Oral Questions

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

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Audition No. 1.

Are you not letting Kieran have a question today?

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on—hang on. Don’t start out that way. We’ll start again, all nice and calm.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, last week Treasury released its long-term insights briefing, which highlights the dangers of excessive Government spending. The report explores the role of fiscal policy in economic shocks and crises, including the way Government finances were used during and after COVID-19. The COVID-19 response cost New Zealanders $66 billion, or 20.4 percent of GDP. By way of comparison, this is twice the cost of the Canterbury earthquakes as a proportion of GDP, which cost around $23 billion.

Cameron Brewer: How did the COVID-19 response impact Crown debt?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, non-urgent COVID spending, including spending on measures that were not tied to COVID, was a key driver of structural deficits in the years after 2021. COVID-19 spending sent net core Crown debt on an aggressive upwards path. From financial year 2015 to 2019, net core Crown debt was relatively flat, but from 2019 to 2023, net core Crown debt increased by 169 percent, to over $155 billion. Treasury notes in the long-term fiscal insights report that “As the economy recovered in the second half of 2020 and into 2021, [it] advised shifting towards more targeted support and recommended against further stimulus from Budget 2022 onwards.” However, only 30 percent of funding allocated to the COVID-19 response was spent in the 2019-20 year; in fact, 36 percent—roughly, a third—occurred after June 2021, including when inflation hit 7.3 percent.

Cameron Brewer: Supplementary. How did—

SPEAKER: This will be a concise question with a concise answer.

Cameron Brewer: How did New Zealand’s fiscal response to COVID-19 compare with those of other developed countries?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, the Treasury report finds that the overall scale of our discretionary fiscal response was one of the largest amongst advanced economies. The report does not suggest that spending when crises or shocks occur is bad; it does, however, make the point that we should interrogate the scale and the quality of the spending. There were numerous programmes and initiatives not tied to the shock that had a lagged impact on the economy and proved difficult to unwind later—for example, increases to benefits, the Jobs for Nature programme, and so-called shovel-ready projects, some of which are only starting now. It’s a very, very diplomatic way of saying that we are still paying the price for a big-spending approach that diverted wildly from a pandemic response.

Cameron Brewer: What are the key insights and lessons from the report?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the lesson from the mishandling of the COVID response is that while there are times when Governments have to increase spending in response to major events—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, sir. We have not raised a point of order up to now because everything has been absolutely compliant with what’s required in Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders, but as soon as a Minister is, basically, asked to provide his opinion on what the lessons are, we’re straying into the exact territory which you have warned the Government not to do, and the Minister’s description of the COVID response in that answer is in breach of what you’ve guided him not to do.

SPEAKER: Well, can I just say that I didn’t quite hear that part because there was somebody waving their arms up in the broadcasting box and I thought there was some sort of a thing going on that we should be aware of, but apparently not. Minister, you’ve just heard the concerns. They are concerns that I’ve outlined before. Please keep your answer within the bounds of that previous ruling.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the lesson I take from the COVID response is that there are times when Governments have to increase spending in response to major events, but it is really important that the fiscal guardrails are restored as soon as possible. It’s easy to turn the money tap on but harder to turn it off. It is imperative, I believe, that we return to surplus and get debt down as soon as possible after an event, because the reality is that New Zealanders will face other emergencies, and we need to start saving for them.

Hon David Seymour: In what ways and how do New Zealanders pay for a fiscal blowout of the type that he’s described?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’d refer the member to the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) from 2023, issued just before the change of Government in 2023, which indicated increased debt, increased unemployment coming into the future, inflation, and a very difficult economic environment that would persist for the next few years. That is precisely what has transpired. Fortunately—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: The Minister needs to take some responsibility—still playing the blame game.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s literally your own report—the fiscal settings left by that member. It’s her own Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, for which she now seems to bear no responsibility for, whatsoever. Actually, unemployment is now lower than was forecast in the PREFU in December 2023.

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: Supplementary question—

SPEAKER: I’ve got to ask this question again: how do we carry on from this point, where a questioner says, “Do you stand by all the Government’s statements and actions?”, and the answer is “Yes.”? What more can there be?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I was asking a supplementary.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know. But what supplementaries can you have to that?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, if you hold your breath, you’ll find out!

SPEAKER: Well, give it a go, but we’ve got four primary questions today that ask the same thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he stand by Nicola Willis’ statement that people who have lost their jobs “shouldn’t take it personally”?

