Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her statement, “My top priority as Minister for Women is to support women to economic empowerment because not only does it give women more choice, but it has a ripple effect on families, communities, and the economy”; if so, is fair pay critical to economic empowerment?

on behalf of the Minister for Women: Yes, and yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did she advocate for a pay offer for nurses that keeps pace with the 4.6 percent rise in food costs over the past year?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, of course the Minister is not involved directly—and nor is any other Minister—in any pay negotiations. That would be most unfortunate and wrong for them to be so.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can a 2 percent pay offer—an effective pay cut for nurses—align with her promise that a National Government would be aspirational for women?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think the member’s getting well ahead of herself at the moment, as I understand that the Nurses Organisation has left the bargaining table.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did she advocate for a pay offer for secondary school teachers that at least keeps pace with the rising cost of living?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think I’ve made it pretty plain: Ministers are not involved directly in negotiations, and I would be pretty concerned if they were.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order. The Minister for Women is in charge of the Ministry for Women and has an advocacy role across Government agencies, and so I think it’s fair to expect that she would be advocating for the closure of the gender pay gap and for wages to lift in workforces where there are predominantly women.

SPEAKER: Well, you may well think that, but the Minister’s addressed the question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can a 1 percent pay offer—an effective pay cut for secondary school teachers—align with her commitment to support women’s economic empowerment?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I’ve made it pretty clear, haven’t I, that the Minister does not engage in negotiations at the bargaining table, and nor, might I say, does the Nurses Organisation, having walked away from the bargaining table.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What is the point of a Minister for Women who doesn’t advocate against pay equity changes, doesn’t advocate for nurses to get a fair deal, and refused to advocate for teachers to get the pay they deserve?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, actually, under the National Party, we’ve always considered the position of Minister for Women a very important role. In fact, I note that it was the National Party that established the position in 1949, and something the Labour Party eventually got on to.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is she concerned that the legacy of this Government will be a higher gender pay gap, more women in poverty, more women without a place to call home, and more women leaving for work in Australia for better pay?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, no. In fact, I’m sure that many women—and obviously, most women are taxpayers; in fact, all women are in some form taxpayers—would very much appreciate that this Government is taking account of the fact that lowering inflation means that more New Zealanders have more buying power and, by the way, it brings down interest rates. Strangely enough, these women are also mortgage holders; the one thing they want is for this Government not to waste their money, and nor are we.

Question No. 2—Energy

2. to the Minister for Energy: What actions, if any, has he taken to reduce power bills for energy consumers, and how much have power bills reduced on average, if at all, as a result of these actions?

Well, to list just a few: this Government has cancelled Lake Onslow, which had a chilling effect on investment in energy; we’ve passed fast-track legislation, which includes 22 renewable energy projects representing 3 gigawatts of new generation; we’ve initiated the Energy Competition Task Force to increase competition in the market; and we’re breaking down barriers to increase rooftop solar by requiring electricity companies to pay a fair price for feeding back energy into the grid. Forward electricity prices have dropped around $100 a megawatt hour in May, and spot prices have also decreased compared to the start of this year. We know that there is more work to be done, because household electricity bills are increasing, but we’re getting on and dealing with the mess that we inherited and getting it sorted.

Scott Willis: What does he think would reduce New Zealanders’ power bills quicker: a $200 million taxpayer subsidy for fossil fuel corporations that will not make any impact for a decade, or directly investing in new renewable energy infrastructure and requiring the gentailers to reinvest dividends?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Firstly, I don’t agree with the assertions at the first part of that question. This Government, as outlined in the answers to my primary question, is putting significant investment and effort around increasing the amount of renewable energy generation in this country. There is a significant amount of that coming through in the pipeline. In parallel, we are also dealing with the chilling effect that is a result of prior Governments’ policies in energy. That is a significant factor in energy investment, and we are tidying up that mess.

Scott Willis: Does the Minister recognise the urgency in the energy affordability crisis, given that electricity prices are up 8.4 percent compared to last year, and consumer complaints about power bills have increased by 48 percent?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Let me be clear: I am not satisfied with the level of competition in the energy market. That is why this Government put together the Energy Competition Task Force, and we’re also doing other work like ensuring retailers give a fair price for rooftop solar that’s fed back into the grid. The Electricity Authority is also delivering a next-generation power switch platform to help Kiwis get the best price for electricity. Unlike the last Government, we don’t shoot—

SPEAKER: No, you don’t need to—supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: how long would businesses in New Zealand last if, as the Greens demand, the Government directs their dividend spending?

SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry—I missed the last part of that question, sorry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Very slowly.

SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How long will businesses in New Zealand last—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I got that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —if, as the Greens demand, the Governments direct their dividend spending?

SPEAKER: Yes, it’s most certainly not the Minister for Energy’s responsibility. Scott Willis.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a debating chamber.

