figure. It is currently 5.3 percent. That is around 165,000 people. What’s interesting is that in late 2023, the time of the statement the member referred to, the Treasury was forecasting, on Labour Party policy settings, that unemployment would be 165,000 people. If you want to play these kinds of games, then you could say that under this Government, 5,000 fewer people have lost their jobs than they would have with those guys’ mismanagement.

SPEAKER: Well, I certainly don’t want to play games with any figures, at all.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the pre-election fiscal update is tracking according to plan, what happened to the 2 percent economic growth that the Treasury were forecasting before the election, which has actually turned, under his leadership, into a shrink of the economy?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The member is right to point out the difference in economic growth, but the other way you could look at it is that under this Government, in spite of softer economic conditions which have multiple unexpected causes, the facts are that more people have kept their jobs than otherwise expected. For New Zealanders anxious about losing their job and for New Zealanders trying to put food on the table and pay their bills, a Government that is good for employment is good for Kiwi families.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he regard rising unemployment as being a sign of a Government that’s good for employment?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the member has really got to decide. The forecasts when the people kicked him out—quite rightly, in my view—were that unemployment would continue to rise. In actual fact, it’s risen less than it was forecast when he went out of Government, deposed by the people of this country.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he see any link between the fact that one in seven young New Zealanders is now unemployed under his leadership and the fact that 200 New Zealanders every day are giving up and permanently leaving the country?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I was saying on behalf of another Minister yesterday, I think sometimes the Opposition fails to give due credit to the intelligence and perspective that New Zealanders have. As a wiser man once said, maybe they measure the minds of others by their own. The fact is that New Zealanders understand that the economic conditions we face today are a product of at least three things: the conditions set by historical policy decisions, including those of the now Opposition, the previous Government; international factors, such as the world’s largest economy effectively deciding to renegotiate its deal with the rest of the world economically; and also the policies of the current Government. When they look at the third factor, the policies of the current Government, they see a Government that spends carefully, that cuts red tape and regulation, that tries to push people up instead of pulling them down, as we saw so often from the Opposition, and that is why this Government is in control, because people can see that the things we’re doing are making their future brighter.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his claim that for unemployed people who “don’t play ball”, the free ride is over; if so, how many of the 37,000 extra people who have joined the unemployment queue, who had jobs before he became Prime Minister, does he regard as “not playing ball”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes, absolutely. This Government doesn’t believe that welfare is a lifestyle choice. We believe that if you can work, you should work. We believe that you have obligations to look for work just as people who get up every morning and go to work to pay their taxes have to fulfil their obligation to pay the tax to fund your welfare. That is absolutely what this Government believes in: mutual obligation. There’s something else about it, which is that we believe that people who don’t have a job right now have value and do have the capability to get one. We don’t consign them to the scrapheap with the soft bigotry of low expectations like those guys did.

Question No. 3—RMA Reform

3. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made regarding Eden Park?

Today, I’ve announced the Government’s released an investigative report showing Eden Park planning restrictions could be costing hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue and hundreds of fewer jobs. Eden Park is a vital asset for Auckland and New Zealand, hosting major sporting and entertainment events that inject millions into the economy. Restrictive local planning rules are stifling Eden Park’s ability to drive growth. It’s worth noting the rules were put in place in an attempt to balance the use of Eden Park as a venue of local community preferences, but it’s important to ensure that the rules remain fit for purpose and do not hold back Auckland’s event and tourism sectors.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What did the investigative report into Eden Park’s planning rules show?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It found that restrictions on Eden Park’s operations will cost the region at least $432 million in lost income, with 751 fewer jobs over the next 10 years. The investigation was carried out under a new power in the Resource Management Act introduced in August to modify or remove provisions in local plans if they negatively impact growth, development capacity, or employment. The Government is not willing to let unnecessary restrictions in district plans hold back millions or billions in economic potential.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What changes have been recommended as part of this report?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The report contained a large number of recommendations—for example, permitting 12 large concerts of more than 30,000 people each year, as well as 20 medium-sized concerts of between 10,000 and 30,000 people each year; more flexibility on timing for concerts, including permitting concerts of up to eight hours duration; more flexibility for sport games; and the removal of size limits for conferences and large functions.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What are the next steps in this process?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Public consultation begins today and will run until 19 November 2025 via the Ministry for the Environment’s online hub. Local residents and business owners can give feedback. We’re also consulting, obviously, with the Auckland Council. Following the consultation, the Government will consider what changes are warranted to boost growth in the region. We hope to make announcements by the end of the year.

