Oral Questions

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

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

Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Can he confirm teachers are striking today because they received a pay offer of 1 percent while inflation is currently at 2.7 percent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not going to get into the details of the offer—that should be something that’s discussed around the negotiating table—but I think what we can all agree on is that our kids have missed out on a huge amount of education. There’s a number of young people setting up for exams, and parents are being mucked around, and we’d just encourage the unions: don’t go to strike action early; sit around the negotiating table.

Hon Marama Davidson: Then, does he accept that wages not keeping pace with inflation is a pay cut in real terms, and, if so, when will he “Up the teachers”? [Holds up protest sign bearing these words]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d say that that’s what this Government is working incredibly hard to do, which is to make sure that wage growth is ahead of inflation, unlike what we saw with the previous administration, where inflation was well ahead of wages. That’s why we’re working hard to lower inflation, to lower interest rates, to get the economy growing, and to create more jobs for people.

Hon Marama Davidson: So does he stand by his statement that “ultimately wages need to go ahead of inflation so that people can get ahead”, and, if so, why hasn’t his Government offered teachers and nurses pay increases so that they can get ahead?

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

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: One more here.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he take responsibility for the current state of industrial relations, given there has been strike action by at least 65,000 workers across essential roles in this year alone?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the right to collective bargaining is preserved in this country, as well as individual negotiations between employees and employers. Again, my message very clearly to the unions is: don’t go to strike action for the very first action that you’re taking; get around the negotiating table and hammer it out.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister expect that someone—for example, a member of Parliament who has had the benefit of a New Zealand education—will be able to hold up a sign with a complete sentence in English?

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, that’s not all that helpful for order.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that there has been a breakdown of industrial relations in this country across essential sectors in health, education, and the Public Service, due to his Government’s decision to freeze and cut funding to the public sector?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, with the characterisation of that question: in answer to the first part, no.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

The Reserve Bank has just released its latest monetary policy statement. The official cash rate (OCR) has been reduced by a further 25 basis points, taking the rate down to 3 percent. That is a far cry from the 5.5 percent cash rate reached in May 2023. Over the past year, OCR reductions have lowered the cost of borrowing for New Zealand households and businesses, delivering much-needed cost of living relief and supporting the economic recovery.

Cameron Brewer: What did the Reserve Bank say about the future track for the OCR?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Positive news: the future track has been lowered. The monetary policy committee is now signalling two more OCR reductions this year, which would bring the cash rate to 2.5 percent. That is more than the market expected, so I would expect both floating and fixed interest rates to now fall as a consequence. People have been calling for more stimulus in the economy. This is more stimulus.

Cameron Brewer: What did the Reserve Bank say about the future track for economic growth and inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In the first quarter of this year, economic growth was stronger than expected. In the second quarter, the wind got knocked out of the sails by the US tariff announcements and subsequent global uncertainty. That is reflected in the Reserve Bank’s latest forecasts, which show a slight contraction in the June quarter. This is a temporary blip with growth picking up again in the remainder of the year and beyond, supported by a lower interest rate track that will continue to transmit through the economy. Likewise, the Reserve Bank continues to expect a modest bump in inflation this year for various one-off reasons but to fall thereafter back to the 2 percent target.

Cameron Brewer: How much have mortgage interest rates fallen in the past year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Over the past year, floating mortgage rates have fallen in line with the OCR, coming down by around 2.25 percentage points so far, not including today’s announcement. That means, for example, that a family taking out a floating $500,000 mortgage today on a 25-year term would pay around $330 less a fortnight in repayments compared to a year ago. Fixed rates have also fallen considerably, and it’s important to remember that around 40 percent of fixed mortgages are due to be to be refinanced in the next six months. That means that past OCR reductions, as well as today’s reduction, will continue to flow through to households over the remainder of this year and beyond.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What did the Reserve Bank say about the causes of the significant spare capacity in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is clear that the economy is recovering, and the Reserve Bank is explicit that, in the second quarter, the economy was impacted by the announcement of tariffs out of the United States and the global uncertainty that followed and that that certainly had an effect on both business and consumer behaviour.