SPEAKER: Yeah, it’s a debating chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You allowed that Green member to make the statement as a demand of the Minister, and then when someone sought by supplementary question to examine the value of it, you’ve ruled it out. How does that work in a Parliament like ours?

SPEAKER: Well, pretty simple: that’s what happened.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just wanted to support the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He was asking a supplementary question specifically related to the supplementary asked by Mr Willis. So if it’s in order for Mr Willis to ask that question, it must also be in order for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to ask a supplementary along the same lines. If one’s in order, the other must be in order too.

SPEAKER: Well, the fascinating thing is there are so many people in this House who appear to be pretty good at the job I’ve got at the moment. Happy to swap anytime. [Interruption] No, not you.

Scott Willis: When, if ever, will he release Frontier Economics’ review of the electricity market, and how much more will New Zealanders’ power bills need to increase before the Government takes any meaningful action?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, as I outlined in the answer to the last question, we are not satisfied with the state of competition in the New Zealand energy market. The Government is currently considering that report that the member notes and will release it in due course. Unlike the last Government—as I said before—we don’t shoot from the hip and damage the energy market. We are working very hard in order to ensure that we have a credible energy market, and I won’t be drawn on any specifics of that report until we release it in due course.

Scott Willis: Is his understanding of certainty in the energy market enabling the gentailers to continue to rake in $7.8 million in daily profits while, at the same time, in May, 485,000 New Zealanders were behind on their bills?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It is obvious that people are doing it tough. We know that energy bills are a household expense that many households are struggling with at the moment. That is why this Government is focused on getting more renewable energy and generation online to lower energy prices and to improve competition and efficiency in the market, in order to give Kiwis a better deal. We’re already seeing positive movements in regards to that action, and that is because the work that we’re doing in conjunction with industry is working and that is passing on benefits to consumers.

Scott Willis: Does he accept that energy is a fundamental public good and essential service; if so, how long will he allow the major energy companies to reap exorbitant profits from households for this public good in a cost of living crisis?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, what we do understand on this side of the House is that energy is a significant and critical component of economic growth, and we need to ensure that that energy cost and input into our economy is as low as possible. We need affordable energy prices in New Zealand and, importantly, we need energy security. Those are my two key focuses and my two main priorities—and on this side of the House, we’re taking action to deliver both of those.

Andy Foster: I’d just like to ask a question: what is the impact of oil and gas on energy prices of—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Foster—we’ll just stop while the House seems to be distracted to my left. Now that it’s quiet, you can resume.

Andy Foster: What is the impact on energy prices of cancelling oil and gas exploration?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It has a significant chilling effect. What we know is that, as a result of those decisions by prior Governments, investment in terms of energy generation basically stopped. That is a significant implication, and we saw that play out in energy prices reaching over $2,000 per—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough across the House—that’s enough across the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What has been the effect on the long-term guarantee of fuel supply in allowing Marsden Point to be cancelled?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It is very clear that we need a diversity of fuel sources in order to power our economy, and when the rain doesn’t fall and the sun doesn’t shine, we do need thermal energy capacity in order to keep the lights on. The area in the region in which that member has noted is one of the areas of potential, and this Government is focused on unlocking those energy generation projects, wherever they are in this beautiful country.

Question No. 3—Health

3. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about strengthening primary care?

Well, this Government is putting patients first by delivering record investment into primary care to support patients to get the timely, quality care they deserve. Just last week, I was pleased to announce that we’re reweighting the capitation funding formula for the first time in more than 20 years to reflect real patient need in primary care, including critical factors like multimorbidity, rurality, and deprivation. I also announced that the Government, through Health New Zealand, will be fully funding training and exam costs for GP registrars to ensure they are supported the same way other specialties are when it comes to training. These important steps are another part of our plan to strengthen primary practice, to reduce wait times, and to make sure that patients get the access to primary care they deserve.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why is the Government making changes to the capitation funding model for primary care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are making changes to the outdated capitation formula to better reflect the real needs of patients. Since 2002, funding has been based only on age and gender, ignoring critical indicators like chronic illness, rural isolation, and deprivation. Our new formula incorporates these factors based on data from over 2 million enrolled patients. This will ensure that more funding flows to practices serving high-needs communities, particularly our rural communities, so patients get fairer, faster access to care. This is about targeting funding where it matters most and ensuring all New Zealanders have access to the timely, quality primary care they deserve.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What action is the Government taking to strengthen the GP workforce?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are investing in a stronger GP workforce to futureproof our health system. For the first time, the Government, through Health New Zealand, is fully funding training and exam costs for GP registrars, supporting around 400 additional trainees each year. We will also be covering Fellowship Exam preparation for another 200 doctors, removing barriers and recognising the value they make to general practice. This will support the growth of our general practice workforce, with more GPs qualified to train graduate doctors. This is a Government focused on backing GPs and putting patients first.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How is the Government supporting the nurse practitioner workforce to improve access to care for patients?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good news: we’re backing nurses to take the next step in their careers and help deliver faster, more consistent care for patients. That’s why expressions of interest opened today for up to 120 registered nurses each year to train as nurse practitioners, highly skilled clinicians who can assess, diagnose, treat, and prescribe. Applications are also open for primary-care employers to recruit and support up to 400 graduate nurses each year. Funding includes up to $20,000 for rural employers to take on new graduate nurses and $15,000 for employers in urban environments, growing the workforce where it’s needed the most. This is a Government focused on strengthening primary care, supporting the front line, and putting patients first.

