Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Regional Development: What recent announcements has he made regarding geothermal energy?

Earlier today, I announced the first site for supercritical geothermal further exploration. This is an exciting development and a contributor to energy resilience. The location is the Rotokawa geothermal reservoir, and it is on Tauhara land. It’s a classic example of where the Crown can work effectively with Māori land owners—both committed to expanding the supply of energy for the future development of our country. Obviously, it builds upon the $60 million committed from the Regional Infrastructure Fund, as a practical demonstration of how we can better secure the future of energy resilience.

Andy Foster: What else can he tell us regarding supercritical geothermal energy?

Hon SHANE JONES: This is a challenging area. Not only does New Zealand have a high calibre and a high range of graduates in terms of this natural resource industry but the technicalities and the demanding engineering requirements mean that we will be drawing on international talent and using homegrown expertise. The first phase of this project involves not only further prefeasibility studies, but we will be able to borrow on the broad range of experiences that are now within the New Zealand economy as a consequence of having a long period of development of this industry. I expect drilling to start within the next 18 months.

Andy Foster: Why is this energy important for New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, given that the Opposition spokesman for energy has repeated the Labour Party assertion that they will be repealing the legislation recently passed, where we have overturned the oil and gas ban, we now need to ensure that our energy future is not held hostage to vanity politics by people who realise they made a tragic error cancelling the oil and gas ban.

SPEAKER: With all due respect, the rules are that you don’t use a supplementary question to attack the Opposition, and that answer was certainly running as close to the border of that as possible. Just bear that in mind.

Andy Foster: How does this help the regional economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: First, I’d like to make point of order, sir. Speakers’ rulings are very clear that you’re not a quizmaster. They are also very clear that question time is, essentially, a political experience. I think your admonition was if not unworthy, then unnecessary.

SPEAKER: Speakers’ rulings are what guides the House in these matters, and it’s long been a Speaker’s ruling—I’ve stated it a number of times—that a Government cannot use questions to itself to attack the Opposition. The Clerk has just provided me Speakers’ rulings 205/4—it shouldn’t bring other parties into answers—plus 181/3. Here’s the point: a Government obviously has the ability to point to situations that they have inherited, and the latter part of the question most certainly did, but referring to comments from spokespeople is outside of that, in my opinion.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order, Speakers’ ruling 206/7 makes it very clear that question time is a political experience, and it actually uses the expression “quizmaster”.

SPEAKER: Yes, that was in reference to a former quizmaster who operated in this Chair and who actually also insisted that all questions begin with “where”, “when”, “what”, or “why”. I certainly have not followed that practice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, can I just make this point on this issue: we’re talking about a policy or concern where most countries would seek bipartisan support so there’s a continuation of the policy election by election, regardless of there being a change of Government. The inability to make that point that that bipartisanship doesn’t exist is surely not just politicking; it’s making a clear statement that the people outside there need to know. This is a conversation not just with ourselves but with everybody out there in the thousands. People listening need to know we’ve lost the chance of our bipartisan approach, and that’s not attacking the Opposition; it’s just stating a fact.

SPEAKER: Well, it depends on where you position that bipartisan point.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, you’re not, because I’m speaking at the moment, so sit down.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Sorry, I thought you had finished, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The second part of the question, which was totally in order, talked about the Government repeal of the oil and gas ban. That in itself could be a question about whether or not there was a bipartisan position taken. Of course it’s political; everyone knows that. I’m just saying the opening of that question was pretty much designed by way of attack. Speaking to the point of order—it had better be relevant because I’ve had a lot to say and if the member had listened, she wouldn’t have much more to say.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: I would just like to point out that the Minister referred to “the Opposition spokesman”. I know definitions like this are important to that party. I’d just like to point out I’m a spokesperson or a spokeswoman.

SPEAKER: I’m almost tempted to require everyone in the House to post their pronouns so that everyone gets it right, but I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to do that, because common sense should prevail. We’re back on, now, question No. 1 from Andy Foster. Any further supplementaries, Andy Foster?

Andy Foster: Should I give the last one again?

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?

Andy Foster: The last one hasn’t actually been answered, because there was a point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I realise that. Just ask it again.

Andy Foster: How does this help the regional economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: Geothermal energy lays the platform for future jobs. It also reflects the fact that this is a very practical way of moving forward to boost the prospects of engineering, further investment, and ensuring that that part of New Zealand where this activity will take place doesn’t disappear as some sort of rust belt. It reflects also that under the leadership of this Minister, great innovation is about to be visited into the energy sector.

Cameron Luxton: How will this announcement in geothermal energy support the retention of skills in the drilling and exploration sector, and how are these skills transferable across oil, gas, and construction sectors?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, it’s well known since the oil and gas ban, a juvenile decision visited upon New Zealand industry—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Here we go. It’s the same again. Just ignore the Speaker.

Hon SHANE JONES: It is also very clear—

SPEAKER: Hold on, Mr Jones. Sorry, Minister. You were making a comment before he made any comment that might have been considered unorderly. How you knew what he was going to say is beyond me, but it’s not something I’m going to deal with at all now.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. We have canvassed this issue numerous times in the House, and you have agreed whenever we have raised concern when a Minister is expressing a political opinion on a policy of a previous Government, and to use the word “juvenile”, at which point I then responded, surely is not anticipating anything. It is in response to something that is in clear breach of the guidance you’ve already provided.

SPEAKER: I did not hear him say “juvenile” because of exactly that sort of reaction that was going on. Mr Jones will now continue with his answer.

