Oral Questions

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

I have seen several recent reports about the New Zealand economy. Some are forecasts, peering into the future; some are data releases about the here and now; and some are backward-looking, given the long lag that can occur between events happening and their being reported. Each of these types of reports add to our understanding of how the economy has been performing and is expected to perform in the future.

Dr Hamish Campbell: When will the next GDP figures be released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: GDP results for the second quarter of this year come out tomorrow. This is a good example of backward-looking data. The second quarter started on 1 April, before the “Liberation Day” tariff announcement, and we are now only a couple of weeks away from the fourth quarter. Peering in the rear-view mirror, forecasters are picking a negative number for growth in Q2—somewhere between negative 0.3 percent to negative 0.5 percent, with activity in the manufacturing and construction industries likely to have fallen. As I said, the second quarter—which we will have an announcement about today—was when substantial tariffs were announced, representing the biggest hit to trade openness since the 1930s. That clearly affected the confidence of firms to invest and employ staff, and the willingness of households to spend.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How is the economy performing in the current quarter?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We are currently getting towards the end of the third quarter. Recent monthly data points to growth returning in this quarter, indicating that the worst is behind us—for example, the performance of manufacturing and services indices are a bit better than they were in the second quarter. The ANZ’s Truckometer also points to an improvement. Electronic card transaction values show a rise in July and August, and lower interest rates are having more of an impact on households as mortgage holders move to fixed, on lower and longer-term rates. Despite a stutter in the second quarter, the economy looks likely to have picked up again.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for a moment.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What are the forecasters saying about growth in future quarters?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Forecasters are expecting economic growth to strengthen as lower interest rates are felt more widely across the economy and uncertainty around tariffs passes. For example, the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement last month forecasts modest growth of 0.3 percent in the third quarter, but accelerating to 0.8 percent in the fourth quarter—which is, as I said, only a fortnight away—and remaining at around that level for the next couple of years. More broadly, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research does a regular exercise to average the individual forecasts of banks and other forecasters. The latest one was released on Monday; it shows the average GDP forecast of 0.5 percent for the current quarter—that is the third quarter—and 0.9 percent for the next quarter.

Question No. 2—Minister for Children

2. to the Minister for Children: What recent reports has she seen regarding the progress of the Government’s target to reduce child and youth offending?

I’ve seen a recent report which shows that in June 2025 the number of children and young people with serious and persistent offending behaviour is 14.6 percent lower than the June 2023 baseline figure, and is nearly at the target of the 15 percent decrease we initially hoped to achieve by 2030. The number of serious and persistent youth offenders peaked in November 2023 at 1,126. It has fallen consistently since then, including a massive 40 percent decrease in Northland.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What specific reasons does she believe have contributed to this decrease in serious and persistent youth offending?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki have been working to better understand the factors that have contributed to the faster-than-expected decline in offending since November 2023. This analysis concluded that fast track, which has been expanded and strengthened by this Government so that it includes 14- to 17-year-olds at six sites across the country, continues to show promise in preventing children and young people from entering the youth justice system and from escalating to more persistent offending. Other initiatives introduced by Oranga Tamariki, such as intensive case management teams, also seem to be having a positive effect.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other reasons does she believe have contributed to the reduction in youth crime?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: It is likely that the wider Government work has contributed to this reduction. We know that offending is often linked to underlying factors, such as non-engagement in education. The work that Associate Minister of Education David Seymour has done on school attendance has likely contributed to this reduction. This success also highlights the strong focus that Oranga Tamariki and the Police have put on working more closely together.