Question No. 4—Resources

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

I can announce that we have mounted the crest of a golden millennium for mining. Santana—major investment—has been issued a mining permit for 30 years, over $5 billion to $6 billion worth of wealth, and to the small number of worry warts, allow science and technology to wash away your unnecessary anxieties. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to settle.

Dr David Wilson: How will this contribute to the economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: As we know, as a consequence of the failed economic policies we inherited when we took over in 2023, we are managing a situation where unemployment is, sadly, quite high, but what about the 800 to 900 direct and indirect jobs? I say to the politicians oozing green elitism, think about the New Zealanders who will gain those jobs, who this very day are looking for new opportunities, and think about the royalties that will come over 14 years of operation. I say again: we are entering a golden age, not that I can completely claim all the credit.

Dr David Wilson: What other reports has he seen regarding the resource sector?

Hon SHANE JONES: Father Christmas has come early. On the West Coast of New Zealand, the sum of $172 million over the last day or three has been announced to be dedicated to the Federation Mine in Reefton, now known as the Endura mine.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Tell us about climate change, Shane.

Hon SHANE JONES: Why do people on the other side of the House hate investment? Why do they undermine jobs? Why do they stand with frogs and geckos and unnecessary critters? No, we need jobs, and I am happy to announce $172 million is going directly into the economy of the West Coast, and I fear that it will be more busts they make of my good self.

SPEAKER: I think answers should not contain questions to other parties.

Dr David Wilson: What will this announcement mean for the local economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: Modesty forbids that I claim total credit, but please think about the forlorn period of time that has afflicted these parts of the South Island. When we have fresh investment, unlike downtown Auckland—you don’t get rich by doing each other’s washing—we are able to extract the endowment, the resources, the critical minerals, the gold, the silver. What New Zealander does not want a brighter future through new investment and the jobs and the income and the growth that will spread through a part of New Zealand that has been neglected for far too long?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, just looking around this Parliament and this building here, about what percentage of it is derived from extraction?

Hon SHANE JONES: If I can deploy my fifth form mathematics, I’d say about 96 percent.

Question No. 5—Finance

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

Yes, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement that with a hard-won economic recovery now under way, this is not the time for broad new taxes and a return to reckless fiscal management. Instead, this is a time for Government policies that back effort, aspiration, and job creation, and we are the Government doing that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If she’s happy to use pre-election forecasts, will she compare her recessionary minus 1.1 percent growth rate to that in pre-election forecasts, which was 2 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, what I would compare is the actions that have been taken, and in particular I want to highlight the success of the fast-track legislation introduced by this Government, opposed by those opposite, which so far has seen the Auckland port expansion permitted, with 140,000 jobs being supported over the coming decades. It has seen the Milldale housing development fast tracked, supporting 3,500 jobs. It has seen the Maitahi Village housing development in Nelson fast tracked, supporting 2,700 jobs. If you stand for jobs, you should vote for them, and you didn’t vote for fast track.

SPEAKER: I’d just say to Government members: they may find it necessary to support the Minister, clearly, with things that are not being said that they would like to be said. It’s not helpful. Allow Ministers to answer questions.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she cherry-picking the best number that suits her, when she has said, “Forecasts aren’t reality”, and the reality is things are worse?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m not quite sure why the member would talk about cherrypicking when in her own press release today, she chose to highlight the increase in net departures of New Zealanders. Now, of course, that didn’t start under this Government. In the 21 months of data before our Government came to office, annual net migration of New Zealand citizens increased by 38,000, whereas in the 21 months since we were elected, that number has only increased by 5,800. If you want to talk cherry-picking, sort it out.

SPEAKER: Answers to questions should relate to Government activity, not attacks on the Opposition, and that is dangerously close to that, which will see limited opportunities moving forward.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the 160,000 unemployed people—the highest in 30 years—a sign that her economic plan is working?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it certainly isn’t the highest unemployment number in 30 years, as a proportion of the workforce. It’s also the case that it remains below the long-term average. Most importantly for that member, 160,000 is lower than the 165,000 unemployed people that Grant Robertson was predicting prior to the election. I want to see more workers getting the jobs they deserve in this economy, which is why we are driving growth and job-creating businesses. I’ll tell you what won’t help: new taxes, reckless fiscal management, and a return to the old Labour ways.

