Oral Questions

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

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

Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: He aha ngā mahi a tōna Kāwanatanga hei tautoko i te kaupapa o tēnei Wiki o te Reo, “Āke Āke Āke”, kia manawaroa ai, kia arotau ai, kia toitū ai te reo Māori?

[What actions is his Government taking to support the theme of this te Wiki o te Reo, “Āke Āke Āke”, to ensure the resilience, adaptability, and endurance of te reo Māori?]

SPEAKER: The interpretation’s taking a while to come through. It’s important we get the question to the Prime Minister correctly. The Prime Minister will just take a minute to hear the question through his earpiece, which is playing up a bit.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I mean, firstly, this is a Government that is spending a huge amount of money—$142 million—with the four Māori language entities. It’s a Government that I am very proud of spending money on teaching resources in te reo, and I’m very proud of that.

Hon Marama Davidson: E māharahara ana ia i te whakatūpato a Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori ki ngā panonitanga a tōna Kāwanatanga o te Ture Mātauranga, arā ka “Undermine the status of te reo Māori as a taonga and as an official language of Aotearoa”, ā, ki te kore, he aha e kore ai?

[Is he concerned that the Māori Language Commission has warned that his Government’s changes to the Education and Training Act “Undermine the status of te reo Māori as a taonga and as an official language of Aotearoa”, and, if not, why not?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I totally disagree. This is a Government that is spending money on resources to make sure that they are available in te reo and English.

Hon Marama Davidson: E whakaae ana ia ki tā Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, arā ko te hāpainga ake o te reo Ingarihi ki runga ake i te reo Māori hei reo kawe kōrero matua mō ngā hinonga tūmatanui ehara i te hinonga Māori, he whakawhāiti kē i te kitea o te reo, he whakawhāiti hoki i te whai wāhi ōna hei reo o ia rā?

[Does he agree with the Māori Language Commission that prioritising English over te reo Māori as the primary language of communication in non-Māori public entities reduces visibility of te reo and makes it less accessible as an everyday language?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: If I understand the question correctly, we want to be able to make sure that our Government agencies are navigable by all New Zealanders, and, as a result, having their names in both English and te reo. If you’re a fluent English speaker—of which 95 percent of New Zealanders is their first language in the last census—they can navigate their Government in English; and if you’re a fluent te reo speaker, you can navigate your Government in te reo.

Hon Marama Davidson: Kei te māharahara rānei ia ka whāiti kē atu te āheinga ki te whakaako, ki te tautoko hoki i te reo Māori nā runga i ngā poronga pūtea e marohitia nei, he pūtea mā ngā kaiako rauemi o te reo matatini me te reo Māori mā te 174 tūranga mahi?

[Is he concerned that proposed cuts to funding for resource teachers of literacy and Māori by 174 roles—affecting Māori-medium education and bilingual learning support—will reduce the capacity to teach and support te reo Māori?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’m very proud of the resources being made available in te reo and English, as I’ve said before. I’m more proud of the fact that we’re teaching our kids structured literacy, structured numeracy, encouraging them to get to school so they actually have a greater future—Māori or non-Māori.

Hon Marama Davidson: I whakaaro rānei ia he hāpai tāna mahi i te reo Māori i te whakaurunga a tōna Kāwanatanga i te Pire Mātāpono Tiriti o Waitangi—me te whakaari anō i tētahi whakamārama hē o te reo Māori hei whakaiwikore i ā te iwi Māori mōtika?

