Oral Questions

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

I’ve seen a recent report from Fitch, the international ratings agency, affirming New Zealand’s AA+—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Points of order should be—I was going to say relevant, which is probably not the right way to put it, but let’s give the Minister a chance to say one or two things before there’s too much comment. The Hon Nicola Willis, start again.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’ve seen a recent report from Fitch, the international ratings agency, affirming New Zealand’s AA+ foreign currency rating, with a stable outlook. New Zealand also has AA+ from S&P and a AAA rating from Moody’s. These ratings are important. They affect the cost of Government borrowing. For members who don’t have the dollar figures off the top of their heads, I can confirm that the Government’s interest bill is forecast to be $9.5 billion this year, compared with an average of $3.5 billion in the 2010s.

Dan Bidois: How does New Zealand’s interest bill compare to other items of Government spending?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, obviously, $9.5 billion is a lot of money, despite some people saying, as recently as this morning, that it’s relatively small. To put it in context, members, it would fund four Waterview Tunnels and three Transmission Gullies each and every year. Putting it another way, the amount we pay each year in interest would roughly fund the annual operating costs of the Defence Force, the Police, Corrections, the Ministry of Justice, and the Customs Service put together.

Dan Bidois: How does our credit rating affect the costs of borrowing in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A sovereign credit rating is a measure of how likely the Government is to default or how worthy it is to receive new credit. A downgrade would result in higher interest costs for the Government, as lenders demand greater compensation for risk. It would also result in higher interest costs for households and businesses, as New Zealand would be seen by lenders as a more risky proposition overall. New Zealand is one of only 12 countries in the world to have an AA+ or AAA rating from Fitch. That means we are able to borrow on world markets at reasonable rates. Any change to that would put extra costs on New Zealand households, businesses, and taxpayers.

Dan Bidois: What did Fitch have to say about New Zealand’s ability to maintain its current credit rating?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Fitch report sends a very clear warning. It says New Zealand’s current rating is underpinned by the current Government’s strong commitment to fiscal consolidation and an expectation that debt as a percentage of GDP will start to reduce. But it warns that “Evidence of a weakening in the culture of fiscal commitment to fiscal responsibility would affect creditworthiness”. It says that “Lower confidence of Government debt reducing as a percentage of GDP could lead to a downgrade”. We cannot take our good credit rating for granted. Those who seek to ramp up Government spending and debt should think hard about what that would do to New Zealand’s hard-won international reputation and to borrowing costs that ultimately fall on everyday New Zealand households, businesses, and taxpayers.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has his Government prioritised pay increases of up to 80 percent for board directors, whilst offering schoolteachers a pay increase of only 1 percent—less than the rate of inflation and, effectively, a pay cut?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, they’re two separate issues. One is we need to make sure, when we’re spending a huge amount of Government spending, that our entities are well governed and well managed, and so that is about what director pay has been adjusted for. With respect to the second leg of the question around teacher pay, I think he has the numbers wrong.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he really in a position to say that other people have got their numbers wrong when it comes to schoolteachers’ pay?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I certainly would think that that member is not in a position to say he’s got numbers wrong. He is the $66 billion man that doesn’t know the cost of the debt that he ran up. He doesn’t know the cost of the ferry projects. He doesn’t know the cost of the Dunedin hospital project or the debt that was run up under Kāinga Ora.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government prioritise a $3 billion tax cut for landlords, whilst cutting funding for emergency housing and increasing the number of people who are living homeless on the streets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because we actually want people out of motels, and, as the member will understand, in his time of Government, homelessness went up 34 percent despite spending a billion dollars on emergency housing. We have got good management, good Ministers. They’ve done the work, and they’ve managed to get families with kids into warm, dry homes. That’s a good thing. I’d hope that member would celebrate that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government prioritise a $300 million tax cut for tobacco companies, whilst his Government is allowing the cost of visiting a—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. No one should be allowed to get up in this House, put out a shibboleth, and base the question on that. How on earth can a $300 million tax cut—and it was $200 million. How could that, if the tax cut came from a reduction in the sale of cigarettes and tobacco, and a reduction in the sales was a reduction in the tariffs going to the Government, amount to what he’s just claimed it to be at the beginning of his question? They’ve done it for the umpteenth time.

Yes, and it is true that—

Hon Nicola Willis: Give him some advice. Surely you get it.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Ooh, Nicola.

SPEAKER: One voice at the moment, thank you, Dr Woods. It is true that assertions like that should not be made in questions. Equally, though, if that is the case, then I think the answer the Prime Minister gives would certainly be able to rebut any inappropriate suggestion.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was interrupted in the middle. Can I ask the question so that the Prime Minister can actually know what the question is?

Let me put it this way. If you’re going to ask the question again, ask it within the confines of Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It is.