SPEAKER: There is a lot of noise coming from the centre row of the Opposition that needs to just calm right down.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she take responsibility for growing unemployment, negative growth, increasing homelessness, a record number of liquidations and KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals, and increasing inflation, or will she continue to blame everyone else?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I certainly won’t take responsibility for the economic mess this Government inherited. What I will take responsibility for is the results we are delivering to fix it, including lowering taxes—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on, sorry. It’s ridiculous. Why ask a question if you don’t want to hear an answer?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —including lower taxes, inflation back in band, lower interest rates, policies that drive job creation, fewer children growing up in emergency motel rooms, delivering more State homes than that Government delivered in the previous periods. We are a Government that is delivering the fix. We inherited a mess, and we’re getting on with it.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

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

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, absolutely, particularly this Government’s decision to reverse the ban on oil and gas exploration. We risked being the only country in the world that was transitioning from gas back to coal. If we want to have a so-called just transition, we actually need transition fuels, and most people would much rather be burning gas to generate electricity than coal. What’s more, it helps people with more affordable energy. You see, the member likes to say that people are doing it tough financially, and she may be right about that, but she can’t also put in place policies that make it harder for them to provide for themselves and their families by banning technologies that make life more comfortable.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Government still committed to the Paris Agreement?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, the Government is committed to the Paris climate agreement as it signed up nine years ago. It may have been a long time for the member, but we keep that commitment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does he reconcile his statement that the Government is still committed to the Paris Agreement with the Government’s announcement late last night that it will remove reference to “contributing to the global effort under the Paris Agreement” from our climate change laws?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It’s very simple. This Government has something the member will be familiar with, known as the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, and that sets our domestic commitments to reduce emissions. Those emissions commitments or reduction commitments, I believe, are very, very strong and ambitious. As a result, they are the targets that we need to adhere to. The Paris Agreement is something different, but, actually, that doesn’t mean that we can’t achieve one by pursuing the other.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can he name just one individual or group external from the Government and who the Government consulted with who supports the changes that were announced late last night to weaken our climate change laws?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, in answer to the member’s question, I certainly can. But having the capability doesn’t mean that I will, because, you see, there’s a tone in this member’s questions—the one that chants things like “From the river to the sea”—that makes people unwilling to be identified and be able to share their views. That’s why I’m not going to participate in her doxxing and outing of people who have different views. So I could name them, but I’m not going to.

SPEAKER: Look, if there’s going to be just a question then a barrage as the answer comes, there’s not much point in continuing with the question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly can he claim to be committed to our climate agreements while he is removing requirements for independent advice and accountability, removing reference to the Paris Agreement in law, and revoking rules that require our emissions trading scheme to align with our international climate agreements?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, very, very simply: we can achieve those reductions without necessarily using the mechanisms that the member describes. What’s more, the member needs to reflect carefully, because she cannot have it both ways. I, like many members of this House, grew up in the North. I grew up in Whangārei. I’ve driven many times past and visited Portland cement, and there are really tough decisions that Governments face, that we face as a country. Do we want to put those 200-odd people at Portland out of work so that we can have Vietnamese cements on the shelf at Bunnings and in the concrete we use to build our homes, or do we want to keep doing cement refining in New Zealand, keeping Kiwis in work? The member can’t complain about jobs and the economy and the cost of living—

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —one day, and then have policies that destroy people’s effort to pursue—

SPEAKER: Yep.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —those goals the next.

SPEAKER: Very good.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he aware that it is entirely feasible to create good, green jobs in a sustainable economy, such as proposed by the Green Party in our Green budget and industrial strategy?

SPEAKER: In so much as the Prime Minister has responsibility for the Green Party—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I seek your—

SPEAKER: Hang on, wait until I’m finished. In so much as he has responsibility for any other party’s—other than the Government’s—policies, he may choose to make a very brief response.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. You see, it’s against the rules for a member on the Government’s side to ask a question designed to launch an attack on the Opposition. But what if the Opposition asked a question that could only be designed to launch an attack on the Opposition? The fact is—

SPEAKER: Well, that is—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —to Chlöe Swarbrick: sound bites and slogans don’t create jobs. It’s that simple. Over here in the real, practical world, we have policies that are designed to get—

SPEAKER: Sit down—sit down. I’m not going to have that sort of outburst. The reality is that it is the job of the Opposition to point out the weaknesses, as they say, of the Government and, therefore, something the member needs to accept. Is there another supplementary, Chlöe Swarbrick? [Interruption] I’m on my feet—I’m on my feet.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Highest unemployment in nine years.