[Did he consider he was uplifting te reo Māori when his Government introduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill—demonstrating an incorrect interpretation of te reo Māori to weaken Māori rights?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Treaty principles bill has been discussed and resolved.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he claim to have the cost of living under control, when administered inflation—the component of inflation that Government can most directly influence—hit 10.8 percent last month, the steepest rise in at least 35 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very proud of this Government’s focus on reducing inflation. This is a Government that has put inflation back under 3 percent again. There are items like rates running at 12.5 percent. That’s why we support a rate cap, and I encourage that member to support it too.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that the Government’s decision to increase transmission charges is driving up power bills, its decision to increase natural disaster levies is driving up insurance premiums, its decision to hike civil aviation levies is driving up the price of airfares, and that increased Government charges are now one of the biggest contributors to the cost of living pressure that Kiwi families are facing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In light of the first part of that question, I’d say to the member that the energy prices are a function of his administration’s banning of oil and gas and the fact that we do not have a supply of gas in this country, which has led to elevated electricity prices. Again, I would say to that member: think about the position, and support reversing the oil and gas ban.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Government’s decision to cut funding for public transport, forcing some commuters and families to pay up to 50 percent more just to get to work or school, increase or decrease the cost of living pressure that Kiwi families currently face?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can say to the member: what is helping those families deal with the cost of living is our expanded role for FamilyBoost. What is helping and supporting those families in a cost of living crisis is the tax relief that we have offered them. What is supporting them is, actually, rental stability—that is a good thing—and also making sure that we give people tax, inflation, and interest rate relief, which is what this Government is delivering.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking of FamilyBoost, has he found one single family that has received the full $250 a fortnight that he promised Kiwi families with kids during the last election campaign?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I want to thank the member for his question, because I really do appreciate answering this and bringing the attention of all New Zealanders who may be watching this to the fact that FamilyBoost rebates have been expanded, the thresholds have been extended, and, as a result, there is even more money. Actually, for the last 13 weeks, you can now access and get more support from this Government, which is absolutely fantastic. We think, actually, another 22,000 families will receive some support, and isn’t that a great thing?

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Government is carefully managing its own finances so that New Zealanders face a lower rate of inflation and falling interest rates as a result?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can. What I can confirm is that this is a Government that won’t be looking to increase prices for New Zealanders by increasing the inflation-band target, as that member proposes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The claim that the Prime Minister has just made is totally and utterly incorrect, and it is an exact example of what you have said the Government shouldn’t do, which is use patsy questions from the people sitting right beside them in order to attack the Opposition and to make false claims about the Opposition.

SPEAKER: The question itself was in order; the answer was most certainly not, and I think the last comment should be withdrawn.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Withdrawn.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Government’s decision to increase car registration fees by $50 increase or decrease the cost of living pressure that Kiwi families are currently facing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I’d just say to the member that we are proud of the fact that we have lowered inflation. In this Government, yes, we have food inflation running at 5 percent, but that’s a lot lower than 12.5 percent under his Government. You know, 2.7 percent inflation is lower than 7.5 percent under his Government. Interest rates have been cut multiple times. Rents are stable. This is a Government that is focused on economic growth. Why? So that we can get New Zealanders getting more money in their back pocket, and that’s how they get ahead.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that one of the first actions of his Government was to stop the petrol tax increases which had been scheduled by the last Government—

SPEAKER: OK, that’s an out-of-order question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his Government has inflation under control, as he is now claiming, why is the price of food continuing to increase, with statistics released today showing butter is up 32 percent, milk is up by almost $1, and the price of mince is now $22 a kilo, all under his leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just remind the member that when he was Prime Minister, food inflation hit 12.5 percent. It is 5 percent today. Yes, we have elevated prices for red meat and for dairy products. That’s due to global commodity prices, and that’s why our farmers are having record years and record levels of farmer confidence in this country. This is a Government that is focused on lowering inflation, and I’d just say to the member that that’s why you’ve seen us fast track supermarket entrants so that we can actually do everything we can to make it as easy as possible to open up the supermarket sector. But, again, the answer is not to increase the inflation target and increase prices for Kiwis, as his finance spokesperson has suggested.

Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Government increased petrol taxes since being elected?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Government plan to increase petrol taxes by 12c a litre?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Government has had no discussions about increasing fuel taxes at this time, but what we are very focused on is lowering inflation and making sure we lower interest rates, we get our economy growing, and we lower unemployment.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the documents the Government has tabled in this House indicate that it is intending to increase petrol taxes by 12c a litre, will the Prime Minister be required to correct that answer?

SPEAKER: Well, if the Prime Minister chooses to correct an answer, then that’s his prerogative to do so. If you knew the answer, why ask the question—but, anyway.

Hon Shane Jones: A question to the Prime Minister: is he proposing to introduce a wealth tax or a capital gains tax, and has he taken any advice as to what impact that might have on the economy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I don’t think that taxing more, borrowing more, and spending more is the way that we move this economy forward. I think that’s what’s put us in the almighty mess that we’ve actually seen. A capital gains tax, a wealth tax, an inheritance tax, a death tax—God knows what’s being proposed; I just know that that’s not the answer.