SPEAKER: That was very skilful—well done.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As that member knows, if you looked at the finance Minister’s comments in full, the reality is that the previous Government spent $66 billion and made the cost of living crisis worse for low and middle income working New Zealanders. That is the legacy of the Government that he led, and that’s the context of the comment that she made.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why doesn’t he think people who have lost their jobs should take it personally?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think people having lost their jobs is an incredibly sad thing. The reason it’s happened is because of his administration, because he actually didn’t run the economy well, and when you don’t run the economy well, you end up causing pain and suffering for low and middle income New Zealanders; and that’s exactly what he did.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that for people losing their jobs it’s one of the most life-changing things that can happen to them, and that his Minister of Finance accusing those concerned about job losses of “glass half-empty [thinking]” just rubs salt into the wound?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I fully agree: losing a job causes a lot of distraught-ness for lots of people who lose their jobs. It’s incredibly sad, it’s a terrible tragedy, and I wish that that member would take some responsibility for causing it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he still believe the economy is “turning the corner”, when every day, 76 New Zealanders lose their jobs and 340 Kiwis give up and leave the country because his Government is making things worse, not better?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to the member that the context for the situation that we’re managing with the economy is that it is tough times for New Zealand—it’s been a very difficult time. We’ve had the biggest recession we’ve had since the early 1990s. We’ve had a post-COVID hangover, as you’ve just heard from the Treasury report of last week, that his Government made worse, driving up inflation and interest rates, putting the economy into recession, and people now losing their jobs. You’ve seen good growth at the back end of last year, you’ve seen good growth at the beginning of this year, and since April, there has been a loss of confidence and sentiment around the world and in New Zealand as a function of the tariff announcements. This is a Government that is doing everything it can to drive economic growth, and we’ll continue to do so.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question—

SPEAKER: Just before the member starts: rare and reasonable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his decision to pause, delay, or cancel construction projects—decisions that have actively made things worse and put 18,000 construction workers out of work since he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member, who I think we should start calling “The Sixty-six Billion Dollar Man”—because when I grew up as a kid, there was a show called The Six Million Dollar Man, and this member is the “Sixty-six Billion Dollar Man”; it’s the way to think about it. But we have got $206 billion worth of infrastructure pipeline. This is a Government that has announced $6 billion worth of infrastructure projects, with people on the end of the shovels before Christmas. If the member cared deeply about construction jobs, why doesn’t he reverse his decision on fast track?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If things are so much better under his Government, why were there seven times as many State houses under construction in 2023 compared to today; and six out of 10 construction firms who were previously building State houses have now exited the market?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll say to the member that we have gone through a period of time—caused by his previous Government—that has actually put the New Zealand economy into recession. His actions drove up interest rates and caused huge devastation on the construction sector. They can’t borrow money when interest rates are high for development and new projects. But this is a Government committed to doing more building of classrooms across the schools. This is a Government committed to doing more roads of national significance. If the member really cared about it, get in behind, support fast track and Resource Management Act reform.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he found a single family who has received the full $250—

SPEAKER: Sorry. Someone was speaking then, while the question was being asked. That person may well want to put their head down, but—

Hon Judith Collins: I’m very sorry, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon; I haven’t asked you to be—

Hon Judith Collins: I apologise. I was talking to my colleague, and I’m very sorry.

SPEAKER: Right. Well, then your apology is sort of accepted, but don’t make a habit of it. When everyone is quiet, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he found a single family that has received the full $250 extra a fortnight that he promised them during the election campaign?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve spoken to many families up and down this country who so greatly appreciate the tax relief that this Government provided. Not an ideological concept—lifting tax thresholds—but, again, he failed to support it. I’ve also spoken to many families who are very grateful for our FamilyBoost, helping offset expensive early childcare costs. Again, a simple process—encourage everybody to get on myIR and get it done.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a relatively straightforward question as to whether he’s been able to identify a single family that’s received the $250 a fortnight that he promised them. I think anybody listening objectively to that would have no idea what his answer to it was.

SPEAKER: I certainly don’t, because there was a lot of noise coming from my left that prevented me from hearing it, so I can’t make a judgment on it. But you have, I think, made your point. Do you have another supplementary?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, that’s it.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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: Does he agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that “There are a broad range of strongly held views within our Government”, and, if so, who in the Government is opposing recognising Palestinian statehood?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There are a broad range and strongly held views across the whole of our society and across the whole of New Zealand, and, as you would expect, across this Chamber there will be a variance of views as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the harm, if any, of recognising Palestinian statehood?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s been a longstanding position of successive New Zealand Governments since 1947 to recognise the creation of a State for Israel and a State of Palestine where two peoples can live together in peace and security. That has been a longstanding position of the New Zealand Governments of different political parties. The issue is that we need to, as we’ve said, as you’ve heard the Foreign Minister say, and it’s been a longstanding position—it’s a matter of when, not if. But the immediate challenge for the situation in the Middle East is, of course, Hamas must release hostages. As a terrorist organisation, they must release those hostages. Secondly, Israel must allow unfettered humanitarian access into what is an absolute catastrophe, and there must be a ceasefire and diplomacy and dialogue.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that Israeli hostages have been offered back multiple times and Israel currently holds approximately 10,000 Palestinian prisoners?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, I’m not going to respond to that question. That’s not what I’ve been briefed on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: A point of order is heard in silence.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’m just seeking your guidance when the Prime Minister refuses to answer a question which seeks to tease out the logic that he is using with regard to Government decision making.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think that’s reasonable. The Prime Minister said he wasn’t prepared to answer it because it wasn’t within the scope of the briefing that he’s received.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware, then, of our obligations under the genocide convention, and, if so, what are they?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and what I’d say to the member is I would be very careful throwing terms like “genocide” around. It’s very important that the right bodies, that we support under the international rules-based system—the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are those closest and are the appropriate bodies which we fully support to make those determinations.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister finally willing to say that Israel’s slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza is a genocide, and, if not, what does he know that Holocaust and genocide scholars don’t?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Standing Orders—I think it’s about 390—are very clear that a questioner must not make arguments or argumentations in asking a question that are not necessary to make it intelligible. This questioner is making a series of assertions in order to convey information rather than seek it by asking a question. A question like that, according to Standing Orders, should be ruled out.

