Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has she made on overhauling the Holidays Act?

The Government has agreed that patchwork fixes to the Holidays Act won’t do—what we need is a complete overhaul. The Holidays Act will be repealed and replaced with a simpler, more workable alternative: what will be known as the employment leave bill. The new legislation will be based on hours-based accrual, something I know businesses have been asking for for a long time now. Employers will finally have certainty with straightforward rules they can apply, and workers will be able to understand their entitlement. This is a win for workers, a win for businesses, and a win for the country.

Mark Cameron: What recent reports has she seen about the Government’s decision to reform the Holidays Act?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My announcement seems to have stumped some journalists, with one reporting that the announcement has “pulled off the unthinkable: an ACT MP unveiling a policy that has relatively broad appeal from businesses to (some parts of the) unions.” The Employers and Manufacturers Association said, “it’s great to finally see a Government follow through with a system based on simplicity”, and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has “welcomed changes to the Holidays Act that will provide sick, bereavement and family violence leave from day one of employment, remove the unfairness for those returning from parental leave, increase casual loading, and provide for pay statements.”

Mark Cameron: How will the public benefit from the changes to the Holidays Act that have been announced?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: All workers, businesses, and their families will benefit from leave payments being simpler and more predictable, with greater transparency and certainty. However, I do want to talk about one change in particular. The Government’s reforms recognise the unique challenges faced by families returning to work after parental leave. Parents returning from parental leave will now be better supported, with their annual leave paid out at the same rate regardless of when they take it. This change will ensure that new parents aren’t financially disadvantaged when taking time off to care for their families.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he said, “If you want a job, you go where the jobs are. I encourage anyone to do what it takes to get a job.”, did he mean: “go to Australia”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, but I’d just say to that member, who raises that issue regularly, when Kiwis leave and go to Australia, what do they do? They go to oil and mining, they go to gas, and they do a bunch of things over there that he’s refused to create opportunities for here at home. That’s why we’re very happy to support quarrying, mining, and oil and gas. Reverse the decision.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he launched a tourism campaign saying that “Everyone must go”, was he meaning that the New Zealanders who can’t find work under his leadership should just give up and go to Australia—

SPEAKER: Hang on. The House will settle. When a question is being asked, there is no commentary from anyone. Please start again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he launched a marketing campaign claiming that “Everyone must go”, was he suggesting that everyone who can’t find work in New Zealand must go to Australia to find work, as jobs disappear in New Zealand and 200 New Zealanders a day, under his leadership, give up and leave the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I mean, the member can play politics with it as much as he likes, but the reality is that the number of New Zealanders leaving New Zealand is the same as it was in the last year that he was Prime Minister. The reality is that he doesn’t want to do oil and gas, he doesn’t want to do mining, and he doesn’t want to do fast track to create jobs for New Zealanders, so he’s just playing petty politics. We care about fixing the joint that you crashed, and we’re fixing it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that there are 36,000 fewer jobs under his leadership than when he started as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I accept that Government spending getting out of control, a tripling of the debt, a rapid rising of inflation that leads to high interest rates and put the economy into recession that ended up with people losing their jobs is a clear responsibility of his Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a simple question as to whether he accepted that there were 36,000 fewer jobs under his leadership.

SPEAKER: Yep, the Prime Minister might have another answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member. As I’ve tried to explain before, when Governments increase spending by 84 percent, that takes inflation up to 7.5 percent and that leads to 12 or 13 interest rate rises, which then puts an economy into recession. The sad reality is that people lose their jobs. If you care about low- and middle-income working New Zealanders, which the Labour Party purportedly used to do, you’d actually run the economy instead of actually tripling the amount of debt and writing out $10 billion interest cheques for each and every year since you started.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he say that those struggling for work should move to Christchurch, Dargaville, and Hawke’s Bay given that, in the Kaipara district, which includes Dargaville, there are 1,404 jobseeker recipients with 16 vacancies listed; Hawke’s Bay has 7,359 jobseekers with 569 vacancies listed; and Christchurch employers have been reporting over 500 applicants per job?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Isn’t this the difference between the Labour Party and this coalition Government, right? When unemployment was 3.5 percent, 60,000 more people went on jobseeker benefit, and their attitude is that you just let young people—18- to 19-year-olds—languish on welfare, and say, “Sorry, son, that’s your lot for the next 18 years.” Well, we care about 18- and 19-year-olds; we want them connected to work, we want them in education, and we want them in training, and we’re prepared to make the changes. But we’re not going to consign people, like the Labour Party do, to lifetimes on welfare. That’s unacceptable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could now address the question that I asked him, which is why he told people to go to Christchurch, Dargaville, and Hawke’s Bay to find work when there isn’t work in those areas.