Cameron Brewer: How are Government policies supporting lower interest rates for households and businesses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank’s monetary policy is key to stabilising the economy, adding stimulus through lower interest rates when it’s needed and taking it away again when it isn’t. Government policy also plays a role. When the Government is disciplined with its spending, it helps take the heat out of inflation and gives the Reserve Bank more room to reduce interest rates. That is what the Government is doing; on the other hand, undisciplined and excessive spending simply fans the fire of inflation and makes the Reserve Bank’s job harder—for a recent experience of that, see Budgets 2022 and 2023.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much. I raise a point of order in regards to the transfer of this question. We do not dispute the Government’s right to transfer questions; I do, however, seek your assurance here. In this instance, this question was originally put to the Minister for Pacific Peoples, asking if he stood by a statement that he made in response to questions put to him in oral questions last week; now that has been transferred to the Minister for Social Development and Employment. We intend to ask questions supplementary to this that flow directly from the statement that the Minister for Pacific Peoples made, so I’m seeking your reassurance that the Minister that will be answering will be required to respond fully, as outlined in Speaker’s ruling 171/5.

SPEAKER: Well, 171/5 of course refers to the primary questions being asked. The transfer request this morning was considered at length because it does relate to a specific statement made by the Minister for Pacific Peoples. However, in the original, it goes on to ask what specific actions he has taken to improve employment for Pasifika peoples. Given that that was about employment for Pasifika peoples, clearly the transfer was requested on that basis and accepted on that basis. So it would be unreasonable to expect that, having had it transferred with the rewrite, there would be a reference or requirement that the Minister answering the question knew the mind of the Minister who made the statement. It’s difficult, I know, but that’s where we’re at.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. On the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ website, it says very clearly that the ministry has responsibility for co-design of particular interventions, including employment interventions, so I would ask that the Speaker go away and perhaps look at that—we could send that to him—and then review the decision that has been made with the transfer today.

SPEAKER: What are you asking? To hold the question over?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No.

SPEAKER: Well then either ask the question or not. It’s the member’s choice.

3. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by the Minister for Pacific Peoples’ statement, “So as a wider suite of all-of-Government endeavours, we’re looking to improve employment for Pasifika”; if so, what specific actions has she taken to improve employment for Pasifika peoples?

Yes. I acknowledge that when it comes to unemployment, Pasifika are disproportionately affected. That’s why our all-of-Government approach is relentlessly focused on growing the economy to support all New Zealanders with better job opportunities and higher incomes, and that, of course, includes Pasifika people. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) community coaching programme and expanded case management service has helped to improve employment opportunities for young people, including Pasifika. I’m confident our approach is working because, despite challenging economic times, we have seen an increase in the number of Pasifika people exiting the jobseeker benefit into work.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What specific Pasifika employment interventions can she point to that were initiated or co-designed by or with the Minister for Pacific Peoples, given the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ website states that it is “the Crown’s principal advisor on policies and interventions aimed at improving outcomes for Pacific peoples”?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m very proud to say that, on this side of the House, Ministers work incredibly closely together, particularly around employment opportunities. As I said, Pasifika people have been disproportionately affected by the tight labour market; so of course there are multiple conversations with Ministers—including the Minister for Pacific Peoples—about how to improve outcomes. This includes our “welfare that works” design and the increase of young Pasifika people participating in job coaching, for example, and who have individual employment plans.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What specific actions has she taken to improve employment for Pasifika peoples, given 6,100 more Pasifika people are now unemployed compared to last year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It sort of feels as if I’m repeating myself a little bit, but the employment initiatives that we have under way are absolutely focused on Pasifika people, and I’ve had regular conversations with the Minister for Pacific Peoples around what we do to improve employment outcomes. Our “welfare that works” is absolutely focused—particularly on young people. If we look at where there are significant opportunities in the labour market ahead in, for example, areas like South Auckland, our Jobs and Skills Hubs are preparing young people for those jobs that are coming.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: We’ll do the three here, and then I’ll come to the member.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What specific actions has she taken to improve employment for Pasifika peoples in Auckland, given 3,700 more Pasifika people are now unemployed in Auckland alone compared to last year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I’m really pleased to say that initiatives like Alo Vaka in Auckland are specifically around improving employment opportunities and for higher incomes, which is something that everyone on this side of the House is very keen on. We do know that the Government’s programme of around $6 billion worth of infrastructure projects due to start before Christmas—we want to ensure Kiwis and Pasifika people are first in line for those jobs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether or not the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme has provided, and is still providing, tens of thousands of jobs to Pasifika people ever since it was started by you-know-who in 2007?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course, and Pasifika people who were in their home countries—we also want to ensure that there are employment opportunities to improve their lives and their lifestyles, and that programme has been incredibly successful over many years.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she regret her Government cutting $22 million out of a proven programme to help Pasifika into employment, the Tupu Aotearoa programme, given Pasifika unemployment has doubled since this Government took office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, because what our Government is focused on is ensuring that where there is a focus on employment, like the Ministry of Social Development, we are leveraging existing programmes to make them stronger and more effective and ensure we drive better outcomes for Pasifika unemployment.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the $22 million cut from the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ Tupu Aotearoa employment programme transferred in its entirety to MSD for targeted Pasifika employment and training programmes; if so, what are they?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I’ve said, we are a Government focused on increasing employment opportunities as well as lifting incomes, which is why we have moved that programme into the Ministry of Social Development, to ensure that there is a boosted opportunity for MSD to work intensively through programmes like job coaching and case management that currently have higher proportions of Pasifika participating.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she understand why Pasifika people might be taking it personally when their unemployment rate is double what it was when the Government came into office, more than double the general unemployment rate, and her Government is making things worse for them each and every day?