Question No. 3—Regional Development

3. to the Minister for Regional Development: What reports has he seen regarding the West Coast?

Last Friday, I had the privilege of being in Reefton, down on the West Coast—otherwise known as “Mining-opolis”—where, previously, there were over 59 mines. I had the pleasure, along with the district council and the local development corporation, of opening new accommodation to cope with the flood of employees that are coming to the West Coast to fulfil a famous saying of this party that I belong to: “Dig, baby, dig.”

Jenny Marcroft: What else can he tell us about economic development on the West Coast?

Hon SHANE JONES: So much and so little time. We are rekindling the golden age of the coast. Mining is now driving the coast. Not only are people expressing more confidence to invest there but money is flowing. There is a pipeline of production projects. It will stimulate the economy for many years to come. It’s only disappointing that it has taken this long—in particular, with those who derive their heritage from such industries abandoning, demonising, and tainting such an industry, and I’m glad to be rid of them.

Jenny Marcroft: How does this help the regional economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: Coal—I’ll have more to say about that within a week—oil, gas, and metal ore mining represent a key positive development in terms of those families and those employees who enjoy earnings beyond the median salary of $100,000. We are in a period of the world’s trajectory where minerals are more important. New Zealand has a high position of influence in creating not only more jobs but boosting our minerals production.

Steve Abel: And more floods.

Hon SHANE JONES: Not only will it enable finance, engineering—

Steve Abel: And droughts.

Hon SHANE JONES: No, we don’t need any more luddite contributions. That’ll happen at the final speech at the end of the week. Not only will we see more realistic appreciation of the natural resource sector, you will find that those in Opposition will be pushed to the margins of society because they’re only interested in the dole.

SPEAKER: I might take this opportunity to remind Ministers that answers should mirror the concise nature of questions. Standing Order 396(2) particularly directs that.

Jenny Marcroft: Why are regional economies important to New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: Regional economies are thriving. There is an acceptance that legacy industries—including farming, forestry, mining, fisheries—are doing the heavy lifting. It is very disappointing that these particular industries of a regional character have not been respected. As we grow in the regions, I hope to spread that good story by encouraging appropriate levels of mining around our capital city, Wellington.

Question No. 4—Economic Growth

4. to the Minister for Economic Growth: What recent announcements has she made on competition?

Today, alongside Minister Simpson and Minister Seymour, I announced the most significant package of competition law reforms in nearly 20 years. The changes to the Commerce Act that we announced are about fostering healthy competition in the economy. Competition empowers consumers with greater choices and ensures efficiency in the use of resources. Competitive markets are good for consumers, good for business, and good for the economy. They drive innovation, productivity, and growth.

Cameron Brewer: What changes are being made to the Commerce Act?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A number. Key changes include stopping unfair tactics, like creeping acquisitions and predatory pricing, to allow genuine competitors to thrive; introducing clearer merger rules to give businesses certainty while keeping markets fair; establishing a stronger, better structured Commerce Commission to deliver faster, more transparent decisions; streamlining approval for beneficial collaboration, making it easier for businesses to work together where it helps the public; and allowing businesses to make voluntary behavioural undertakings to limit their market power as part of merger applications.

Cameron Brewer: What do these changes mean for businesses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The changes will give small and medium enterprises in particular more confidence to invest, hire, and innovate knowing they won’t be shut out by unfair practices. For larger businesses, the changes mean clear rules and faster decisions, so they can pursue growth with certainty. For the wider economy, they mean a more dynamic, competitive environment that drives productivity, attracts investment, and, ultimately, delivers for Kiwis.

Cameron Brewer: How do these reforms fit within the Government’s wider economic strategy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: These reforms are part of the Government’s Going For Growth agenda, which is the work we’re doing to shift New Zealand to a faster growth track. Growing the economy requires competitive, dynamic markets that reward innovation and reward investment. By modernising the Commerce Act, we’re making sure New Zealand is an attractive place to do business and that consumers are being protected. The initiatives we announced this morning are one part of an ongoing suite of measures that will help lift productivity and, therefore, contribute to rising incomes, more jobs, and a stronger economy.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the resignations of the former Reserve Bank Chair and Governor?