Hon SHANE JONES: As a consequence of an immature, underdeveloped set of ideas foisted upon the New Zealand—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: It’s not—look, I’m sorry. If you’re going to get to your feet to say that it’s inappropriate for a Minister to describe a previous Government’s policies as immature, then I think that either we’ve lost it completely or we’ve become such a sterile House that it’s hardly worth being here.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sir, with respect, that is entirely consistent with responses that you have given and guidance that you have given in this House before. You have made it very clear that it is entirely appropriate for a Minister to indicate things that they have inherited; it is inappropriate for a Minister to provide critical commentary on that. Now, all we ask for in order to keep order in this House is consistency in those rulings, and I would argue, with respect, that now allowing Ministers to use words like that is inconsistent with guidance you’ve given to the House previously.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think it is—

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: —and I don’t need to take any more on this. Mr Jones, continue. [Interruption] Look, I don’t want to have to send someone out over something as silly as this, but I’m prepared to.

Hon SHANE JONES: As a consequence of decisions that have led to de-industrialisation, enormous amounts of unemployment, and the weakening of a key provincial city, it falls to this Government to look for alternatives—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just stop—sorry. For fear that someone might take a point of order over one or other of the words that Mr Jones might utter, we’ll have this answer in complete silence, including from the Green Party. Mr Jones, start again.

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m answering a question which is: what is the impact on regional economies? The regional economy of Taranaki has slid down inexorably into a very dangerous place, where there is great unemployment and shops are closing. Fortunately, the men and women who have gained their experience in the oil and gas industry and the rig affectionately known as “Big Ben” will be deployed, but that deployment, sadly, is reflective of a very dangerous, job-destroying, industry-destroying policy announcement of several years ago, and New Zealand, in some cases, will never ever recover from the most destructive energy decision made since the Treaty of Waitangi, otherwise known as the oil and gas ban—a virtue-signalling, juvenile attempt.

SPEAKER: Question No. 2—Nancy Lu.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I’d just like to seek your guidance—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Wait until the House listens to you.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. I’d just like to seek your guidance on how you are looking forward to interpreting Speakers’ rulings 204/4 and 204/6 in relation to, I guess, the events that occurred during this whole exchange following on from the primary question, particularly because in the context of patsies, I would say that those Speakers’ rulings were clearly not followed. But I’m keen to understand your interpretation of them.

SPEAKER: Sorry, could you tell me what your numbers are?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speakers’ rulings 204/4 and 204/6.

SPEAKER: Right, we’ll just look. Well, I’m sorry, I just—there’s nothing in there that was relevant to the question.

Ricardo Menéndez March: You might think that. Is that—

SPEAKER: No, we’re going to have Nancy Lu.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

A fortnight ago, ANZ released a new set of economic forecasts. The bank’s economists say that the economic recovery in New Zealand has been delayed by tariff uncertainty but not derailed. While GDP growth almost certainly took a hit in the middle of this year following tariff announcements, ANZ sees a stronger recovery taking hold from the fourth quarter of this year onwards as the full transmission of monetary policy to growth is realised. I’d remind members that the fourth quarter of this year starts on 1 October, which is only three weeks away.

Nancy Lu: What does ANZ say about the contribution of the primary and household sectors to growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: ANZ says, quite rightly, that primary sector exports have been the bright spot in the economy this year—thank you, farmers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: High dairy prices.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s not common for all the stars to align for primary industries, but that’s what’s happened in the past year, with a combination of good global commodity prices, favourable growing conditions—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The high price of butter.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and a relatively low New Zealand dollar. In terms of households, ANZ expects domestic momentum to gradually recover over the coming year as sizeable reductions in interest rates flow more strongly through to the economy. The interjections from the Leader of the Opposition are persistent but not witty.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She just can’t help but be nasty.

Hon Member: Pot, kettle!

Hon Member: Cheer up!

SPEAKER: Look, for some reason there’s high tension here today, so everyone just needs to calm it a bit. One person speaking from the Government side: Nancy Lu.

Nancy Lu: What does ANZ say about the outlook for inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Like other forecasters, ANZ expects there to be a temporary bump in annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation through the middle of this year thanks to tradable inflation imported from overseas.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Non-tradable is up, too.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: However, the bank expects non-tradable—that is domestically driven inflation—to continue falling, Mr Hipkins, and tradables, which is the more volatile series, to turn around again. ANZ makes the point, as others have, that China, our largest trading partner, is currently facing a bout of deflationary pressure, which is helpful for New Zealand’s import prices. Overall, ANZ expects CPI inflation to stabilise around 2 percent over the medium term, which is the Reserve Bank’s target under this Government. This is a far cry from inflation of more than 7 percent under the previous Government, and I would note that in the 2010s, annual CPI inflation averaged 1.6 percent across the decade.