SPEAKER: No—you made an assertion that was not in the nature of a question. I’m sure you can work that out.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government change the—

SPEAKER: No, no—hang on. All calm, no one else speaking.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government change the tax rules around tobacco, resulting in the Government taking $300 million less in revenue, whilst allowing the cost of visiting a doctor to nudge closer to $100 for everyday Kiwi families trying to stay healthy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, it’s not surprising to me the member doesn’t understand the difference between a contingency put aside for a loss of excise revenue, and tax—that they are two quite different things. With respect to the second leg of the question, that is why this Government is spending a huge amount, it’s spending more than any previous Government in the history of New Zealand, in healthcare—$17 billion extra last year; 7 percent more this year—and expanding urgent care and more primary care for people to be able to see their GPs in a much quicker fashion.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that rents for New Zealanders have actually fallen since the Government made the tax rules for rental property the same as every other part of the economy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. Under the previous Government, rents went up $180 a week; under this Government, they’re down $5 a week.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. There was nothing wrong with the question, but the answer certainly is in breach of the guidance that you’ve given Ministers consistently throughout this term.

I actually hadn’t heard enough of the answer to leap to that conclusion, but I think the answer should be within the bounds of Standing Orders.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Rents have proudly fallen $5 a week. That is very different from the record of the previous Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government prioritise funding for his failed FamilyBoost policy, which has resulted in not one single family receiving the full $250 a fortnight he promised them, whilst cutting entitlements to free early childhood education that would have benefited tens of thousands of Kiwi families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I thank the member for his regular questions on FamilyBoost, because we want to tell as many New Zealanders as possible to jump on www.myir.ird.govt.nz. With our expanded settings, we think there’ll be another 22,000 families that will be entitled to FamilyBoost support, and that is a good thing for low and middle income working New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government prioritise over half a billion dollars in tax breaks for multinational tech companies like Google and Facebook—

Oh, sorry. Was there a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it’s a question.

OK. My apologies, I didn’t see that the member rose. We’ll continue with that and then I’ll come to the member.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government prioritise over half a billion dollars in tax breaks for multinational tech companies like Google and Facebook, whilst 72,000 Kiwis have given up on his leadership and left the country in the past year, the highest since 2012?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’d say to the member that we are wanting to grow this economy. One of the ways we do that is we make sure that we get more innovation and technology into this country so we can create high-paying jobs for New Zealanders into the future. That’s why this Government has a great economic plan about building our education, getting rid of the red tape and the bureaucracy, and making sure we embrace more trade and investment, more science, technology, innovation, and modern reliable infrastructure. If we can do that, we will lift collective living standards and raise the wages and incomes of all New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister what his Government’s view is when someone regards the reduction in tobacco and cigarette use which leads to a $300 million decline in tax revenue to the Government as being a $300 million gift to the tobacco industry—what’s his view when somebody makes that stupid statement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is a total mischaracterisation of the policy of this Government. [Interruption]

The House will resume.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We have sat here for month after month after month while those members have repeated that lie in this House. I am seeking to correct it. Why do you think it’s a matter of no importance?

Well, I don’t think it’s a matter of no importance. That’s why your question stood and the Prime Minister was called to answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week you ejected a member and named them for saying that they were struggling to find members with a backbone. How is accusing other members of repeatedly lying in the House any different?

Well, it is quite different in my head. One was directed very personally at members of Parliament. The other was a question about repeating a lie. Now, if you’re taking a point of order on that, then—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes.

Wait on. What I would say to you is that—oh, I don’t like using that saying. The member knows that there is a remedy by way of the Standing Orders—

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

—hang on; wait until I’m finished—to have that corrected.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It has never been the case that where a member has called another member or group of members liars, they have to raise a privilege complaint to have the Speaker do something about that.

No, no. Sorry. You’re pushing it too far. To suggest that there is something out there that is a lie and is being repeated is not an allegation against any individual member or group of members. Do you have a supplementary?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government spend less on infrastructure projects in 2024 than in the year before, leaving Kiwis out of work, whilst increasing Government spending on jobseeker benefits for those very same Kiwis who lost their jobs because of his Government’s decisions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member before, the construction industry has certainly been very challenged, because his Government drove up interest rates, and we’re bringing them down. We now have $207 billion worth of projects in the infrastructure pipeline. We’ve got $6 billion happening before Christmas. We are relentlessly focused on growth. I’d just say to that member: reverse your decision on fast track, get in behind, support the construction industry, and stop the crocodile tears.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government choose to increase the minimum wage by below the rate of inflation for two years in a row, meaning minimum wage workers have had their pay cut in real terms two years in a row, while Kiwis continue to struggle with the cost of living, a crisis that’s getting worse, not better under his leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s exactly why this Government supported tax relief for the first time in 14 years for low and middle income working New Zealanders. It wasn’t deeply ideological; it was just lifting the tax thresholds. Any party could have got on board with that. It was common sense. Sadly, his party didn’t. If he backed low and middle income working New Zealanders, he would have supported that, he’d support FamilyBoost, he’d support fast track, and he’d support repealing the oil and gas ban.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he says that the economy and the country are turning the corner, while food prices continue to skyrocket, unemployment continues to go up, more and more businesses go broke, and hundreds of Kiwis leave the country permanently every day, why won’t he simply admit that his Government is all “delulu” and no “solulu”?