Once again, in context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: On what date did the Treasury Secretary inform her of the letter the board chair wrote on 27 February?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On 27 February, I received a text from Iain Rennie informing me that the Reserve Bank Board had written to Adrian Orr about its concerns.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was she aware or informed about the contents of the letter on 27 February?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The public record shows what I was informed of via the text message from Iain Rennie.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Did she seek any advice from Treasury, the Public Service Commission, or Crown Law about her ability to correct the Reserve Bank Chair’s statement, or the public record, about the real reasons the Governor resigned?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I relied on the judgment of the Reserve Bank Chair at the time, that that was as much as he could say, subject to the legal agreements he was a party to.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that “I relied on the judgment of the Reserve Bank chair, that … he was saying as much as he could say”, when she knew his words were misleading and she failed to seek advice on what her responsibilities were, given the serious nature of the resignation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Quite simply, because I knew that he was subject to an exit agreement, the terms of which I was not aware of. I was also not aware of the specific concerns the bank had raised with Mr Orr. I was not aware of how Mr Orr had responded to those concerns, and the legal disputes that may or may not have occurred. I was not aware of the details of the agreement the bank had entered into with Mr Orr.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Heather du Plessis-Allan, who says, “It just looks like a giant cover up, doesn’t it?”

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, although I have made clear that I’m very disappointed with the way the Reserve Bank has handled this matter, as Neil Quigley’s resignation shows.

Rawiri Waititi: Was the Minister negligent in her oversight of the Reserve Bank resignations, or are these resignations a case of ministerial interference?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, and no.

Rawiri Waititi: Is the Minister concerned about her Government’s management of the Public Service, given the number of high profile senior resignations that have occurred since she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’d simply observe that, in some cases, resignations would be better for the reputation of organisations than people not resigning, staying on, defying their leadership, and saying very racist things.

Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait—just wait for the House to calm itself.

Rawiri Waititi: When will she meet with the priests that drove past the Reserve Bank, where both the former Reserve Bank Chair and Governor formerly worked, and meet with the protesters on the Government’s refusal to impose sanctions on Israel for genocide in Gaza?

SPEAKER: I’m inclined to rule that question out, despite the creativity in trying to bring it into order.

Question No. 6—Infrastructure

6. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s infrastructure pipeline?

Last month, the Infrastructure Commission released a quarterly snapshot of the infrastructure pipeline for the quarter ending 30 June. It shows the value of infrastructure initiatives in the pipeline grew to $237 billion—an increase of $30 billion from the previous quarter. It’s great news for the construction sector and for growth. The value of initiatives with a confirmed funding source also increased, up by $13.5 billion to over $125 billion. Overall, the pipeline now contains 9,200 projects that are under way or being planned.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the National Infrastructure Pipeline important?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The pipeline is important for sending a signal to the market about upcoming activity. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the previous Government in setting up the commission in a bipartisan way to make sure that we get this very important independent assessment of what is happening. It allows construction firms to plan ahead for major projects. We do need to improve the quality of information in the pipeline; there are some laggard councils who are not participating. It is important that we have as much data from the private and public sector, including local government, in the pipeline as possible. The more accurate and complete it is, the more useful it is for decision makers.

Catherine Wedd: How many infrastructure projects are under construction?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The pipeline shows that there are 2,500 infrastructure projects under construction right now, with 483 in procurement that will begin shortly. In the June 2025 quarter, we were building, as a country, 560 water projects, 600 transport projects, 75 school projects, and over 30 health and hospital projects—280 initiatives under construction are valued at over $25 million each. Many more projects are likely to come to market in the forthcoming weeks and months.

Catherine Wedd: How many infrastructure projects are under construction in Hawke’s Bay?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m very pleased—as I’m sure that member is—to know there are 126 projects currently being delivered in the Hawke’s Bay, with around 60 projects in procurement that will begin shortly. Of course, the big mother within those projects under construction is the fantastic Hawke’s Bay Expressway.

Catherine Wedd: Is the National Infrastructure Pipeline growing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed it is. We are looking forward to the September updates that will be published towards the end of the year, and indeed, more participants in the pipeline so we can get this economy growing and building again.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. What is the impact of delayed allogeneic stem cell transplants on patients with blood cancers, and how is that harm being measured at New Zealand’s three transplant centres?