Nancy Lu: Is she planning to change the Monetary Policy Committee’s remit to allow for higher inflation in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The period from 2021 to 2023 made it clear to New Zealanders how costly and corrosive inflation is. I have seen, from some commentators, recent interest in a higher inflation target for the Reserve Bank; I find it perplexing. One commentator said yesterday that this is a debate and a discussion that does need to be had; another, who has been chair and chief economist of the Reserve Bank, said it was a ludicrous point of view. I know who I agree with. We will not be hiking the cost of living for New Zealand households each and every year by allowing higher inflation.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, absolutely, and in particular I stand by this Government’s policy of cutting red tape to make it easier for existing supermarket chains to expand and for new ones to launch in New Zealand. Grocery prices are a great pain to many New Zealand households, and we need to encourage new investment in competition, because those are the things that result in more choices, more efficient supply chains, and lower prices for families. When people are driving across the city just to shop at Costco, it shows that people do actually want more choice, and that more investment can lead to lower prices. This Government is resolutely in favour of attracting investment and innovation so that Kiwis can get a better deal.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he think the economy is recovering, when 10,000 jobs were lost in just three months of this year, between March and June?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, there is a cycle that New Zealand is going through, and it is causing great pain to many New Zealanders. That cycle involves a spike in Government spending and inflation, which has been subdued. It then is followed by the interest rates that were required to subdue that inflation, which then in turn have led to a recession because they have limited demand, which is the point of those interest rate increases. What happens subsequent to that is that interest rates fall, people have more money at the end of the week—they spend more—and you see businesses starting to hire again. As I go around New Zealand, I hear many stories that the better part of that cycle, under this Government, is coming into fruition.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Nicola Willis that people who have lost their jobs shouldn’t take it personally?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The fact is that people lose their jobs for many different reasons, and sometimes people do feel that it is a sense of personal failing when there are events around them that they could not have controlled. In this case, the event surrounding them was the election of a spendthrift Labour Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the economy’s recovering, why did the construction sector experience a $720 million drop in sales in just three months, from March to June of this year?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: This is a Government that gets out and listens to the people. It’s a Government that hears the stress that people are facing, and there is no question that construction is under pressure—there’s no question about that. However, it is also true that we are moving through an economic cycle which began with a lockdown and a spending blow-out, carried on with high interest rates, was followed by a recession, and is now seeing a recovery.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is economist Brad Olsen wrong when he says that the ongoing decline in the construction sector represents a “new normal”, and, if he doesn’t agree with that, why is the construction sector still declining after nearly two years of his leadership?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Brad Olsen is not always right, and in this case he is absolutely wrong, because he’s talking down New Zealand. If he is saying that we are at a low point and New Zealand’s whole future will be low, then he is completely wrong, because one thing that this country needs is politicians and a Government that back them to succeed, not tear them down with negativity.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask: if the policy bonfire of early 2023—after the accession of the Prime Minister’s job—had happened a year before that, would we be in the parlous state we’re in now?

SPEAKER: No—just no.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it a sign of economic recovery that 73,400 New Zealand citizens gave up and left the country in the past year, breaking all previous records?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, many New Zealanders choose—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. In the posing of supplementary questions, Speakers’ rulings are quite clear: supplementary questions are not to be like centipedes. There were beyond two legs, to the extent I could follow the coherence of that question: Australia, blame, culpability—it’s like a centipede.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting observation. There shouldn’t be those descriptors used, obviously. But if we follow the law to the letter, the Standing Orders and what they might mean—and what some people might interpret them as—none of us would say anything at all, any time. The question on supplementaries is that there should be only one leg answerable. If there are more than that in a question, the Minister doesn’t have to answer them. We’ll start again. Ask your question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it a sign of economic recovery when 73,400 New Zealand citizens gave up and left the country in the year to July 2025, breaking all previous records?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We never like to see New Zealand citizens leaving the country. However, it is worth remembering that there is a time-honoured tradition of Kiwis leaving, enriching themselves, and bringing back much knowledge and skill that enriches our country. It is also true that our country’s population grew by a net 13,000 people last year, reflecting that there is strong demand to be part of the New Zealand success story that is growing under this Government. I believe that it’s the policies of this Government, that are based on saving money, spending it carefully like New Zealanders are forced to, cutting red tape and regulation, and building our connections with the rest of the world—even as we build the infrastructure required for the next generation—that will lead to a great success for this country and many, many more people, including our own citizens, choosing their long-term future in New Zealand.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there are $7 billion of Governmentfunded infrastructure projects that will be under way by Christmas—Precinct Properties has just announced a billion dollar spend in the next 10 years on apartments in Auckland, and Simplicity is building 600 new build-to-rent apartments in Queenstown—and that some members need to look on the bright side of life?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I can confirm both of those things. It is absolutely correct that there is a stupendous amount of capital investment coming down the pipeline for New Zealand’s construction sector. It is also true that sometimes just putting a smile on it can actually in itself improve the circumstances. One of the things that people who have struggled through this winter, through this recession, need is some positivity and some positive leadership because, actually, things are getting better. What the Opposition are offering is just simple depression. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. OK.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So which represents the Government’s position on those who have lost their jobs: that they shouldn’t take it personally, or that they should just put a smile on it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I know that people following at home won’t have this problem, but for the Labour leader’s information: the person who could do with putting a smile on it is none other than himself.

SPEAKER: Question—[Interruption] Sorry, look, someone’s going to be out early today, because it’s just a little bit too much.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. to the Minister of Housing: Does he expect the recent changes to support for rough sleepers to end homelessness in Auckland; if not, why not?