SPEAKER: Questions like that, in the context of the point of order that was raised yesterday by the Hon Kieran McAnulty, don’t meet the tests for the Standing Orders required. However, the Minister may respond.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, because Pasifika people know what we have inherited and what we go to work on each and every day to improve the opportunities and fix the mess that we were given.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent reports has he seen about Medsafe?

Really impressive news from Medsafe’s annual performance statistics for the 2024-25 year. It shows that it is approving new medicines for New Zealanders faster than the year before, which in turn was actually faster than the year before that. I’d like to especially thank Chris James and his team. I think that they’re working fantastically well to get more medicines for New Zealanders. They also, again, met 100 percent of their targeted time frames for approving new over-the-counter medicines. I think it’s a very good example of how Government can work to ensure that New Zealanders have access to the medicines they need as quickly—ideally quicker than citizens of other countries.

Todd Stephenson: How many working days has Medsafe reduced approval times over the last two years, and how does this compare with international benchmarks?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Over the last two years, Medsafe has cut over 100 working days from assessment times. So they’re doing it about five months’ faster for a new medicine than they were two years ago. On innovative medicines: 59 days faster this year than last year; that year itself was 55 days faster than the previous year. For generic medicines: 64 days faster this year than last year. That was after a 45-day improvement the year before. So this scale of improvement is really putting New Zealand amongst other—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Answer the actual question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —performers around the world. We’re firmly aligned with the likes of comparable jurisdictions, like Australia, Canada, and Singapore. And for the member who has just sprung into life—although perhaps not mentally—

SPEAKER: No, that’s it. That’s the end of the question. That’s the end of the question. The member will sit down.

Todd Stephenson: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, you might call a supplementary. I just said it’s the end of the question. We’re not going to go down those tracks. So ask your supplementary but I hope the answer is appropriate.

Todd Stephenson: How will the Rule of Two change the experience for patients waiting on new treatments compared to the current system?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Some people could think that Chris James and his team at Medsafe could be complacent, having got us competitive with the rest of the world, shaving 100 working days—or five months—off the time to consent a new medicine just in the last two years. But we are far from complacent. This Government is bringing legislation through Parliament that will introduce the Rule of Two. Early next year, the rule will be that if a medicine is allowed by two other similar jurisdictions—the likes of Australia or Canada or the United States or the European Union or the UK or Japan, for examples—if two of those countries have allowed something, then within 30 days they’ll be allowed here in New Zealand. That is going to be another exceptional improvement—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can we take him seriously when he’s taking the piss out of someone’s mental health? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sit down. That was a very unnecessary interjection. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise to the House for that language.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise. Point of order, Mr Speaker. Does he need to withdraw and apologise for attacking another member’s mental health?

SPEAKER: He didn’t get to that. I stopped him before he did it. Finish the answer and that will be the end of the question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’d also like to answer what I anticipate could have been the third supplementary question by saying that in case someone was to ask for an example of a medicine that’s been assessed faster: Omjjara, a blood cancer medicine, that was approved 131 days faster than the average time last year for innovative medicine. So these are new medicines that make a real difference in people’s lives. I think we should all be really proud of what this particular part of the Government is achieving for New Zealanders.

Question No. 5—Rail

5. to the Minister for Rail: What recent statements and actions has he made regarding rail?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Give us our trains, Winnie!

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just a moment. Before someone even answers the questions, to have people starting to comment on it is completely inappropriate.