SPEAKER: Had the member not been so quick off his feet, it probably would have happened—and it is now happening. Have another go.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does the Prime Minister know that Holocaust and genocide scholars apparently do not when they call what is currently occurring in Gaza a “genocide”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I know is that there’s a humanitarian catastrophe happening in the Middle East. What I know is that we want to see peace and stability and security reign in the Middle East, and, for that to happen, Hamas must release hostages immediately. What happened on 7 October from a terrorist organisation inflicting 1,200 deaths on innocent civilians was unacceptable. We are also saying, clearly—and we’ve done it through a number of calls with other countries as well—that we want Israel to give unfettered humanitarian access. We do not want more military action. We need to make sure that we actually see diplomacy and dialogue reign in the Middle East.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the member who has just resumed her seat, which is adorned with a Palestinian scarf, and I invite you to consider what this House might look like if everybody who had an interest in a global conflict started adorning their seats with symbols of one side or the other of a conflict. I think that would bring the House into disrepute, and no member should be allowed to do such a thing, particularly when you yourself have forbidden members from wearing tiny pins on their lapels.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Simon Court’s currently removing his.

SPEAKER: Sorry—excuse me. No, I think you make a very good point, actually. I think I’ve been willing to accept that if people were wearing something that did not particularly—oh, here we go. Good. OK, well, stay warm. We’ll move on now.

Question No. 4—Education

4. to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made regarding NCEA?

Last week, I announced a proposal to replace NCEA with a new national secondary qualification. This includes: replacing NCEA level 1 with a foundational skills award; replacing NCEA 2 and 3 with the New Zealand Certificate of Education and the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education; requiring students to pass at least four subjects to attain each certificate; returning to clear marks out of 100, with grades like A, B, or C; being ambitious for our kids—unlike some members of this House—and the creation of new coherent subjects and standards, to support strong vocational education. New assessments will be based internationally benchmarked and consistent national curriculum. Until now, no Government has been bold enough to take decisive action, but we are—so our kids get the very best chance to succeed.

Carl Bates: Why is she proposing—

SPEAKER: No, just hang on. Just wait until the House has sort of settled itself. All right.

Carl Bates: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is she proposing these changes?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The warning lights have been flashing for some time. There are clear issues with the design and implementation of NCEA, which is overly flexible, difficult for parents and employers to understand, and the lack of consistency leaves too much to chance. For example, last year in new level 1 mathematics, only 11 percent of students were assessed against all four standards—the whole curriculum. More than 250,000 exam papers were left blank, students are more than twice as likely to get an Excellence grade if it’s marked internally rather than externally, and 60 percent of teachers don’t believe that the new NCEA is a reliable measure of student knowledge and skill. Doing nothing in the face of all this is not an option. We have to strengthen the system, and our proposals are designed to do just that.

Carl Bates: What will these proposed changes mean for parents?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: My message to parents is this: like you, we are ambitious for your children; they deserve a world-leading education system, and we are delivering that. Our proposals mean that the very best parts of NCEA will stay—things like a combination of internal and external exams, flexibility to do both vocational and general subjects, and special assessment conditions for those students with additional needs—while other aspects will be improved and delivered on: assessment against an internationally benchmarked curriculum, clear grades out of 100, and stronger attainment requirements like passing at least four subjects to gain a qualification. We want there to be more coherence, more consistency, and more clarity of what students know and can do.

Carl Bates: What feedback has she received from parents?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, it has been overwhelmingly positive. One parent reached out to say, “Great job on the new education policy. I’ve got one kid about to enter NCEA, and I’m very glad my youngest will miss it and enter in through the new way. Keep up the great work.” Another parent reached out to say she was delighted to see the proposal. But my favourite comment was one simply saying: “Woo hoo! Fantastic policy. Woo hoo! Let’s go.” This Government is ambitious about the future success of our young people, and I look forward to working across the House to ensure that we secure enduring success of this proposal.