Question No. 4—Finance

Tank yu tumas, Mr Speaker. To the Minister of Finance—[Interruption]

Just hang on—hold on, hold on. I know it’s Thursday; everyone’s got lots to say—keep it quiet while questions are being asked.

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

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, in context.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement, from July last year, “My simple message is this: the cost of living relief is on its way.”, and, if so, how many families have received the full $250 tax cut as promised by Christopher Luxon?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, because three years ago inflation was at 7.3 percent and it is now back within the band. A year ago, Kiwis got tax relief—for the first time since 2010, New Zealanders got a tax cut. So, yes, I do stand by that statement. [Interruption]

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Now, look, we’re just going to calm, and that barrage is the last one for the day.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she say cost of living relief is coming when Lani Hunt, an advocate in Taranaki, has said, “We’ve been feeding, clothing and checking in on our whānau for 10 months and the numbers have doubled.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there’s no doubt that there are people doing it tough in this country. I mean, the member highlights that there are people doing it tough because New Zealand has gone through a prolonged cost of living crisis and has endured a recession created by the profligate fiscal mismanagement of the last Government. It takes time to turn around six years of neglect of this economy, rampant increase in spending, record debt, record inflation, and record spending. It takes time to turn that around, but we are making progress. Clearly, there is more work to do.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Aaron Hendry, an advocate for homeless youth in Auckland, who said, “The government’s spin about tax cuts and GDP growth ignores the basic truth: our tamariki are freezing. Our whānau are freezing.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I have a lot of respect for Aaron Hendry and the work he does in Auckland around homelessness, and as has been—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Shame the Minister of Housing is failing them.

SPEAKER: Right, just calm it right down.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In relation to that outburst from Carmel Sepuloni, the member might be interested in the story that was in Stuff yesterday, in which a paraplegic man with a four-year-old son has finally moved into a social house out of a motel after four years of waiting. The reason he is able to move out of that motel is because of this Government’s Priority One policy, which says that families in motels with kids go to the top of the social housing wait-list. The member might also reflect on the following fact—

SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry, Mr Bishop. Minister Bishop, just stop there. You can’t have one side of the House ask questions and then have the same side of the House attempt to answer them. Rare and reasonable interjections.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Just in response to that, sir, that entire contribution between gaps was in response to Carmel Sepuloni. So if the Minister is able to respond, then he’s going to be getting responses himself. If it was in direct response to the question, then you’d be absolutely right.

SPEAKER: Well, if you think about the sequencing here, the question was about to be answered and there was an interjection. It’s not unreasonable to refer to someone who makes an interjection. What I can also say is that the question itself put out a speculation—nothing more than that. There’s nothing before the House that would back that up; it’s a supplementary. It’s reasonable for the Minister to answer in the vein that he has. We’ll have no more of that barrage.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Can I just finish the answer, which is: I think members should reflect on the other part of that story, which people may not have read, which is that it took 18 months to get resource consent and building consent to retrofit the property so that it was wheelchair friendly. What does it say about our planning system and our building consent system when it takes 18 months to retrofit a social house to put wheelchair ramps in it? That’s why we’re reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA).

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. While fully accepting your response to my previous point of order, that question was asking the Minister if he agreed with a quote. Now, the entirety, pretty much, aside from “I have a lot of respect for the person that made that quote”, was about nothing to do with the content of the question. Certainly, RMA reform had nothing to do with whether the Minister agreed with the specific quote in question.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, the question started with a quote from a particular gentleman, but the quote itself was, effectively, making an allegation, which the Minister was responding to. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to talk about a specific incident, which you’d assume is multiplied across a number of people, where there was a practical impediment to that person getting greater help sooner. I don’t think that’s unreasonable at all.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why won’t she listen to community service providers from across the country, and those on the front line, who say the cost of living crisis has only gotten worse, not better?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister: I meet with community providers all the time, and I know many members of this Government do. In fact, I know that the Minister of Housing met with a range of community providers in Auckland just last week to talk about the problem of severe housing deprivation in Auckland. It is true that Ministers meet with community groups all the time, and it is true that there are some—[Interruption] Do you want an answer or not? It is true that there are some New Zealanders doing it tough. The facts are really clear when it comes to inflation, which has come down from very high peaks of 7 percent to back within the band. It is true that food prices have come down. But this is not deflation; it is just less inflation than there was before, and New Zealanders are still grappling with the fact that we had many years of high inflation. The Government is doing a huge number of things to put more money into people’s back pockets, and, fundamentally, to deal with the underlying issue that faces this economy, which, as the Hon Kieran McAnulty pointed out a week or so ago himself, is income growth. The real way to grow this economy and get the cost of living under control is to grow the economy so that incomes rise.