Cameron Luxton: What recent data has she seen on the reduction of youth crime in the Bay of Plenty?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: More good news. I can confirm that, since the Government target was set, nine of the 12 police districts have seen a reduction in serious and persistent youth offender numbers. One of the largest reductions is in the Bay of Plenty, which has seen a 33 percent decrease since June 2023. This means fewer serious offences, fewer victims, safer communities, and more young people who have taken the opportunity to turn their lives around.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What feedback has she received—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—wait. No discussion while the question is being asked.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: What feedback has she received about the impact of the Government’s efforts to reduce serious and persistent youth offending?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ve had an overwhelming, positive response from members of the public that I talk to. I think of the shopkeepers who tell me they no longer stay up worried that they’re going to turn up in the morning and find that their store has been ram-raided. Oranga Tamariki youth justice staff that I meet with talk about police and judiciary taking a harder line on youth offenders, alongside stronger multi-agency responses, and seeing a positive difference in young people’s lives. The public told us that this is an issue that matters to them, and we’re getting on and fixing it.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will Winston Peters announce New Zealand’s position on the official recognition of the State of Palestine at the United Nations next week; if so, why won’t he tell New Zealanders what that position is?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because, very simply, we have had our preliminary discussions and we want to be able to keep an open mind, given the dynamic nature of events in the Middle East. We will make our final Cabinet decision as close as possible to when the Minister of Foreign Affairs gives his address at the UN Leaders’ Week.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When will the New Zealand Government recognise the unfolding genocide taking place in Gaza, particularly following yesterday’s UN-commissioned report that concluded that “statements made by Israeli authorities [about Gaza] are direct evidence of genocidal intent.” and that Israeli authorities and security forces have committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, New Zealand’s position is that we respect the decisions of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. They are the appropriate bodies to make those determinations, and we’ll let them comment.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his Government’s infrastructure announcements are great news for the construction sector, why are there now 19,000 fewer people working in construction than there were at the election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because he ran up inflation, and interest rates put the economy into a recession, and he crashed the joint and drove up unemployment.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So, when his Government boasts of a $17.5 billion projected infrastructure spend this year, is he aware that this represents only 4.1 percent of GDP, which is a drop from the 20-year average in New Zealand of 5.8 percent of GDP being spent each year on infrastructure?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. This is an infrastructure pipeline now that has grown another $30 billion to $237 billion. Most importantly, about $125 billion of it is actually funded, and we have $17.5 billion in projected spend across 2025. Most importantly, we have about $7 billion worth of infrastructure with shovels in the ground—properly—before Christmas, which is great news for the construction sector.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So, if it’s great news for the construction sector, why is the Infrastructure Commission forecasting that spending on infrastructure next year will actually drop even further than this year, to $16.6 billion, making it well below the average that we have been spending every year for the last 20 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say is I’m not responsible for the Infrastructure Commission, but what I am responsible for is making sure that there is a pipeline of activity so that the construction industry has clarity to be able to plan ahead. It’s $237 billion, and is up another $30 billion in the quarter. I’d just say to the member that if he really cares about construction workers, he would actually support things like oil and gas and mining so that construction workers don’t leave the sector and go to those sectors somewhere else, he’d actually support fast track, and he’d actually support public-private partnerships. But we just don’t know what the position is.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the pipeline on infrastructure projects is such exciting news for New Zealand, why is the Infrastructure Commission forecasting that the workforce required to deliver the pipeline projects will more than halve in the next 10 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The pipeline is sitting at $237 billion. The total activity—public and private activity—is another $30 billion worth of projects being added in the last quarter. That should be seen as good news for the construction sector. The reality is that interest rates are coming down. That’s what put the industry into so much difficulty, and that member needs to take 100 percent responsibility for that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So, when investment is down and falling further, jobs are down and falling further, and project delivery of the projects in the infrastructure pipeline is so uncertain, isn’t it just the case that he’s more interested in announcements than in actually funding and delivering the infrastructure that New Zealand needs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, crocodile tears—crocodile tears. Are you trying to gaslight the nation here? Let’s just be clear: you crashed the joint and you didn’t deliver anything. It’s incredibly disappointing that after six years, including three years with an absolute majority, you did so very, very little.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Government committed to construction projects that are actually constructed, or is there any circumstance where it would ever content itself with announcing bike bridges and light rail that doesn’t get built for years and years and years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have real projects, not phantom projects.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: does he think that the future of the Palestinian State is worth only two superficial supplementary questions?

SPEAKER: Well, hang on—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m not responsible for the questions, but I would just commend the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who I think is leading our Government through very, very well.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave—given the Minister’s intervention—to put those questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, seeing as the Prime Minister wasn’t willing to answer them.