I’m advised that, for some patients, disease recurs while they are waiting for a transplant, leading to them no longer being suitable for transplant. For some patients, this means additional rounds of chemotherapy while they await their transplant; for others, unfortunately, it means being referred for palliative care. This is deeply concerning for me. I understand how stressful this is for patients and their families. That is why, in addition to existing investment, Health New Zealand has allocated over $6 million this year to increase capacity, support recruitment, and improve the model of care. Health New Zealand is also working closely with clinicians to deliver further investment across all three transplant centres this financial year and in future years. I expect Health New Zealand to act with urgency on this. I’m advised that harm is measured and monitored differently across the country and that Health New Zealand is working to implement a standard national data monitoring system to ensure patients receive timely quality care.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why hasn’t this improved already when it is the very first action listed in the Government’s health targets implementation plan?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there has been an improvement in the number of stem cell transplants that have been done. Between April 2024 and March 2025, the total number of stem cell transplants in New Zealand rose to 363 from 336 the previous year. Nationally, 219 patients were waiting for transplants in March 2025—down slightly from 225 in 2024. I understand that this is not good enough, and that is why I have asked Health New Zealand to work with urgency. This is a problem which has developed over a number of years, including the time that that member was the Minister. It is my expectation that Health New Zealand works urgently, with clinicians, to increase investment to reduce the wait-list.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that failure to implement their very own plan in the first year that it was put down for means patients like Liz Barnes, whose cancer was curable, now have incurable cancer?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my previous answer, there has been an increase in the number of transplants being completed. There is still significantly more work to be done. That work is under way so that we can reduce that wait-list, and it’s my expectation that Health New Zealand works incredibly close with the clinicians on the front line to do just that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he commit to appropriate rooms for bone marrow transplants at Wellington Hospital this financial year?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: One of the issues, in relation to the capacity at Wellington Hospital, is the amount of space. Work is under way to create more room and increase staff as part of regional service planning in Wellington.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it acceptable that patients, like Tawhai Reti, have to go to Australia for treatment because the Government excluded blood cancer patients from their cancer medicine initiative?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: That member may not be aware, but the $604 million increase in cancer medicines that we provided in Budget 2025 funded 33 new cancer medicines, including six for blood cancers. We are very proud of the investment. We are always aware there is more work to do, but we also had to fill in the hole in the Pharmac budget left behind by the last Government.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that the approximately $1.7 billion being spent on medicines through Pharmac, by this Government, is approximately $600 million more than was budgeted when we first came to office?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: That is correct. We were left behind a fiscal hole in the Pharmac budget, which we’ve had to fill, plus we have funded an additional $600 million for new cancer medicines. There are now thousands of New Zealanders receiving access to cancer medicines and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders receiving access to treatments, which they would otherwise not have had if the other party had been re-elected.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by the Government’s promise to blood cancer patients, “You are not forgotten”, when that is exactly what has happened with respect to their exclusion from the cancer medicines funding?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in my previous answer, of the $604 million increase in Pharmac’s budget that this Government delivered—and the 33 new cancer medicines—six of those have been for blood cancer medicines. Those cancer medicines would not have been provided if Labour had been re-elected.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

Ki te Pirīmia—

Hon Shane Jones: Double dip.

SPEAKER: Hang on. Wait on. Questions are heard in silence.

8. to the Prime Minister: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Ka whakarongo tōna Kāwanatanga ki ngā kaitautohe neke i te tekau mano i hīkoitia i Tāmaki Makaurau, mō te Kāwanatanga kia whakatau mēnā he motu motuhake a Paretīnia, me te mahi hāmene i te teitei ki a Iharaia?

[Will his Government listen to the more than 10,000 protesters who marched in Auckland over the weekend, calling on the Government to recognise Palestinian statehood and sanction Israel?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member will be aware, we have a longstanding bipartisan position on support for a two-State solution in Israel and Palestine, as was imagined in 1947. It’s a very complex issue. There are strongly held views across New Zealand society—probably across this Parliament—and we are carefully considering our position on that statement about recognition. I would just say to the member that this is also a Government that has imposed sanctions on Israel, and we continually look to see what more we can do as well.

Hon Marama Davidson: He aha tāna whakahoki kōrero—[Interruption] 

[What is his response—] 

 SPEAKER: Start again.

Hon Marama Davidson: He aha tāna whakahoki kōrero ki ngā pirīhi Karaitiana i waho i te tari a Nicola Willis, nā rātou i kī atu “it is clear New Zealand is not doing all it can to intervene and put pressure on Israel to uphold international law”?