In so much as the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, could he repeat the question.

I don’t think we need the question repeated. We’ll move on to question No. 3.

Question No. 3—Workplace Relations and Safety

3. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that “This Government denounces sex-based discrimination in the workplace”; if so, does she think that the submission made by Pay Equity Aotearoa urging the United Nations to investigate whether the changes to pay equity law breach the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is consistent with this statement?

Yes, I stand by my statement, and I am confident that changes this Government has made to pay equity legislation are consistent with the convention the member has asked about. In particular, I am satisfied that this Government remains compliant with our international obligations as the new pay equity model continues to ensure women receive equal pay for work of equal value.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she agree with New Zealand Council of Trade Unions secretary Melissa Ansell-Bridges that “Cancelling pay equity for more than 180,000 working women was a flagrant attack on their economic and political rights. It also breaches our international commitments to uphold women’s rights”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, I do not.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she agree that her Equal Pay Amendment Act breaches the following three fundamental human rights: freedom from gender-based pay discrimination, the right to natural justice, and the right to fair legal process?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No. The acting Attorney-General considered the bill and found it was consistent with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Supplementary—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: One more.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Thank you. If she is truly committed to denouncing sex-based discrimination in the workplace, why have five unions taken the Government to court over her changes to pay equity laws, might she say?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Well, I’m not responsible for the unions, unfortunately for our people in the Opposition—that could be quite fun. The difficulty here is I’m only responsible for the legislation that underpins the Equal Pay Act, not the unions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister, when Pay Equity Aotearoa approached the United Nations (UN), which country did they say they were from?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I reiterate, I’m not responsible for the unions or any representation to the UN.

SPEAKER: Mariameno Kapa-Kingi—[Interruption]—and no other voices.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can she explain why the Government has chosen to spend millions of dollars fighting wāhine workers in court when that money could have been spent on delivering pay equity?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The Government hasn’t chosen to do that. I don’t believe there is a case at the High Court yet. I believe that there are members of unions who have suggested to media they may take a court case, but I’m not of the opinion, or have been led to the opinion, that that has happened yet.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister accept responsibility for what Dame Judy McGregor has called “the most significant roll back of women’s rights in over a generation”; if so, will she commit to righting this wrong by repealing her Equal Pay Amendment Act?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, because there’s something that many members of this House continue to fail to recognise: the Equal Pay Act stays; pay equity stays. There is still a process for equal pay and pay equity. This Government is committed to finding and stamping out sex-based discrimination, and the processes put in place by this Government will allow that to happen.

Question No. 4—Education

4. to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made regarding lifting educational achievement?

Today, I announced our writing action plan to supercharge writing achievement and better support young people. The latest curriculum insights and progress study data, collected in term 4 2024, provides a baseline snapshot of achievement prior to the introduction of our education reform programme this year. It shows that 24 percent of year 8 students are at expectation to experience success at high school in writing. Parents know this Government has established a clear pattern of responding to data with comprehensive plans, like the literacy guarantee so children can learn to read, maths action plans so they can do maths, and, today, we’ve launched our Make It Write action plan to lift writing achievement.

Carl Bates: How will she support students who need additional help with their writing?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Our education reforms are already under way in literacy and numeracy, especially with literacy starting this year with the new curriculum, and structured literacy. In addition to this, we are introducing a suite of targeted initiatives to help students accelerate their learning in writing. We’re doing this with a new writing acceleration tool which will help support 120,000 students in years 6 to 8. From term 1 next year, the tool will support teachers to accelerate students’ progress through regular opportunities to practise and refine their skills. We can see from the data that intervention is needed, surgically, at years 6 to 8 for students who need extra help and who do not have the full benefit of our education reforms.

Carl Bates: How will she support schools with implementing structured literacy approaches?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Many students are arriving at high school without the literacy skills they need to succeed. Teachers have been calling for training in structured literacy to help kids catch up, because this isn’t a Government prepared to sit by and watch while kids get left behind. We’re funding training—announcing today—for a structured literacy intervention teacher in every intermediate and secondary school, for professional learning and development for those teachers in structured literacy. The training will be tailored for older students and extends on what is already available for those teaching in years 0 to 6. The teachers will be able to learn through in-person workshops and ongoing coaching over 12 months. A huge thankyou to Lifting Literacy Aotearoa for proposing the policy and for being such strong advocates for structured literacy.