Last Friday, we issued a statement regarding the final settlement payment by KiwiRail to Hyundai of $144 million. This brought the sorry saga of mismanagement to a close after the previous Government approved the contract in June 2021. Project iReX spent $671 million in total, and KiwiRail’s chief financial officer told the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, on 15 February 2024, that KiwiRail had spent, by that time, $424 million before the cancellation. For what? Well, hordes of consultants, comms people, architects, and artists but so little to show for it. Had we not cancelled this project, costs would’ve multiplied not twice, not thrice, but 10 times that amount, to, as Treasury said, $4 billion and still climbing. Members, we have washed the taxpayers’ hands of this outrageous mismanagement, and our solution will save the taxpayer billions.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, roughly 25 minutes ago, you made it really clear to the House that it is your expectation that Ministers would not introduce commentary and opinion into their answers. There were two occasions in that very answer that strayed from what is appropriate, particularly for a question that is asked by their own side.

SPEAKER: Well, anticipating that there would be some degree of extra interest in this question, I certainly have listened to it very, very carefully, and I can’t agree with the position you’re trying to advance.

Jamie Arbuckle: Why is he so confident his plan will save the taxpayers billions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, there’s an old Māori saying: the wharf doesn’t come out to meet the ferry.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: It’s Ngāti Wai—it’s Ngāti Wai.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s actually a Ngāti Wai saying; that’s right, because we’re people of the sea—not the people all at sea; the people of the sea. Our solution focuses on what’s required for Wellington and Picton and doesn’t get sucked into nonsense like the Project iReX, which sought to knock down everything and then build utopia in its place. Once they got control of 21, they specified flash new terminal buildings, “Taj Mahals” in Picton; they planned to lift the yards metres into the air and completely over-specify the road and rail yards.

Chlöe Swarbrick: “Taj Mahals” in Picton?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, if you listen, you’ll finally learn. I know it’s taken a long time for you, being so inexperienced in this business, having offered yourself for an Auckland mayor when you were a teenager and you didn’t know how to run the school tuck shop. We’ll update existing buildings—

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s enough—that’s enough for now. I just want to deal with something here. Yep, that’s good. Firstly, that constant commentary about how you’re seeing things does not help order in the House. It is not inappropriate for a Government to reference something that they’ve had to deal with in the way that the Rt Hon Winston Peters just has. It’s not pleasant for some people—I appreciate that—but it is not outside the rules. So don’t ask me why you should follow the rules when you’re accusing someone else of not doing so when, in fact, they are.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. I cannot possibly see how allowing Ministers to accuse previous Governments of mismanagement, of nonsense, and other examples such as that—which are direct quotes from the last two answers—to be consistent by the very clear guidance that you have given this House.

SPEAKER: And I’ll certainly review the Hansard afterwards.

Jamie Arbuckle: What was the Minister’s message to workers on the Aratere ferry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Our message was one of appreciation. On Monday, the Interislander ferry Aratere had her final scheduled sailing after 26 years on the Cook Strait. The Aratere has been a workhorse of the Interislander fleet, with thousands of sailings, millions of passenger journeys, millions of tonnes of goods moved, and all of that was enabled by the crews who served her. The reduced fleet has resulted in job losses, but these are tough decisions which we don’t shirk from. We turned up, we said thank you on behalf of the Government, and we reminded them that the Interislander has a secure future thanks to our no-nonsense ferry solution.

Jamie Arbuckle: How is the Interislander performing?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you very much—more good news, actually: the Interislander has been hovering near 100 percent of punctuality throughout this year—in fact, we could recommend that to Air New Zealand. Just last week, the Kaitaki crew celebrated their net promoter score lifting from 30 percent in September last year to 61.8 percent this year—more than double. For those on the other side of the Chamber who are not familiar with promotion, anything above 50 is considered excellent, so results like this indicate customers are having a positive experience when they cruise with us on the Interislander.