My expectation is the recent changes will make a difference for rough sleepers in Auckland.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he commit to all 809 known rough-sleeping Aucklanders being provided with emergency housing or social housing this year, and if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That number’s dynamic, obviously, as people move in and out of the system. There is support available for all 809 of those rough sleepers. The Government spends around half a billion dollars per year on support for many of those people. For example, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) stands ready and willing to support them with social housing, with emergency housing grants, with transitional housing, with bond payments, with ready-to-rent programmes, with Housing First, with sustaining tenancies. There are a plethora of programmes that MSD—depending on people’s individual circumstances—are ready and willing to provide, and we stand by those programmes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are Auckland City Mission wrong when they said that “We are deeply disappointed [with] today’s announcement [leaving] these tightened eligibility criteria unchanged. Until the policy settings are changed, the number of people sleeping rough will continue to rise.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I have great respect for City Missioner Robinson. The Government has said that we expect MSD staff to exercise greater discretion when it comes to emergency housing. But we are not going to go back to the bad old days of a free-for-all on emergency housing, which resulted in thousands of children living for month after month in emergency housing motels up and down the country. That was a failed policy. The Government spent $1.4 billion in five years on that policy, and homelessness during that time increased. That is not the solution for rough sleeping and homelessness. Simply opening up the gateway to emergency housing does not help society, it doesn’t help those tamariki, it does not help those families, and it certainly doesn’t help New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Can I just make the point that when a Minister is answering a question, he’s not necessarily helped by people from his own Government barracking throughout that answer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he at all see the causal connection between 50 percent of applications for emergency housing in Auckland being declined under the Government’s policy changes and rough sleeping increasing by 90 percent?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The official advice is that it’s not possible to distinguish or associate policy changes for emergency housing and an increase in rough sleeping. That’s the official advice. However, it is clear that we have a rough sleeping issue in Auckland, and indeed in other parts of the country. I agree with the member—and, in fact, I’m sure all members would agree with this proposition—that no one wants to live in a country where that is something that happens. That’s why the Government has invested 300 additional social homes, brought home almost immediately through the Housing First programme, which is evidence based, which has been running for a number of years and I think is supported by many members around the House; 300 immediate new social houses brought on stream from the private rental market; and additional support for those like the City Mission and others who are working at the front line of this problem. If it was a money issue and if it was an intention issue, the last Government would have solved this, because they spent, during that time, billions and billions of dollars, and the number of New Zealanders living in severe housing deprivation went up by 37 percent. The actual answer is to work with front-line providers that have the skills and capability, and, ultimately, fixing our broken planning system and infrastructure funding and financing system to make it easier to build houses more generally.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Was it a mistake to cancel 3,500 new homes across 200 public housing projects, now that he has to lease 300 temporary social homes from the private sector?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the good news about those 300 homes in the private sector is that they can be brought online in the next few weeks and months. If we were waiting for the alleged houses that were cancelled to be built, we might be waiting until mid - next year. I think the member is right in saying we want immediate relief right now. That’s why we’ve done it. In relation to the cancelled project the member refers to, it is difficult to cancel a project for which no funding was attached. The last Government talked big about funding for social housing. It never funded those projects. Many were in the wrong place, servicing the wrong people, and were uneconomic to build. That’s why those projects have been pushed out. In the meantime, we are now building 1,500 additional homes delivered by community housing providers, much more calibrated to where the need is and, in particular, focused on the right typology. As I pointed out in the House yesterday, 50 percent of people on the register need a one-bedroom unit, but that’s not what we were building.

SPEAKER: Yep, OK.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The good news is that we’ve changed the funding system, and now 89 percent of these new units—

SPEAKER: Wind it up.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —are one- and two-bedroom units, which is what the system needs. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How quickly could the Government end homelessness if they spent the $2.9 billion on immediate housing support instead of tax cuts for landlords and property speculators?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I remember another person standing in this House in 2017 and saying, “We will end homelessness by Christmas.” Billions and billions and billions of dollars later, where are we? So it’s all very well to talk big. It’s all very well to rely on intentions and good thinking. It’s all very well to have the right intention. Solving this problem is not as simple as standing up and saying, “I want to do something”—I wish it was the case—“and all I need to do is throw money at it.” It is not that simple, and, actually, members who understand this problem know that. The solutions are to make sure we get calibrated support for those who need it, work with front-line providers, build more social houses in the right places, and, ultimately, fix our broken housing system. Good intentions are not enough. You have to have a plan. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: When we’re all quiet, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is there any particular reason why so many homeless are going to, in particular, Auckland Central?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Auckland Central is a wonderful place. It does have its challenges, but we are providing additional support for the challenges in Auckland Central, as we are in Wellington and other parts of the country. We’ll continue to provide that support and, most importantly, we are focused on fixing our broken housing market.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about the transport infrastructure pipeline?

Well, it’s been a busy few weeks. A few weeks ago, we announced $6 billion of infrastructure projects starting by Christmas. I’m pleased to tell the House that number is now $7 billion, including a range of transport projects—huge number, meaning spades in the ground, jobs throughout the country, and a stronger economy. Now, the numbers do vary a bit, but the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission estimate for every billion dollars of infrastructure investments about 4,500 jobs. Of course, we are a Government committed to building an enduring, credible transport infrastructure pipeline.

Catherine Wedd: What announcements has he made regarding the Hawke’s Bay Expressway?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I acknowledge that member’s strong advocacy for this very important project. It’s fantastic to be with her and Katie Nimon to announce that construction will begin in November on the $600 million upgrade of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway—a key road of national significance. It will four-lane the most congested 7 kilometre stretch between Links Road/Pākōwhai Road and the Taradale Road roundabouts, with a new grade-separated interchange at Links Road. Construction is scheduled through to 2028, interchange works in 2027. Once it’s built, we will have 12 kilometres of uninterrupted travel; it will improve safety and improve regional growth. I’m told there will be hundreds of jobs into this region in the next few years, just on the expressway project alone, let alone the wider economic benefits of this project.