[What is his response to the Christian priests protesting outside Nicola Willis’s office, who say, “it is clear New Zealand is not doing all it can to intervene and put pressure on Israel to uphold international law”?] 

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. It should be completely evident to you, sir, that the Prime Minister has no responsibility for randoms holding signs up outside a list member’s office.

SPEAKER: No, but the question was “What would he say?”, and the assumption is that Prime Ministers do have opinions.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I disagree completely with the assertion that there have been no sanctions applied to Israel. We have placed travel bans on extremist politicians and senior Ministers because of extremist rhetoric that has been used. We have placed travel bans on Israeli extremist settlers in the West Bank, and we have very limited trade. We’ve had no records of approval under our export controls regime since 2003. What I would love to hear from the member is calling out Hamas as a terrorist organisation for 7 October, where 1,200 innocent Israelis were killed and 251 hostages were taken, and calling for an immediate release of those hostages, as much as we call for Israel to make sure it looks after civilians and it gives unfettered, unhindered access and humanitarian assistance and aid.

Hon Marama Davidson: Ka whakatau te Kāwanatanga i te motuhaketanga o Paretīnia, ki te kore, he aha e kore ai? 

[Will the Government recognise Palestinian Statehood, and if not, why not?] 

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member is aware—we have been very transparent—we are working our way through a Cabinet process to arrive at a final decision about our position on that. Some of our friends around the world have moved forward with recognition; others have not. We will make our own independent decision and work our way through this issue carefully, considering all the different factors and the complexities involved. But I’ll just say to the member, irrespective of a decision on the recognition of a Palestinian State, what is very important is that Hamas releases hostages, Israel makes sure it protects civilians and allows unhindered humanitarian assistance and aid, and everyone gets to a ceasefire so peace and stability can come out in the Middle East.

Hon Marama Davidson: He aha te Kāwanatanga e kore nei e whakamōhio atu ki ngā tāngata o Aotearoa i te kōwhiringa a te Kāwanatanga me te tūranga e kawe atu a Winston Peters ki te Rūnanga Whakakotahi i ngā Iwi o te Ao?

[Why isn’t the Government informing New Zealanders what decision the Government has taken and what position Winston Peters is taking to the United Nations?] 

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we will when we have a final Cabinet decision.

Hon Marama DavidsonHon Marama Davidson: Ki te whai painga ngā rauna toru tekau mā rua a te Kāwanatanga i ngā hāmene ōhanga ki a Rūhia, ka whai hoki te Kāwanatanga i tētahi rauna ake o ngā hāmene ki a Iharaia kei tua atu o ngā hāmene ki ngā Minitia e rua anake? 

[If the 32 rounds of the Government’s economic sanctions on Russia have been effective, will the Government finally implement a round of sanctions on Israel beyond sanctions on only two Ministers?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think the member is misunderstanding, or not understanding, what actions have already been taken. We have issued travel bans on two extremists and senior Ministers in the Netanyahu Government. We have called out illegal settlements on the West Bank and, likewise, put bans around travel associated with extremist Israeli settlers. We have very little trade with Israel ourselves. Importantly, we’ve made sure, with our regime, that we haven’t sent products to the Israel Defense Force since 2006, 2003—as far as records go back. So I just put it to the member that we have had sanctions on Israel. We are consistently calling out actions that we disagree with, but I would ask that member to take a balanced view and actually call out the unacceptable, abhorrent behaviour of Hamas as well.

Question No. 9—Tourism and Hospitality

9. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made about boosting major events and tourism across New Zealand?

I was pleased to announce a next-level boost for major events and tourism with the Prime Minister on Sunday. The $70 million package will increase the Government’s investment in events and open New Zealand up to a wider range of opportunities, including concerts, which haven’t previously been eligible for Government funding. Major events are an absolute bonanza for our cities and regions and support local jobs, boost incomes, and grow our economy. This investment will allow us to compete with Australia to host big acts and to give international visitors even more reasons to come and explore what New Zealand has to offer.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What does this package mean for events and tourism across regional New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our boost for major events and tourism is significant for our regions and for our communities. Communities up and down New Zealand benefit hugely from regional events, and our $10 million Regional Tourism Boost Campaign will incentivise international visitors to come and see what our regions have on offer. Our first round of regional tourism boost drove large economic opportunities into our regions that don’t traditionally see as many visitors. This is good for jobs and lifts incomes across our communities. I’d encourage any MPs from across the House to talk to their local tourism operators and ask how they can get involved. New Zealand is open for business, where we welcome visitors from anywhere at any time.

