Oral Questions

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the economy has turned the corner, as he’s repeatedly claimed, why have record numbers of New Zealanders been applying for KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in the past 12 months?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve explained to the member before, it’s no doubt been a very challenging time for the New Zealand economy. The previous Government drove up spending, inflation, and interest rates, and put the economy into recession, and people lose their jobs as a consequence of that. But there are good signs. It’s good to see that job ads are up 3.5 percent. It’s good to see that building consents are up 12 percent just in the last quarter.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he aware that under his leadership, hardship withdrawals from KiwiSaver have outnumbered first-home withdrawals from KiwiSaver month after month, when previously it only happened once in 10 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said to the member in my answer to his first question, it has been a difficult time for the New Zealand economy. We inherited a recession that was probably the worst in 35 years. There was a long COVID hangover, thanks to the previous Government being the second - biggest-spending Government in the Western world—spending $66 billion that no one seems to know where it went to. The reality, though, is that things are getting better: exports are up 4 percent; interest rates are down 300 basis points.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has increasing the cost of doctors visits, home insurance, public transport, car registration, the price of going to a pharmacy, and student loans during a cost of living crisis made things better or worse for everyday Kiwi families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I acknowledge that many of those things that drive inflation, and particularly electricity but also, most importantly, council rates—that member opposes council rates. If he wanted to tackle that problem, he would come on board with the Government’s initiative to put a cap on rates.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government considering a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Government is doing everything we can to support people who are in homeless situations, and that’s why you’ve seen 300 more places made available through Housing First. A hundred of those 300 homes and accommodation have already been built, with 200 in Auckland, but, of course, our Government and our Ministers will work with lots of people to see what we can do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Madam Speaker. It was a very straightforward question: is the Government considering a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts; if so, why? I didn’t ask the Prime Minister what does he think about homelessness; I asked him specifically whether they’re considering a change to the law to ban homeless people from CBDs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister did say that the Government will do what they can. I would like to know if the Prime Minister could elaborate on that to answer that specific part of the question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m quite comfortable that I’ve answered one of those legs of those two legs in that question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government considering a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There have been no Cabinet decisions or discussion on that topic.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Cabinet discussed a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the answer I just gave the member for his last question, no.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When, if ever, will the Prime Minister finally respond to my many invitations to walk the streets of Auckland Central and meet the people, including the children, who his Government’s policies have made homeless?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, no disrespect to the member, but when she was part of a Labour-Greens Government and had one of her members as the Minister for homelessness, we saw $1 billion spent on emergency housing and a 37 percent increase in homelessness. This Government’s record on housing, I would line up against Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori any day of the week. The great Labour Prime Ministers of their era must be rolling in their graves with the legacy of Labour and Greens housing—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, that’s enough.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If booting people out of emergency accommodation has fixed the homelessness problem, why is the Government now considering changing the law to ban homeless people?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question, because here’s the deal on housing: this Government has delivered housing affordability for people who want to purchase a house or to rent a house. This is the Government that took 6,000 people off the State house wait-list while that member increased it fourfold over six years, this is the Government that took 3,200 households out of emergency housing, and this is the Government that is doing a lot to help homeless support.

Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this—[Interruption] Quiet, please. Is this a supplementary question, Minister Jones?

Hon Shane Jones: Correct. To the Prime Minister, is the Prime Minister aware that a capital gains tax leads to complications, complexity, and administrative dead weight?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s not—well, it is relevant to the lead question, so I’ll let the Prime Minister answer that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for raising that issue because I’m saying that taxing Kiwis and their houses and their KiwiSaver accounts is not the way forward to help people with the cost of living. It’s just adding cost and adding tax. On this side of the House, we believe in low taxes. We believe in backing people who want to make something happen, and not in taxing everybody in sight. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question—quiet during questions, please.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s revenue strategy?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: A revenue strategy is required by the Public Finance Act. The current Government strategy, part of the 2025 Fiscal Strategy Report, states that a good tax system is one that, among other things, “finances public expenditure in a fair and efficient way”, “encourages effort and investment”, and “has low compliance and administrative costs”. It goes on to say, “The Government will operate a stable, predictable revenue system”, and it adds that the Government “is committed to public engagement in the design of tax policy”.

Cameron Brewer: What does the strategy say about future revenue and expenses?

Hon SIMON WATTS: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the strategy recognises that Government spending is currently greater than revenue, meaning the operating balance is in deficit. Revenue and spending need to be brought back into balance. Crucially, the strategy states that “Spending restraint is the Government’s primary lever for achieving these goals. With prudent control of spending, the Government does not intend to seek”—nor does it need to seek—“major additional sources of revenue.” I would also note that a tax increase announced alongside spending increases that it matches dollar for dollar does absolutely nothing to improve the operating deficit or Government debt.

Cameron Brewer: What has the Government done to encourage effort and investment through the tax system?