Tom Rutherford: What announcements has he made regarding the Ōmanawa Bridge?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: A few weeks ago, we announced that construction on the first phase of the State Highway 29 Tauriko West road of national significance will begin in October, the Ōmanawa Bridge replacement at the start. Site works start this month, full construction next month. This includes realigning State Highway 29 with the new bridge and making improvements with the State Highway 29 intersection. I’m pleased to say a standardised off-the-shelf bridge design is being used that will improve delivery time frames. No more gold plating and bespoke solutions, as that member knows so well, and I thank him for his advocacy on this project. Tauranga and the Western Bay are growing fast, and this will support potential development of new houses and business growth in the area.

Rima Nakhle: What announcements has he made regarding level crossings removal in Auckland?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: More good news—as Maurice Williamson used to say. It was great to kick off construction of $800 million of level crossing removals in Takanini and Glen Innes a few weeks ago, and I thank the member for her strong advocacy for that. The level crossing projects are a travesty on the last few years, because while we’ve been building the City Rail Link, what we should have been doing was getting on and removing the level crossings to make sure we can take full advantage of this game-changing project. It’s OK—help is on the way. This Government is getting on with it: eight level crossing removals, three new grade-separated road bridges, and three new pedestrian access bridges on the Southern Line in Takanini and Glen Innes. They will take a while to do, they are expensive, but they are worth doing, and in the meantime, it will create hundreds and, indeed, probably thousands of jobs in that very important part of Auckland.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, the answer has to be a little bit more concise than we’ve been getting. All supplementaries are totally at the discretion of the Speaker. We’ll try it—Dana Kirkpatrick.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What announcements has he made regarding improvements to State Highway 35 Mangahauini Gorge?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are major works getting under way on the gorge on State Highway 35 north of Gisborne as crews tackle the final and largest phase of the Cyclone Gabrielle recovery efforts. Once it’s open in mid-2026, it will be open to two lanes of traffic for the first time since Cyclone Gabrielle. Much of the work will take place around the river where repeated weather events have shifted the riverbeds—about a $50 million programme of work delivered by local East Coast contractors. I know the member will appreciate that.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the resignations of the former Reserve Bank Chair and Governor?

In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When the former Reserve Bank chair said on 5 March that Adrian Orr’s resignation was a “personal decision”, did she consider that characterisation to be misleading?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: At that time, I relied on the judgment of the Reserve Bank chair that that was as much as he could say at the time.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Did she receive any communications that the Reserve Bank board was going to recommend to her that she remove the former Reserve Bank Governor; if so, when?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have previously set this out in the House, which is that on 27 February I received a text message from Iain Rennie, who is the Secretary to the Treasury, informing me that an employment process had commenced between the Reserve Bank and the Governor.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she failing to confirm the contents of that text, which has only just been released by the Treasury, which says, “Neil’s current thinking is that you could receive recommendation later next week unless decision is taken to go down a voluntary exit route. Neil has committed to let me know of any significant developments.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, we have released those text messages, which were initially withheld because when that Official Information Act request initially came through, there was an employment process referred to in those text messages that had not been made public by the employer. Therefore, it was considered that the information in the text messages was subject to an obligation of confidence. However, now the Reserve Bank has made more information about the former Governor’s exit public, which I have welcomed, and the text messages no longer can be considered confidential. That is why Treasury has reassessed the need to withhold and has released those text messages.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she not correct the record when she knew as early as 11 June that employment discussions had occurred because there was a disagreement about the level of funding between the Governor, the board, and the Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member is making a number of assumptions about what I knew. You need to remember, at the time, I was 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. I was not aware of the details of the agreement the bank had entered into with Mr Orr. I didn’t want to create legal or financial risk to taxpayers, and I did not want to be doing or saying anything that could be seen as politicising a sensitive employment process. I relied on the judgment of the Reserve Bank chair that he was saying as much as he could say. As has been traversed, it is my view that he should have dealt with that matter better.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Therefore, does she no longer stand by her statements made to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 18 June?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I stand by my statements, although the member will be aware that I made a personal explanation in this House last night correcting a date which I shared at that committee. I made that personal explanation as soon as that error was made known to me.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she really believe that New Zealanders can trust her when she has withheld information, had to correct statements, also was on the possibility of receiving advice to allow for the removal of Adrian Orr, or, really, is the real reason why Adrian Orr resigned because she drove him to it?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If Barbara Edmonds wishes to be the great defender of Adrian Orr, then that is for her. I have chosen not to politicise his exit from the Reserve Bank, which I think shows good judgment.

SPEAKER: I’ll just point out that the last part of that question was most certainly well and truly outside of Standing Orders, but it would’ve rendered the question ineffective had I stepped in too quickly.

Question No. 7—Space

7. to the Minister for Space: Was she aware of the links between intelligence company BlackSky and the Israeli Defence Ministry when she approved payload launch permits, and, if so, did she raise any concerns?

SPEAKER: Just hold on. There’s just far too much talk during that question.

on behalf of the Minister for Space: When I took this decision in December 2023, I was advised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that while there had been previous contracts between BlackSky and the Israeli defence ministry, there was no evidence of a current contract. We’d also like to note that the first BlackSky payload was approved by the previous Labour Government in 2021. The Minister for Space makes decisions on payload permits, based on MBIE recommendation, to protect New Zealand’s national interest.

Teanau Tuiono: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just wait until the House is showing the courtesy of listening.