Question No. 5—Economic Growth

5. to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance, who said about the additional 16,000 people unemployed that they “shouldn’t take it personally”; if not, why not?

I agree with the full quote made by the Minister of Finance, which was that “it is an incredibly tough experience. They shouldn’t take it personally, because what they are often the victims of is an economy that was mismanaged, where inflation and interest rates were out of control, and where many businesses have retrenched.” It is absolutely the case that the economy was mismanaged by the previous Government, with inflation and interest rates out of control, and we are still recovering from that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How is it not—

SPEAKER: Just wait. Everyone needs to calm down a bit. When questions are being asked, they’re asked in silence, and nothing that you’d be saying to anybody else in the House matters.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How is it not personal that 16,000 people have lost their jobs under National?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I would just direct the member to the full quote in the context in which I gave on the primary answer. She should’ve listened.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If he truly cares about people’s lives and livelihoods, why does he dismiss the thousands of people who have lost their jobs and can’t pay their bills, as if their daily struggle doesn’t matter?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the good news is that the Budget forecasts a 240,000 increase in jobs over the next four years as growth starts returning to the economy, after years of mismanagement under the previous Government. At the end of the day, the Government’s job is to implement good public policy and good fiscal policy and allow growth in the economy to return, generating jobs and higher living standards for New Zealanders. That’s what the Budget forecasts will happen over the next four years, and we look forward to that continuing.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he stand by his statement that “Some New Zealanders have got themselves into the habit of what I call glass half empty economics”, and, if so, does he think that those people who lost their jobs should just cheer up?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I do stand by that statement, and, no, I was referring to most members of the Opposition, including the shadow Minister of Finance, who said in a podcast a couple of days ago, “We don’t have to provide the solutions to issues,” and “It’s not my job to find the solutions.” I do stand by those statements as well.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could clarify for us what the ministerial responsibility in the last part of that answer was?

SPEAKER: Well, if you go back to the supplementary that was asked, it was asked “what do they mean?” and “what did they say?” and “does it just mean cheer up?”. The answer that was given, very clearly, stated why the statement was made in the first place. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Further point of order, Mr Speaker. How on earth is a statement by Barbara Edmonds, the finance spokesperson for the Labour Party, a matter of ministerial responsibility?

SPEAKER: Well, the question was: “Do they stick by the comment that those who are pessimistic are glass half empty?”, and then it went on to ask if, in fact, it was the 16,000 people who have lost their jobs who should just cheer up. That was clarified, very clearly, by the Minister. I think you’ve got to look to the supplementaries to work out how the answers might go.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister, on the basis that all politics is local, has he got any examples of employers abusing their staff?

SPEAKER: Well, how does that relate to the primary?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Minister can answer the question about its relativity. It’s very obvious. We’re talking about people over there who are claiming that employers are not looking after their workers—or, in this case, blaming the Government. I’m just making the connection of a local example.

SPEAKER: I think that’s probably just where we might leave that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he know what the unemployment rate would be if thousands of New Zealanders had stayed here and not left the country in search of jobs and higher wages?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It’s not funny.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, it’s not. Your mismanagement of the economy was not funny. It definitely was not funny, my friend.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why were you laughing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m laughing because I know what the unemployment rate would have been if that member’s party had been re-elected. The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update said one thing, but New Zealanders know that if Grant Robertson had been allowed to recklessly spend his way through another three years, unemployment would be even higher than it is today, debt would be even higher, and we’d be approaching 50 percent. If people think things are bad now, God only knows what it would have been under Grant Robertson’s profligate reign of fiscal terror.

SPEAKER: The House will calm itself.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can he see that telling people who lost their jobs not to “take it personally” and who are “glass half empty” that it’s just another kick in the guts for Kiwis whose lives are worse and not better under National?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member needs to cheer up. The Budget shows, over the next four years, over 200,000 new jobs will be created. There are billions of dollars of infrastructure investment coming down the pipe, including $6 billion between now and Christmas. Fast-track projects are being consented. In fact, there are due to be, between now and Christmas, over 10 fast-track projects—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, that’s just outrageous. Another one of those outbursts, and it’s good afternoon to you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —potentially receiving consent. School property projects and a range of health projects are under way. No one is pretending that life in New Zealand is perfect, and no one is pretending that everything is rosy. But we are making progress. The key lesson is this: you’ve got to stick to good public policy and good fiscal policy and stick to the economic plan. At least this Government has one. In the words of the shadow Minister of Finance—or at least the current one in the Labour Party—they don’t have any policy.

Question No. 6—Building and Construction

6. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he seen on the building and construction sector?