Jamie Arbuckle: How is KiwiRail performing overall?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Before the end of the last financial year, we were pleased to state that we fully expect KiwiRail will achieve its $110 million operating surplus target. While we’d never pre-empt a company’s annual result announcement, we can say we very much look forward to that result next month. This is especially so in a year where major freight operators like Mainfreight and export ports have results in very tight forecasts. We have set very clear expectations—costs down, volume up, safety up, reliability up—and as KiwiRail delivers on these outcomes, it’ll be a significantly improved commercial business enterprise.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes. I particularly stand by my statements that those with mortgages will welcome today’s news of a reduction in the official cash rate.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement from March this year that the “recovery is under way” when KiwiSaver members withdrew over $470 million for hardship reasons in the past year, a 56.6 percent increase?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I obviously have concern for any New Zealander who feels that their situation is such that it makes sense for them to have to draw down on their savings. And for those in that position, who have made that choice, that will reflect a range of challenging household circumstances. It is the case, when unemployment is high, as it has been forecast to be at this point in the year for some years, that that affects a household’s income and, therefore, their ability to save and therefore influences choices about whether or not people make KiwiSaver withdrawals. I would highlight again to the member that it has been the case that since prior to the election, all of the forecasts put forward by the previous finance Minister predicted that at this point, unemployment would be peaking.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that the “recovery is under way” when there is a 37 percent increase in company liquidations, which is greater than under the global financial crisis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I have never debated that we have been going, as a country, through a very difficult economic recovery. That is the case. It is also the case that we have been through three very challenging years, including a period in which GDP per capita declined significantly. It is also the case that in the final three months of last year, we had healthy levels of growth at 0.5 percent for the quarter, and that in the first quarter of this year, at 0.8 percent, which annualised would be more than 3 percent. We had a level of growth that was far stronger than that forecast by Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and others, and it is on that basis that I made the comment that the recovery was under way. I’ve also acknowledged, many times in this House, that there is no debate about the fact that the second quarter of this year has been challenging—very challenging—for many New Zealand businesses and households, and I suspect that those liquidations reflect that. That has been a reaction, in part, to the announcement of tariffs—global uncertainty that has had an impact here at home.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the Minister of Finance aware that that 37 percent increase was before liberation day in April of this year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’d suggest to the member that her generic question, as with her primary question, does not provide the opportunity to explore topics in detail, and I would welcome her taking a different approach in question time so we could actually have a substantive debate, rather than her listing a series of statistics and quotes, which I think is boring for everyone in the House.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she really support people wearing hard hats and a high-vis when there are 18,000 fewer construction workers at a time when the Government has cancelled 3,500 State house builds?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I absolutely stand with everyone who wants to wear a hard hat and high-vis, which is why I back fast track, because fast track will ensure that major construction projects can be under way faster, and I urge the member to join me in supporting that. And it is also why I welcome today’s announcement of lower interest rates, because anyone in the construction sector will tell you that when interest rates soar as high as they did under the previous Government, that destroys the pipeline of future construction projects. And in order for those projects to stack up again, they need to see affordable borrowing rates, which is what we are now seeing with stable economic and fiscal management.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does offering secondary school teachers a 1 percent pay rise but board directors of Government agencies or entities an 80 percent pay rise show that we value teachers very, very much?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, we have demonstrated that we value teachers very, very much through a range of steps, including, for example, being the first Government to say that we will meet their teacher registration fees, something that they have called for for years, that the previous Government refused to do. We value teachers, also, by giving them a clear, knowledge-based curriculum, access to resources to teach proven techniques of structured literacy and numeracy, and the professional development to ensure they can achieve their core goal—the reason that they teach: so that children can achieve the skills that they need to succeed.

Question No. 7—RMA Reform

7. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What recent progress has been made on changing our planning system?

Good progress. This morning, the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act was given Royal assent. As members know, the Resource Management Act (RMA) has been holding New Zealand back for decades. It’s let successive Governments and councils say no to progress, no to development, no to houses, no to infrastructure, no to energy and other important projects. This, hopefully, final amendment to the RMA—for ever—will make it quicker and simpler to build renewable energy, build houses, and reduce red tape for the primary sector.

Miles Anderson: What does the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act achieve?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It will enable more renewable energy to be built faster and cheaper. It will make it easier for our ports to operate—very important as an export-based nation. It will deliver more housing in our biggest cities, requiring Auckland to up-zone around City Rail Link stations. It will make it easier for councils to de-list heritage buildings, and the Act directly de-lists the Gordon Wilson flats, allowing them to finally be demolished. It liberalises the law around farming in the primary sector; it makes changes to fresh water farm plans, increases certainty and efficiency for aquaculture, clarifies discharge rules for our farmers, and delivers faster consents for wood processing. In short, it does a range of very sensible things.

Miles Anderson: Does this new Act contain changes to transition the RMA into our new planning system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, it does. Before the end of the year, the Government will deliver two bills to create a narrower planning system that looks radically different to the RMA. In anticipation of this new system, we’ve taken some measures to ensure a smooth transition. Most significantly, we’ve put a default stop to council plan-making. Much of the current planning work won’t be completed or implemented by the time the new system takes effect and, even if it was completed, it would need significant changes to comply with the new planning rules. So, rather than let these pricey, pointless policy processes play out, we’re giving councils clarity and saving ratepayers money.