Teanau Tuiono: Can the Minister assure Kiwis that payloads launched from New Zealand on behalf of BlackSky are not being used by the Israeli defence ministry, in any form, to wage war in Gaza?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say, very clearly, that the satellite is in the sky. What would the Greens have us do? Bring it back? I mean, the Greens might be lost in space, but the satellite is up there. The simple statement may be one small step for the Greens, but it’s one giant leap for the truth.

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence, and I’m getting quite irritated by the amount of noise from my right.

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has grappled with these issues over the last wee while, and it’s a very serious issue. I don’t feel that that has addressed the question, and the answer was insufficient.

SPEAKER: The answer skirted right round the question. The Minister might like to say something more.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it goes back to the original statement, which was that the Minister was satisfied that any national interest risk was sufficiently mitigated. I’ve already stated that the previous Labour Government approved it back in 2021. Now, the same Government, in 2021, approved changes to the payload permit in July of that year, when there was a current contract, and in October 2023, when they were in the interregnum role as we were taking over the reins of Government.

Teanau Tuiono: Is it in New Zealand’s national interest to allow intelligence companies to launch payloads from our shores that may be supporting Israel to wage their illegal war in Gaza?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, MBIE advised in December 2023 that BlackSky had previously worked with the Israeli defence ministry. There is no evidence of a current contract.

Teanau Tuiono: Is it the Minister’s view that allowing launches of intelligence satellites for companies that have links to foreign militaries and that may be used to wage illegal wars is consistent with our international obligations and in New Zealand’s national interest?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, when the term “link” is used in the question, a link is like a chain; it’s not a broken chain, and this is what’s being asked by way of a question here. Remote sensing satellites are general purpose satellites used for a wide range of purposes. For example, they help farmers manage crops, scientists monitor climate change, and emergency services respond to floods and fires. Do they suggest we should sacrifice all of that on the basis of suspicion? They are used for a range of security purposes. The Minister also imposes standard conditions on remote sensing payload permits prohibiting the sale of data to any individual or entity that is on New Zealand’s designated terrorist list or subject to sanctions and regulations. Those are the facts.

Teanau Tuiono: Why can the Minister not confirm if satellites being launched from New Zealand are complicit in the unfolding genocide in Gaza?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That member got all the way to that question, by way of conclusion, without one shred of evidence. The next question is: where were his colleagues in 2021? Where were you in 2021? I know. They were shouting out and making no sense, just like now.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made about strengthening learning support?

Budget 2025 delivered the largest boost to learning support in a generation. Last week, I announced the allocation of learning support coordinators (LSCs) to every school with year 1 to 8 students over the next three years, so 101,000 additional year 1 to 8 students and their teachers will benefit from the skills and support of a learning support coordinator working in their school next year. These dedicated staff members will be trained in structured literacy, structured maths, and to screen for common neurodiverse needs like dyslexia and put strategies in place to give parents confidence and reassurance their child’s needs are being met. We’re working to raise achievement and provide support on the front line. Parents, teachers, and principals have been crying out for this support, and we’ve listened and delivered.

Grant McCallum: When can schools expect to benefit from a learning support coordinator?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: When learning support coordinator roles were previously announced in 2019, only a single tranche of funding was provided. This left significant inequities whereby some regions only had 18 percent coverage of their students supported by a learning support coordinator. Our fully funded roll-out will span three years. By 2026, we’ll reach at least 60 percent of all students across the country, rising to 80 percent in 2027, reaching 100 percent by 2028. In total, nearly 300,000 students in 1,131 schools will benefit from these changes. Parents can be confident that we are aspirational for their kids and are delivering more support to put their child’s needs at the centre of the education system.

Grant McCallum: How has this announcement been tailored to support small, rural, and isolated schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’ve thought very carefully about flexible support for rural and smaller schools, where staffing challenges have persisted for too long, working with the rural and isolated schools association. Schools will be able to choose to combine their part-time staffing entitlements across intervention and LSC roles, making it easier to recruit and manage resources in their communities. School boards and principals will receive information that will include operational guidance, where to find employment support and advisory services, and time lines of roll-outs and phases and key dates. Guidance for families will also be available so everyone knows what to expect from this expanded support. Planning is also under way to deliver professional learning and development in literacy and numeracy, as well as that dyslexia screening. This is a Government that backs our rural and small schools.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she received on these announcements?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s been overwhelmingly positive. A number of principals have reached out to express their support. I note one who said, “Thank you, Erica, for consistently investing in on-the-ground support.” Another principal said, “Great initiative; 100 percent agree with this approach.” Another education leader emailed me to say, “I’m really excited to see this issue finally being addressed. It’s been a bit of a festering sore for many years, and it’s great to see the allocation being done in a way to account for those small, isolated rural schools that are often disadvantaged.”

Question No. 9—Housing

9. to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who claimed, in reference to emergency housing, that “we’ve fixed it”; if so, why?

E te Māngai o te Whare, āna, tautoko au i te Pirīmia.

[Mr Speaker, yes, I support the Prime Minister.]

I agree with the Prime Minister in the context that statement was made. We inherited large-scale abuse of emergency housing that was a fiscal, moral, and social disaster and, since coming into office, we have seen over 3,000 tamariki, or kids, exit from emergency housing—2,260 accelerated through the Priority One decision that this Government made. We’ve seen a reduction in the costs of emergency housing from over $1 million a day to less than $250,000 a day. We’ve seen the renaissance of iconic hot spots like Rotorua and Hamilton—they have turned from centres of taxpayer cost into generators of tourism receipts. We’ve also seen more clarity given to Ministry of Social Development / Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora decision makers around the need for personal responsibility, strong whānau, and strong communities. We’ve also seen the member’s anxiety rise about this Government’s success in getting emergency housing back on track.