This week, Kennards Hire released its 2025 Construction Confidence Check survey and found that an overwhelming 93 percent of construction business leaders are confident in the industry’s growth and performance over the next five years. Better still, more than half—52 percent, in fact—are “very confident” that we will see strong growth in New Zealand’s building industry. This Government is backing the building industry, and it’s great to see that—after reports that the industry activity had levelled out—the vast majority of business leaders believe that we are now moving forward.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What other findings did the survey make?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The survey also highlights factors driving such surge in optimism among our building industry leaders. Around half—47 percent—point to increased Government investment in infrastructure as a reason to feel that the future is brighter. They are also celebrating increased foreign investment and growth in regional infrastructure projects. These are all priorities for the Government, so it is that, for example, we are reforming the Overseas Investment Act to bring wealth into New Zealand, we are investing into our regions, and we’ve committed to $6 billion worth of infrastructure projects before Christmas.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What common challenges face the industry, according to the survey?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The survey highlights a couple of major challenges. One is a lack of quality and availability of building materials, and outdated equipment. This is exactly why the Government has introduced Investment Boost—this helps tradies and other businesses to invest in the technology and tools that they need to grow by immediately allowing them to deduct 20 percent of the cost from the income tax due that year. We’ve also changed the law to remove unjustifiable barriers, making it easier for Kiwis to access high-quality building products, increasing availability and innovation, boosting competition, and driving down prices.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What other recent data on the construction sector has the Minister seen?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Stats NZ data shows that for the year ending June 2025, nearly 34,000 new dwellings were consented. While the rise of 1 percent may seem small to some, it does mark the end of a downturn period that started several years ago. It represents hope, despite the hope on the benches opposite that the reverse were true. It’s hope for the sector, hope for our housing supply, and commentators say that this data signals activity is stabilising and recovery is on the way.

Arena Williams: Was the report of the senior construction professional with 20 years’ experience wrong when he said last month that what makes this construction downturn different is the absence of large-scale public investment because the Government has “just pulled the [plug] on everything”?

Hon CHRIS PENK: That view isn’t representative of the sector; but, more importantly, isn’t representative of the facts. For example, as I’ve stated previously—and not just two minutes ago—the Government has $6 billion worth of infrastructure projects that are lined up to commence before Christmas, and plenty more beyond that, as my colleague and friend the Hon Chris Bishop, and indeed the Prime Minister, have already outlined today.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with Hon Dr Shane Reti when he said, “I want to see IMPBs (iwi-Māori partnership boards) powered up to support the health outcomes for your whānau and your communities”; if so, what does that look like?

I agree with the Hon Dr Shane Reti, who was very clear that iwi-Māori partnership boards, IMPBs, should be providing advice on the health needs of Māori across the country and that they should not be commissioning agencies. That’s why we’re strengthening the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee and clarifying the role of iwi-Māori partnership boards. Local IMPBs will continue to engage with local Māori communities about their health needs, aspirations, and health outcomes and will provide that advice directly to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. That advice will then support decisions made by the Minister and the Health New Zealand Board. This is about putting patients back at the centre and ensuring the voices of Māori communities are clearly heard where they can make the most difference.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. That was a question on notice, and whilst the second part was addressed, the first part certainly was not. It was a direct question asking if the Minister agreed with Dr Shane Reti and a direct quote. His response was that he agreed with two other things that Shane Reti had said. He did not address the question as to that direct quote.

SPEAKER: Well, perhaps, given that Ministers answer where they think it’s in the public interest, that might have been what drove his answer, but I’ll ask the Minister to say something again.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in the answer, the IMPBs—as the Hon Dr Shane Reti said—should be providing advice on the health needs of Māori communities but they should not be commissioning agencies, and we expect Health New Zealand to continue to work alongside IMPBs as part of the legislative changes, but I and the previous Minister have been very clear that IMPBs are not to be commissioning agencies.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. When a question is on notice and it is direct, as this one is, there is an expectation, as outlined in Speakers’ Rulings, that a Minister addresses that. Now, it is a straightforward question whether they agree or not, and if he doesn’t agree, he should explain why, as the question requests.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but I’m not sure, in the answer, that he said he doesn’t agree. I’ve listened very carefully twice, and what he said is that both he and Dr Reti agree about what they should be doing. Now, if you want to have an argument about the term “powered up”, that’s a different argument, but I don’t think it negates the answer that’s been given. You can have another supplementary.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister explain to the iwi-Māori partnership boards why he has made such a decision regarding the minimisation of their role after they have expressed extreme concern with the proposals led by this Minister?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government has been very clear that, as part of the legislative changes that are being made, we want to streamline the advice that the IMPBs are providing, we want to clarify their roles—that they are not to be commissioning services; that is the role of Health New Zealand—and we want to strengthen the role that the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee does play to provide advice both to the Minister and to the Health New Zealand Board.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he agree with Hingatu Thompson from Te Taura Ora o Waiariki iwi-Māori partnership board, who said, “There’s no way New Zealand is going to achieve improvement to Māori health without having a plan”, and, if so, will his plan include meaningful engagement with Māori on the matter?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our plan is to make sure that we are actually delivering better outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori, and I would just point out one of the facts that the Opposition doesn’t like to talk about, and that is the immunisation rate for two-year-olds, which fell from 89 percent of Māori in 2017 when they came to office to 64.8 percent when they left. That is, ultimately, what drives better outcomes for Māori: actually getting better outcomes.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he agree with the Ministry of Health website, which states, “As a department of the public service, the Ministry of Health - Manatū Hauora has a responsibility to contribute to the Crown meeting its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”, and, if so, how does minimising iwi-Māori partnership boards deliver on this commitment?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Of course the Government, through its agencies, does have a role to ensure that it is delivering on Treaty settlements and making sure that it is doing that through relationships. However, we have been very clear that Health New Zealand, as a delivery agency, must be focused on delivering better services for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Hon Peeni Henare: Are the Hon Dr Shane Reti and Sir Mason Durie ONZ both wrong in their support for iwi-Māori partnership boards, and, if so, what makes the Minister so sure that he knows more about Māori health than the Māori health experts themselves?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: If the member was to read the bill before Parliament, the bill continues to have a role for iwi-Māori partnership boards. However, we want to make sure we are streamlining that function and focusing it on delivery for services—something the previous Government forgot about, as evidenced by the appalling immunisation rate for two-year-old Māoris. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Question number—hang on, sorry. Do we, symbolically, have to ask someone to take an early shower, as it were?