Miles Anderson: Why is the Government replacing our planning system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, where does one start? Because we spend $1.3 billion a year on consenting costs for infrastructure; because we have some of the most expensive house prices in the developed world; because, in a country with abundant renewable energy, it takes years and years to consent a wind farm or a solar farm; because people are trying to spend their own money building office buildings next to train stations and get denied consent because of the alleged heritage qualities of gravel pits in our biggest city. Let me count the reasons. The RMA is soon to be “gone-burger” and growth and prosperity is on the way.

Simon Court: Minister, why has the Government put coal and gas on the same priority consenting pathway as wind and solar, and will this make it easier to build the firm, affordable power that households and businesses rely on?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, in answer to that question, we have [Interruption].

SPEAKER: Well, if people have so much to say, they should ask a question—inside your allocation, of course.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government has made this decision because we know that when the wind doesn’t blow and the rain doesn’t fall, New Zealanders need and deserve energy security, and in the New Zealand energy system, that means thermal electricity, that means coal and gas, and this winter, the coal stockpile at Huntly is making sure that when Kiwis go home after work and turn the kettle on and put the kids to bed, they actually have reliable power. We will not take lectures from the other side that made the worst public policy decision in relation to energy in 30 years—

SPEAKER: No—that’s enough! That’s enough!

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister finally end speculation about reducing our climate targets, as we are still yet to hear anything, when his climate Minister promised that it would be confirmed “in the New Year”, back in December 2024?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I mean, this is a Government that’s very, very focused on economic growth—that’s actually how Kiwis get ahead—but it’s also a Government that’s delivering on its environmental commitments. As we’ve discussed before in this House, our emissions reduction plan 1 and plan 2 look like they’re on budget, which is good, and it actually looks like we can do net zero by 2050 much sooner.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Climate Change Commission has recommended that more ambitious targets are entirely compatible with economic growth, could improve energy security, and would actually bring Aotearoa closer to international market preferences? [Interruption] Point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just really encourage you to reflect on the standards that you apply to this side of the House, compared to that side of the House. Earlier today—

SPEAKER: Miss Swarbrick, that is a reflection on the Chair and not a wise line for you to go down. Please ask your question again.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Climate Change Commission has recommended that more ambitious targets are entirely compatible with economic growth, could actually improve energy security, and would bring Aotearoa closer to international market preferences?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said to the member before, we’re on track to deliver on our commitments, but this is a Government that is unapologetic that we are prioritising economic growth. That is what New Zealanders put this Government in power to do, and that’s what we’re delivering.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that weakening our methane target—as his Government has signalled that it will—would place a far higher emissions reduction burden, and therefore a higher cost of living, on households and businesses across this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Cabinet hasn’t made any decisions about methane targets.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware of any of our trading partners’ concerns, that have been raised directly with his Ministers, about how the Government’s $200 million fossil fuel subsidy is likely in breach of our international trade agreements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, sir. Standing Order 390 is quite clear: that question cannot stand, because it is not a fact.

SPEAKER: Just allow me to have a wee look for a moment here. OK, it’s the mirror of what should be in answers. I think if we were to go down that track, then we would be in some trouble, because virtually any question asked in the House—and I’ve just circled, as it happens, three questions today that massively breach the system, and I will look for the Hansard, because I know that there are answers in those Hansards that also could be considered to be out of order if Standing Order 396 was strictly applied, as I said at the start of today. But in the question, Chlöe Swarbrick asked whether something had happened. That is not out of order; that’s quite reasonable for the Prime Minister to answer.

Hon Shane Jones: Further to the point of order, sir?

SPEAKER: Further to the point of order, after I’ve just ruled on it?

Hon Shane Jones: The expression I referred to was “subsidy”.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Shane Jones: The expression I referred to in the member’s question was the word “subsidy”. It is not a subsidy.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be a good answer from the Prime Minister. Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I am aware of is that we are the only country—that I’m aware of—that is making the rather unique energy transition from domestic gas to imported coal, and that is a function of the previous Government’s failed energy policy. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no—that’s enough.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And that is why—

SPEAKER: No, Prime Minister, that’s enough, thank you. Is there another supplementary?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was directly about whether the Prime Minister was aware as to whether any of his Ministers had been advised by international trading partners about whether a potential subsidy was in breach of our trade agreements. He didn’t even address the question. He didn’t even try to.

SPEAKER: You can’t assert something and then expect an answer on it—that’s the problem. I’d ask the member to have a close look at her question, reading it alongside the Standing Orders.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement, “Through our record $16.68 billion investment across three Budgets, we are making sure our health system is properly resourced to meet the growing demands placed on it”; if not, why not?