Hon SIMON WATTS: On behalf of the Minister of Finance: in last year’s Budget, the Government increased personal income tax thresholds. These had not been adjusted in the previous 14 years, despite significant wage growth. We also increased the in-work tax credit, which helps low and middle income working families with children, and we expanded eligibility for the independent earner tax credit. Working people in this country now get to keep more of the money that they work so hard to earn. That is reward for effort, and it is delivered within tight Budget operating allowances. An estimated 727,000 households benefited by at least $75 a fortnight, and members opposite voted against it.

Cameron Brewer: What—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet during questions, please.

Cameron Brewer: What else has the Government done to encourage effort and investment through the tax system?

Hon SIMON WATTS: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, study after study has identified that compared to other countries, New Zealand has a low level of capital investment per worker. To raise productivity, lift incomes, and drive long-term economic growth, New Zealand needs businesses, big and small, to invest in machinery, tools, equipment, technology, vehicles, industrial buildings, and other capital assets. In this year’s Budget, the Government launched Investment Boost, a tax incentive for New Zealand businesses to make these sorts of capital investments. As a consequence of this policy, we expect to see a lift in New Zealand’s capital stock, a lift in GDP, and a lift in wages, again delivered within tight Budget operating allowances, and, again, opposed by members on that side of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That answer was quite long enough. I’d like them to be a bit briefer, please.

Cameron Brewer: What sort of tax would be ruled out by the Government’s revenue strategy?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, it would be one that, according to an Australian expert report—and I quote—“is a tax which in any administrative form must be complex and difficult and produce some abnormalities and inequalities of its own. There is no doubt whatsoever that any revenue it raises could be more cheaply and easily raised in other ways.” In addition, if that tax discouraged effort and investment, such as an investment in small-business premises, and if it gave preferential treatment to certain groups—for example, people that inherit property—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think that that’s a long enough answer. Thank you. Question No. 3—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Is this a supplementary or a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a supplementary because this is supplementary time. Can I ask the Minister, looking around the world, is there any comparative equality in terms of the policy advocated by the Labour Party when it comes to this question of a capital gains tax? Is there any example anywhere in the world—

Hon Willie Jackson: What a dumb question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it’s only dumb if you don’t understand taxes—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet during questions, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and this is not mirror time for Willie. This is a time when you pay attention.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, get to the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With the greatest of respect, this guy could take some education about taxation.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, I’ll just ask—I’ve got a point of order here from the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: With respect, Madam Speaker, the question should have been ruled out by now. The minute that the Minister asked his colleague for opinions on a Labour Party policy, that was out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, the reason the question hasn’t been ruled out by now is because there’s a lot of noise coming during supplementary questions. I’d like the Rt Hon Winston Peters to ask that question again without referring to the Opposition and to ask the question straight to the Minister, and the Opposition will be quiet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having heard of a recent example of a limited capital gains tax, is there anywhere in the world where an economy has adopted that policy?

Hon SIMON WATTS: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, what I am clear about—and I am not aware of other countries in the world that are looking to punish their citizens for success—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Hon SIMON WATTS: —through taxation, and that is exactly what that side of the House—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s not an answer. Sit down, please.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Speaker. You made it extremely clear to the member asking the question that it was not to be in reference to any other party’s policy. The Minister then, in response, completely ignored your clear guidance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I cut the Minister off and asked him to sit down because I could see what was happening there.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: He didn’t, though, did he? He continued on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, no, he did. I said that that was enough and to finish off the answer, and I asked him to sit down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect to tax policy, has the Minister heard the statement “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question. Thank you.