SPEAKER: Well, I will put the leave, but just bear in mind that it’s the Government’s choice as to who answers questions on any particular day, and when a question is asked as a primary about standing by all his Government’s statements, it, appropriately, goes to the Prime Minister. Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.Question No. 4, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—when the House settles itself.

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?]

[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on a minute. Just calm it down. It is appropriate that the Prime Minister waits to make sure that the translation is—

Yes.

SPEAKER: —hang on, don’t give an answer while I’m speaking.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, sorry. It’s a bit confusing with all the—

SPEAKER: The earpieces are not 100 percent in the House, and we know that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he accept, since his Government made Māori ward references mandatory, it is ultimately his responsibility when councils fail to include profiles for Māori ward candidates in election documents?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I thank the member for their question. I agree, I think it’s a very concerning development that those profiles were missed, and that is a council responsibility for running those local government elections and they should be held to account for that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Would it be acceptable if candidates were excluded from official documents during a general election, or is it only considered acceptable when Māori are excluded?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, and no.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If Māori can’t trust the system to even print our candidates in the booklet, how can Māori trust it to run a fair referendum on Māori wards, which are determined by the Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, these are issues for individual councils who are responsible for local government elections, and I would ask the member to direct those questions to those district councils.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Did the Government determine to proceed with Māori referendums in the Māori wards?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, our position on Māori wards has been very clear. We’re not dictating it from Wellington; we’re sending it back to local communities to make that decision. If they choose to have Māori wards, that’s fantastic. If they don’t, that’s the decision of the local community.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please. My question was: did the Government determine to proceed with referendum for Māori wards?

SPEAKER: Well, I think the answer was given to that: the Government determined that it would be the local councils that made that decision.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will the Prime Minister commit right now to an independent investigation into the mishandling of Māori ward candidates from official election documents?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said in answer to the first question, I think it is a concerning issue, and I think the Minister will be looking into it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If the Government can’t guarantee security for Māori during referendums, will it guarantee that there will be no more progressing with the referendum until a review is enacted?

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: Sorry, I don’t know what you mean by security.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: A supplementary?

SPEAKER: Well, look, you can elucidate on the same question to make things flow a bit.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. If the Prime Minister can see that the referendum process has not worked, can he guarantee that they will stop the referendum process until a review has happened?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, those will be considerations for the local district councils who are responsible for running local elections in their district.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. to the Prime Minister: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. 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: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero a te United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry, “Israel has committed genocide and has genocidal intent against Palestinians in Gaza.”?

[Does he support the statements of the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry, “Israel has committed genocide and has genocidal intent against Palestinians in Gaza.”?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve answered before, these are determinations for the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, not the UN.

Hon Marama Davidson: He mea nui rānei ki tōna Kāwanatanga ko te whakaū ka pūāwai tō tātou reo me ā tātou tātai kōrero ki te ngākau me te hinengaro o te hunga rangatahi, ā, me he āe, he aha ia i poro ai i te pūtea a Whakaata Māori?

[Is ensuring that our language and stories of our ancestors thrive in the hearts and minds of rangatahi important to his Government, and, if so, why did he cut funding to Whakaata Māori?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I missed the first part of the question, sorry, in the translation.

SPEAKER: Can we—

Hon Marama Davidson: Anō?

SPEAKER: No, can I just ask the translator to repeat the translation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: E whakaaro ana ia ka pāngia kinotia tētahi tūāpapa whakahirahira e hāpai ana i te reo me te mātauranga Māori e te poronga pūtea mō ngā kaupapa Matariki mā te 45 ōrau?

[Does he think slashing funding for Matariki events by 45 percent affects a critical platform that promotes te reo and mātauranga Māori?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’m very proud of the funding that we’ve put aside for te Matatini but also of the fact that we have created teaching resources in both te reo and English.

Hon Marama Davidson: Ko te unuhanga o te $30 miriona i te kaupapa nei, arā i Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, mā ngā kaiako he whakaiwikore i ngā mahi whakatupu i te hunga kaimahi reo Māori, e pāngia kinotia ai ngā ākonga o roto i ngā whakatupuranga?

