Oral Questions

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

In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that “National will take action to get food prices under control once more.”, and, if so, when will the price of butter come down?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and in evidence of our progress on this, I would like to share some figures with the House. In December 2022, food price inflation was 10.7 percent. In March 2023, food price inflation was 11.3 percent. In June 2023, food price inflation was 12.3 percent. Since being elected, our Government achieved, in the March 2024 quarter, 2.4 percent food price inflation; in June 2024, 0.2 percent; in September 2024, 0.7 percent—I can go on. The point that I am making is the facts don’t lie. The figures don’t lie. Food prices rose faster under the last Government than they have under ours.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Well, does she agree with Steve Johnson from Te Roopu Āwhina social services, who says food insecurity amongst its whānau is “absolutely” on the rise with the rising cost of living; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I view it as a driving mission of this Government’s economic management to ensure that more New Zealanders can get ahead and better afford the cost of living. Our approach to that challenge is twofold. On the one hand, we are resolute in our efforts to grow the New Zealand economy so that employers and businesses can create better-paying jobs that allow people to have higher incomes with which to address the cost of living and with which to get ahead. The second approach is to, where possible, exercise our Government levers to ensure that we are not reinforcing cost structures in the economy which add to prices for consumers. That work is ongoing across a number of fronts, and I can report to the House that we are already having some success, including with the first decrease in rents in many, many years; including the fact that by stopping petrol tax increases planned by the last Government, petrol is cheaper than it would otherwise be; including the fact that interest rates have reduced such that mortgage payments are reducing. I could go on. I will look forward to the next opportunity.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Presbyterian Support, who said, in relation to power prices, that “People are trying to manage as best as they can, but given all the other circumstances that are currently happening in New Zealand with the cost of living, unemployment, reduction in social services, it means that actually the power challenge becomes exacerbated.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there is no question that rising electricity prices are a challenge for many New Zealanders. That is a facile observation. A deeper observation is to ask: why is that? I would point out to the member that one of the major drivers of that is an acute gas shortage in New Zealand. Now, why would that be occurring, colleagues? Well, the last Government banned the exploration of oil and gas. It set out an objective for 100 percent renewable energy that made it hard for generators to see that they should be investing in electricity generation that used gas or coal, and then they threatened a huge white elephant in the form of Lake Onslow that actively stopped people investing in electricity generation. You can play with sound bites; we play with substance. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Barbara Edmonds, I just say to the Government backbench, the Minister is quite capable of answering the question unassisted, and that level of—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Well, the member may find that funny, but given he’s got a long way to go home, he might want to go a bit early—but just let it go.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she saying that the Zero Hunger Collective is wrong, then, when they said, “I haven’t heard these stories since the global financial crisis. Families are putting the heating on in one room and sleeping in that one room so that they can save energy.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said in answer to the last question, I completely agree that there are New Zealanders across the board who find the current electricity prices challenging. But in my experience as a parliamentarian, it is not sufficient to describe the problem. In fact, what we have a duty to do in this House is to investigate the solutions to those problems. That is why, on this side of the House, we are, on the one hand, working with the Electricity Authority to ensure that all of the right regulations are in place to drive competition in the electricity sector, and why, on the other hand, we have sought external advice on how to ensure ongoing investment in generation assets in the New Zealand electricity sector so that, over time, electricity is both abundant and affordable. Now, if we’d been able to start that work six years ago, members—

SPEAKER: Yep, concise—concise.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —electricity prices wouldn’t be as high now.

SPEAKER: Concise answers are good.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she saying that the Auckland City Missioner Helen Robinson is wrong when she said, “People are making terrible, terrible choices. Do I send the kids to school? Do I have the power on? Do I pay for the washing machine to be fixed? Do I have the power on? Do I get food?”

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I have observed on many occasions that there are New Zealanders in this country who continue to do it tough, and the circumstances which the city missioner outlines are real. The question for the member is: how do we address those challenges? I would also recall, when inflation was rising faster than wages—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, sir. There is a long and consistent history of Speakers ensuring that Ministers do not ask questions of those who are asking questions of them. Their role in question time is to respond to questions, not propose them.