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.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of New Zealanders, and why is it half the effective tax rate of the average hard-working New Zealander?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have a progressive income tax system in New Zealand, and the more money you earn, the more tax you pay.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How is it fair that hard-working New Zealanders pay tax on every dollar they earn through income while the super-wealthy passively accumulate more and more untaxed wealth without lifting a finger?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the member’s first leg to that question, it’s somewhat ironic because she and her party did not support basic tax relief for low and middle income working New Zealanders. It wasn’t ideological; it was a pretty simple up and down vote of “Do you lift the tax thresholds for low and middle income working New Zealanders?”, and Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori all said no because you do not care about working New Zealanders—period.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that no Minister should bring parties that aren’t involved in the question into the fray, and that Minister—the Prime Minister—does it repeatedly and has been told by other presiding officers not to do it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yep, thank you, and I’d ask the Prime Minister to refrain from doing it for the rest of the day.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does he think that in the past three years, the average net worth of the wealthiest 20 percent in this country grew by 20 percent while the poorest 20 percent got poorer by 9 percent, if not because of economic rules that are geared towards the benefit of the wealthiest?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: You’ve asked me why: because there was something called a Labour-Greens Government that mismanaged—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —the economy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’d ask the member to ask that question again. That was a swing at the Opposition, and it wasn’t an answer to the question.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member asked a question about a period of time during which, as the Prime Minister has said, there was a Labour-Greens Government. I don’t see how that’s not a legitimate response to the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m asking the member to ask the question again, please.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister think that in the past three years, the average net wealth of the wealthiest 20 percent grew by 20 percent while the poorest 20 percent in this country got 9 percent poorer, if not because of an economic system that is geared to benefit the wealthy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because when a Government increases spending by 84 percent and it drives up inflation to 7.3 percent, that then leads to higher interest rates—they went up 12 times—high interest rates puts an economy into recession, and people lose their jobs. The consequence of all of that is that working and middle-income New Zealanders got incredibly hurt and damaged.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So when does he expect his tax cuts and Public Service cuts to trickle down?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the good news is that the economy is growing now in this quarter. We have job ads up, we have building consents up, we have exports up, we have interest rates down, we have inflation down, we have business confidence up eight points, we have farmer confidence at a good level, we’ve got Accor building hotels now—their 49th, going on to their 50th—we’ve got Ports of Auckland and Freightways talking about good activity, and loan arrears are down, and so they’re all positive signs.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is more important to the Prime Minister: allowing the wealthiest to amass hundreds of millions in untaxed wealth, or properly funding our hospitals, our schools, our emergency services, and our infrastructure?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually very proud that this is a Government that realised about $40 billion of inefficiency and deployed it to the front line, including almost $17 billion in healthcare in our first Budget and a further increase of 6 to 7 percent in our second Budget.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of Government actions, can the Prime Minister confirm that by exempting a substantial number of companies from the onerous obligation of reporting mythical climate emissions, our economy will be better off for it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Anything that lowers compliance and regulation and red tape and green tape is a good thing for New Zealand because we’ve got to get the show unblocked and get it moving. Again, I’d just say to the Opposition parties: support our fast-track legislation and mining.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree with the assertion from his Minister just then that climate emissions are “mythical”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: He didn’t make that assertion. He said climate reporting that is adding huge amounts of cost and compliance to businesses is a waste of time.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Madam Speaker. We have demonstrable evidence almost immediately that the Minister said precisely that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I do believe that the Minister did use the word “mythical” in his question about climate reporting, though, wasn’t it? [Interruption] It was about climate reporting, right?

Chlöe Swarbrick: If I recall correctly, it was about reporting on “mythical climate emissions”.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. So—

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order, the mythology refers to the beliefs of the party across the road. They are the ones who introduced that policy. It is mythical because it’s disappeared.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, is this a point of order or a question?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’m speaking to the point of order, in which I asked the Prime Minister a very straightforward question: whether he agreed with the assertion from one of his Ministers about whether climate changing emissions were mythical or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the Minister has just clarified that the policy was now mythical because the policy was no longer in place. So we’ve—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —clarified that. No, is this a new question?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I guess I just have a question for the House about whether the truth matters any more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, this—[Interruption] OK, order, please. Yes, the truth does matter, and we’re going to move on to question—[Interruption] Quiet, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The last question was utterly offensive to this House. It was not within the Standing Order or Speakers’ rulings, or any other procedure past except—

Hon Member: You would know!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I would know—of course I’d know, far more than you, sunshine, and that’s why I’m mentioning this in a point of order. That member should be required to stand now and apologise to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. [Interruption] No, we’re moving on. It’s question No. 4, in the name of Barbara Edmonds. I had to tell the Opposition to be quiet during questions before, and now I’m going to tell the Government members to be quiet during questions.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement of July 2024 that “cost of living relief is on its way”; if so, why?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. The reason why is that that statement was made two days before personal income tax changes came into effect on 31 July 2024. The member might be aware that the next sentence goes on to say, “From Wednesday, [you’ll] be able to keep more of your hard-earned money to put towards things that are important to you, your children, your weekly shop, [and] paying your power bill.” Those changes, mostly to income tax thresholds and the in-work tax credit, made around 1.9 million New Zealand households better off, on average, by $60 a fortnight. Households with children were better off, on average, by $78 a fortnight. It is strange that the member would ask about that particular quote in this particular week, because there is now a clear choice between a Government that wants to spend carefully, reduce your tax burden, and let you succeed on your own terms, and an Opposition that wants to put their hands in your pocket with a creepy and creeping capital gains tax.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many families, therefore, lost money because of the tax changes which came into effect on the date the Minister has just reported?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the tax threshold increase meant that people were liable to pay less tax, and so if there was any group that somehow paid more, then I guess you would point to them. But 1.9 million households were better off.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many families have received the full $250 tax cut that was promised by this Government?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The fact is that that promise is a sliding scale. It is a range of relief that might be received, and the Opposition can spend as much time as they like pointing out that rather obvious fact. But the people back at home want to see a Government that spends their money as carefully as the people in it would spend their own and that is able to reduce taxes, rather than putting new taxes in front of them that will take all sorts of things that they might not have expected, because they can’t trust “Chippy”.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If the cost of living relief is on its way, why are KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals the highest they have been—more than double what it was this time two years ago?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The voters, I believe, have a lot more intelligence than they’re sometimes given credit for by the Opposition. They can see that the conditions New Zealanders face in the economy today are caused by a combination of factors overseas, historical policies by the New Zealand Government, and the initiatives of the current Government, and when they look at the current Government, they see a Government that is carefully managing its spending and that is presiding over falling inflation and falling interest rates so that New Zealanders have more money in their pocket left at the end of the week. The voters can work it out; if only those people could.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are families getting more, when 5,530 people made KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in the month of September?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is clear that there are people having a tough time, and we feel for people that are in the position—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Do you—really?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —of drawing on their KiwiSaver. I’d just say to Ginny Andersen, who said “Do you—really?”, that, actually, yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I don’t think you do.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: When a person answers a question in the House—oh, Madam Speaker, point of order. She’s just said, “I don’t think you do.” Now, to say that a member is deliberately misleading the House—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —is a breach of order, and she—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was an interjection going both ways, so carry on with the answer.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, no, I’m sorry, Madam Speaker, but it is a breach of the Standing Orders to accuse another member of lying. She did it twice and repeatedly—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fact, no—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the member didn’t accuse the Minister of lying. She just said that she thought he didn’t understand.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who else is there to blame for her economic mismanagement, given her Government has blamed Labour, power companies, Fonterra, insurance companies, supermarkets, US tariffs, “merchants of misery”, teenagers, John Key, teachers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, local councils, and unions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, there once was a man called Christian Cullen, and he was known for being fast on his feet. Barbara Edmonds is the opposite of Christian Cullen: she stomps through question time with her lead shoes, reading out the questions that had been written down before, and not changing tack when anything else changes in question time. As I’ve said in a previous answer, the voters have a lot more intelligence and perspective than they are given credit for by the Opposition. They can appreciate that a combination of historical Government policy, events that have occurred overseas, and the current Government’s actions influence the conditions they face, and the current Government’s actions are to spend money carefully, to take pressure off inflation, to see interest rates coming down, to cut red tape, and to improve the prospects of New Zealanders. They can see that this Government is fixing what matters for them; those guys are out of touch.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her statement that the Labour capital gains tax plan is a “terrible idea”?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s not related to the original question, thank you. Question No. 5—[Interruption] Quiet, please. [Interruption] Quiet!