Question No. 8—Rail

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

Yesterday, we launched the 2025 rail safety week alongside rail workers—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did you wear a hi-vis for that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Unlike you, I didn’t have to; people recognised me without having to wear fancy dress. As I was saying, before I was so rudely interrupted—unionists, transport leaders, and the Matamata-Piako mayor Adrienne Wilcock, whose community suffered a rail track death just months ago. The campaign message for 2025 is “Stay off. Stay safe. Tracks are for trains”. This serious message follows six deaths on the rail corridor this year alone. Trains weigh thousands of tonnes and can take a kilometre to come to a stop, so we are asking every member of this House to help get the message out.

Jenny Marcroft: What next steps has the Minister recently outlined for the Marsden Point rail link?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Last Tuesday, we announced that KiwiRail will make its Marsden Point rail link detailed designs available to builders and investors to assess and consider putting forward proposals. KiwiRail will have more to say about this process shortly. The new rail spur land is fully purchased, designated in the fast-track consents legislation, and covered under our coalition agreement. We have also outlined how Marsden Point can be the first energy export and special economic zone to create wealth right here in New Zealand, specialist jobs through a drydock, fuel security for our economy, and strong export connections.

Jenny Marcroft: Has the Minister attended any high-visibility events recently?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Last Friday, we joined the City Rail Link test train. Aucklanders have wanted this project since the 1920s and have been paying since we signed the main works contract back in 2019. In 2019, we backed a $250 million allocation so that the new stations would be longer. If we had not done that, they would have reached full capacity within a decade. Next year, we look forward to the public and members of the Opposition after the election riding this train to their jobs in central Auckland.

Jenny Marcroft: How is the rail ferry replacement programme tracking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: More good news: extremely well. The Government’s company Ferry Holdings Limited is still in the market engaging with commercial shipyards, and everything is tracking to time. We will purchase two new ferries to serve our passengers, roads, and rail, and deliver the no-nonsense infrastructure solution that was supposed to happen in 2020, when I last had that job. We look forward to detailing this programme once the commercial contracts are entered later this year. Those sitting across this Chamber will see that, with a bit of management, firm cost control, pragmatism, and common sense, good things can still happen.

Question No. 9—Building and Construction

9. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about building and construction?

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for this further opportunity to enlighten the Opposition. Last week, I—

SPEAKER: Stop there—stop there. For some reason, there’s talk right across the House before the Minister even began to make a comment. There was also one question that the person suggesting it knows is inappropriate under Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: We’ve already heard this one.

SPEAKER: Well, I haven’t.

Hon CHRIS PENK: It’s all good, Mr Speaker. Further good news: last week, I was pleased to announce, alongside Deputy Prime Minister and regulations Minister David Seymour, that by the end of this year it will be easier for Kiwis to put a garden shed, sleepout, or garage on their property. We are changing the rules so that small buildings under 10 square meters will no longer need to be set back from the boundary, and the set-back for single-storey buildings between 10 and 30 square meters will be reduced to just 1 metre.

Rima Nakhle: Why did the Government make this change?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Previously, garden sheds and other single-storey detached buildings had to be set back from the boundary or residential buildings by at least their own height. Anything closer meant that the homeowner had to get a building consent. While well intentioned, these rules created a ridiculous situation, forcing Kiwis to see garden sheds awkwardly in the middle of their lawns, wrestle with unnecessary paperwork, or—as has often, too, happened—break the law.