SPEAKER: Well, would you like, Prime Minister, to make another couple of statements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, 18- and 19-year-old young people in New Zealand go to different universities, polytechnics, or apprenticeship opportunities in towns that are different from where they’re raised. If you’re an 18- to 19-year-old, and you want to get connected to work, you go find a job even if it’s outside of your home town.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept any responsibility for the fact that there are 20,000 fewer jobs in construction today than when he became Prime Minister, given that construction employers have been citing Government decisions to cut, pause, or cancel projects as one of the major reasons for reducing the number of people they are employing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member before, what really impacts construction jobs is, actually, when you lose shape on economic management, that causes interest rates to go through the roof. It’s very difficult for developers to secure financing with higher interest rates because the economy’s been mismanaged because inflation went up because spending went up. This is a Government that’s working incredibly hard. We now have $237 billion worth of infrastructure projects in the pipeline; we have $125 billion of them funded; and this is a Government that’s accelerating $7 billion worth of infrastructure investment before Christmas. If the member actually cared about people getting jobs, he would support fast-track legislation, he would change his position on repealing the oil and gas ban, he would support the roads of national significance, and he would support Investment Boost to encourage our small businesses to embrace more technology and innovation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If all of those things were so successful, why is it that capital hospital spending has halved under his leadership, with almost $800 million less being spent on upgrading our hospitals now than when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually very proud of the efforts that we’re taking in healthcare. This is a Government that spent $17 billion more in our first year—another 7 percent added in our last Budget. It’s got 2,100 more nurses. It’s got 600 more doctors. It has clarity on the five goals that we’re actually asking the health system to deliver, which was to deliver for patients—who are your customers—of New Zealand, and we’re making some good progress on that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders believe anything that the Prime Minister has just said when he declared that 2025 was all about “growth, growth, growth”, and what he’s actually delivered is a shrinking economy, with New Zealand now 2.8 percent smaller per capita than when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because New Zealanders can see that we are treating Government money as if it’s our own and not wasting it like the last lot did. New Zealanders can see that inflation has gone from 7.5 percent to 2.7 percent. New Zealanders can see that, actually, interest rates are coming down. We had strong growth in Q4 and Q1. We’re growing again now. Growth is coming. Don’t worry about it. On unemployment, we’re going to create jobs for people.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

The road to recovery is not always smooth. As I said in the House a couple of weeks ago, forecasters were predicting a negative GDP result for the June quarter; they got a little more than expected: GDP was reported at negative 0.9 percent for the quarter, following positive growth of 0.9 percent in the previous quarter. I note that quarterly GDP data has, in recent years, been quite volatile and subject to significant revisions.

Suze Redmayne: What was driving the GDP result for June?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Business investment fell 1 percent in the quarter across most categories. I am advised by Treasury that this likely reflects cautious investment behaviour on the part of New Zealand firms as US trade policy developments and financial market volatility took hold from the beginning of April. Manufacturing was down in the quarter. This is consistent with the BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index, which dropped sharply in the month after the tariff announcements. Goods exports were also down in the quarter, mainly due to lower dairy volumes, following a very strong March quarter.

Suze Redmayne: What else did these results show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The results included some positive signs for the domestic economy. In particular, household consumption lifted again in the June quarter, which is a sign that monetary policy easing is starting to filter through. That transmission of monetary policy is continuing as mortgage holders move from floating and short-term fixed interest rates and fix at longer, lower rates, adding further impetus to demand. Commodity prices are continuing to support rural incomes, and the direct impact of higher US tariffs has been less than expected to date, notwithstanding the indirect effects of uncertainty.