SPEAKER: Good. OK.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: So far, the Opposition—

Yeah, that’s OK.SPEAKER That’s good. That’s enough. Thank you.

Question No. 5—Local Government

5. to the Minister of Local Government: What announcements has he made about increasing transparency in local government?

Today, I announced the release of key performance metrics for every council across this country. Ratepayers will now be able to go to the Department of Internal Affairs website to easily compare their council’s spending on core services—like infrastructure, debt, and staffing—against other councils.

Paulo Garcia: Why is this information so important for ratepayers to have right now?

Hon SIMON WATTS: This is crucial because households are doing it tough with the cost of living, and they deserve to know that their rates are being spent reasonably. This increased transparency provides a one-stop shop for ratepayers to ask informed questions around their council rates, investment, and performance. This is a great day for local democracy.

Paulo Garcia: What is the Government’s expectation of councils following this release?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The Government’s expectation is that councils will use this as an opportunity to demonstrate value for money to their ratepayers. We want to see councils getting back to basics and delivering the core services that our communities rely on. We want to see responsible financial management and local councils living within their means—just like the households that they represent.

Paulo Garcia: What further steps is the Government considering to ensure councils manage their finances responsibly?

Hon SIMON WATTS: These new benchmarks are just part of a broader plan to increase accountability and transparency across local government. We know that Kiwis are concerned about how their rates bills are increasing, and that is why we are actively exploring a rates capping system to ensure councils are spending ratepayers’ money responsibly. Our Government is committed to ensuring that the local government sector is affordable, efficient, and focusing on delivery for ratepayers.

SPEAKER: I’ll just make the point, to all members, that it’s not appropriate for members to move from their allotted seat to another seat and then participate in various calls across the House when they are not called to speak.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Sir, that is absolutely right, in the normal context of the House, that someone might move seats to advance their chance of being heard as a heckle, but at the start of question time when seats are allocated—usually to fill a vacancy from an absent member—are you, therefore, saying that anybody that isn’t sitting in their allocated seat from the start of question time is prevented from heckling for the entirety of question time?

SPEAKER: No, I’m not saying that—the Standing Orders are.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that he is ensuring “nurses have the resources they need to provide access to timely, quality healthcare”?

In the context it was made, yes. Patient safety is essential to ensuring every New Zealander gets the care they need when they need it, and that’s why our Government is putting patients first in every decision we make. We’ve delivered a record $16.68 billion in additional funding for Health New Zealand over three Budgets to ensure the front line is supported to deliver the timely, quality care that Kiwis deserve. Since 2023, we’ve also increased the number of nurses working at Health New Zealand by over 2,100 and the number of doctors by over 600. This means more people on the front line with more resources to put patients first, to reduce wait times for those who need care.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who is correct: the Minister, who describes nurses’ advocacy for safe staffing as “wanting to control the roster”, or nurses, who point out that without that, unsafe staffing is rampant under his Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The point I made yesterday was that Health New Zealand, as the employer, should be in charge of the rostering system, just like all other employers across New Zealand are in control of how they employ their staff.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who is correct: the Minister, who boasts he’s hired 278 nurses in the last year, or the New Zealand Herald, who notes that that’s only a 1 percent increase and that there are signs that that doesn’t keep up with need?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in the primary answer, there are 2,100 more nurses working in Health New Zealand today than when we came to Government, and we’re focused on ensuring that the additional nurses, the additional doctors, the increased resources are going into making sure we’re reducing the wait-lists and wait times for patients, which blew out under her watch.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who is correct: the Minister, who claims there’s no hiring freeze, or every nurse I talk to, who has unfilled positions in their department that they’re blocked from recruiting into?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: What is right are the facts, which are that there are 2,100 more nurses and 600 more doctors working at Health New Zealand today than when we came to office, and that is based on the health workforce stats which are released by Health New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who is responsible for cancelled surgeries: the nurses, who draw attention to 56 percent of day shifts on surgical wards being understaffed, or the Minister, who refuses to staff those wards?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Health New Zealand is responsible, as the employer, and what I would say is when the union decides to strike and put politics ahead of patients and cancel the care of 1,500 New Zealanders who have had their hip, knee, and cataract surgeries cancelled and 2,800 first specialist appointments cancelled, the union is ultimately responsible for failing patients, and I hold them responsible.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What, if anything, is she doing to address the 10 percent decrease in filled jobs for 15- to 19-year-olds since June 2024?