SPEAKER: Someone is going to leave. I’m on my feet, and it’s not a good idea to call out.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether the Government intends to take advice from people about jobs when they’ve never had a real job?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not something the Government is—the Government’s responsible for a lot of things; that’s not one of them. [Interruption] Listen, someone is going to have to symbolically leave so everyone else gets the message that question time is quiet when a question is being answered. The Government cross-bench back row might like to take that on board.

Question No. 7—Social Development

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her 50,000 jobseeker support reduction target; if so, why?

Yes, I absolutely stand by our target of 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker support by 2030. Our Government is ambitious for all New Zealanders, and our target is ambitious and reflects our Government’s view that work brings independence so people can lead healthier, happier lives. That’s why we’re delivering practical support, clearer expectations, and stronger partnerships with employers to help more people move from welfare into work, and we’ve seen over 83,000 people leave benefit for work in the last 12 months.

Hon Willie Jackson: How can she stand by her target when figures released today show unemployment at a nine-year high, job seekers have increased every quarter, and she is nowhere near meeting her own target?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because, as I’ve said in this House before, the jobseeker target is ambitious, and the numbers were always going to get worse before they got better. The pre-election fiscal update had unemployment at 5.3 percent. Today, it was announced at 5.3 percent. While it is incredibly challenging for any individual that is without work right now, our Government is focused on the practical steps that help them to prepare for work and get ready for work, and our economic growth agenda—that we’ve already heard about today in terms of fast track and mining jobs—is on track.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she think forecasts from the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet are wrong, that show she is failing to meet her own target and that she will be 40,000 people over by June 2029?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The report that the member is referring to is a progress update on the jobseeker target, and, as I’ve said, I’ve never shied away from the fact that it was always going to get worse before it was better. But what our Government is unwilling to accept is that for a young person who goes on to welfare under the age of 25, that means 18 future years of their life on welfare, a figure that is 49 percent worse in the six years that they were in charge.

Hon Willie Jackson: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who encouraged young job seekers to look to horticulture jobs in the Hawke’s Bay, or Paul Paynter, CEO of Yummy Fruit, who said the industry wasn’t short-staffed right now?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I always agree with the Prime Minister, and there are jobs available, otherwise we would not have seen 83,000 New Zealanders leave welfare for work in the last 12 months, despite there being challenging economic times—83,000 New Zealanders leaving welfare into jobs.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister think it’s fair that if a job seeker fails to miss their targets to find work, they get sanctioned, but when she fails to meet her targets, she gets praised by the Prime Minister for making it harder for people to get support in the first place?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: One of the things that we have done is got a way more active welfare system, which includes making it really easy, through the traffic light system, for those on benefit to know what their obligations are, and providing assistance and support to ensure that they fulfil their obligations. Yes, there’s a consequence if they don’t. Why do we have a system like that? Because we want more people exiting welfare into work, and over 83,000 in the last 12 months, I think, is good news.

Question No. 8—Housing

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

Yes.

Oriini Kaipara: What advice, if any, has he received from the Minister of Crown relations regarding the potential impact these reforms will have on Treaty settlements in Tāmaki-makau-rau?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I don’t believe I’ve had any specific advice from the Minister that the member references in relation to that particular issue, although clearly the Minister and I work closely together across a range of different areas. I would emphasise, for the member and the House, that the commitment to upholding Treaty of Waitangi settlements is a core coalition Government priority.