Suze Redmayne: What do more recent indicators show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is important to remember that the GDP figures we’re talking about present a backward-looking view of the economy. They are about the second quarter of the year, and we are now in the fourth quarter. More recent indicators of activity and demand have been mixed; however, the Reserve Bank now uses a model developed by the New York Fed that puts this recent data together to predict quarterly GDP, months ahead of the official Stats NZ release. It’s updated every Friday. It’s on the Reserve Bank’s website, if members wish to check it out. On the data available last Friday, it predicts GDP growth of between 0.6 percent and 0.7 percent in the September quarter. While the road has been a little rocky, the economy looks to have picked up again, with growth resuming in the second half of the year.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he take responsibility for the 36,000 fewer jobs and 10,000 more unemployed young people since he came into office and implemented his economic policies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s a Government that takes creating new jobs very seriously. That’s why in the Budget we saw 240,000 new jobs will be created over the next four years and an economy that’s expected to grow about 2.7 percent, on average, each year for the next four.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister please clearly explain, for the 15,000 young people spending their days filling out job applications, why there are four job seekers for every single job ad; is it because young people should “get off the couch and stop playing PlayStation” or is it because his Government policies have increased unemployment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re a Government that’s working incredibly hard to fix unemployment. The way that we do that is we get a grip on spending, which the previous Labour-Greens Government didn’t do; we make sure that we lower inflation, which the previous Labour-Greens Government didn’t do; we lower interest rates; we get our economy growing, and that creates jobs for people. What I’d also say to that member is that we have a different philosophy and a different set of expectations on 18- to 19-year-olds. We’re not going to write them off like a Labour-Greens Government did and let them languish on welfare. We don’t think that’s a good pathway forward.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are families earning $66,000 combined struggling with the cost of living crisis?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Families that are below $66,000 will be exempted from this scheme. But any parental income of $66,000 or above, they will take responsibility for their 18- to 19-year-olds, to make sure they get connected to work, training, or education. Pretty simple.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why would he make changes to a policy to make young job seekers dependent on their parents earning $66,000 combined?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we want young people to be dependent upon themselves, then their families, then their Government. We want young people to be dependent on finding work, study, or education.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How can he expect young people in regional Aotearoa to be in “jobs, education, or training”, as he says, when there are an average of four times as many job seekers for every job vacancy, and when polytechs are cutting courses, staff, and campuses across regional Aotearoa because of his Government’s cuts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that is actually making sure the mess that was Te Pūkenga—the $300 million that was wasted—the polytechnics are put back into regional New Zealand to connect people with work. We think young people working is a good thing. We don’t think it’s good enough just to sit there and say, “Young person, you’re on welfare for the next 18 years if you get on a jobseeker benefit under the age of 25.” We have to do something different. We have higher expectations and that’s what we’re making sure happens.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly does he reconcile his statement to young people “The world doesn’t owe you a living.” with his $3 billion tax cut to landlords?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disregard the characterisation of that question. I just say the first part of that is true.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement that benefit dependency is a “human tragedy”, and, if so, what is more of a tragedy: the Government upholding their duty of care and supporting young people when they’re doing it tough, or seeing our rangatahi sleeping on the streets?

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

Hon Marama Davidson: How is it fair to scapegoat young people as being “lazy, sitting on the couch playing PlayStation” when there are far more job seekers than jobs in almost every region in the country, and when they are competing for those jobs with people more experienced than they are?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question: I’ve never characterised young people as lazy. What I’ve said is: we want you, we care about you, we love you. We’re not like a Greens-Labour organisation that just says, “Stay on welfare for the next 18 years.” We want you connected to work, training, and employment so that you actually get a great future and can follow your dreams. That’s what it’s all about.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he understand that removing Work and Income support for young people and directing them to move away from their communities and people they love, without any guarantee of housing and support, into seasonal, short-term work will adversely impact on their wellbeing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there we have it, don’t we? “We don’t want young people working. We’re not prepared to work for anything. You stay on welfare; that’s good enough for you.” Well, I’m sorry; that’s not good enough for us in this Government. We care about young people. We want them connected to education, training, and work. That’s what this policy’s about. Lots of 18- to 19-year-olds move to go to polytechs, universities, or to take up apprenticeships in different towns. If you want that first job, you do anything to secure that first job so you can get your life started.

Hon Marama Davidson: When was the last time support to relocate for jobs was updated?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: You’d have to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment that, but I’d just say that it’s not a big one to say to 18- to 19-year-olds, “If you can’t find a job in your home town and you can find one in another, move.”

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he think would be more beneficial for rangatahi during an economic crisis they did not create: providing support during the highest period of unemployment since 2020, or stripping them of financial support while putting their parents into financial hardship?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Let’s be clear: the Labour-Greens Government had a 3.5 percent unemployment rate and still put 60,000 people on the jobseeker benefit. It’s because they don’t care about young people in New Zealand. They don’t care about getting them connected to education, training, or work. They just say, “You can languish on welfare for the next 18 years, and that’s better than doing a manual, hard-working job in a kiwi-packing factory or something else.” I’m sorry; we’re changing it. You may not like it, but it’s being changed.

Question No. 5—Finance

Question No. 5—the Hon Barbara Edmonds. [Interruption]

Vinaka vakalevu, Mr Speaker.

Just wait for a moment. There are a lot of conversations going on while questions are being asked that should not be going on.

5. to the Minister of Finance: Is the negative 1.1 percent annual growth rate a result of her economic management; if not, why not?