Question No. 5—Biosecurity

5. to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made about strengthening the biosecurity system?

Last week, I announced the Government’s plan for overhauling the Biosecurity Act to safeguard New Zealand’s primary sector into the future. As an island food-producing nation, our prosperity relies on protection from biosecurity threats. New Zealand exports $60 billion of food and fibre products each year, and our relative freedom from pests and diseases is a big part of our competitive advantage and underpins our primary sector. That’s why we’re modernising the Biosecurity Act with nearly 50 proposals for change that will strengthen protection against invasive pests and diseases.

Cameron Luxton: How could an invasive species or a disease that impacts animals have such a big impact on our economy?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Oh, he’s really kicking the hornets’ nest now!

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Yes, and we’ll take care of them. The primary sector really is the backbone of our economy, but we cannot afford to be complacent. Diseases and invasive species can spread fast and wipe out entire sectors if they are not prevented at the border or detected early and managed properly. Economic analysis from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research says that a foot-and-mouth incursion would cost over $14 billion a year. That wouldn’t just cost farmers; it would shut down our economy and permanently damage our international reputation and credibility. Our biosecurity system is strong, and we’re committed to maintaining a strong border and robust biosecurity systems.

Cameron Luxton: How will the biosecurity system at the border be strengthened?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: One of the things we will be doing is to introduce a new offence for not declaring high-risk goods such as raw meat at the border. This offence will attract a fine of $800, while low-risk goods not declared will stay at $400. Our relative freedom from pests and diseases is greatly valued by all Kiwis, and this will remind visitors that New Zealand takes biosecurity seriously. We cannot afford to put our primary sector and our natural environment at risk, and the best way to manage any biosecurity incursion is to stop it from happening in the first place.

Cameron Luxton: What changes have been made to import health standards?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: We’re improving New Zealand’s import rules by making the development of import health standards more flexible and allowing risk assessments to be tailored to the scenario—for example, we will enable the ability to issue a one-off permit for goods where it wouldn’t make sense to develop and maintain an import health standard. These changes are in addition to a new programme of work that I announced this year, aimed at significantly reducing the time it takes to develop an import health standard. This will enable higher volumes of trade, and thus give exporters greater access to new materials to develop innovative products without lowering our biosecurity standards.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of pests, can the Minister confirm what is the status of the invasive Portuguese millipede, otherwise known as Ommatoiulus moreleti, and whether or not it has crept across to the other side of the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the Minister wish to answer the first part of this question? I have no understanding of what that species is.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I believe in terms of where you’ve got a pest at a regional level, the regional council does take precedence. But, yes, we will be looking to equip Biosecurity New Zealand with lots of flamethrowers to try and remove that, and spiders.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: What actions is the Government taking to increase vaccination rates?