Oriini Kaipara: How many Tāmaki-makau-rau iwi and hapū were identified during the developments of these reforms, and how many of their Treaty settlements will be affected?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I don’t have that specific number and—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I think we’ll just stop the cross-party, cross-bench discussion. The Minister will start the answer again.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I don’t have that specific number in front of me, but if the member puts it down as a written question, I’ll be happy to get that feedback to her or get that answer to her. As I say, upholding Treaty settlements is a core Government priority. In relation to Tāmaki-makau-rau, the Government is working with a range of iwi in the area around a range of different housing developments, including, for example, at the Carrington site, where we’re making real progress—which is a land for housing programme started under the last National Government, continued under the previous Labour-led Government, and continuing under this coalition Government—and where we are building houses at some scale, utilising what was formerly Crown land, and working with our iwi partners in relation to that project.

Oriini Kaipara: Can he confirm that the Government’s reforms to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development will not undermine nor conflict with settlement redress, including cogovernance arrangements in Tāmaki-makau-rau?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I’ve said a couple of times now, it is a Government commitment to uphold Treaty of Waitangi settlements, and all of the changes we are making to our national direction—for example, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development—will reflect that.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Minister please confirm that this Government proposes to move a national statement in relation to papa kāinga that will enable up to 10 houses to be built on papa kāinga lands and also that this Government has articulated and foreshadowed that this Government will commit over $400 million to have 1,000 houses built on Māori land?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I can confirm that there will be a national environmental standard developed in relation to papa kāinga housing. It’s our view, as a Government, that there is real potential for this type of housing on whenua to unlock the potential for different housing typologies that will put warm, dry homes in place for people in need. We expect to have the national environmental standard, which will slot into council district plans, developed and promulgated in the first half of 2026.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statements that “it’s clear that rough sleeping is a genuine problem” and “we can and will do more for rough sleepers”?

Yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why is the Government working on legislation that would enable the removal of rough sleepers from central business districts?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government isn’t.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why is the Minister denying this when police Minister Mark Mitchell confirmed on Newstalk ZB this morning that “Paul Goldsmith and justice are doing a lot of work around that.” and that legislation to move homeless people from CBDs to the suburbs was “fully supported by caucus and the Prime Minister.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government is considering a range of different things in relation to the CBD. It is 8 percent of the country’s economy; it is of national significance; and, with the City Rail Link opening next year, the International Convention Centre opening, and an increased push for tourism—for example, from cruise ships—the Government, as well as Auckland Council, is of the view that we can make the CBD a more desirable place for everyone to be than it currently is.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: So which is it: the Government isn’t working on legislation to shift homeless people from the CBDs, or they are considering legislation to shift homeless people from the CBDs?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member asked whether or not the Government was developing legislation. The Government is not, but, as I say, we are looking at a range of things in order to clean up the CBD. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for your colleagues to calm down.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If people are concerned about entering the CBD because of homelessness, how does he expect them to feel when the issue is moved to their doorstep in the suburbs?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as the member knows, rough sleeping and homelessness is part of a complex cocktail of issues that successive Governments have had to grapple with. This Government is putting additional resource into Housing First, which is an internationally proven, evidence-based programme, that I know the member supports, in order to specifically provide housing options for people who are rough sleepers.

Tamatha Paul: What—prisons? The cells?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Housing First does not support prison cells. Housing First supports warm homes so that people who are sleeping rough on the streets can move in—and, more specifically, it provides the kind of wraparound support that people in those difficult situations often need. The starting point of Housing First is that it is difficult to supply people with mental health or addiction service support unless they are in a house in the first place. That’s why the Government is proud to back Housing First. No one is pretending that this is a problem that is going to be solved overnight, and no one is pretending that this is not a difficult and complex problem that successive Governments have had to grapple with, but we are working hard with front-line providers like the City Mission and others in the Auckland CBD to get on top of the problem.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Minister please confirm that this Government has reduced the spend of over $1 million a day on emergency housing to less than $200,000 a day; funds nearly half a billion dollars per annum on transitional housing, Housing First, and other related programmes; and has now contracted an additional 300 Housing First places, the majority of which are in Auckland, with Housing First providers to support rough sleepers within these and related contractual arrangements? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: When the House is ready, we might hear the start of the Minister’s answer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I can confirm that—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many people have got a place from that announcement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As the member well knows—and the member yelling out the problem well knows—the Government is working hard to make sure that we can supply warm, dry homes for people in very vulnerable situations. It is a complex, difficult challenge, but one that we are up for.

Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: A supplementary question, the Hon Shane Jones—and no one else speaking.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister: can he confirm it is not appropriate to use homelessness as a moral cloak to hide drug taking, criminality, and violence?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think the Minister’s got particular responsibility in that regard.