Carl Bates: What else has she announced as part of the writing action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: One of the strongest indicators of reading capability is handwriting. When a child can write fluently, they don’t have to think about forming their letters; they’re freed up to think more about what they want to write. To support this, we are providing new handwriting teacher guidance to support explicit teaching from years 0 to 8, and this aligns with our refreshed English knowledge-rich curriculum. It is a fully updated evidence-based resource that reflects the latest research in classroom practice. Every student deserves the chance to succeed at school and beyond, and our education reforms are helping make sure that every student has that chance.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister of Education, can she give the House any updates as to—after her announcements—what’s been the response by the Labour Party Opposition spokesperson on education?

SPEAKER: No, no. She has no responsibility for anything that anyone says other than herself.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. It’s a matter of some significance, and I’m asking for the Minister’s response. I’m not asking her to talk on behalf of the Opposition. Surely, she’s capable of owning her own response.

SPEAKER: Yes, and the member also knows that it’s contrary to Standing Orders to use question time to design a question designed to attack the Opposition, and that’s, I think, where we were heading.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement about the Cook Strait ferries that “I’ve delivered” when she has spent $671 million and has delivered nothing?

Hon Nicola Willis: Because even after including the costs associated with cancelling Labour’s failed iReX project, this Government is going to deliver a safe, reliable service for far less than Labour’s bloated project would have cost.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that the additional 16,000 unemployed people “shouldn’t take it personally” when there are reports of 1,000 people applying for one job?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because, as was canvassed extensively in the House last week in the other auditionee for the finance role Ginny Andersen’s questions, the statement that I made was simply to—

SPEAKER: No, no. Stop and start the question again without the little barb in there. I wasn’t referring to Barb over here either.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because, as my statement in its full context made clear, my point was that those people who have lost their jobs shouldn’t take it as a reflection on their own abilities; it is a reflection of an economy which is shedding jobs at a lower rate than was forecast prior to the election under the previous Government’s policies, an economy that is recovering from an extended downturn after a period of very high inflation and high interest rates. My message to those people that I shared in the statement, in its full context, is that the Government is working hard every day to ensure there are more job opportunities in the future.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, of the $671 million mentioned by the questioner, is she aware that $424 million—that’s $424 million—had already been wasted on Project iReX before this Government even came into power, and that despite all that extraordinary expense, we will save the taxpayer billions with our ferry solution?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Nah, it’s just a lie.

SPEAKER: No, stop right there. OK. You’re trying to make a point. The point is not very well made, and I will—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I thought it was.

SPEAKER: Well, you might think it is, but it’s not a good time to be interrupting. I will refer to Speakers’ Rulings quite harshly if it continues.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Rt Hon Winston Peters’ questions contained an assertion in them, which he has objected to earlier. It is our contention that the assertion in that question is a lie. There is no difference in saying that to the assertion that he made before that something I had asserted was a lie.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, I am happy to refute that allegation that what I’m questioning is based on a lie, because we can itemise—with particularity, to the last cent—the $471 million they spent before we even got the job.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That was a point badly made.

SPEAKER: Look, I think I’ve said what I’ve said on this, and I think I’d ask members to show some restraint in what they might offer by way of interjections.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I understand that to be correct. We won’t take responsibility for the mess we inherited with Project iReX. We do take responsibility for cleaning up that mess. It’s the putting right that counts.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that “National will take action to get food prices under control” when food prices have increased 5 percent overall, butter is up 42 percent, beef is up 25 percent, and milk is up 16 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because the facts make it clear that our action to get food prices under control has resulted in food price inflation reducing from its high in June 2023 of 12.3 percent down considerably to 5 percent in the latest update, after a period in which, for many, many quarters, from March 2022 to December 2023, the rate of food price inflation was far higher than it currently is. We have had success in bringing inflation, and indeed food-price inflation, down.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why does she stand by her statement that an average income household with young children will be better off up to $250 a fortnight when she can’t find a single family that received the full $250?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because rather than just scoring political points, I think about the 60,000 families who, as a consequence of the FamilyBoost policy, have received additional income to their households. I think of the Uber driver who stopped me outside Parliament to say to me, “Nicola, can I have a photo? The FamilyBoost policy has made an extraordinary difference to my family.” I care more about the difference we are making to him and his family than your barb. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Right, that is the last unruly outburst we’ll have today.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why should Kiwis believe her when she can’t deliver ferries, can’t deliver jobs, can’t deliver lower food costs, and can’t find a single family who has received the full $250?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because on our watch, inflation is down, interest rates are down, growth is returning, and we are working very hard to make the difference to the New Zealanders who we understand have been through an extremely difficult economic period, who we feel very deeply for, and who are the reason why we are pursuing policies to make this economy far, far stronger. We regret the recklessness of the previous administration, but we are working very hard to clean it up.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table an article of 15 February 2024, where, at a select committee where Arena Williams was in attendance, KiwiRail told the Labour Party precisely the figure that I gave—about their expenditure before this present Government even took office—on that matter.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is great news for the Opposition. It’s now in order for us to seek leave to table articles, is it?