Our Government is taking the current measles outbreak very seriously. Cases are now confirmed across multiple regions, and the risk of continued transmission is high. That’s why, this week, Health New Zealand has launched a nationwide Measles Immunisation Week, to highlight the need for Kiwis to get immunised. Measles is a serious disease. In the 2019 outbreak, one in three people who contracted measles needed hospital care. That’s why Health New Zealand is running pop-up clinics, tracing contacts, and supporting families to lift our vaccination coverage in order to stamp out the measles outbreak and to prevent the wider impacts of this disease on our schools, our health system, society, and the economy.

Sam Uffindell: What steps has the Government taken to reduce the impact of serious diseases like measles?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We have reinstated the health target for immunisation, and after years of decline, our latest quarterly health target results show that 82 percent of children are now fully immunised by age two, up from 76.5 percent at 30 June last year, representing the largest annual gain across all of our health targets. This shows that our focus on targets is working. Whilst this is a significant increase, though, there is still much more work to be done. Health New Zealand is working with providers to make it easier for people to get their MMR vaccines and other vaccines, including through extra and pop-up clinics, to prevent the outbreak from worsening.

Sam Uffindell: Why is it important to increase the MMR vaccination rate?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Measles is one of the most infectious viruses in the world. One case can infect 12 to 18 unvaccinated people, and if you’re not immunised and you’re exposed, there’s a 90 percent chance that you will catch it. Vaccination is the single best way to protect families, prevent community spread, and take pressure off our hospitals, with two doses of the MMR vaccine providing about 99 percent protection. We need around 95 percent coverage to stop future outbreaks and to stamp out the current incursion. Over the last few years, rates fell. We are now turning that around, but there’s still more work to do.

Sam Uffindell: Why did the Government reintroduce the immunisation target?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Let’s be clear: we’re committed to giving every child the healthiest possible start to life. Targets matter because, ultimately, that helps to drive the system to ensure that we can reach the targets needed to prevent outbreaks such as what we are experiencing today. It also ensures that children get the protection they need when they need it. Whilst New Zealand’s overall vaccination rates have improved, there is still much more work to do. That’s why Health New Zealand is working with providers this week and all weeks to continue—particularly this week, with Measles Immunisation Week—to drive up immunisation rates and to promote the need for immunisation so that we can act decisively to prevent this outbreak from spreading.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that despite his Government’s performance against the target, the number of susceptible people is estimated to increase by a thousand a month and, therefore, the risk of an outbreak continues to grow irrespective of the target?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I would say to that member that it is critically important that we focus on improving immunisation rates, and I would point out what happened to immunisation rates during the previous six years under the Labour Government, where they fell from around 92 percent of two-year-olds to around 75 percent of two-year-olds due to the removal of the target. We have reintroduced the target, we are now focused on meeting it, and we acknowledge that there’s a lot more work to do and we’re focused on doing it.

Hon David Seymour: What approach is the Government taking to school attendance in the course of this outbreak—particularly during NCEA exams—and what advice has the director-general issued to schools in relation to attendance and the outbreak?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Director-General of Health has provided very clear advice that school students should continue to attend schools and exams, unless they are identified as a close contact and aren’t immunised. It’s about making sure that we continue to get our children the education that they need. Ultimately, though, the very clear message is that whether it’s teachers or students, immunisation is the best protection against measles. We’re encouraging everyone to take up that opportunity to get immunised, and the latest data, which I have just received, shows that there were around 2,500 measles immunisations delivered yesterday—the highest number since 2019.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by his answer to the Greens in question time, December 2023, when he said—and I quote—“We’re not weakening our actions on climate change, we’re just going about it in a different way.”, when his Government has just announced weakening our methane targets by halving them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think we’ve been very clear about our position on methane targets. We have the best farmers in the world; we have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world. The madness of the previous administration of sending production offshore to less carbon- and production-efficient countries makes global greenhouse gas emissions worse. We want to maintain our delivery of our commitments that we have. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet during questions, please.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister understand that Government policy which increases climate-changing emissions will ultimately increase New Zealanders’ cost of living?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not going to drive our farmers offshore and shut down farming production in New Zealand. We are not here to punish our farmers. They are the best in the world, they are the most carbon-efficient in the world, and we back them to succeed out there in the real world.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that for every Government action that increases emissions, we become more liable to pay billions of dollars offshore for other countries to reduce their emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m not punishing New Zealand farmers in any stretch of the imagination. These are the farmers that get up early each and every day. This is the farming sector that’s pulling New Zealand out of the recession that the Labour-Greens Government created. We are backing our farmers. We are not punishing our farmers. They do an outstanding job, and we’ve got the right policy to help them.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was specifically about our constructive liabilities under the Paris Agreement, which the Prime Minister should understand, and the fact that if we are not reducing our climate-changing emissions domestically, then we have liability to pay other countries to do that. He did not even address the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the Prime Minister want to expand, please, on the liability part of that question?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that is doing everything it can to meet its climate obligations, including Net Zero 2050, and, based off our latest emissions reduction plan, there’s a possibility we may even do it earlier.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To the Prime Minister, when you were answering that question, were you giving the answer to the Māori version or the English translation version, given that the latter is not an accurate translation of the former?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, can I just be unambiguous in either te reo or English that we are backing farmers. Our policy is the right one. We’re going to make sure that we deliver on our commitments but, importantly, we are powering up this economy and we are all about economic growth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I actually think that that wasn’t an actual question. The translation is not the Prime Minister’s responsibility; it’s part of the question sheet.

Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary to question No. 7?

Hon Shane Jones: Yes. A question to the Prime Minister: is he aware that one of the most wealthiest men in New Zealand has abandoned the hyperbole and hysteria of climate change—in the form of Bill Gates?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’m aware of is that if you want to back climate change, you would support fast-track legislation, you’d support mining for critical earth minerals, and you would support ending the oil and gas ban because, actually, that’s what’s needed in this country.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The translation may be not the Prime Minister’s role or responsibility, but I asked the question as to what he was answering—the Māori version or the English version—and you thought that you’d dismiss it by saying what we all know—that it’s not his responsibility. So let’s have this question: why aren’t you fulfilling your responsibility, and your staff’s, and getting it right in the first place?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m not accepting that point of order. This is a translated question which has been on notice for today, and it’s the translation on various other days. The Prime Minister is well aware of what the question means, and I’m moving on to question No. 8.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “We want all New Zealanders to be able to see a GP when they need one”; if so, is it acceptable that almost one in six New Zealanders cannot afford to go to the doctor?

In the context it was made, yes. Our Government is committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders can access the care they need when they need it. To do this, we’ve delivered the biggest ever funding boost for GPs—$175 million this year alone—at an allowable fee increase of just 3 percent, keeping costs stable and predictable. We know that the biggest barrier for patients today is actually getting an appointment. In 2023-24, 25.7 percent of adults couldn’t see a GP due to wait times, up from 11.6 percent in 2021-22. That is why we are focused on affordability and accessibility. We’re extending prescriptions to 12 months where safe, saving patients up to $105 a year in GP fees; we’re strengthening the primary care workforce; we’ve launched a 24/7 online GP care service for times when patients can’t see their regular GP; and we continue to target support through subsidised GP visits for community services card holders, and the Very Low Cost Access scheme. All of this is about putting patients first and making sure that every Kiwi can get in to see a doctor when they need to.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he help the tradie who said to me that “I don’t go to the doctor’s, because I can’t afford to. I earn $24 an hour.”, or is he not bothered by the fact that cost is preventing working people from seeing the doctor?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member will be aware, there is the community services card scheme, which means that those people earning that amount of money are able to pay a maximum of $20 co-payment, and, ultimately, that member’s policy is to put a capital gains tax on property, on commercial buildings, and on KiwiSaver so that people earning high incomes can go to the doctor for free.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he recognise that the cost of doctors visits is harming patients like the woman who wrote to me that she’d self-treated her joint problem with anti-inflammatories because she couldn’t afford a $60 visit and ended up with hearing loss?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: What I’d say to that member is that the increased number of New Zealanders who could not access a GP appointment because they couldn’t get one went from 11 percent under her watch, to 25 percent, and the other point that she fails to actually mention is that the cost of GP fees went up by 30 percent under Labour. We are focused on increasing accessibility and affordability, such as our policy of extending prescriptions, which is saving people with long-term conditions $105. I have not heard from the Labour Party whether they actually support that policy.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it fair that under his Government, a woman with pneumonia has to choose between her own health and that of her diabetic husband because they can’t both afford to go to the doctor?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I’ve said earlier, the cost of seeing a GP went up 30 percent under the Labour Party’s watch. We are focused on improving accessibility and focused on improving affordability with policies such as extending prescriptions to 12 months. I am yet to hear from the Labour Party as to whether or not they support our policy of extending prescriptions up to 12 months. That would save people up to $105 per year on seeing a GP. I have not heard from the Labour Party whether or not they support that policy.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the 70-year-old grandmother with asthma, diabetes, and high blood pressure who has cancelled her last three doctors appointments because she can’t afford it because of the $75 fee getting the care she needs?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Patients with asthma, such as that grandmother and such as me, require long-term prescriptions, and our policy will mean they won’t have to get repeat prescriptions costing $105 per year and they will be able to get a 12-month prescription. I am yet to hear whether or not the Labour Party supports that policy.

Question No. 9—Tourism and Hospitality

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

Recently, I’ve made two joint announcements that will bring more visitors to New Zealand and boost our economy. Over the weekend, Minister Potaka and I announced $10.8 million of funding to complete two sections on the Mountains to Sea great ride. These sections are among the last needed to complete the full trail from Mount Ruapehu to the Tasman Sea. Minister Stanford and I also announced that, as of yesterday, Chinese visitors are now able to travel visa-free from Australia to New Zealand. Tourism is a key part of our Government’s plan to grow the economy, and these announcements will help do just that.