SPEAKER: Just be mindful of Standing Order 396.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What other announcements has she made to encourage major events in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our Government also wants to boost Eden Park’s status as a major events venue, and my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop is starting an investigation to change the local rules to ensure it’s no longer held back from its full potential. Last summer alone, Auckland’s economy received a boost of nearly $33.7 million from several big concerts. These events created jobs, supported local businesses, and meant more bookings in our restaurants, accommodations, and local tourism providers. Our Government is keen to see more major events in Auckland, and we need to ensure our venues are fit for purpose. The investigation will look into where the rules around events at Eden Park are negatively impacting economic growth, and Minister Bishop will announce further details in coming weeks.

SPEAKER: Standing Order 396 requires concise answers.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What feedback has she received on this announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The feedback’s been fantastic, so I’ll speak fast to get it in. The Restaurant Association of New Zealand has called this a “much-needed injection into New Zealand’s economy and a vital boost for … hospitality” providers. Brent Eccles, an event promoter, has stated “New Zealand is now back in the game for ‘showstopper events’ ”, and the Dunedin mayor has said that this “ ‘really put[s] some flesh on the bones’ of Dunedin’s existing plans to attract events to the city.” Tourism Industry Aotearoa chief executive Rebecca Ingram has said, “This level of investment puts us back in the game, supporting events of even greater scale and providing reasons for both domestic and international visitors to travel around New Zealand.”

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Ngā mihi o te Wiki o te Reo Māori e te Māngai o te Whare. What, if anything, in his reforms announced today will bring prices of essentials down now for Kiwi consumers?

on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: The reforms announced today tackle some of the root causes of high prices by fixing outdated competition law. They stop dominant firms from quietly buying up rivals, crack down on predatory conduct, and protect information confidentially that is disclosed to the commission. Our goal is that Kiwis see more firms competing for their business when they go to buy groceries, fuel, building supplies, and other essentials. The Minister was pleased to provide a briefing to the member yesterday and trusts she supports these measures. As she well knows, not everything in life is a quick fix. But substantive reforms of this sort do make a difference.

Arena Williams: What measures in his proposed bill prevent overcharging and excess profits at the expense of consumers and small businesses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m not sure what measures the member is proposing, but if she’s got a policy announcement to make on behalf of Labour and it’s as good as Barbara Edmonds’ one—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: You need not make the point of order. That sort of answer is just out of order. The member can take an extra question.

Arena Williams: Why is he willing to punish businesses that lower prices of groceries, airline tickets, building supplies, and other essentials while doing nothing about businesses raising prices month on month and year on year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I utterly reject the substance of that question. The Government is doing no such thing.

Arena Williams: Well, will any of the inclusions in the announcement today reduce food prices, which are up 5 percent this year and driving up inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I hope that the member understands the fundamental nature of competition law, which is that if we wish to prevent the sorts of consolidation in sectors and industry that has occurred and allowed, for example, the significant dominance of two supermarkets in New Zealand’s grocery sector, then we need to ensure that our commerce law keeps up to date with both international and regulatory development. The changes the Government has proposed today will ensure that that sort of market consolidation can’t occur in future. As I said in the answer to my primary question, not everything in life is a quick fix but that doesn’t mean that we should ignore the opportunities for substantive reform.

Arena Williams: Is it National’s fundamental approach to competition that it will be illegal to slash the price of butter but perfectly OK for it to rise 32 percent year on year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Arena Williams: Why is he willing to talk tough with market controls to stop businesses lowering prices but doing nothing about the price of broccoli, which is up 75 percent in a year; or cabbage, up 85 percent in a year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because, unlike that member, I don’t want to take a leaf out of Willie Jackson’s book and propose price fixing. It’s been tried in quite a few countries and it doesn’t work.