Rima Nakhle: What feedback has the Government received on these changes?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, apart from at question time today across the House, the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Everyday Kiwis and industry leaders alike have welcomed it. We know that in today’s housing market, land sizes are typically smaller and building costs remain high. People want to use their property wisely, without unnecessary hassle. The New Zealand Property Investors Federation said, “This change will make it easier to add an extra bedroom, a new garage to keep cars safe, or a shed for tenants to store bikes, tools and other items. It will add value to an investment property and amenity for renters. It’s a win-win.”

Rima Nakhle: What does this change tell Kiwis about the Government’s approach to building and construction?

Hon CHRIS PENK: This is a perfect example of how the Government is scrapping burdensome regulations, big and small—and small—to make building in New Zealand easier and more affordable. We’re relentlessly focused on building productivity, whether that means making it simpler to build sheds, sleepouts, grannies—granny flats and garages; we’re not building any grannies—speeding up consenting and inspections, allowing trusted building professionals to sign off their own work, increasing competition to drive down building product prices, and investing in public infrastructure.

Hon David Seymour: What does the Minister say to Alex and Christa Clarke of Onehunga, who reported the issue to the Ministry for Regulation’s Red Tape Tipline and had the problem solved by him in a matter of months?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, I would say to that patriotic Kiwi couple, who just want to be able to use the land that they own in an efficient way—for example, to store their kids’ equipment—that I’m grateful for their intervention; I’m grateful for me getting in touch with the Government; I’m grateful for them utilising the Red Tape Tipline, which is how the proposal came about; and I’m also grateful to the Hon David Seymour for partnering as part of the Government’s overall push to reduce unnecessary regulation and get a good, common-sense result for these Kiwi families.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector)

10. to the Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector): Has the Government’s focus changed since the Prime Minister said in December 2023 that it would have a “laser focus on bringing down the cost of living”; if not, is she confident that she has the Prime Minister’s backing to bring down the cost of groceries?

on behalf of the Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector): No, and yes.

Arena Williams: When she said, “Prices coming down is exactly what we want to see”, has she done anything that has reduced prices?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Minister has an extensive work programme under way—some of which has been made public; some of which has not been—and she is also aware of the hard work of her colleague the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and her colleague the Minister of Agriculture stripping red tape out of our growers and our farmers to make it easier for them to operate.

Arena Williams: Why did it take the Government until 30 March 2025—a full 16 months since the election—to make a request for information (RFI) about changes in the supermarket sector?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Government has had a busy work programme since the election, including in the groceries sector and the groceries portfolio, for want of a better phrase. The RFI has gone out, and the member will soon be interested in seeing the responses.

Arena Williams: So, what, if anything, has happened in the 135 days since the Government made a request for information to the supermarkets?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, more has happened under this Government in the last 18 months than happened over six years compared to the previous Government. Unlike the previous Government, this Government is taking the issue of groceries competition seriously, and the member will have to wait and see where things get to. But, ultimately, like her, the Government wants to see greater competition in the supermarket sector.

Arena Williams: Will the Minister listen to Mike Hosking, who said that Nicola Willis’ supermarket announcement was “yet another diatribe about what needs to be done, what could be done and what might be done”, “a speech of hopeless contradictions”, and “for a Government with an image of more talk than action, she didn’t do anything to help that reputation.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I think the member might be confusing those comments from Mike Hosking allegedly about Nicola Willis with comments actually about the leader of the Labour Party.

Arena Williams: Why won’t the Minister take responsibility for the well-documented rise in grocery prices since her Government came into power and admit that she’s making life worse for Kiwis struggling with the cost of living?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Government does not set the price of groceries, as the member, I think, knows, or perhaps not. The Government takes the issue of groceries competition seriously, and we will advance substantive, proper solutions, unlike the stupid policy of taking GST off fruit and vegetables.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the Prime Minister allowing the Government to delay recognition of the State of Palestine until September?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s a Government that wants to weigh up its position over the next month. We acknowledge that some of our close partners have changed their position; others have not. We will work our way through the process, as we outlined yesterday.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What criteria does the Prime Minister believe Palestinians have not met that is preventing his Government from immediately recognising their humanity and statehood today?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I explained earlier, it’s been a longstanding, bipartisan position that New Zealand supports a two-State solution. It goes right back to 1947 and the partition. We want to see a State of Israel and a State of Palestine living peacefully, side by side. But we are going to review and weigh up our position, as we articulated, and it’s an important issue, it’s a complex issue, and we’ll work through it sensibly and seriously.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does the Prime Minister justify the targeted killings of journalists in Gaza, including Anas Jamal al-Sharif and the entire Al Jazeera journalist team based there?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there is—

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister doesn’t have responsibility for that, and I think the question could be asked—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: My question was “How does the Prime Minister justify”. Do you want me to change that—or that’s ruled out?