Carl Bates: How will the cycle trail announcement support the regions?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We know the benefits a thriving tourism and hospitality sector brings to our economy, supporting local regions and communities. Ready-to-go projects, like the cycle trails, will bring more visitors to the Ruapehu region and entice them to stay longer, and boost the central North Island economy. Overseas tourists coming to New Zealand remain a key driver of regional growth, and we want them to experience our great rides. Our Government is fully committed to supporting the regions to thrive, including getting more visitors to every corner of New Zealand.

Suze Redmayne: Why are Chinese visitors important to New Zealand’s tourism market?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner and our third-largest source of international visitors. In the last year alone, we welcomed almost 250,000 Chinese visitors to our land. We also know that over 60 million Chinese travellers are actively considering a visit to New Zealand, and China will play a pivotal role in doubling New Zealand’s exports over the next 10 years. We’re committed to welcoming more Chinese visitors to New Zealand and strengthening the ties between our two countries.

Suze Redmayne: How will more international visitors support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth, as tourism supports one in 10 jobs in New Zealand and contributes $44 billion to our economy. Every time a tourist comes to New Zealand and spends money in a local shop, buys food in a local restaurant or cafe, and stays in our accommodation, it’s good for jobs, it’s great for growth, and it’s great for the incomes of New Zealanders. Our message is clear: New Zealand is open for business, and we welcome visitors anytime, anywhere, from any place.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement regarding employment, “They do have jobs. Often what happens is the people will take a job, they don’t stick with it for longer than a couple of days, they don’t show up on time”; if not, why not?

Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister’s comments that he made about young people. We know young people may need more support and training to be job-ready. We have already made the welfare system more active and have brought back rights and responsibilities with the traffic light system to help people stay on track. We are encouraging New Zealanders to be ready for work, while also backing employers who need committed staff to grow their businesses and our economy.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Would the people of Tokoroa have more jobs right now if they had followed the Prime Minister’s advice and stuck with a job longer than a couple of days and showed up on time?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the people of Tokoroa, I find that member’s comments offensive. I know that the local MP has spent time with them on Friday, supporting the community with job opportunities, with recruitment agencies, and with on-the-ground support from the Ministry of Social Development and community organisations, and I find that member’s comments offensive.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve got a point of order from Kieran McAnulty, and we may be thinking the same thing, but make your point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If a member finds a comment offensive, then the person who made it should be made to withdraw and apologise. In this instance, the person who made those comments was the Prime Minister. He should be made to withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think—

Hon Louise Upston: Speaking to the point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, speaking to the point of order, I think the member was referring to the comments of—

Hon Louise Upston: I was, and, speaking to the point of order, that member is speaking about a quote that has nothing to do with Tokoroa and he might want to check his facts before raising it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m going to say that I did not find the member’s statement or question offensive to the people of Tokoroa. I took it more that there have been some job losses over there, and the member may wish to clarify that because it didn’t sound offensive to me.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Speaking to the point of order, the comment was made about young people. There are young people in Tokoroa who no longer have employment, and I wanted to know whether that related to them or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. You can ask the next question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with the local people of Tokoroa, who have said that cutting their trade training capabilities right after so many job losses is just another “kick in the guts”; if not, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I would really encourage the member to get her facts straight. In terms of the Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology, the Minister responsible for vocational education has ensured that there is additional funding available for Toi Ohomai, both for the Tokoroa campus and for the Taupō campus, to ensure that training is available on the ground.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why then did her Government force Toi Ohomai to cut jobs in trade training right after record job losses in the very same region?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I think the member is confusing a number of things, and, as I’ve said, she might want to get her facts straight about Toi Ohomai in the centre of the North Island and the campuses in Tokoroa and Taupō. The member of Parliament for Taupō has worked incredibly closely with the council and with businesses on the ground to ensure that there is training available. What I don’t think is particularly helpful in this House is to bring in the lives of a challenged group of locals who have lost their jobs recently. I feel for them and their families, and I don’t believe it is suitable for that member to be dragging them into this House with issues that are actually factually incorrect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the member is asking questions on their behalf, rather than targeting her questions at them.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that employers in the Hawke’s Bay are “crying out” for young people; if so, why are there 7,359 job seekers but only 568 advertised jobs in the Hawke’s Bay?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I would like to just encourage that member to realise that we are seeing some really positive signs. If you look at the increase recently in the online job advertisements, it shows that there are increased opportunities in construction and hospitality, of which there are jobs in the Hawke’s Bay. I would encourage members to look at where there are positive opportunities, instead of doubling down on those who have challenges.

Hon Todd McClay: Has the Minister seen media reports of the hard work of the member of Parliament for Taupō in working to ensure that Toi Ohomai’s campuses in Taupō and also in Tokoroa remain open and that they were facing significant changes that would have led to a lack of training locally in those communities as a result of the significant wasteful spending of the last Government and a wasteful reorganisation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, I have seen reports of the work that the local member of Parliament has been doing on the ground with stakeholders, with the council, with Toi Ohomai, with the unions, with the community organisations, and with other training providers and other polytechs, and I’m sure that training—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And that’s a long enough answer.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Was she answering that question with the Pākehā translation “Tow-po”, or from the Māori translation of Taupō?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: She was saying it in her form of pronunciation.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she agree with the Prime Minister and say that there are jobs available when 600 people applied for one casual job at mini-putt golf in this region?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I’ve said, there is positive annual growth. It’s up 10 percent for the construction industry, 10.2 percent for the IT industry, 6.8 percent for the hospitality industry, and 2.9 percent for the primary industries. We should be positive. We should be looking forward—as well as the 240,000 jobs that are coming over the next couple of years because of this Government’s investment in infrastructure and this Government’s work to unleash businesses by getting rid of red and green tape.