SPEAKER: No, I probably should have thought a bit more about that, you’re quite right. But it wasn’t an article; it was actually a commentary to a select committee.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He said article. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. I take the point, but the moment has passed.

Question No. 6—Internal Affairs

6. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What increased efficiencies has she seen across the Department of Internal Affairs?

I have seen some fantastic news that the number of people waiting for an outcome of their citizenship by grant application is at a fiveyear low, and the department is now picking up applications from just two months ago, compared to 13 months when I first started as the Minister. While application numbers have remained relatively constant over the past year, the department has made a big push to clear the backlog and has increased efficiency through cross-skilling staff and improving processes. I’ve also seen the department change to use English first in its logo and communications, at a low cost.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How many people are currently waiting—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Start again.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Thank you. How many people are currently waiting for citizenship by grant?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Currently, there are just over 12,700 people waiting for a decision on their citizenship application, down from a high point of 37,690 in April 2022—a 66 percent reduction. These are not just numbers; these are individuals who contribute to our economy and our community. I’m sure the department’s rapid improvement in efficiency will be welcomed by those who wish to gain New Zealand citizenship and call themselves Kiwis.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other efficiencies has she seen from the Department of Internal Affairs?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’ve instructed the department to use English first in its logo and communications to the public to make it easier for people to engage with the department. I also made it clear that this should not come at a large cost or use of staff time, to be respectful of taxpayer money, and I’m pleased that the department has completed its rebrand for less than $1,000 and very little staff time.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What further efficiencies does she expect to see in the Department of Internal Affairs?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I am continuing to work with the department to identify areas of efficiency, including how the National Library and Archives New Zealand can better work together to share resources, minimise duplication, and reduce cost. Getting value for taxpayer money while maintaining a good standard of service is one of my top priorities for the internal affairs portfolio.

Tabling of Documents—Leave Not Put

Point of order. Thank you, sir. I seek leave to table a document which shows Christopher Luxon is the least popular Prime Minister in 30 years.

Well, given the pleas made before, I’d have to ask: is that a publicly available document?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I didn’t think it had to be, sir.

No, I just made it clear: I made a mistake; it does have to be.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Oh, so point of order. If you’re now conceding, sir, that you made a mistake, how then can you say that the motion is passed? Shouldn’t the question be put again?

No, no, I said the motion was agreed, and once I’ve done that, it moves on. There’s a flow to these things. You can disrupt the House all you like; I’m not changing my mind. If you can tell me your document is not publicly available, then it can obviously have the leave put. [Interruption] No, no, you’re missing the point. It’s about your document now. It’s publicly available?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, it is now.

SPEAKER: Good, well, stop trifling in my direction.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. There was a conversation going on over here that shouldn’t be. Please start your question again.

7. 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: Does he agree that all rangatahi should be able to grow up in a stable and supported home, and, if so, what is he doing to help the over 50 percent of homeless people under the age of 25?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is why this Government is proud of the record that it’s building in housing. We are doing everything we can to make housing more affordable. It starts with the planning laws to actually enable the supply of more houses to be built. It goes to the rental market, where we actually have rents down $5 a week compared to $180. It goes to the social and the State house wait-list, which is down 6,000 people. It goes to the emergency housing accommodation, where 2,134 kids are now in warm, dry homes. That’s a good outcome. There’s always more to do, but we’ve got a good housing team here working very hard.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think that emergency housing rejections increasing by 386 percent in the last year is contributing to increasing rates of homelessness, with young people leaving care or custody finding it increasingly difficult to access emergency accommodation and living rough on the streets instead?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as that member would understand in her former role as the Minister for homelessness—where people without shelter increased 37 percent despite a billion dollars being spent on emergency housing—homelessness is something that no Kiwi wants to see. It’s an incredibly difficult and complex issue that needs to be resolved. People often have complex needs. That is why this Government makes aside $550 million worth of support to organisations to support people with complex needs, and that’s why the Ministry of Social Development services are available, and it’s also why the Ministers are looking at what more they can do to make any tweaks to support people who are in that situation.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to a fast release fund to support community organisations responding to the crisis our tamariki and rangatahi are facing, with a focus on prioritising investment into alternative models to motel-based emergency housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, this Government’s record on emergency housing has been very impressive in terms of the way the work has been undertaken, the way that we have moved children out of motel accommodation into warm, dry houses, after a Labour legacy of housing which was abysmal. But again, the Minister is talking to people in the sector and is working with them and is open for any tweaks that we can make to support people in homeless situations.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response to Māhera Maihi, chief executive of Mā Te Huruhuru, who observed, “There are currently no strategies or policies to support rangatahi in transitioning from temporary accommodation into permanent housing, leaving a gap many fall through.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve explained to the member before, there has been good work on reducing the State house wait-list, there has been good work on reducing people in emergency housing, and the Ministers are open for any further tweaks that they can make.