Yes, in the context it was made.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the health system properly resourced to meet those growing demands?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This Government’s never shied away from the health system that we’ve inherited. That’s why we’ve invested a record $16.68 billion across three Budgets to address those pressures.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was drawing on a direct quote from the Minister about proper resourcing, and the question of whether the resourcing was appropriate was not addressed.

SPEAKER: Except that he said that it’s a Cabinet decision to resource the $16.8 billion over the next three years. That is surely an answer—certainly addressing the question. Is there a further supplementary?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the health system properly resourced to deliver the current level of services it offers?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, the difficulty in that question is that the health system always works on projected demand; that differs. At the moment, we’re addressing high demand because of winter. That’s why we have winter preparedness plans to ensure that we have the resource to scale up for that surge capacity.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the health system properly resourced to deliver existing services without shifting more costs on to patients who are struggling with the cost of living?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Exactly to that question, that’s why this Government capped co-payment increases at 3 percent at GP practices.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If the health system is properly resourced, why does the Health New Zealand statement of performance expectations say that the financial projections assume equity funding from the Crown totalling $350 million before 30 June 2026?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I don’t know how that questioner can ask that question with a straight face. The reality is that the health system that we inherited, of course, has cost pressures. That’s why we’ve invested $16.68 billion to address those cost pressures, and last year, we recruited 4,000 extra front-line health staff to address those pressures.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why does the Government say the health system is properly resourced when it is $350 million short?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: It’s not only how much money you put in but, actually, the results you get out. You only need to look at the performance of that last Government around health targets, when everything went the wrong way.

Question No. 8 to Prime Minister

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a 24 June 2025 statement by Chlöe Swarbrick, where she said that the matter she raised today was a subsidy or breach of the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability. Yet today, she said it was a likely subsidy. I seek leave to table that.

Is that document publicly available?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It will be after I’ve tabled it, yes.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I think we’ll leave it. Thank you.

Question No. 10—Arts, Culture and Heritage

SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Suze Redmayne. Just wait for a bit of quiet—stand up, though, but wait for a bit of quiet.

10. to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What recent announcements has he made about future-proofing New Zealand’s unique natural history?

Last week, the Prime Minister, Minister Bishop, and I turned the sod for Te Papa’s new Biodiversity Research Centre in Upper Hutt. Te Papa’s current storage facility contains more than 860,000 preserved specimens of fish and other marine species dating back to a hoki that was caught in 1869. The current facility is earthquake-prone, a fire risk, and no longer fit for purpose. Without this new home, this extraordinary collection would have faced disposal. The Government’s not allowing that to happen, and by March 2028, the collection will be future-proofed for generations to come.

Suze Redmayne: What impact will the construction of the Biodiversity Research Centre have on the New Zealand economy?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government’s investment of $112.5 million has enabled construction to begin immediately. After announcing the project last Thursday, groundworks commenced at 11.30 a.m. on Monday and 150 staff are expected to be on site during peak times, and the main contractor expects more than 2,000 people to be involved in the project in some way. It’s just one of $6 billion worth of infrastructure projects our Government is starting before the end of the year to get more cash flowing through our economy—

SPEAKER: Yep, very good. That’ll do. Got another one?

Suze Redmayne: Why has the Government decided to preserve Te Papa’s collection of specimens?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Te Papa’s collection preserves more than a quarter of a million fish from New Zealand and the wider Pacific region, including sharks and the colossal squid, molluscs and crustaceans. Our leadership in this area is appropriate, given our country’s got one of the largest economic zones in the world—

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK. That’s good.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Hey, hang on!

SPEAKER: I think we’ve got it. Got another supplementary?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Hold on, Mr Speaker. Hold on a minute.

SPEAKER: No, there’s only one judge of that. Please sit down.

Suze Redmayne: How is the spirit collection utilised by researchers?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The spirit collection is used by renowned experts such as Andrew Stewart, Thom Linley, and Kerry Walton from the natural history team at Te Papa, which put together this collection, and there’s much more else besides. The previous Government, of course, put this money aside, but, like many things, they announced it but they didn’t follow through, and it fell to this Government—