Our Government is relentlessly focused on growing the economy and getting people into work. I acknowledge that young people are feeling the impact of the weak labour market, and that’s why our work to grow the economy is so important. We’ve also built a more proactive welfare system. Our Welfare that Works approach means that more young people will get a needs assessment, a job plan, and tailored support, including job coaching. Our message to young New Zealanders is that this Government is focused on building a strong economy. We have put in place the policies to help young people be better placed to take advantage of these opportunities.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Why is she making it harder for 18- and 19-year-olds to access financial support when there are over 12,000 less jobs available for rangatahi now, compared to last year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The policy that we announced in Budget 2025 is about ensuring that 18- to 19-year-olds, from 1 July 2027, understand the expectation that we have, which is that young people will be in work, in further education, or in training. That is an expectation because we want more young New Zealanders to do well, to have great opportunities, and to have more opportunities to earn greater incomes.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How have the Government’s cuts to the Public Service, to the Apprenticeship Boost programme, and to Te Pūkenga contributed to 96,000 rangatahi being out of employment, education, and training?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I will focus on the areas that fall within my responsibility as the Minister for Social Development and Employment and say that our Government is unwilling to have young people who go on to a jobseeker benefit under the age of 25 be on welfare for another 18 years of their lives. That is intolerable to this side of the House. That is why we are implementing policies to improve the chances of young New Zealanders to have a better life and a better future.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Will the Minister commit to increasing funding for initiatives such as the Pūhoro STEMM Academy, which has been helping to accelerate Māori student achievement in preparation for university study and the workforce?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That is a programme that doesn’t fall within the responsibilities I have as the Minister for Social Development and Employment, but let me reassure that member, because I know that she is as concerned as we are about young people—young Māori people—who miss out on the opportunities to set their lives up for the future. That’s why our Government is absolutely focused on ensuring more young New Zealanders get the support they need to improve their chances, and that’s why we are unwilling to accept that 20 years—two decades—of a young person’s life is as good as it gets.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. to the Prime Minister: What is the Government doing to reduce spending?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Up and down this country, over the last six years, people and small businesses, farms, and families have had to tighten their belts as the Government unleashed its own. Over the last 18 months, we’ve had a Government that has committed to being as careful with taxpayer money as taxpayers have to be with theirs. For example, in Budget 2025, the Government realised $4.8 billion in annual operating savings and reprioritisations. In Budget 2024, that figure was $4.4 billion, for a total of $9.2 billion in annual savings that the Government has made so far. We’ve also set the road ahead by committing ourselves to only $2.4 billion a year in annual operating allowances. That compares with a $3.5 billion annual operating allowance that the previous finance Minister had allowed himself.

Todd Stephenson: What are some of the tough choices that the Government has had to make to achieve savings?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I have mentioned, people up and down New Zealand have faced tough choices, largely because the Government refused to make them for too long and spiked inflation, which spiked interest rates. This Government, in the last 18 months, has made choices such as halving the cost of the school lunch programme while achieving over 99 percent on-time delivery and student satisfaction at a rate of 73 percent—pretty good, most parents who prepare lunches would say. We’re building a new medical school, but we’re managing to do that for $200 million less taxpayer contribution than first proposed. When it comes to pay equity, we’ve managed to focus the scheme on actual gender discrimination while saving $2.7 billion per year for taxpayers. We finally have a Government showing the same fiscal responsibility that people in firms, farms, and families have had to for so long, while those guys let inflation out of control.

Todd Stephenson: Why does reducing Government spending matter for New Zealanders?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Government can only get money by taxing New Zealanders. Sometimes it borrows money, but then it has to tax New Zealanders in the future with interest. For example, the additional debt taken on in the period that Grant Robertson was finance Minister is now costing New Zealand taxpayers $3.7 billion per year in interest. We are reducing the burden of taxation on Kiwi families and investing in things that matter, such as giving Pharmac the single biggest uplift in funding for medicines in New Zealand history. Having smaller Government, having less waste, means that the Reserve Bank can take pressure off interest rates and therefore take pressure off families, allow people to spend more, and create more jobs.

Todd Stephenson: Can New Zealanders expect more savings in the future?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Not only can New Zealanders expect more savings but they are absolutely essential. If we want this to be a country where people can recognise and realise their dreams to flourish in their own way, they cannot do it with the yoke of the Government on their back, they cannot do it with enormous interest bills on past Governments’ borrowing, and they cannot do it with taxes stretching far into the future. They must have a smaller, more efficient Government that takes less of the pie, leaving more for everyone else.