No. The economy is recovering from a period of economic management in which the previous Government engaged in reckless increases to Government spending, which drove inflation sky high, which in turn required huge hikes in interest rates, and which then in turn caused a deep, protracted economic downturn. That is what the economy is now recovering from. I take responsibility for helping create better conditions for future economic growth, including supporting a reduction in inflation, lower interest rates, pro-growth reforms, and better management of the Government’s books.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does New Zealand’s road to economic recovery in the June 2025 quarter, that saw a contraction of 0.9 percent, compare to Canada’s, who are more directly affected by US tariffs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, these comparisons are interesting; however, I note that the member did not make those comparisons in the first quarter of the year when New Zealand’s growth rate was three times the rate of Australia’s.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why do 43 percent of businesses have no confidence in her plan?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As is always the case with that member, I’d have to see the context of the statistic and what it’s actually referring to before I commented on it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with one business leader, who said, “Willis’ so-called growth agenda is spin without substance. She excels at bashing business for non-issues like butter prices, but has not shown any genuine thought leadership.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, no, I don’t agree with that comment. I’d note that her own leader believes that butter prices are such an issue that he has mentioned it countless times in this House. I’d also note that the same commentary which the member is selectively quoting from now implores the Opposition to do a much better job and notes that they pose a significant risk to the future of the New Zealand economy. So if the member wants to go blow for blow on mood of the boardroom, she’s welcome to do so, but it won’t reflect well on her, her leader, or her colleagues.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with another business leader, who said, “It feels like she has chased headlines and cheap politics. She lost massive credibility over attacking Fonterra”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think it’s well known by members of this House that I am an unashamed Fonterra champion. New Zealand dairy farmers are driving the export recovery that this country needs. The work they have done over successive generations, despite the efforts of the last Government to tie them up in red tape, regulation, and farmer bashing, is extraordinary and will help drive New Zealand’s economic recovery. I’m on Fonterra’s side.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: This is great!

SPEAKER: Just wait again.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who else does she blame for 36,000 fewer jobs, 2,700 company liquidations, the 200 Kiwis who leave every day, and a shrinking economy, given the Government has blamed the previous Government, US tariffs, merchants of misery, teenagers, and even John Key?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member would do well to listen to the answers I’ve given to questions in this House already today, in which I have acknowledged that a difficult economic recovery is taking place against a backdrop in which the previous Government allowed inflation to soar out of control for three years, which saw an extraordinary rise in interest rates, which in turn has led to recession. The responsibility for those policies lies in the past. My responsibility is to ensure that we are setting the conditions for future economic growth, and we are doing that by bringing inflation back into control, ensuring interest rates can drop, better managing the Government’s books, and pursuing pro-growth reforms. The member can sit opposite me and critique, but given the only policy she’s talked about so far is a higher target for inflation and more tax, I’d suggest she’s got more homework to do.

Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs

6. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What feedback, if any, has he received on the Government’s approach to the Middle East?

Over the last 10 days, since speaking to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, we’ve been pleased by the positive feedback we’ve received from a good number of New Zealanders. Our balanced, moderate, prudent position upholding New Zealand’s long tradition of an independent foreign policy has received praise from a diverse range of sources. New Zealanders agree with us that the Government should be acting carefully and in our national interest. They agreed that we should be calling out behaviour from both Hamas and Israel that undermines peace in the Middle East and the two-State solution. They agree that we should be doing our bit to alleviate the grave humanitarian situation in Gaza, and they agree that we should be supporting those efforts by countries with influence over the situation to use their leverage to try and bring about lasting peace.

Dr David Wilson: How has New Zealand’s international reputation been impacted by the announcements in New York?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Shattered.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, knackering is that member’s specialty. We have had conversations in recent times with leaders and foreign Ministers, with senior officials from dozens and dozens of countries both in the Middle East and closer to home. On the basis of those conversations, we are confident that New Zealand’s position on these issues is well known and well understood, and our international reputation as fair minded, pragmatic, prudent, and independent remains very much intact.

Dr David Wilson: How does the New Zealand Government view the situation of the New Zealanders who sought to arrive in Gaza by sea?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: New Zealand has a longstanding “do not travel” advisory in place for Gaza. The advisory explicitly warns New Zealanders that any attempt to enter Gaza by sea is in breach of Israeli Navy restrictions, including participation in flotillas to deliver aid. Those New Zealanders who flagrantly ignored those warnings did so at their own peril. It’s a bit rich for them, now, to turn around—with the support of members of this House—and demand New Zealand Government assistance. We, of course, expect any New Zealanders overseas to be treated in a manner consistent with international law and provide consular assistance to any New Zealanders abroad who asked for it. Having said that, these New Zealanders knowingly put themselves in that position and they will not be getting any special treatment from the New Zealand Government. And what an irony: standing outside my place shouting out “Bring them home!” when we told them not to go. Now there they are outside the door shouting out, “Bring them home!”