Question No. 11—Trade and Investment

11. to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What has the Government recently announced about strengthening trade and economic ties with Singapore and Chile?

Just last Friday, at APEC in Korea, along with the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of Singapore, and the President of Chile, we launched negotiations for the Green Economy Partnership Agreement, or GEPA. This will be a high-quality agreement that boosts trade and investment between our countries and will drive economic growth in New Zealand. This agreement will position New Zealand businesses at the forefront of the growing global green economy, which is expected to be valued at $19 trillion by 2040.

Paulo Garcia: What are the key pillars of the Green Economy Partnership Agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The GEPA, as it’s called, will cover many innovative areas, including sustainable finance and investment, green goods and services, sustainable agricultural food systems, and low-emissions fuel alternatives. It aims to bring down barriers, lower costs, and reduce tariff rates across the green economy, and, once completed, it will be open to other countries to join. Our shared vision for the GEPA is to support new trade opportunities and efficiencies for businesses, reinforce the rules-based order of international trade, and lower trade barriers while achieving climate change action.

Paulo Garcia: How does trade and investment support sustainable growth?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the Government believes that solutions to environmental challenges, including climate change, will come from having greater trade and cooperation with other countries, not less, and through investment in new technologies, not putting up costs on businesses or putting them out of business. The GEPA will drive investment in innovation and trade with Singapore and Chile and, in turn, it will mean more exports and more investment for higher-paying jobs for New Zealanders.

Paulo Garcia: What other agreements has the Government announced with Singapore and Chile?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, successive Governments have worked away with these two countries. New Zealand, Singapore, and Chile have a proud history of shared leadership in developing innovative trade agreements to drive innovation and economic growth, from the P4 agreement, which went on to be the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, to, then, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—and the CPTPP—the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement, and, more recently, the New Zealand - Singapore Comprehensive Strategic Partnership was agreed with Singapore and it had been worked on for some time. All of these agreements have benefited New Zealand exporters, and this is why the Government is committed to doubling the value of exports over 10 years through agreements like the GEPA.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Why has his Government chosen to punish success by defunding Māori health infrastructure that saved lives and performed better than many State services during the pandemic in regard to vaccination?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because this Government is determined to lift health outcomes for Māori and the way to do that is to focus on lifting immunisation rates for under-twos, and I would just love that member to come out and have a policy idea on doing exactly that.

Rawiri Waititi: If those vaccination rates are to increase, why have Māori vaccination rates plummeted, and what is his Government going to do about it?

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, this Government in the very first few weeks partnered with Māori health organisations, I think, from memory, to the tune of about $50 million. It has achieved really outstanding and excellent results, not just with Māori kids getting immunised, but non-Māori kids, as well.

Rawiri Waititi: Does the Prime Minister believe that teaching our children about Te Tiriti is the foundation of a bicultural nation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we are, but what we believe is that the number one priority is actually academic achievement and teaching our kids the basics brilliantly, whether they’re Māori or non-Māori. This is a Government that has done more in two years, with an outstanding Minister, than the previous Ministers did in the previous six.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he going to ban visits not just to marae but to churches, museums, and mosques also—when does this Government’s intrusion on where our children can learn and visit end?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m confused by the question as to the relevance of the question, but what is unambiguous is that this is a Government that is focused on lifting Māori academic achievement, and it would be fantastic if that member and his party had any ideas and any policy contribution to that. We have done more to lift Māori educational outcomes than in the previous six years, and let me give you an example. Māori new entrants are operating at or above expectations on the phonics checks 20 weeks into schooling life: it’s up 18 percent. Māori kids needing targeted extra support is down 15 percent because we are teaching the basics brilliantly, and we make no apologies for doing so.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of statements and actions, is the Prime Minister aware that the term “wehewehe kāinga” means splits and divisions lead both to doom and a political tomb?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister doesn’t have any responsibility for that question.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister proud of the Government’s—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, we’re having a question.

Hon David Seymour: —charter school kura hourua policy, which has seen schools such as Te Rito in the Far North, TIPINE in South Auckland, and, soon, Te Aratika in Hawke’s Bay open to empower Māori to learn on their terms in their way?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I am, and there are 17 charter schools now in motion and it’s important. Iwi leaders that I’ve spoken are very supportive of charter schools—even Willie Jackson is a fan.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions, and in the spirit of the House, I’m going to give people 30 seconds to quietly leave the House without having conversations.