[Does shifting $30 million in funding away from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori programme for teachers weaken efforts to grow the reo Māori workforce, affecting generations of learners?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’m very proud of the efforts that this Government is doing to promote te reo. We’ve spent $142 million on four Māori language entities. We’ve spent over $100 million in education, including $60 million of ring-fenced funding for Māori-medium and Kaupapa Māori education, plus we’ve provided resources in both te reo and English for structured literacy and structured numeracy. That’s a first by any Government.

Hon Marama Davidson: Ka kī taurangi rānei ia ka oti i a ia ētahi panonitanga o te Pire Paerewa Waeture hei whakaū ka kore e whakamahia hei turaki i ngā herenga Tiriti o Waitangi, hei pā kino rānei ki ngā kaupapahere e tautoko ana i te whakarauoratanga o te reo Māori?

[Will he commit to making any changes to the Regulatory Standards Bill to ensure it is not used to override Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and adversely affect polices that support te reo Māori revitalisation?]

SPEAKER: Well, I can’t hear anything. What’s going on? Can someone explain? There was no translation available on that question. Can someone please find out what’s going on. [Translation resumes]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The primary purpose of the Regulatory Standards Bill is to make sure we get better-quality regulation. That should be beneficial to both Māori and non-Māori.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with the Acting Reserve Bank Governor that “it’s been a challenging period for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, as we face a test of trust and confidence in us as an organisation”; if so, what role has she played in that?

Yes. I think that statement from the acting Governor shows a healthy degree of self-reflection that hasn’t always been a feature of the Reserve Bank. To the second part of the question: as Minister, I have made clear to the Reserve Bank my expectation that it meets higher standards, public accountability, and transparency.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What self-reflection has she undertaken, given she did not make any inquiries into the resignation of one of her most senior officials?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the characterisations in that question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why has she not corrected the record when she said in the House on 9 September that the first time she was aware of the reasons Adrian Orr resigned was on 27 August, but, on 18 June, she told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that “disagreements between the board and the Reserve Bank Governor and the Government over the level of that funding that the Reserve Bank required had contributed to those employment discussions”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Those statements are consistent with each other.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she confident that she or her office have been fully transparent in relation to her or her office’s dealings between herself and either the former Reserve Bank chair, staff members of the Reserve Bank, or information communicated to her by the Secretary to the Treasury?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she be trusted when throughout this process she has withheld information, only releasing it after the Ombudsman got involved?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because at every opportunity where I have had the ability to push for more transparency and openness, I have, as the public record shows—as I have communicated privately and publicly. I would note that the member is fully aware that I both supported and prompted the release of additional information.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: So do the prompting and the supporting of additional information therefore provide her reasoning as to why she did not think to ask the former Reserve Bank chair to resign until after the Official Information Act was released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As has been traversed in this House, I relied on the judgment of the former chair of the Reserve Bank that the statements he had made were as far as he could go, given the legal obligations he had under exit agreements. As the case proved later, that judgment was wrong and he is no longer the chairman of the Reserve Bank.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can the country trust her statements when it is clear she has not been as transparent as she could have been, she has withheld information, has not asked for advice on correcting the chair’s misleading statements on 5 March, but instead waited almost six months to say she would have asked the chair to resign if he didn’t?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That was a collection of assertions, many of which I reject. I want to, once again, state that the member is the one who is politicising this issue. It would have been inappropriate for me to be involved in the process initiated with respect to Mr Orr. I have been very careful in commenting, and I stand by those judgments.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether she’s reminded of those famous poetic lines, “I shot an arrow into the air, [whether it landed] I knew not where”?

SPEAKER: Well, that is—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As is often the case in discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister, I find his reflection useful and in line with many of my thoughts.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. to the Minister of Justice: What recent reports has he seen on crime in New Zealand?

Yesterday, the Ministry of Justice published new statistics on criminal convictions and sentencing for the year ended 30 June 2025. The statistics show a 14 percent increase in the number of prison sentences compared to the previous year. This suggests the rebalancing of the justice system is under way, from a focus on reducing the prison population under the previous Government regardless of what was happening in the community, to reducing the number of victims of crime under this Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s a big, fat lie.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Restoring tougher consequences for crime has been an important part of that rebalancing. I presume, Mr Speaker, you’re going to do something about that interjection.