Hon Member: That’s right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s right. It’s a circus.

Dr David Wilson: How does the New Zealand Government view protesters gathering outside and even attacking the homes of politicians?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Unlike some members opposite, we absolutely deplore such actions. Politicians, their spouses, their children, their pets, and their neighbours should not be subject to intimidation, harassment, and violence from mobs and bludgers who disagree with Government policy. We live in a democracy where views can be aired freely and openly, and where protests can and do happen all the time in public places, but this should not extend to gathering outside and even violently attacking politicians’ homes. That’s why the Government is bringing legislation to this House to outlaw such intimidatory and harassing behaviour. That is why those members opposite, who have colluded and collaborated with protesters targeting politicians’ homes, should be utterly ashamed of their hypocritical selves.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. to the Minister of Justice: What action is the Government taking to address demonstrations outside private residences?

The Government has recently introduced legislation that’ll make it a criminal offence to engage in targeted and disruptive demonstrations near residential premises. It targets a narrow range of behaviours where demonstrators cause an unreasonable disruption directed at a person regularly occupying a property. This bill, which Opposition parties oppose, is currently before the Justice Committee. I encourage them to reconsider their position.

Tom Rutherford: Why is it necessary to protect someone’s quiet enjoyment and access to their—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK, hold on. Wait on, sorry. We will just have the questions heard in silence.

Rawiri Waititi: No urgency from this Government.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? Was that directed my way?

Rawiri Waititi: That’s the question. There’s the answer, over there.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s right. Make no comment when someone is called to ask a question.

Tom Rutherford: Why is it necessary to protect someone’s quiet enjoyment and access to their private property?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Everybody should be able to enjoy their privacy at home and be free from unreasonable interference with it. We don’t think it’s acceptable for people to bang pots and pans all through the night or to create an environment of fear and intimidation for individuals, their families, and neighbours. Intimidation has no place in our democracy, and I call upon all members and all parties in Parliament, particularly the Greens but also Labour, to join the Government to defend that principle.

Tom Rutherford: Will the new offence stop people demonstrating or expressing their views?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No. The new offence will not stop people from demonstrating or expressing their views. It strikes a balance between protecting all New Zealanders’ fundamental right to privacy and right to enjoy their own homes against the ability to protest. The Government upholds both of these values. I note that targeting and disrupting the homes of others, particularly elected officials, risks deterring them from taking stands on contentious issues in the first place. It risks stopping them from expressing their views, which, ultimately, weakens our democracy.

Hon Shane Jones: Will the proposed offences cover Opposition MPs inciting violence against Ministers?

SPEAKER: That’s not something he can answer a question on.

Hon Member: He can, actually.

SPEAKER: No, he can. Is it in the legislation? You’re quite right.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, it’s not in this legislation. Any incitement of violence is already covered by legislation.

Tom Rutherford: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just wait. Right.

Tom Rutherford: What recent commentary has he seen on the issue?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I heard one comment from a parliamentarian this morning: “MPs’ homes should be safe places. No members of Parliament should have their people protesting outside their house.” Then I heard another member of Parliament saying, “It is appropriate to protest outside MPs’ houses.” The first was from the leader of the Labour Party, the second was from the justice spokesman of the Labour Party, but both of them voted against the bill. It appears that at least Duncan Webb is more consistent than his leader.

SPEAKER: I’ll just make the point that there are times when some interjections actually start to diminish the points being made by Ministers to their answers. In that last question, there were examples of that. I would strongly suggest leaving it alone.

Question No. 8—Energy

8. to the Minister for Energy: How much will last week’s energy package cut power bills for Kiwi families and businesses by next winter?