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about boosting hospital capacity?

Our Government is delivering real results for patients and staff across the country. That’s why we recently announced a programme to deliver 140 new hospital beds at five of New Zealand’s busiest hospitals. These new fast-tracked hospital wards will be open in the second half of 2026, boosting capacity and easing pressure where it’s needed the most. This is part of our broader plan to strengthen health infrastructure, getting hospitals built faster, using smarter construction methods, and ensuring our workforce is in place to deliver care. This Government is delivering more beds, more capacity, and better care for New Zealanders.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Which hospitals will benefit from this programme?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: A total of 140 new beds will be delivered across five hospitals, with operational funding for these wards approved by Health New Zealand. The first will be at Middlemore, where we’re expanding general medicine capacity to take pressure off the emergency department. At Waikato Hospital, a new assessment and diagnostic unit will speed up patient flow. At Wellington Hospital, the new ward will support acute care and help support the shorter stays in emergency departments target. At Nelson Hospital, the new ward will provide flexibility during seismic work and add in-patient capacity ahead of the construction of the new in-patient building funded in the Budget. And, in Hawke’s Bay, the new ward will cater for short-stay surgical patients and surgical assessments, freeing up space elsewhere in the hospital. These investments will make a real, practical difference for both patients and staff.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How was the Government able to deliver more wards than originally planned without increasing the cost?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This is what happens when you run a disciplined and efficient system. The rapid-build wards will be constructed off site and installed on hospital grounds, enabling faster, more cost-effective delivery while also providing flexibility to redeploy units to other hospitals if required. As part of Budget 2025, we expected to fund three new wards, but through a competitive procurement process and the use of modular construction, we can now deliver four wards within the same funding, alongside the fifth ward at Hawke’s Bay Hospital announced earlier this year. That is smart management, better value for money, and faster delivery—exactly what New Zealanders elected this Government for.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What impact will these new wards have once they’re operational?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Adding additional capacity to hospitals would usually take multiple years. However, through our use of rapid-build wards, we can ease pressure on emergency departments, speed up admissions and discharges, and improve patient flow across the hospitals faster, meaning both patients and staff will feel the benefits sooner. The rapid-build wards will also give our front-line staff modern, flexible spaces to deliver the best possible care. We’re building capacity, supporting our workforce, and making sure New Zealanders can get the care they need when they need it. That is what delivery looks like, and that’s what our Government stands for.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Minister of Education: How can parents be confident that she is “putting the child’s needs at the centre of the education system” when education experts have described the newly rewritten curriculum as “more political than educational”?

In context, as stated in my press release from 5 September, parents can absolutely be confident we’re putting their children’s needs at the centre of the education system by ensuring 101,000 year 1 to 8 students and their teachers will benefit from the skills and support of a learning support coordinator working in their school next year. In response to the second part of the question, this is a direct quote taken from an open letter addressed to me in regard to the mathematics and statistics curriculum. I completely disagree with the small number of authors of that letter, and there is no politics in our children’s right to master key mathematical concepts like fractions, times tables, place value, and geometry. There’s nothing political about our maths curriculum. I encourage the member to read it and engage in an intellectual debate on the content of the maths curriculum.

SPEAKER: We’ll just have concise answers, thank you.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why should parents trust this curriculum is right for their kids when it puts kapa haka and mau rākau into the physical education curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Parents should trust this curriculum because it’s knowledge-rich year by year and it’s aspirational for their kids. It’s very clear that the member opposite hasn’t actually bothered to read the curriculum, because if she had, she would notice that in mathematics, for example—which relates to the primary question—we are teaching children place value by teaching it to them in te reo Māori, because it makes much more sense to say tekau mā rima, 10 and five, than it does to say 15. She’d also be well advised to read it and to understand that we teach shapes in te reo Māori because it’s easier to understand tapatoru, three sides, than it is a triangle, but it’s clear she’d not read it. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Look—[Interruption] Sorry, but there is discussion going on all over the House, particularly on those backbenches over there. One or two of you are in sights and will be going early if there cannot be a reasonable approach to questions being answered.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can parents be confident that the curriculum was written with their kids’ learning in mind when year 3s will be taught Charles Elton’s concept of ecological pyramids?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s really important for young people when they’re learning concepts to understand that there were people before them who came up with these concepts. In year 1, children will learn about Karl von Frisch. Why are we learning about Karl von Frisch? Because he realised that bees dance when they communicate. How fun is it for a year 5 to buzz around the room, because that’s how bees communicate. But we didn’t just make this up. There was a guy who thought about it. We need to be more aspirational for our kids, because if we’re just going to be worried—