Question No. 9—Education

Does she agree with Erica Stanford, who said—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’ll just stop. Everyone needs to be quiet, particularly if it’s coming from one of your own members. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime, from the start.

9. to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with Erica Stanford, who said in 2023 that she was “committed to more” pay for existing teachers; if so, how is one of the lowest pay offers ever, as reported by RNZ, being “committed to more”?

This quotation was around the collective bargaining process and committing to more. Collective bargaining is not only about pay but is about pay and conditions. Yes, in answer to the first part of the question, I’m committed to more—more decodable maths books, more resources in our primary schools, a more internationally comparable curriculum, more funding for learning support so more kids get more support more often, more support for teachers through funding more professional learning and development and their teacher registration fees, more funding in schools for on-site training, more classrooms at a lower cost to benefit more students, and more teachers. In response to the second part of the question, as I said before, I’m not going to comment on an active bargaining process.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why does the Government value tobacco companies and landlords more than our teachers?

SPEAKER: No, we went through this yesterday. You can’t assert something like that and expect the Minister, who has no responsibility for that particular course of action, if it were to be true, to answer. Without losing your question, please rephrase it or go down a different track.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is she hiding behind the Public Service Commissioner—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t do that either.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why? Oh, OK.

SPEAKER: No, no. Look, just ask a question; don’t assert something.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she stand by her statement that the offer was “carefully crafted to recognise the contribution of teachers”; if so, are teachers only worth a 1 percent pay rise?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In response to the first part of the question, I was quoting the Public Service Commissioner and I agreed with him.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is she refusing to front up to teachers on why the Government doesn’t value them?

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry, you can’t ask a question like that either, where you’re asserting something that you cannot possibly demonstrate, so please have another go. You’re not losing your questions; we’re just going through an exercise of getting them right.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why will she not answer the questions regarding the pay offer on why the Government doesn’t value teachers by only offering them 1 percent?

SPEAKER: Sorry, look, that doesn’t take us any further. Standing Order 390(1)(b) makes it very clear that questions cannot contain arguments, inferences, or opinions. So have another crack, but we’re getting close to the end of it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. We have a situation where yesterday and on other days in the House, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have been quite happy to answer questions specifically around pay offers that have been made to nurses, but the Minister of Education is refusing to address questions that relate to the pay offer to teachers. So a supplementary question from Willow-Jean Prime that asked why she will not answer these questions is entirely appropriate.

SPEAKER: It was not the question she asked. The question was the assertion that the Minister is not placing a value on teachers. That’s an opinion. Please have another go at the question.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is she only offering teachers 1 percent?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the member may well be aware that I am not offering anything. The Public Service Commissioner is undertaking collective bargaining. We are also in the middle of active bargaining, and I cannot comment on that.

SPEAKER: The House needs to be quiet while questions are asked.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Minister say to one of the primary questions that she was caught by the restraints of mediation, and could she explain very carefully to the Opposition what that means?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve already said, the Public Service Commissioner is in the middle of active bargaining, and I need to be very careful. As the member opposite and previous Ministers will well be aware, Ministers need to be very careful in their comments around collective bargaining so as not to upset the active collective bargaining process that is under way. We have to be very careful.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she commit to increasing teacher pay in Opposition but does nothing now that she is the Minister?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m not sure how many times I have to say this: we are in the middle of active collective bargaining. The member opposite needs to understand that nothing has been concluded and she needs to really listen to the answers that I’m giving.

Hon David Seymour: Is it possible that in the bargaining process, the Government will negotiate extra funding for the teaching of really, really slow learners?

SPEAKER: While the question is probably legitimate, it’s not one that I think the Minister would offer much to the House in answering.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How are teachers meant to feel valued when they do so much for our tamariki and yet get rewarded with an effective pay cut?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I can tell that member that teachers feel valued when an education Minister delivers an almost $750 million package in learning support to deliver learning support coordinators to every single primary and intermediate school in the country that was promised by the members opposite and that they never delivered on. This is a Government that supports teachers in schools and does the things that they ask for. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I’ll tell you what—someone is going to go shortly because the interjections are just over the top.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Just following that series of questions, I wonder whether you might be able to reflect on this and come back to the House around the very generous nature that you’ve demonstrated in allowing the re-asking of questions on multiple occasions at no cost. I ask this in the context which we’ve seen over a period of time where if a member makes what is an unparliamentary comment and therefore is ruled out of order by yourself, then gets another opportunity to ask a question at no cost, it, I think, has encouraged an increased use of those sorts of comments to be made to have a flick at the Government prior to that. We saw, then, that subsequent question from the Deputy Prime Minister that was not allowed to be answered by the Minister but did cost that member the question. I just wonder whether we can consider the consistency of that.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Thank you, Leader of the House.