Arena Williams: Why is this Government putting prices up, adding to the cost of living, from car registrations to increasing prescription costs, instead of taking action to reduce them?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If the member wishes to come and have a briefing about how prices are set by independent businesses, then I’m happy to provide such a briefing, because last time I checked, there is no law in New Zealand that sets the prices for retail products. But if the member has a member’s bill she wishes to discuss with me along those lines, I’d be fascinated indeed and I’ll file it with the suggestion on inflation that member Edmonds made last week.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has she seen on farmer confidence?

Nothing but great news for the primary sector. After the overwhelmingly positive survey from Federated Farmers a couple of months back, the latest Rabobank Rural Confidence Survey shows farmer confidence remains at near-record highs, with our farmers feeling really good about the next 12 months ahead. The results show a positive 46 percent confidence level, with four consecutive quarters’ elevated sentiment, which proves that when a Government backs its primary sector, great things can happen.

Suze Redmayne: What did the survey show about farmer sentiment?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Now, after six long years under the Labour Government, farmers—

SPEAKER: No, start again. That’s just not part of the question and answer regime that we have in here.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Farmers now have a positive outlook on the agri-economy, with higher commodity prices a major source of optimism, alongside improved access to overseas markets and economies. The survey shows dairy and red meat farmers are particularly optimistic, reflecting record mince and beef prices alongside historically high lamb returns. Confidence in these sectors is also translating into stronger investment intentions, which is great for our rural communities and towns across the country.

Suze Redmayne: What actions has the Government taken to support the primary industry to increase farmer confidence?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The Government is committed to doubling the value of New Zealand’s exports in the coming 10 years. We’re going to do that by removing unnecessary regulation, winding back costly red tape, and overhauling the Resource Management Act. We intend to create a system that enables enterprise and recognises food and fibre as a strategic asset.

Suze Redmayne: What are the benefits of increased farmer confidence to the New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: New Zealand’s success very much depends on our farmers’ success, and these confidence levels show the sector is in a strong position, and the Government is determined to keep building on that momentum. When farmers are confident, they invest, they employ more people, and they contribute to stronger regional economies. For anyone at home listening—including my mum—this Government will continue to back our food and fibre sector, giving them the tools and support they need to succeed not just today but well into the future.

SPEAKER: I’m sure that Mrs Grigg appreciates the message.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent reports has he seen on education?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have seen a number of reports recently which add up to charter schools building momentum—the large number of applicants, both of new schools and those wishing to convert existing schools to charter status. Also, there have been a number of touching stories of students who have been totally alienated from education now feeling that they can indeed do it—very much the kind of story that we should all want for New Zealand children.

Laura McClure: Is the demand for charter schools growing?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, indeed, and in the words of Nathan Durie, “Māori people have always indicated a desire for their kids to have access to education that will enable them, and so we’ve put our hand up to say we want to be one of those options.” Meanwhile, this year, 52 different applicants have approached the Charter School Authorisation Board wishing to begin new charter schools. There have been eight formal applications from State schools to convert, with another two already converted and about a dozen actively considering it and in contact with the Charter School Authorisation Board in relation to conversion. What I’d say to those members opposite who are yap-yap-yapping over there is, if you’ve got a question, get up and ask it.

Laura McClure: What feedback has he seen from students about their experience of moving to a charter school?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Much of it is quite touching: students that have said, “I wasn’t really a school person” saying that, actually, their experience has been life changing; students whose attendance was abysmal—in fact, sadly, they weren’t really attending—are now some of the best-attending students in the district. I’ve seen a trades-focused school—BUSY charter, in central Auckland—which is supporting students into vocational education through work placements and apprenticeships. These are the kinds of options that New Zealand children have been thirsting for, but, for too long, the providers and the suppliers of education have had their interests advanced before the interests of students by successive Government policies.

Laura McClure: What other comments has he seen about charter schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’ve seen quite a number—for example, a little-known broadcaster from a radio station called 1ZB has said that Northland College’s possible conversion is “driven by the realisation that what they currently do doesn’t work for their kids, [and] that’s the genesis of the charter school thinking … The basic premise [is] one size does not fit all, and a lot of kids may well benefit from different styles and approaches to learning. … What we have demonstrably doesn’t work for everyone”, and the unions’ “myopic view that there can only be one way [is] a very large part of the overall handbrake that has prevented real change and [achievement] in education.” It is a little idea that can, and whose idea has come, and is making an enormous difference for children’s success that all of us in this House should want to celebrate. Ka pai.