The Government knows that Kiwi families and businesses are feeling the pressure of high power bills. That’s why our energy package tackles the root causes: limited fuel supply, a shortage of back-up generation in dry years, and years of policy uncertainty. The issues add a risk premium of between $240 and $400 annually on Kiwis’ household power bills. Our plan addresses each of these issues and will put downward pressure on prices.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with Auckland Business Chamber chief executive Simon Bridges, who said of the Government’s energy package: “Kiwi businesses and households have been crying out for bold action … they didn’t get it.”; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, we understand that all New Zealanders want stronger competition, and that is precisely what this package delivers. Under the Government’s package, the Electricity Authority will gain enforcement powers and new transparency obligations to prevent anti-competitive conduct. This will ensure that the market remains fair and competitive. To the comments made by some stakeholders: it is fair to acknowledge that this problem did not happen overnight, and it will not be fixed overnight either, but the intention of the package of interventions that we have announced will have a downward pressure on price over the coming years.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with the Major Electricity Users Group chair, who said that “the package is lacking in strong action”, that there’s nothing in it that will make a difference to affordability and competition over the next decade, and that the risk of de-industrialisation and job losses will continue; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, what the Frontier Economics report did acknowledge is that our electricity market works generally well but that prices are too high and we have energy supply issues to solve. New Zealand is experiencing a renewable energy boom, which will bring prices down over time, but there is one barrier standing in our way: the energy system does not have enough back-up supply to keep the economy running when we can’t rely on hydro lakes and wind to generate electricity. That is what’s driving prices up and adding to the cost of living pressures for New Zealanders, and that is the problem that our package will resolve.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who, when speaking to a question on whether this will reduce power prices for Kiwis, said, “Yeah, look, I don’t know. I mean, that will ultimately be, you know, determined by, you know, the electricity companies,”; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I want to remind the MP that the Frontier report found that the high power prices that New Zealand Kiwi households and businesses face are as a result of decisions made by her party. The report specifically cited the ban on offshore exploration, the 100 percent renewable target, and Lake Onslow as to why we are short on investment in fuel and firming, and that has left us dangerously short of reliable back-up generation. This is a direct cost on Kiwi households and businesses that she may want to reflect on.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure whether the Minister agrees that that will ultimately be determined by the electricity companies, as the Prime Minister said in the transcript that I read from. He did not address whether or not he agreed with the Prime Minister in his answer.

SPEAKER: Well, that might your opinion. I think that the answer was, in the context of the question asked, quite a reasonable one. Does the Minister want to make any other comment?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with Rewiring Aotearoa, who said of the Government’s energy package: “The Government’s reforms are unlikely to bring down the cost of electricity for New Zealanders”; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I do not agree with that statement. What we have introduced, as a result of the package of interventions within our energy package, are solutions to the problems that are driving up power prices in this country. The solutions which we have identified will deal with those core problems: a lack of fuel, a lack of generation, and a lack of certainty around investment—those are the three core issues. Those are the issues that our package will address and resolve, and, as a result, that will have downward pressure on prices.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: How many more businesses need to shut their doors, how many more people need to lose their jobs, and how much higher must household power bills soar before his Government will take action to deliver affordable energy for New Zealanders?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As I noted before in one of the responses to the questions, our plan will fix the problems in our energy system by securing affordable power, guaranteeing reliability, and restoring investor confidence. This is critical so that Kiwi families and businesses can rely on their lights staying on and their bills going down.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. In an interjection across the House, the Prime Minister claimed that he did not say, “Yeah, look, I don’t know, I mean that that will ultimately be, you know, determined by, you know, the electricity companies.” So I seek leave to table a transcript, prepared by my office, of an interview with Hamish McKay on The Country on 1 October of this year, which has a transcript of the Prime Minister saying that.

SPEAKER: It’s publicly available.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, my office prepared the transcript.

SPEAKER: What, they wrote the transcript?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: They went through, they listened diligently, and they transcribed it, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] I seek leave to table that transcript.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes! [Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’re 12 months early for this sort of behaviour. I know it’s the first day back after a long break, but let’s keep it as seemly as we can.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What evidence does he have that whānau earning just over $65,000 a year can afford to support an 18- or 19-year-old, when two parents on minimum wage already exceed that threshold by $33,000, with no allowance for rent, other tamariki, or the rising cost of living?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They can support their young person by encouraging them to get connected to employment, training, or work.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What measures, if any, will the Prime Minister put in place to stop the 4,300 young people expected to lose jobseeker support next year from falling into poverty, homelessness, or leaving Aotearoa entirely?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re making sure they’ll get a job.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does the Prime Minister say to Carlos, an 18-year-old building apprentice in Whanganui who has applied for 22 jobs and is now moving to Australia?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d say to Carlos: actually, this is a Government that’s doing everything we can to try and create employment and opportunities for Carlos. That’s why we’ve got fast track—which that member and Labour oppose—and that’s why we’re opening up mining and oil and gas. Because there are opportunities for young people in those sectors in Australia but not here in New Zealand, because the Opposition opposes those.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can the Prime Minister justify cutting jobseeker access for our rangatahi when it is the Government, not our young people, that created the conditions of poverty and unemployment that they are now being punished for?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, at just over 5 percent, our unemployment rate is actually below what it has been, on average, over the last 15 years or so. I appreciate it’s ticked up a little bit but there are opportunities for young New Zealanders to get connected to jobs, education, or training. I’m sorry, we just don’t buy the Opposition’s line that “Actually, we’re going to consign 18- and 19-year-olds to welfare, and they’re forecasted to be on it for 18 years.” It’s just not good. We care about those young people; we don’t want them languishing on welfare.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is the Government encouraging young New Zealanders into work and away from welfare dependency?