SPEAKER: No.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As I heard it, the Leader of the Opposition said, “That is a big, fat lie.” I believe that that statement—if it is the statement that the Leader of the Opposition made—is a clear breach of the Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: Well, there’s a course of action if you want to take it. What I would say is that accusing someone of being a liar is a different matter to saying that something is a lie. We can dance around the pedantics of it. I think it reflects poorly on the person making the comment, and that is where the public will make their own judgment. The Hon David Seymour, about to say something?

Hon David Seymour: How did you know?

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what, it was the way in which you were jumping up sort of halfway and not quite getting there or waiting for me to finish speaking.

Hon David Seymour: Well, a jump must be a smaller thing for you than for me, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I didn’t hear that because of the noise that’s coming from my left.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, it’s the convention that all members are honourable and should be taken at their word. If one member makes a statement to try and perform their duty of informing the House and is told that what they’ve just said is a big, fat lie, the House can’t function. I don’t know why you wouldn’t ask the member to withdraw the statement. It’s actually quite a big problem.

SPEAKER: Yes, it is, and I’m sure that your attendance at the Standing Orders Committee to make those representations will be very valuable.

David MacLeod: What insights do the latest statistics reveal on the implementation of the Gangs Act 2024?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, 225 individuals were charged under the Gangs Act in the previous year, 252 of which were for displaying insignia in public places; 230 of those gang members were convicted; 33 percent had their gang insignia destroyed; and 22 people were sent to prison. I notice that the Opposition spokesperson on justice, Ginny Andersen, said that the gang patch ban hadn’t turned out too badly as she feared, and we certainly agree with that. It is part of our successful plan to restore law and order in this country.

David MacLeod: What other insights can he provide on crime in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the latest data shows that the number of ram raids dropped from 308 in 2023 to 55 this year—a drop of 82 percent. The Government is making real progress on reducing retail crime, and, thanks to the work of the ministerial advisory group, we’ve got much more to do.

David MacLeod: What recent updates can he provide on the Government’s target to have 20,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The latest New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey data, released last month, shows that, in the 12 months to May, there were 156,000 victims of serious violent crime—that’s 29,000 fewer than when we came into Government; 9,000 ahead of our target; and four years ahead of schedule. But that is still 156,000 too many victims, and that is why this Government has reformed sentencing laws, brought back three strikes, passed tougher gang legislation, and is focused every day on restoring law and order in this country.

Question No. 8—Economic Growth

8. to the Minister for Economic Growth: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Do recent industry closures and job losses contribute to economic growth?

Well, first and foremost, I feel for anybody who has lost their job, and any community that is affected by plant closures. In fact, the very reason why our Government is focused on economic growth is because it is the best way to create jobs and income growth in all of our communities. As the member knows, no Government can control all of the commercial factors that influence the decisions of individual firms. What we can do—and are doing—is deliver policies that support economic growth, including sound management of the Government’s books; low inflation; and investment in things that lift productivity, like education; high-quality infrastructure; and research, science, and technology. These are all things the Government is progressing at pace as part of its Going for Growth agenda.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Can the Minister explain why the Government called back $10 million from the Wood Processing Growth Fund in Budget 2024, given the closures of the Kinleith paper mill, Penrose mill, two Winstone Pulp mills, and the Eves Valley Sawmill?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to note that the closure of the plants in question has, of course, had significant impact on many New Zealanders, and that is always of concern to the Government. As the member knows, there are a number of factors that have influenced each of those commercial decisions, with firms citing a range of factors including international prices for their products; including their own consolidation efforts; and, quite specifically, the price of energy, which has been very directly affected by declining volumes of gas supply in New Zealand, which is very directly connected to the decision by the previous Government—doubled down on by the current Labour administration—to ban the exploration of gas in New Zealand. Now, that is a bad decision; it is one that our Government has reversed.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the growth in unemployment figures, the growth in manufacturing closures, the growth in people leaving for Australia, the growth in electricity prices, and the growth in the cost of food represent the “growth, growth, growth” Government agenda?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, let me take each of those factors and present some facts. When it comes to food price inflation, under our Government, that is significantly lower than it was under the last Government, where it reached double figures. Under our Government, the rate of inflation—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. There’s a huge amount of interjection and commentary from both sides of the House—rare and reasonable is the call.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Under our Government, inflation has stabilised, having peaked at 7.3 percent under the last administration and having a far higher average than was even allowed within the target band. Under our Government, we’ve seen interest rates reduce significantly, which is a major factor for any business wishing to consider expansion or new hiring plans. Under our Government, we have seen that policies are in place to ensure that, going forward, the economy grows faster, creates more jobs, and lifts incomes.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does she agree with the Mayor of South Waikato, Gary Petley, that the proposed closure of the Tokoroa plywood plant shows that this Government “doesn’t give a toss”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Look, I can completely understand why the mayor is feeling aggrieved for his community, because communities that experience job losses through plant closures like this are deeply, deeply affected. I would simply say to the mayor that we do care. I would note, in particular, comments by Louise Upston, who has noted that the Ministry of Social Development is offering significant support to those who’ve required it and who has noted that we are working very hard as a Government to create the conditions for future job and business creation.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does she see the closure of Smithfield meatworks in Timaru, Columbine Industries Clothing Ltd, and the likely closure of the Sealord factory in Nelson as examples of successful economic growth for New Zealand regions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Once again, I acknowledge that each of those closures will have had a deep impact on the employees affected and on their surrounding communities, but I reiterate the message I gave in answer to my primary question, which is no Government—including the Government that that member was part of—can control all of the commercial factors that influence the independent decisions of individual firms around their business operations. What we can do, and are doing, are delivering conditions which better support firms to succeed. The examples of that are many, and the examples of the steps his Government took to make it hard for business are manifold.