SPEAKER: No, sorry. Sit down—sit down. Thank you.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes—and, in particular, my repeated attempts to contact the member to get cross-party collaboration on curriculum and NCEA. The public expect cross-party engagement on significant issues such as the future of our national curriculum. I most certainly stand by my repeated efforts over many months, via multiple channels, to send an open invitation to achieve this to both the member and the Leader of the Opposition—both of whom didn’t reply until it was a matter of public interest. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Questions are heard in silence.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How does cancelling pay equity for secondary school teachers, and preventing them from making any claims in the future, make teachers feel valued?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Teachers can feel very valued. Not everything has to be won through bargaining or even other methods. We’ve already said, earlier in this question time, the amount of investment that we’ve put into teachers. If you look at the most recent Budget: $53 million for paying teacher fees; another $30 million - odd to pay for 800 teachers a year to go through aspiring principals programmes; the professional learning and development; the three-quarters of a billion dollars we’ve put into learning support. We value teachers, and, every day of the week, we’re putting resources in to show that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How does cancelling pay equity for secondary school teachers, and then offering a pay increase so small that it is, effectively, a pay cut in real terms, make teachers feel valued?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve said to the member in the past, on many occasions, that she should not conflate teacher bargaining and pay equity. I’ve already said a number of times in the House: not everything has to be won through collective bargaining. We’ve already made significant investments in the terms of billions of dollars into the education system to improve conditions for teachers, and just one of those is the three-quarters of a billion dollars we’ve put into learning support because teachers asked us for better conditions in the classroom, and we are delivering it.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did the Government ignore the claim for more pastoral care time and funding, when teachers are having to provide support to students with complex mental health, emotional, and societal needs?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m not sure what the member is referring to, but what I do know is, through this Budget, we put in $2.5 billion worth of investment. Of that, $53 million went, for the first time, to pay for teacher registration fees; $30 million - odd went to pay for aspiring principals programmes that will affect 800 teachers a year; and three-quarters of a billion dollars went into learning support, which, I would note, the previous Government completely ignored for six long years.

Hon David Seymour: Will the Government be negotiating into teachers’ contracts that they must reply to texts and emails, or is that just something that professional people do anyway?

SPEAKER: That’s not at all a reasonable or helpful question.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she rule out removing or weakening teachers’ right to strike?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That question was asked yesterday to Minister Judith Collins, and she answered that; I think the member can refer to that. What I want to make very clear is that we are a Government that is about raising achievement; we’re investing heavily in education, including in our teachers; and all we want is for the Post Primary Teachers’ Association to come and negotiate in good faith.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she intend to ban teachers from striking because it is easier than paying teachers what they are worth?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This was already answered yesterday. I’m not sure why the member continues to ask it. The question was asked yesterday and was answered.

Question No. 12—Energy

12. to the Minister for Energy: What recent announcements has he seen about the Energy Competition Task Force?

Yesterday, the Electricity Authority announced the largest change to the electricity market in decades. This new rule will help increase competition and benefit Kiwi consumers struggling with unaffordable energy costs. Currently, large power companies can cross-subsidise themselves because they both produce electricity and sell it to their own retail arms. The new rule will mean that they have to offer their electricity contracts at the same price to all retail companies. This action will level the playing field by giving smaller electricity retailers a better chance to compete and, ultimately, will give Kiwi consumers more choice.

Tim Costley: How will this change benefit—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on. Questions are heard in silence.

Tim Costley: How will this change benefit consumers?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, very simply: increasing competition drives down prices, and we know that greater competition drives better outcomes for New Zealand consumers. We know that Kiwis are struggling with power prices, and this is a tangible action that will directly benefit Kiwi households and businesses.

Tim Costley: Is the Electricity Authority considering other options to address competition?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes. It is clear that we need a more competitive electricity market in this country. I am pleased that the Electricity Authority has said that it will consider further actions if the actions announced yesterday do not achieve the desired outcomes. Kiwi households and businesses deserve access to affordable and reliable energy, and this Government has made it clear to our regulators that this is our number one priority.

Tim Costley: What else has that Minister seen about the Energy Competition Task Force?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The task force has a clear directive from this Government to make energy more affordable, and that is why I’m pleased to see the actions it has taken to date to put downward pressure on electricity prices. These actions include steps to support new generation, and we now have one of the largest pipelines of new generation projects in 15 years. There is no single solution or silver bullet, but small, surgical interventions will make a big difference and drive real results for Kiwi households and businesses.

Hon Shane Jones: What other recent announcements has he seen about energy competition flowing from the cancellation of the oil and gas industry?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What is very clear as a result of the cancellation of the oil and gas ban is that, at long last, certainty is returning to the investment community. It is clear that this country needs a diversity of fuel sources in order to keep the lights on, and, under the prior Government, we lost that confidence; this Government has brought it back.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions, so we’ll take a minute for those members who—

Hon Shane Jones: Coal.

SPEAKER: —excuse me—do need to leave the House for other business to do so quickly and quietly.