SPEAKER: Right. Have an early afternoon.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Me?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is my first time.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. You want applause?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni withdrew from the Chamber.

SPEAKER: The point I’d first make to you is that all supplementaries are at the discretion of the Speaker. That’s been there for a long time—Standing Order 397. Further, in this particular case it was a question about education, so I didn’t think my facilitating a bit of learning was such a bad thing.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps, if any, is he taking to guard against perceived influence by the dairy lobby on freshwater policy?

I’m not the Minister responsible for the Resource Management Act reform; however, I can confirm there is no influence on freshwater policy from the dairy industry. The Government’s freshwater policy reform is about restoring balance and confidence, including driving better outcomes for fresh water, and is being developed through a transparent evidence-based process led by officials and informed by public consultation. Public consultation on freshwater national direction ran for eight weeks, closing on 27 July. The Government expects stakeholders to be consulted through the standard process of policy development.

Steve Abel: Does he dispute the findings of the Newsroom investigation—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh!

SPEAKER: OK. Who interfered there? Who interrupted then?

Hon Member: Winston.

SPEAKER: We’ll start again, and the House will be completely silent apart from the questioner asking his question.

Steve Abel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he dispute the findings of the Newsroom investigation that showed the dairy lobby has enjoyed privileged and disproportionate access to Ministers and officials that led to the removal of freshwater protections?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yes, I do, absolutely, because it is not correct. I also think that private money going into news organisations to run stories is, in itself, something that should be considered. Secondly, there has been ongoing consultation since October of last year. Officials have conducted both targeted and private consultation with stakeholders. This has included with the primary sector, irrigators, Māori, environmental non-governmental organisations, foresters, and councils. Indeed, in looking at the list of those that have been consulted in person, it includes the Environmental Defence Society, Forest & Bird, Fish & Game, along with a very large group of other New Zealanders who have an interest in making sure that the harm that was done previously to freshwater policy is undone.

Steve Abel: Does he think it’s appropriate that there is disproportionate access for dairy lobby groups representing commercial interests rather than those who are representing the public, environmental experts, or tangata whenua when fresh water in fact sustains us all?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I think when the Environmental Defence Society, Forest & Bird, and Fish & Game, along with many councils around New Zealand and many iwi groups were consulted, they made their case to officials just as those from the primary sector. Indeed, so far, there have been 20,000 submissions received as part of the wider public consultation. Officials will be charged with going through those and analysing them, and we have announced that there will be a second round of consultation in as far as freshwater changes are concerned. But what I can confirm for that member is that the most consulted sectors, through targeted consultation of the freshwater process, were councils and iwi.

Steve Abel: How can it be the position of his Government that the balance has swung too far towards the environment when, since 1990, dairy cow numbers have doubled, driven by a 600 percent increase in synthetic nitrogen fertiliser use, and resulting in a significant decline in the freshwater health?

Hon TODD McCLAY: That’s not what this Government has ever said. What the Government has said is that the changes that were put in place over the last six years, when that member’s party was in Government with Labour, do not work. We have councils in New Zealand and environmental groups, as well as other water users from the primary sector, saying that the rules that were put there are complex, they are expensive, they don’t work, and nobody is happy with them. We’re going to drive better outcomes through wider consultation, and it is important that we meet our water-quality obligations. But I say to that member and the Labour Party: we can do that without closing down New Zealand businesses.

Steve Abel: Is it acceptable that the 8,000 people who live in Gore city couldn’t drink their water in recent days due to nitrate contamination from a dairy farm, and how will removing the cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and getting rid of freshwater protections help that problem?

Hon TODD McCLAY: That’s actually not what’s happened. I noticed the Gore council, along with the environmental councils in the area, are doing an investigation. They’re also adding to their ability to monitor, so we should wait until any judgment is cast upon exactly what happened there. It’s very pleasing the people of Gore are able to drink water again. But what I would say is unacceptable is Greenpeace sanctioning the graffitiing of the trout that’s down there publicly and then coming out and saying people should do that even more.

Hon Andrew Hoggard: Would the Minister agree that it’s a good thing that the Government actually talks to people who work every day on the ground in rural New Zealand to understand what affects them?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, and that’s the reason there is such extensive consultation around changes that will be proposed around freshwater management in New Zealand. As I’ve said, environmental groups, councils, the public, as well as iwi, and the primary sector have been consulted. We’ve announced that once we have finished going through the 20,000 public submissions that have been received, there will be a second round of consultation on exactly what it is the Government is proposing. I would suggest to all members of this House that, actually, it is in the best interests of New Zealand for us to get the use of water right, because the last Government didn’t. In fact, they held back councils and industry.

Steve Abel: Is the Minister saying that he is more concerned about crosses being put on the eyes of a fish statue in Gore than about the 100 cases of new bowel cancer and 40 deaths every year attributable to nitrate contamination of drinking water, which primarily comes from dairy cow urine?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No. What I’m saying is that member and Greenpeace shouldn’t be sanctioning what is a criminal act in Gore.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has the Government made to support Kiwis at the checkout?