Hon Damien O’Connor: What, in light of these closures, on a scale of one to 10 for regional economic growth, does she think she would score?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What I have made very clear is that we are working hard as a Government to create conditions that support growth. If you were to talk to any business around the country right now about whether they would prefer the inflation rates delivered under the last three years of the Labour Government or the inflation rates under this Government, they’d pick us. You would ask any business around the country, would you prefer the interest rate levels that exist right now or the interest rates left to them by the last Government, they’d pick us. You would ask any business around the country, would you prefer the employment law provisions under this Government or the last Government, they’d pick us. I stand by our record.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is a really simple one: one to 10?

SPEAKER: Yeah, that implies a yes or no answer, which the member knows can’t be asked. We move now to question No. 10.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Zero should have been an option.

SPEAKER: Zero will be an option for the rest of the person on my left’s day if you keep going on like that.

Question No. 9—Mental Health

9. to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made about new investment for eating disorder services?

One of my top priorities as Minister for Mental Health is to improve access to mental health support so we can ensure New Zealanders have the help they need when and where it’s needed. As part of New Zealand’s first Body Image and Eating Disorder Awareness Week, I announced the first refresh in 16 years of our eating disorder services. This included a 20 percent funding boost of over $4 million annually, bringing total annual investment to over $23 million. This will bring meaningful changes to ensure our eating disorder services remain fit for purpose and meet the needs of our communities.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will this increased investment support new eating disorder services?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This Government is delivering faster access to support and more mental health front-line workers. This increased investment for eating disorders will result in the roll-out of peer support workers across all our regional eating disorder services, new community-based support for families and carers, an increase in the capacity of our specialist services, and the expansion of prevention and early intervention programmes. When someone is making the brave step of reaching out to get support, workforce should never be a barrier.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will the new funding improve access to early intervention and community-based care for those experiencing eating disorders?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This Government is committed to strengthening prevention and early intervention. Through funding peer-led and family based support, we are making it easier for individuals to access help earlier, reduce the need for acute in-patient care, and improve long-term recovery outcomes. When people, their loved ones, friends, or family make the brave step of reaching out for help, this Government is committed to ensuring we have the right support in place.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What support has the Minister seen for this announcement?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Eating disorders worker Victoria Schonwald said, “By strengthening community-based supports for families, this investment recognises that recovery doesn’t just happen in clinics or hospitals, but also around kitchen tables and within households.” The Eating Disorders Association said they were “encouraged to see an additional $4 million committed to the sector—a welcome boost for those impacted by eating disorders and their [family].” While Eating Disorders Carer Support said the announcement is “bringing a significant funding boost and valuable updates for Kiwis for the first time in over 16 years.”