Our Government is taking action to help young New Zealanders build independent and successful lives. We’re also introducing $1,000 bonus payment from October next year for a young person aged 18 to 24 who has worked with a community job coach, moved into employment, and stayed in a job for at least 12 months. These changes are about fairness, opportunity, and personal responsibility. We want every young person in New Zealand to be learning, training, or working—not on welfare. This is a Government that believes in young people’s potential and will back them.

Carl Bates: Why is the Government focused on reducing welfare dependency and setting clear expectations for young people?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because getting stuck on the benefit at such a young age can have lifelong impacts. Evidence shows us that if a young person goes on to welfare before the age of 25, they can spend, on average, another 18 years on benefit over their lifetime. That’s not good enough for them, for their families, or for New Zealand. Our message is simple: work, training, or education should always come before welfare. This is about aspiration, setting clear expectations, giving young people structure and purpose, and helping them take the first step towards independence.

Carl Bates: How does the Parental Assistance Test ensure fairness for young people, families, and taxpayers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Parental Assistance Test ensures that support goes where it’s needed most. This test will consist of two parts: a parental income test and a parental support gap test. The parental income test will determine if a young person’s parents earn above an income, limited to financially support them—this is currently $65,529. The parental support gap test will determine if a young person can reasonably be expected to rely on their parents for support. This would need to be verified through a third party—for example, through evidence from a doctor, counsellor, or other agency. This balances compassion with fairness, recognising that most parents want the best for their children, and that supporting them through education, training, or work is a big part of that.

Carl Bates: What is the purpose of the new $1,000 bonus payment, and how will it support young people to stay in work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The $1,000 bonus payment recognises and rewards young people who take responsibility for their futures. It applies to 18- to 24-year-olds who have been on benefit for at least 12 months, are working with a community job coach, have found a job, and stayed in work, and off benefit, for at least 12 months. This payment sends a clear message: if you commit to work and stick with it, we’ll back you. It’s about celebrating success, encouraging persistence, and showing that work truly does pay. Every young person who moves away from dependency and into work is a win for them, and it’s a win for their community, for taxpayers, and for New Zealand.

Question No. 11—Infrastructure

11. to the Minister for Infrastructure: Does he agree with the Acting Minister for Economic Growth that the Government’s job is “generating jobs and higher living standards for New Zealanders”?

on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: This is another attempt from that member to misrepresent a Minister. The full quote from my colleague Chris Bishop was: “At the end of the day, the Government’s job is to implement good public policy and good fiscal policy, and allow growth in the economy to return, generating jobs and higher living standards for New Zealanders.” That statement is clear that the Government’s job is to create the environment for growth, which, in turn, generates jobs and higher living standards. So I agree with the full statement in that context. I’m afraid this question highlights the importance of the work being done by my colleague Erica Stanford on structured literacy.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many construction jobs were lost when the Government cancelled 3,500 Kāinga Ora homes?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: She’s as bad at maths as she is at structured literacy. Kāinga Ora has delivered more new-build homes in the last 23 months under our Government than the entire three years under the last Labour Government. Those are the facts.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she accept that cutting almost $1 billion of Kāinga Ora’s building spend has contributed to the 20,000 jobs lost in the construction sector; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: You cannot cancel projects that didn’t have funds. Let me step you through the numbers: in the last 23 months under this Government, we have delivered over 7,000 new-build social homes. By comparison, under the entire past three years under the last Labour Government, only 6,000 homes were delivered, so I’ll take our record over your record any day.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was Kāinga Ora wrong when they advised that $1 billion of building spend supports approximately 5,200 Kiwi jobs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There are a range of estimates used to identify the jobs associated with infrastructure investment, including that by the Infrastructure Commission, which is why I am so pleased to be able to be the Finance Minister in a Government that is supporting more than $7 billion worth of infrastructure projects commencing before Christmas and why I’m also pleased to recognise a new fact for the member, which is that it’s not just the Government that invests in infrastructure. In fact, the bulk of infrastructure investment occurs with the private sector. When we ask the private sector what stops them making those investments, they highlight two key factors: (1) high interest rates—that’s why it’s important we bring them down—and (2) consenting issues, which is why we have introduced the fast-track Act, which is already working to get major infrastructure developments off the ground. That member should stop opposing it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she go ahead and cut almost $1 billion of funding—