This week, the Government announced the decision to ban surcharges. It’s a ban that is a real win for customers, and it’s backed by real relief for small businesses, too. We’re scrapping those annoying checkout fees that frustrate shoppers, while the Commerce Commission’s move to cap and reduce fees will save businesses around $90 million a year. That’s a balanced package, because it delivers transparency for customers and lower costs for businesses.

Rima Nakhle: How do these interchange or bank fees affect small businesses?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, it’s a good question, because the bank fees are the charges placed on retailers every time a customer pays by using a card. Now, these fees make up about 60 percent of the total processing payment costs, and, for small businesses, that can stack up. The lower cap from the Commerce Commission to these costs brings those costs down to a fair and reasonable level, and that’s been easing pressure on small businesses and, at the same time, helping them stay competitive.

Rima Nakhle: Will this hurt small businesses’ profitability?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and in the European Union, where bans have been put in place, there has been no evidence of increased prices at the checkout. It’s worth pointing out that we know, as of today, that only about 20 percent of New Zealand businesses actually charge a surcharge. So, ultimately, this is a decision about fairness, about transparency. Small businesses get the relief they need from the bank charges, and customers pay the price they expect to pay at the till.

Rima Nakhle: Why has this Government acted decisively on both surcharges and bank fees?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. You were very clear earlier that questions should not have assertions, and that is a debatable point, so it shouldn’t have been included in the question.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t say that, because the question was “why”, and—you’re right, actually. Reword it, just so we all keep happy about those things. You can’t assert something. So the bit was that you were asserting that the Government’s acted decisively. One word would change the answer.

Rima Nakhle: Why has this Government acted on both surcharges and bank fees?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, we’ve been very decisive. These two decisions are designed to work hand in hand. By cutting the cost of accepting card payments, the need for surcharges in the first place is reduced, and together, the two actions create a fairer system, lower fees for businesses, and more honest pricing for customers at the tills.

Hon Andrew Hoggard: Point of order, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon—

Hon Andrew Hoggard: Just responding to the previous—

SPEAKER: Hang on, I haven’t called you yet. Point of order, the Hon Andrew Hoggard.

Hon Andrew Hoggard: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just in relation to that last point of order, in terms of an assertion, I just refer back to the member Steve Abel’s last supplementary where he asserted that—

SPEAKER: Hang on—wait on; you’re out of time.

Hon Andrew Hoggard: OK. Sorry. I was trying to be respectful to the previous—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I realise that.

Question No. 12—Social Development and Employment

12. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, “The Government is creating the conditions where jobs are created, absolutely”, and would 184,000 New Zealanders have left the country in the past 18 months if this was the case?

Yes, of course there is a range of reasons why people leave New Zealand. Some of them have included things like high inflation, high interest rates, a shrinking economy, and when people have lost their jobs. These are things that happened under the last Government. We are a Government that is relentlessly focused on growing the economy so businesses have the confidence to hire staff. It is, ultimately, businesses that grow the economy, through their decisions to expand, invest, and create more jobs. The Government’s role is to create the conditions for them to do that. Our message to New Zealanders is that the steps we are taking will create a stronger economy—it is economic growth that results in more and higher-paying jobs for Kiwis.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why are there 22,700 fewer jobs being filled by young people than one year ago?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As we have said previously, one of the last things to come right after high inflation and high interest rates and economic recession is the labour market. Unfortunately, that is where we are now, with an unemployment rate of 5.1 percent. What I can say is that unemployment rate is no different than what was first forecast in 2022, when that member was in Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why are there 6,400 more young people not in education, employment, or training in the past year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ll just repeat what I said before: unfortunately, it is the labour market which is the final thing to come right at the end of challenging economic times. Our Government is focused, with a Going for Growth strategy, including developing talent, on providing an environment where businesses have the confidence to invest, to grow, to hire more staff, and pay more wages. That is exactly what we’re going to work on.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did she change the criteria for the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs to no longer focus on young people who are not in education or training?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, unfortunately, that member is misinformed. The Mayors Taskforce for Jobs can continue to look after younger people, but it is restricted to 20 percent of those that they work with, because, actually, taxpayers have an expectation that if somebody is receiving a benefit, taxpayer-funded programmes will support them first.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she stand by her promise that “jobs are coming”, and, if so, is she referring to the opportunities that await young New Zealanders in Australia?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, and as I said at the start of my question, there’s a range of reasons, unfortunately, why some New Zealanders have chosen to leave. On this side of the House, we’re really aspirational and optimistic that by creating the right conditions and going for growth, New Zealanders will see that they have a greater future, higher wages, and more opportunities right here.