SPEAKER: Yeah, but the Prime Minister is not required to justify anything other than Government activity.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: To apply the Prime Minister’s logic, does the Israel Defense Force’s campaign against Palestinians undermine Israel’s claim of statehood?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that that member is slow on the rules, but she cannot make an assertion that the Prime Minister has such language.

SPEAKER: Look, that is right. This is a very sensitive subject. It’s a matter that New Zealand has at afar, I’d say, and the Government positioning of it is something that you can question. But you can’t assert something and then ask a question about the assertion. So have another crack.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister believe the killing of journalists in Gaza, including Anas Jamal al-Sharif and the entire Al Jazeera journalist team based there, is justifiable?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have no responsibility for the actions of Israel or any other country; I am responsible, as Prime Minister of New Zealand, for New Zealand.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will be left to protect in a month’s time—

Hon Members: Oh!

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: —if the Prime Minister waits until September to act, with the Israel Government approving further escalation—

SPEAKER: No, just start the question again. It may be a question that some on the backbench to my right are not happy with, but they will listen to it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will be left to protect in a month’s time if the Prime Minister waits until September to act, with the Israel Government approving further escalation in Gaza, including measures that will deepen the starvation and killing of Palestinians?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say to the member that there are strongly held views on all sides of this debate across the whole of New Zealand, and, in fact, all around the world. What this Government has been consistent in doing since this conflict started is actually calling for the immediate release of hostages from Hamas. I’m sure that member would agree with that—that that is the appropriate action. What this Government has been calling for is for Israel to give unfettered humanitarian access to protect civilians and to honour its obligations under international law, and what this Government has consistently called for is a ceasefire. That is the way in which we get ourselves to a pathway on the two-State solution.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was “What will be left to protect”.

SPEAKER: But that is not a question that the Prime Minister of New Zealand can possibly answer, and it’s certainly not a question that is within his ministerial responsibilities—his prime ministerial responsibilities.

Rawiri Waititi: Our position is.

SPEAKER: And the member next to you can assert that all he likes; that is simply not the case.

Hon David Seymour: Has the New Zealand Government, which the New Zealand Prime Minister is responsible for, made contributions of humanitarian aid to this crisis in Gaza, and, if so, how much money?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have supported humanitarian assistance to the tune of $37 million, but one of the major challenges right now is that it’s very difficult to get aid into Gaza because of the actions of Israel. That is why our Government has joined with many others, and foreign Ministers all around the world, in calling for Israel to release and enable unfettered humanitarian access.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

12. 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: Why does he think worker-led collectives are describing his Government as the most anti-worker Government in decades?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: You’d have to ask them, but what I can tell you is we’re on the side of low and middle income working New Zealanders because we believe they deserve tax relief—first time in 14 years. We’re backing fast track to create more jobs and opportunity to get things built in this country. We’re the ones that have lowered inflation. We’re the ones that are lowering our interest rates. We’re the one that’s getting the economy growing again. We are doing everything we can to get this country put on a pathway to economic growth, and I think it’s got a very exciting future.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why was his employment relations legislation designed with big businesses like Uber in mind, instead of their workers, who are predominantly vulnerable, low-paid migrant workers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the assertions and characterisation in that question.

Hon Marama Davidson: How does he reconcile his focus on growing wages with his Government’s decisions to offer real-term cuts for minimum-wage workers and cancel fair pay agreements and pay equity claims for low-paid wāhine workers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member that I would encourage her to look at the records. Since this Government has been formed, we have had wages growing faster than inflation. Compare that to the previous Labour-Greens Government, where we had 13 quarters where inflation was well ahead of wage growth. Wages being higher than inflation is how Kiwis get ahead, and that’s what we’re supporting.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that collective bargaining is the main way workers’ wages increase, and, if so, why is he pushing through a bill that will undermine the collective bargaining power of hundreds of thousands of workers in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There are ways in which employees reach employment arrangements with their employers, and that can be an independent contracting arrangement or it can be collective bargaining. We support lots of options.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why did he choose to cut thousands of jobs? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, sorry, there’s been far too much cross-bench chatter. We’ve got an important debate coming up that I know that both the offenders there will want to speak in, so just for the next five minutes, calm it. That question is not in order. If you want to try another one, that will—otherwise, we’ll just finish for the day.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he a Prime Minister for the regular working people like teachers, nurses, and taxi drivers, or for big business?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely, and that’s why we care about low and middle income workers, in this Government. We are the parties of workers, the people that the Labour and Green parties forsake, because they didn’t run the economy. They ran up huge amounts of debt, they ran up inflation, and they ran up interest rates, and who suffered the most? Low and middle income working New Zealanders. Adding $88 billion worth of new taxes and $44 billion worth of new debt—with Chlöe Swarbrick as a Minister of Finance—I just suggest is not the way forward.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds for people to very swiftly leave the House if they’ve got other business.