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he say to the rangatahi who have lost count of how many friends have died while experiencing homelessness, some being described as “full of life and potential, but they died without a safe and stable home.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s an incredibly tragic situation. I just say it is not something to be politicised. This is a Government that is fixing up a failed legacy on housing for homeownership, for the rental market, and for the State and social housing market, and as I’ve said before, Ministers are working with stakeholders in the sector to see what tweaks they can make as well. But to take 2,124 children out of motels—which a Labour-Green Government was quite happy to leave them in—it’s good progress.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Standing Order 390, “Content of questions”—how can that possibly have passed muster with you to have deliberately exploited, for shallow political gain, the death, maybe there otherwise, and then attributed that as a responsibility of the Government? That is not consistent with Standing Order 390.

SPEAKER: Well, I’d suggest you get hold of the Hansard afterwards, because the way I heard it, it was a statement of fact or of a circumstance that existed and a question about what the Prime Minister thought of it, and what he was doing about it. If you can’t ask a question around that, there would be very few questions that could ever be asked in the House. I know that that is a concern for some of your colleagues.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that 50 percent of people on the social housing register need a one-bedroom unit, but only around 12 percent of Kāinga Ora’s stock is one-bedroom, and the Government has recently changed the funding settings to make sure that the Government is commissioning and building more one-bedroom units to help those who need a house?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that is exactly the situation. It’s a function of a previous Government that didn’t understand the people it’s trying to help that led to a four-fold increase—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. It seems almost every question time we have to go through the same thing. This was a question from their own side. The answer was given immediately. He then went on to provide his own opinion and commentary on what the previous Government did. It shouldn’t be allowed. If we want to maintain—

SPEAKER: Sorry—sit down. Because I’m pretty much over this. The reality is, and I’ve said it to this House a number of times, a Government can refer to situations that they have taken over and that they are dealing with. That is not unreasonable. The question itself was totally in order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Sir, I wasn’t disputing the question.

SPEAKER: I realise that, and I’ve just told you the answer is in order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, in that case, may I respectfully ask that you reflect on that—maybe check the Hansard. That was not a reflection of what the Government has, as a matter of fact, inherited; it was the Prime Minister’s opinion and a description of what the previous Government did—the very thing you have told them not to do.

SPEAKER: With all due respect, he started his answer with “Yes, I can confirm” or words to that effect, but I will look at the Hansard and I will come back to the member.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by all his actions in preparing the health system for winter 2025?

Yes. That is why we now have more doctors and nurses employed at Health New Zealand since coming into Government and why we brought back the health target for 95 percent of patients to be admitted, discharged, or transferred from an emergency department within six hours. This was a critical step after performance had fallen sharply between the years 2017-2018 and 2023-2024, dropping from 89.2 percent to 67.5 percent.

Hon Peeni Henare: Has he seen any reports that Māori and people from high-deprivation neighbourhoods have a higher rate of hospital admissions for heart disease, and does he agree that these admissions are preventable?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Yes, there has been pressure on the emergency departments for a range of issues. It is wintertime, and that’s why we’ve made our expectation very clear to Health New Zealand that they have winter-preparedness plans in place to address surge capacity.

Hon Peeni Henare: Why is the cost of general practitioner visits to diagnose and treat heart disease higher under his Government?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, what we do know is, sadly, too many Kiwis can’t get to their GPs because books were closed or it took too long, so that’s why we’ve invested heavily into our GPs, not only to open up books to ensure that people can now be seen 24/7—digitally online—but we’ve also capped the co-payment at 3 percent to ensure that it is affordable for all Kiwis.

Hon Peeni Henare: When 1,500 people were treated in the corridor of Middlemore Hospital in a single month, how many were there because they couldn’t afford an early GP visit?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: There will be a range of reasons why people turn up to the emergency department. The questioner is right: we need to ensure that we get primary care right; we need to open that up—that is not only Monday to Friday, 9 to 5, but also after hours. This Government has invested significantly into after-hours and telehealth—in fact, a record extra $16.68 billion over three Budgets—to address that issue.

Question No. 9—Building and Construction

9. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcement has the Government made about the building consent system?

Yesterday, we announced the biggest change to our building consent system since the Building Act came into force in 2004. First, we’re putting responsibility for bad building work where it belongs by scrapping the current joint and several liability model and replacing it with proportionate liability. Second, we will remove regulatory barriers, which will support New Zealand’s 66 separate council building consent authorities to voluntarily consolidate and join up their functions.