Hon Todd McClay: No need for a supplementary, that was a good answer.

SPEAKER: Questions are heard and answered. If I see someone else speaking when a question is being answered, it’ll be the end of their day.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is emergency housing fixed when front-line providers are telling the Government that homelessness is now “The worst it’s been in living memory.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: What I can say is this: when we came into office, there were more people on the housing register in cars than there were last month.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is emergency housing fixed, when Auckland City Missioner Helen Robinson said, “I am very, very clear that the current emergency housing policies have a direct impact on these numbers going up.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We might recall in this House the Homelessness Insights Report, which members opposite have relied on for the last four weeks, and, in that report, it states officially that attributing any increase in the number of people living without shelter to gateway changes for emergency housing is inappropriate because there are a lot of contributors, fathers and mothers, to people living without shelter—whether or not that’s meth use, drug or alcohol use, economic and social contexts, or, indeed, broken relationships. We’re not about that, and that’s why we support stronger whānau and stronger communities, not herding people like sheep into Ulster Street.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is emergency housing fixed, when Jill Hawkey from Christchurch Methodist Mission said, “Chris Bishop said in an interview that if people are homeless they could go to the Ministry of Social Development and housing support would be available to them. We know that’s not true.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The selective use of quotes by the member opposite reveals his palpable anxiety around the success that this Government has delivered around emergency housing. We know that people like Murray Eldridge from the Wellington City Mission, or Paul Gilberd and my whanaunga Ali Hamlin-Paenga from the community housing associations, or Julie Nelson from The People’s Project, or, indeed, Barbara Brown from Kāhui Tū Kaha have all said that the recent decisions made by Minister Bishop and myself around taking action to address some of those living without shelter are very good. The best decision that we made was getting all those kids out of hotels.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is emergency housing fixed, when, earlier this year, there were more emergency applications declined in Auckland than there were approved?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The stats and the data reveal that most people who apply for emergency housing are granted emergency housing, and most of the declines are actually granted some sort of support. But I’m sure that members opposite would like to elide around the data and truth.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. When a Minister makes an incorrect statement in the House, they are required to correct that. To save the House’s time, perhaps the Minister may wish to correct that statement immediately.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not able to sit here to say whether it was correct or incorrect. The Minister will obviously take advice when he gets back to his office and then make a decision about what course of action he should follow.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How much evidence from front-line providers will it take for the Minister to finally admit that it’s his policies that have led to an unprecedented increase of people sleeping on the street?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are members in this House that rely on hearsay, and there are others that actually go and find out the facts. We are absolutely energised and enthused by reaching the target that was set—target No. 8—to reduce the number of households in emergency housing by 75 percent in six years and achieving that in 12 months. Whilst others rely on outbursts, we rely on outcomes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Shane Jones, when the House is ready.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of emergency housing, has Rotorua been fixed after 2,000 people—predominantly gang members—in some motels were dumped there by the last regime?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Rotorua is an absolutely beautiful and iconic place in New Zealand—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Based on the assertions of Parliament’s selfappointed hall monitor earlier on today around the legitimacy or otherwise of questions, is the question that Shane—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment! It’s a point of order, and the whips on the Government side need to control themselves and the people around them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the question of Shane Jones compliant with the standard he himself was insisting you enforce earlier on in question time today?

SPEAKER: Yeah, good point. It would be a good idea to reword the question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It wasn’t even a question.

SPEAKER: Well, it didn’t start with a question word. I was going to stop him there, but given the “where, what, why, and when” interjection earlier, I thought I’d just refrain.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of emergency housing, has Rotorua recovered after 2,000 individuals—men, women, and children, and gang members—were dumped in that city in order to solve emergency housing by the last regime?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: At the height of the large-scale use of emergency housing, over 80 motels were being used in Rotorua. Now we are down to less than 10 and soon to be less than five. I believe that we are fixing the large-scale emergency housing, if we have not fixed it already. We’re absolutely determined to make sure that Rotorua is not a cost centre but is a generator of tourism receipts and an absolute contributor to this wonderful place we call New Zealand. Kia ora.

Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question probably does cover it, but a question word.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of emergency housing, can the Minister confirm that Rotorua is still reeling after having received $100 million to dump gang members in Rotorua?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not something he can answer.

Question No. 10—Land Information

10. to the Minister for Land Information: What announcement has he made, if any, about the future of Watts Peninsula—Mātai Moana?

In 2011, the then Government announced that Watts Peninsula would be protected as a public reserve for the people of Wellington and all New Zealanders. Today, I was pleased to announce, alongside my good friend and colleague Mr Tama Potaka as Minister of Conservation, that a reserve will finally be created on the northern tip of the Miramar Peninsula. This will be made possible by the transfer of 72 hectares of land from Land Information New Zealand to the Department of Conservation (DOC) and through the joint efforts of Wellington City Council and Taranaki Whānui.

Mike Butterick: Why is the Government establishing a reserve of Watts Peninsula?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Watts Peninsula holds deep significance for Taranaki Whānui, iwi Māori, and many Pākehā New Zealanders as well. It’s home to important pā sites; wāhi tapu; and military heritage from the 1880s through to World War II and beyond, including Fort Ballance. The public has clearly voiced that it values protecting this special whenua, and I thank everyone who advocated for today’s outcome, including members in this House, former mayors of Wellington—including extensively Mr Andy Foster—and the local member of Parliament.