SPEAKER: Sorry, stop for a minute. Conversations across the House can’t persist while a question is being asked.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she go ahead and cut almost $1 billion of funding for building homes when Kāinga Ora warned her in March last year that restrictions to their building ability would lead to a significant drop in building activity in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m grateful to the advice from my colleague Minister Stanford, who advises that some children require repeated instruction in order to grasp concepts. You can’t cancel projects that didn’t have funding. Kāinga Ora has delivered more new-build homes under this Government than were delivered under the past three years of the last Labour Government. Those are the facts. If you would like, I’m sure, on behalf of the Minister, we could offer you a full briefing.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she now regret slashing infrastructure projects when we can all see it has directly contributed to 20,000 job losses in the construction sector?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This is getting worse and worse because, actually, here are the facts, which are these: in each of the Budgets we have delivered, we have added more infrastructure investment on top of the infrastructure investment that was already there. We have increased the amount of public investment in infrastructure. If that member is so wrong-headed to think that every single construction job in New Zealand is dependent on public infrastructure, then perhaps she needs to get a little bit more reading done, because, as is actually the case, the construction sector relies heavily on private sector development—things like housing development, which tends to be funded also by the private sector, Member Andersen, and things like the Auckland Port development, which is being funded by that organisation. If the member is still acting under the belief that the only people who can build homes is the Government, then I’d suggest to her that she look up KiwiBuild—a very sorry chapter in New Zealand’s political history.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcements has the Government made about the earthquake-prone building system?

Last week, the Government announced what we considered to be a risk-based, balanced system for earthquake-prone buildings that keeps life safety at its heart while saving $8.2 billion. The current system has the best of intentions but has placed a heavy financial burden on property owners, leaving 5,800 buildings currently still awaiting either remediation or demolition. We’re replacing the new building standard or NBS rating, used to decide whether a property is earthquake-prone, focusing therefore on the greatest risk to life in medium- and high-risk seismic zones.

Mike Butterick: What will these changes mean for Kiwis in regions with a low seismic risk?

Hon CHRIS PENK: New Zealand’s known as the Shaky Isles for a good reason, but the latest science does indicate that seismic risk varies greatly across the country. That’s why the Government’s removing Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands from the earthquake-prone building system. For Auckland, the savings will be monumental, with more than 1,300 buildings currently classified as earthquake-prone and an estimated $4.5 billion price tag for council, ratepayers, and owners. Under the new approach, that cost will fall to zero.

Mike Butterick: What does this change mean for regional and rural New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS PENK: A very astute question from my colleague and friend, the member for Wairarapa. It’s areas like that which he represents, with their beautiful older buildings, that have faced loss of premises for businesses, civic centres, places of worship, etc. Under the new system, unreinforced masonry or brick buildings under three storeys in small and rural towns will no longer require mandatory remediation or warning notices, as the risk from falling facades is lower in towns with fewer people. These buildings, however, will remain on the register until their facades are secured. The change will save regional and rural Kiwis around $1.8 billion and will breathe life back into communities, with those funds available to be deployed for other purposes where the money otherwise simply would not be available. Dannevirke, Pahiatua, and Woodville will save, respectively, $68 million, $29 million, and $22 million.

Mike Butterick: What feedback has the Minister received on this announcement?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I’ve been very heartened by the feedback. Can I start with in this House, in terms of Government and Opposition parties alike, I’ve been pleased with the bipartisan approach that’s been adopted thus far, acknowledging, of course, we will work through the details carefully. Out in the real world, Tararua District Mayor Tracy Collis says that the changes indicate the survival of rural New Zealand. Nigel Bowen, Mayor of Timaru, which stands to save $255 million, says it’s a “game-changer” for the district. Wellington’s mayor said it removes a billion-dollar burden that left buildings empty, while Auckland’s mayor says it will drive redeployment of funds and redevelopment into more affordable housing. The Property Council, meanwhile, describes the policy as a long-awaited reset, addressing issues that had paralysed investment.

Cameron Luxton: What costs has New Zealand incurred in the nine years since the earthquake-prone building rules came into place, and was ACT right, in hindsight, to be the only party opposed to the 2016 bill?

Hon CHRIS PENK: It’s difficult to quantify the cost exactly, not least of all because the opportunity cost and the chilling effect of regulations that were well intended, admittedly, but have proven difficult to implement in the intervening eight years, have meant a focus on those particular risks, as opposed to other risks in the built environment. In relation to political parties’ positions, I think, as I’ve acknowledged, the intent of all parties at the time following the tragedy that was the Canterbury earthquakes was right, but lived experience has indicated in the intervening period that it has been appropriate first to pause the enforcement of the current rules, as we’ve legislated, but also to take another look, which is what we’re pleased now to have done.

That concludes oral questions. We’ll take half a minute for members who need to go to other business to leave the house quietly and without conversation on the way.