Ryan Hamilton: Why does the system need to change?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Councils are currently understandably hesitant to sign off building work that Kiwis desperately need. This is because they can be left carrying the can for the full cost of building defects, even when they are not responsible to that extent. Ratepayers pay twice: once through slow, inefficient consenting and again when councils cover for cowboy builders who’ve ridden off into the sunset, saddling the ratepayer with the bill. With the 66 different building consent authorities, we have that many different interpretations of the single building code. Builders face needless delays, and modular home builders hit barriers when they cross a regional line. The system is broken currently. We will fix it and get more homes built.

Ryan Hamilton: Will homeowners still be protected under the new system?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Protecting homeowners must always come first. We’re backing the shift by exploring consumer protections like home warranty schemes, which are mandatory in Australian states, and professional indemnity insurance for high-risk professions. We’re cracking down on cowboys by giving licensing boards more teeth, creating a new licence class for wet areas, and toughening penalties for those who cut corners. My colleague the Hon Scott Simpson is leading work to tackle phoenixing, where dodgy operators shut one company one day and then reopen the next under a different name. Importantly, people are less likely to do shoddy work in the first instance if they know that they’ll end up bearing the cost.

Ryan Hamilton: What feedback has the Minister received about this announcement?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The feedback has been clear and overwhelmingly positive. I was very pleased to discuss this early today at a function in the House attended by a number of parliamentary colleagues with the New Zealand Chinese Building Industry Association, a few of whose members are still here. Local Government New Zealand, meanwhile, said that the changes will have “an instant and positive impact on housing growth; councils will be in a better position to consent more efficiently, with less legal risk borne by local government—and therefore … ratepayers.” The Building Officials Institute of New Zealand, meanwhile, called the reforms “a win for ratepayers, homeowners, investors, and the wider economy.” Finally, the New Zealand Certified Builders described them as “the most significant change for the building industry in a generation, a long time coming, and welcomed by industry.”

Cameron Luxton: How does this announcement help fulfil the National-ACT coalition agreement for building consents, and what does this announcement mean for tradies?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I thank the member for the question, and I acknowledge that the New Zealand ACT coalition agreement contains an item around changing liability settings, reflecting ACT Party policy going into the last election. The policy and, indeed, the coalition agreement was around exploring allowing builders to opt out of needing a building consent if they were to have long-term insurance for the building work. This announcement is a key step in that right direction, putting more accountability on the individual tradesperson and increasing the uptake of insurance products.

Question No. 10—Public Service

10. to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she stand by her statement about public sector industrial action that “there’s going to be a lot of options that we’re looking at as a government”; if so, what specific options is the Government considering?

The answer is yes. The Government has a duty to all New Zealanders to ensure our critical public services—like the hospitals and schools that they rely on every day—will not be unnecessarily disrupted. We are looking for ways to improve the bargaining system, because the right to strike is important, but so is the right for students to learn and for patients to access the healthcare they need.

Camilla Belich: Will she rule out altering or diminishing teachers’ right to strike?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I certainly haven’t been considering altering or diminishing the right to strike. I have, however, suggested that it’s always good, if you’re going to be bargaining, to be at the bargaining table, not organising a marketing campaign for a strike that’s unnecessary.

Camilla Belich: Will she, then, rule out altering or diminishing nurses’ or any public sector worker’s right to strike?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think I’ve made it very clear that we’re looking at how we can strengthen the bargaining system so that people might have better options available before racing off to strike, such as, for instance, mediation or any other sorts of facilitated bargaining. I think most people would understand that the people who are hurt the most in these situations are often quite vulnerable people—either children, or they are patients in the healthcare system. I am not actually ruling out things, but I am saying that nobody is considering removing the right to strike.

Camilla Belich: Has she requested or received any advice from the Public Service Commission or any other agency regarding compulsory arbitration for teachers, nurses, or firefighters?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, the member is giving me all these new ideas today! I don’t think I have actually asked for that, but I’m always happy to take her ideas and consider them.

Camilla Belich: How can she say that bargaining requires genuine engagement when, during a period of bargaining, she refuses to rule out measures that would limit the ability to take strike action?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think I have pretty much said I am not looking to rule out strike action at all. I’m not sure quite what she’s talking about.