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. to the Minister of Local Government: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga e pā ana ki ngā wāri Māori?

[Does he support all the Government’s statements and actions in relation to Māori wards?]

Yes.

Celia Wade-Brown: Does he support the statement of the previous local government Minister that “We want Māori voices to be heard and represented.”; if so, does he think Māori wards provide a valuable opportunity of representation for Māori?

Hon SIMON WATTS: To the first part of the question, yes.

Celia Wade-Brown: Does he think his Government’s decision to reinstate referenda on Māori wards poses a risk to Māori political representation at the local government level?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No.

Celia Wade-Brown: Will he consider amendments to the Local Electoral Act in light of issues with Māori ward candidate profile information being left out of voting packs, to bring the administration of local body elections away from private companies and under the Electoral Commission, as recommended by the Local Government New Zealand electoral reform working group?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No.

Celia Wade-Brown: Does he acknowledge that Māori wards support continued representation for tangata whenua at the decision-making table, and will he be showing his support by encouraging voters to retain Māori wards?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The most important thing that community members can do in the context of supporting local democracy is to get out and vote in local body elections, and I would encourage all people and all voters to do that.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said, “National will curb the rising cost of living”; if so, what recent actions has he taken to curb food costs?

on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Christopher Luxon made that statement in March 2023, when there was a Labour Government. At the time, the latest inflation figures showed consumer prices across the board had risen 7.2 percent over the previous year—almost the highest in 35 years. Food prices, in particular, had risen a whopping 10.7 percent. So, yes, I do agree with him. To the second part of the question, as I told the member yesterday, the Government doesn’t set food prices—communism tried that approach and failed. In terms of the cost of living, I want to acknowledge the Labour Party who, have today, finally done a road to Damascus experience and voted to support our FamilyBoost relief for families.

Arena Williams: Is the Minister blaming others, when, after two years of this Government, mince now costs more than $22 a kilo, up $3.40 in the past year of her governance, a loaf of white bread is up 42 percent and broccoli is up 75 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am very interested in this member’s questioning because I wish to share some figures with the House. They relate to food price inflation. In the period ending December 2022, food price inflation was 10.7 percent. In March 2023, 11.3 percent. In June 2023, 12.3 percent. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry. Hang on—sorry. Just a minute. Yelling across the House like that doesn’t help order at all. Rare and reasonable interjections are, of course, accepted, but not that sort of barrage.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: My simple point is that I acknowledge that food prices affect every family and we always wish to see lower rates of food price inflation. It is also the case that in recent history food price inflation, particularly under the last Government, was completely out of control. We are now experiencing much lower rates of food price inflation, but I recognise that for any family at the supermarket checkout aisle—dealing with the cost of mince rising—it is difficult. I know that families understand that the Government doesn’t set that price but that it’s important we do what we can to set the foundations for an economy that allows for a more affordable cost of living.

Arena Williams: Does the Minister think that when Kiwis complain under her Government about the cost of mince, bread, and broccoli, they are just being a part of—to quote Christopher Luxon—a “very negative, wet, whiny, inward-looking country”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, no. I think that when families acknowledge that the cost of broccoli is high or the cost of bread is high, they are reflecting reality and they are welcome to their view of reality, and I sympathise with it. For the member to use the Prime Minister’s statements from Opposition, out of context, is beneath her.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Referencing the first supplementary question, is numeric literacy important in the cost of living analysis and has this Government been in power for two years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Minister makes a very good point. On behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, it would be quite a miraculous thing indeed if, as Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I had changed competition law in such a way that I had set the price for broccoli, white bread, and the other products that the member has listed. If that is the approach that she is suggesting the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs should take, I’d suggest to her that that would come with an awful lot of problems.

Arena Williams: How can the Government claim to be curbing—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on—wait. Now you go.

Arena Williams: How can the Government claim to be curbing the cost of living when food prices are up 5 percent, administered inflation is up 10.8 percent, and they only increased the minimum wage by 1.5 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because, quite simply, on our watch, inflation is significantly lower than it was under the last Government, as is food price inflation. Specifically, fresh from the road to Damascus, they’re now on the road to serfdom.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has, as Arena Williams said, this Government been in power for two years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Minister is correct.