Mike Butterick: How will the Watts Peninsula reserve be managed?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The reserve will be managed by a charitable trust, with trustees appointed by Wellington City Council, Taranaki Whānui, and the Department of Conservation. I again acknowledge DOC and the responsible Minister, Mr Potaka, as Land Information passes the baton for this important work to progress. Funding for the reserve’s ongoing care and maintenance will come from Wellington City Council and Taranaki Whānui through the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. Creating the reserve will generate a great opportunity to preserve and enhance and protect this important piece of land.

Mike Butterick: What is the benefit of establishing Watts Peninsula reserve?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The benefit will be felt by all New Zealanders and overseas visitors while protecting our beautiful indigenous flora and fauna. The trust will have an important role to preserve and promote the reserve as an ecological, historical, and cultural place of importance for everyone to access. I know that I speak for myself as well as the Minister of Conservation when I say how excited we are to celebrate the official opening of the reserve once it’s ready for public access. The decision announced today will safeguard a treasured part of Wellington and its rich history for future generations to enjoy.

Question No. 11—Food Safety

11. to the Minister for Food Safety: What recent announcements has he made about cutting red tape for New Zealand food exporters?

Last week, I announced that from 25 September, hundreds of food exporters will no longer need to apply for a special exemption from New Zealand law if their products meet the requirements of the country they’re exporting to. Companies have missed opportunities to grab new markets overseas because of the time it takes to get an exemption, which means they can’t respond quickly enough. This simple change will cut red tape, lower barriers to export, and promote innovation for those getting out there and promoting New Zealand’s primary products to the world.

Cameron Luxton: Why is this change needed?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: All food produced in New Zealand is required to meet New Zealand’s composition and labelling rules, but citizens around the world have different diets and different nutritional needs. Until now, Kiwi companies who are feeding the world had to go through a costly and time-consuming process of applying for product-specific exemptions. They will now be able to manage their own compliance with overseas requirements. This is a common-sense change that will help boost exports and economic growth.

Cameron Luxton: Has the Minister seen any reports on the effect the new rules will have on food businesses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Why, yes, I have. I saw a report in the media from one innovative Waikato company who noted how important it is to be responsive to international market demands and that the simplicity of the new rules will mean more Kiwi food on the shelves overseas. Export New Zealand said “The new approach gives businesses more certainty, cuts compliance costs, and reduces delays. It’s a change that will make a real difference to Kiwi exporters competing on the global stage.”

Cameron Luxton: Is there further work under way to help exporters?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: There certainly is; this is just the start. While this change will help hundreds of food exporters, I’m aware that there are some sectors where more work is needed to unlock that export potential. There is a phase two for this work that will look at those other sectors. I’ve asked officials to prioritise further work on dietary supplements, which has a massive export growth potential if we can get the labelling requirements right.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Does he stand by his expectation of “prioritisation and utilisation of the Commission’s full regulatory and enforcement tool kit to achieve real impacts for consumers”; if so, what is he doing to make the cost of living more affordable for New Zealand consumers?

Yes, I stand by my expectation. On this side of the House, we are absolutely committed to reducing the cost of living for New Zealand consumers. We’re doing that with a range of things including, for instance, tax relief that benefited millions of New Zealand households, changes to the income tax thresholds, the in-work tax credit, and other measures that made around 1.9 million New Zealand households better off.

Arena Williams: What specific steps has he taken to stop misleading pricing and fake specials that would deliver real cost of living relief to Kiwi consumers, especially the staggering 62 percent of New Zealanders who have noticed pricing inaccuracies recently?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: There are currently three pieces of legislation I have before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I invite the member and her party to support those pieces of legislation.

Arena Williams: What specific steps has he taken to help Kiwi consumers who are paying $10,000 more in a year to feed a family of four here than in Australia?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: As I said in the answer to the primary question, there are a range of things that this Government is doing. The portfolio that I have responsibility for is taking a range of measures, including legislative steps that the member’s party is most welcome to support if they choose.

Arena Williams: What specific steps has he taken to help Kiwi consumers with the cost of insurance when house insurance prices are up 9.1 percent and contents insurance prices have risen 10.3 percent?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The member doesn’t have to wait too long before some amendments to the Commerce Act come into this House for debate and consideration. I know that she will be looking forward to them as much as I am.

Arena Williams: What specific steps has he taken to help the Kiwi consumer, a mother, who said, “When I compared my power bills from May to July this year with last year, they’d gone up about 10 percent and my insurance renewal was around 20 percent higher across my policies”?

Joseph Mooney: Repeal oil and gas.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I hear an interjection about repealing the oil and gas ban—

SPEAKER: Just focus on the question.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —that would seem to be appropriate. However, on this side of the House we’re committed to doing all that we can to reduce the cost of living. For instance, one thing that we won’t be doing is setting higher inflation targets, as seems to be the policy of some parties in this House.

Arena Williams: Is the real reason the cost of living in New Zealand—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. All right.

Arena Williams: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the real reason the cost of living in New Zealand is so unaffordable is because this Government prioritised a $3 billion tax cut for landlords, a $300 million tax cut for tobacco companies, and half a billion dollars in tax rates for multi-national tech companies like Google and Facebook, rather than taking any action for Kiwi consumers who are falling behind?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: No, and I invite the member to reflect upon the role that her party had over the last six years.

SPEAKER: No. That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a short break before I call on a member to move miscellaneous business.