Camilla Belich: Why do appointees to Crown boards deserve an up to 80 percent pay rise but teachers struggling with the cost of living get a 1 percent pay offer?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, of course, it’s a framework based on the fact that very few people are qualified to do the role of Crown board entity directors or chairs and the fact that some of these people are paid less than $30,000 for undertaking enormous work on behalf of the taxpayers of New Zealand and are responsible, in some cases, for multimillions of dollars—hundreds of millions, even billions—of dollars of taxpayer funds. I actually think it’s a matter that we do—and we’re competing with the private sector, so these are all issues. It’s sort of unfair to equate one position with that of others, but I do think that they’re not actually related.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. 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: Is the Prime Minister aware which of his Government’s decisions came into effect in August 2024 which have resulted in the decline of emergency housing applications rising from 4 percent to 32 percent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I am aware of is that we have moved 2,124 children out of damp, dank motels into warm, dry houses, and, of course, that’s a good thing because it means kids have housing security, and they can attend schools and get good medical treatment on the basis of that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that under his Government’s decisions, the recorded number of New Zealanders sleeping rough in Auckland alone has nearly doubled from 426 in September 2024 to 809 in May 2025, as Auckland Council reports?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member will be aware, our homeless data is not great. No New Zealander likes seeing people in a homeless situation. That is why our Government is talking to the stakeholders and open to making tweaks if we can help support people in homeless situations, but, as the member would understand, from the previous Labour-Greens Government—where homelessness went up 34 percent despite a billion dollars being spent on emergency housing—these are not simple issues. They are complex, and they are often people who have very complex needs that need proper support.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When will the Government reverse its decisions to tighten eligibility criteria for emergency housing, which has evidentially seen an explosion in homelessness across every community in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s a Government that’s taken 6,000 people off the State social housing wait-list after it increased four times. It’s a Government that has lowered rents by $5 a week rather than up $180 a week. It’s a Government that’s reinventing our planning laws so that we can get more houses built and more affordably, and it’s a Government that’s open to looking at what else we can do around homelessness to support people in that situation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware of any person’s life circumstances that have ever been improved by them being denied emergency housing and being forced to sleep on the street?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is a Government that spends $550 million with a range of service organisations to support people in difficult circumstances. It’s a Government that has a Ministry of Social Development agency that is actually available and will always offer support to people who need it. But it is a Government that is fixing the failed housing legacy of the previous Greens-Labour Government. This is a Government that can stand proud to say we are building more houses and making it easier to do so with planning laws. We have got rents going backwards, if not stable. We have got more people coming off the State house wait-list, which is a good thing, and we have moved 2,124 children out of motel rooms, through Priority One, into warm, dry houses. Yes, we don’t like seeing homelessness—no New Zealander does—and we’re open for further setting changes if we need to.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister think of an example of somebody’s life being made better by dependence on Government, and does this Government want something better for the future of New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s a Government that’s working hard to lift the collective living standards of all New Zealanders, and the way that we are doing that is by making sure our kids have an outstanding education system and by making sure we embrace more science and technology and add value to the products and services we sell the world. More infrastructure, less red and green tape, and more trade and investment—those are the things that will lift our collective living standards and lift incomes for all New Zealanders.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When, if ever, does the Prime Minister intend to respond to my multiple invitations to walk the streets of Auckland Central to meet the people, including the children, who his Government’s decisions have made homeless?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what’s important is that the Ministers for infrastructure and social housing have been engaging with the sector, and they have said publicly that they are very open to looking at any tweaks that they can make to improve the homeless situation in New Zealand. But I’d just say to the member: when you have 6,000 people that were on a wait-list waiting for a State house and they’re no longer on the wait-list, that is a good thing. When you have rents, having gone up $180 a week, now down $5 a week, that is good progress, and when you have 2,124 kids out of motel rooms and into proper houses, through Kāinga Ora or through community housing providers, that’s a good thing.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that from 2018 to 2023, $1.4 billion was spent by the Government on emergency housing, but homelessness increased?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, there was over a billion dollars spent on emergency housing, and homelessness went up 37 percent. As the previous Greens member who was the Minister for homelessness understands, this is a complex issue.

Question No. 12—Transport

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

Last week, I was pleased to announce that the New Zealand Transport Agency board has endorsed the business case for the $75.4 million Pages Road Bridge renewal project and approved co-funding from the National Land Transport Fund. The Government will be funding $38.5 million to support the replacement of the Pages Road Bridge. This is an important piece of infrastructure for the people of Christchurch and great news for Christchurch east. I thank all members of Parliament for their strong advocacy for this important infrastructure project.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why does the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on. All right, now you can start.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why does the Pages Road Bridge need to be replaced?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: The Pages Road Bridge is nearly 100 years old and is approaching its end of life. It carries more than 13,000 vehicles a day and is the main point of access between the New Brighton and Southshore communities and the rest of Christchurch. The bridge was actually last strengthened in 2015 to extend it lifespan and, as a critical evacuation route, the importance of the Pages Road Bridge renewal project was recognised by this Government with its inclusion in the 202427 National Land Transport Programme.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the next steps for the replacement of the bridge?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Now, this project was the highest-priority capital improvement project for the Christchurch City Council, and until we came into power, no taxpayer funding has been allocated to it. Now that the business case and the co-funding have been approved, the council expects the project to begin construction once consenting is completed, and, under this Government’s reforms, that will happen sooner rather than later.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Those who have to leave for other business, please do so quietly.