SPEAKER: Sorry, but would three people on the front bench like to leave? If you don’t want to leave, don’t perform like that. We’ll also have concise answers.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can parents be confident that the curriculum was written with their kids’ learning in mind when year 7 students will have to study Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the 1852 Constitution Act, the French Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution in one hour a week?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, parents should feel confident because finally we have a curriculum that is not just so narrowly focused on New Zealand history but actually teaches children our place in the world. The Education Review Office review said that children enjoy history more when they are learning about faraway places and our connection to the world. If that speaker thinks we’re just going to be focused on one of area of the curriculum, New Zealand history, well then she can take that to the election, but I am more ambitious for our kids.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister heard any serious suggestions that maybe children shouldn’t be taught Newtonian mechanics because Newton was a white man?

SPEAKER: No—sorry.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can parents be confident that the curriculum was written with their kids’ learning in mind when maths experts called it potentially damaging to learners, history teachers called it developmentally inappropriate, and technology teachers said it was a major step backwards?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I can tell her that parents should feel confident in this curriculum, because there are a lot of other people—teachers and educators and principals on the front line—who take time to write to me and say things like, “I want to take a moment to express my full support for the work you and your team are doing to undertake in developing and launching the new curriculum. As a principal of a small rural school, I see firsthand how these changes are encouraging deeper learning, higher expectations, and a renewed sense of purpose across Aotearoa classrooms.” These two new curriculum areas have been in place for a year, and we are already seeing improved achievement in the classroom.

SPEAKER: Question No. 12, Kahurangi Carter—just wait for a bit of quiet.

Question No. 12—Children

12. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement, “We have refocused the children’s system on what matters—the safety and wellbeing of children, whether in the community or residences—and the results are clear”; if so, what results is she referring to?

Yes, in the context in which it was made, which was the achievement of the first ever reduction of harm in youth justice and care and protection residences—a 14 percent decrease since 2024, which is a reduction of 33 findings of harm. Other results from the Safety of Children in Care report included a decrease in physical harm findings from the previous year and a reduction in harm by staff. However, at the same time, I also stand by a statement I made in the House during question time on 23 October that “I acknowledge that the latest Safety of Children in Care report shows that in the 12 months, from 31 March 2024 to 31 March 2025, there was an increase of 23 children and young people having a finding of harm compared to the previous year.”

Kahurangi Carter: Is it correct that there has been an increase in recorded findings of harm for children in State care?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I believe I just answered that, where I said there was an increase of 23 children and young people who had a finding of harm compared to the previous year.

Kahurangi Carter: What does she say to Aroturuki Tamariki chief executive Arran Jones and Children’s Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad, who warned, “Overall, the number of children in State care being abused or neglected has increased, and this is unacceptable.”, and “We must pay attention to the fact that 10 percent of all children in State care were abused or neglected over the last 12 months.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What I would say is, yes, definitely, it’s unacceptable. No child should be hurt or harmed in this country. If you are taking care of a vulnerable young child in our care, don’t hurt them, don’t harm them, and take responsibility for your actions, because, at the end of the day, if people that care for our young people don’t hurt or harm them, we wouldn’t be in this position to have Oranga Tamariki.

Kahurangi Carter: What does she say to ngā mōrehu, the survivors of State abuse, as we come to the anniversary of their apology, when reports tell us that the cycle of abuse they endured continues for tamariki in State care today?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What I would say is that the highest risk of harm is return-to-home care. This is where families and whānau are given a second chance to look after young people who have been removed from their home in the first place. We put support around those whānau and family, but, ultimately, at the end of the day, the people responsible for the harm are the people that are caring for those children.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she support implementing all recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Sorry, can you just repeat that question?

Kahurangi Carter: Of course. Does she support implementing all recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There is currently a work programme in place around the report of abuse in State care and faith-based care. What I would say to you is that this is a large work programme, which the Government is committed to working through to make sure that across the board, young people are safe in the homes that they live in, and that is my priority.