Arena Williams: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Arena Williams—[Interruption] Just wait for the calm among your colleagues.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct my statement.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m advised by the Minister for Justice that in fact it’s 22 months rather than 24, Minister.

Arena Williams: Is the Minister overseeing—

SPEAKER: Just hang on—we will calm down. OK.

Arena Williams: Is the Minister overseeing a worsening affordability crisis while tinkering around the edges, where less competition, higher prices, and stagnant wages are all moving in the wrong direction?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, no. But what I would note is that when it comes to substantive reforms that will increase competition in the economy and deliver a better deal for consumers going forward, yesterday the Government announced the most substantive reforms to the Commerce Act in 20 years. The member was provided a briefing on those. I hope that she will engage with their substance and be more constructive going forward.

Question No. 12—Transport

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Associate Minister of Transport and reads: what recent—

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. No, stop—Mr Smith! Just wait until—as the questioner asks the question, there’s a bit of respect shown by the rest of the House. Questions are asked in silence.

Stuart Smith: I haven’t had a question in a long time, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what, you’re in danger of losing it completely.

Stuart Smith: That’d be criminal.

SPEAKER: We’ll just have a quiet House, because obviously this is a very important question.

12. to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about aviation?

Yesterday, at the Aviation Industry Association conference, I was very pleased to announce the Aviation Action Plan. This plan has been developed by the Interim Aviation Council, which is a collaboration between industry and Government, and I want to acknowledge the work of the previous Government in recommending the council’s establishment. The plan contains 25 actions to grow and futureproof the aviation sector, ensuring it continues to deliver for all New Zealanders. It is a first for New Zealand and represents a major sector milestone. I’ll be using these actions to bolster our aviation work programme, to encourage innovation, and to grow the economy.

Stuart Smith: What are the key actions from the plan?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Key actions from the plan include reworking specific civil aviation rules, including those in emerging technologies, like drones and uncrewed aircraft. We will tackle workforce issues, including by updating the pilot and engineering training pipelines, promoting aviation careers, and progressing international mutual recognition of pilots’ licences and associated aviation qualifications. We will also look at making our Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Ōhakea available as a permanent alternative runway for wide-body aircraft. The aviation sector is an important contributor to economic growth, so we need to have modern rules, a well-trained workforce, and the right settings to encourage that growth.

Stuart Smith: What role does regional connectivity have in the plan?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Regional connectivity is a key action from the plan and is critical to supporting our regional communities. Our small regional carriers have been under pressure from rising costs, limited access to capital, and ongoing post-COVID disruptions. The $30 million in loans from the Regional Infrastructure Fund and support for interline agreements are going to be vital in ensuring the long-term viability of our regional airlines. I’d like to thank the Hon Shane Jones for his support and his pūtea, as well as the member Stuart Smith’s advocacy for his community, including reinstatement of the Blenheim to Christchurch route through Originair.

Stuart Smith: What are the next steps for the Aviation Action Plan?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: The interim council will now become permanent, giving the sector and Government the leadership we need to deliver on the actions in the plan. I’d like to thank the council for their work and look forward to continuing to work alongside them. This is not a document that will sit on the shelf gathering dust. Several actions are due to be completed by the end of the year, and I look forward to updating the House in due course.

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Supplementary?

Hon Louise Upston: No, point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry, point of order, the Hon Louise Upston.

Hon Louise Upston: Oh, I’m happy to wait until this question’s finished, sir.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister: can he assure the House that he has communicated clearly to the new CEO and the board that we have no tolerance for any more of the historic dysfunctionalism within the Civil Aviation Authority?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I can assure the member that both the board and the CEO have received that message loud and clear, and I’m pleased to report that the board of Civil Aviation Authority and the authority are making great progress in updating their culture, improving certification timelines, and modernising the aviation industry.

Question No. 7 to Minister

SPEAKER: A point of order to the Hon Louise Upston.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to refer back to a matter that came up in Question No. 7 and just considering Speaker’s Ruling 48/2, and would ask, sir, that you consider whether or not you are making a new ruling about the use of the word “lie” in this House, and if you could come back to us. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I’ll take that under advisement. That concludes oral questions.