SPEAKER: That’s quite true. I heard it as “a”, not “the”. “A”, of course, would be acceptable. The Minister will resume.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: My simple point is this. During recent years, when prices were rising significantly faster than wages, the stories of hardship in our community were extensive. People were being left behind by their Government. Since being elected, we have a track record of getting inflation back into target, having interest rates reducing, and ensuring that we are able to forecast real wages increasing—that is to say, rising faster than inflation. We are doing the right things, but we’ve got six years of mismanagement to fix up.

SPEAKER: Concise, concise, concise.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who is right, front-line community service providers who say the cost of living is getting worse, or Christopher Luxon, who said a year ago, and confirmed again yesterday, that the cost of living is getting under control?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it can be the case that something is both improving but it still hasn’t improved enough. That is our position. The simple fact is that inflation, and therefore price increases which drive the cost of living, is much more under control now than it was previously. Without going on, I would like to highlight that when you have a period of such high inflation as we had between 2020 and 2023, that bakes in higher prices across the economy. It does take time to get that ratcheted down relative to incomes. Thank goodness we were elected to get on with the job.

Question No. 2—Housing

2. to the Associate Minister of Housing: Why has homelessness increased greater than the rate of population growth, while the rejection rate for emergency housing has grown to eight times what was reported a year ago?

As mentioned previously this week, this Government takes homelessness—particularly living without shelter—very seriously, and I acknowledge that the homelessness rate and living without shelter went up between 2018 and 2023 despite serious spending. It’s not just about housing but a range of issues. The homelessness insights report yesterday gives an insight in relation to the member’s question, where it says, “It is not possible to determine the extent to which changes described in this report reflect existing trends and broader economic and social contexts or are attributable to policy changes.” In relation to the second limb, if the member is actually referring to the decline rate, we are collecting better data now than we did one or even two years ago, and people are leaving Ministry of Social Development appointments with far better and more targeted support like transitional housing and housing-support products rather than being herded into emergency housing on places like Fenton Street in Rotorua and Ulster Street in Hamilton West, to live in dark, dank, dangerous squalor.

Tamatha Paul: Is it correct that people who have a genuine need have been turned away from emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve mentioned several times in this House, for those people with a genuine need for short-term stay in temporary accommodation and who fulfil the responsibilities framework, in most cities and towns in New Zealand, emergency housing is available.

Tamatha Paul: Why did the Government plough ahead with their changes to emergency housing, when they were explicitly warned by the ministry that it would “create a risk of increased levels of rough sleeping, people living in cars, and overcrowding”, which we are now seeing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We’re absolutely disgusted by the number of children and others living in these dank, dark, dangerous, squalid motels throughout the country, and that’s why I’m very proud that we now have 3,000 less children in those motels and hotels compared to when we first came into administration. Yes, we have absolute responsibility to enable the potential of those young children and also to ensure we do not have the type of profligate spending that we saw around five years of motels.

Tamatha Paul: Why is rough sleeping up 24 percent in Wellington, up 89 percent in Auckland, up 73 percent in Christchurch, tripled in Taranaki, and up 56 percent in Whangārei over recent months, if not for the Government’s decision to restrict access to emergency accommodation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’ll repeat this again just for the member’s benefit: “It is not possible to determine the extent to which changes described in this report … are attributable to policy changes.”

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Listen to the providers. They are telling you it’s your fault.

SPEAKER: You’re going to have to calm it down. I’m trying to listen to what he says because you’ll be on your feet in a minute objecting to something he said—I want to hear it. Please just keep the interjections to a minimum.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: May I repeat the homelessness insights briefing note: “It is not possible to determine the extent to which the changes described in this report”—including those that have been described by the member opposite—“reflect existing trends and broader economic and social contexts or are attributable to policy changes.” Homelessness is not just about housing, and it’s actually not only the Government that can help resolve the homelessness challenges. That’s why we are so energised to work alongside many community housing providers, whether or not that is the changes in the operational supplement funding and financing to enable another 1,500 homes to be built by community housing providers over the next few years, Māori housing providers, and a whole range of other issues. But I’m sure that if members opposite are so concerned with the nature of the travel of these policy changes and the impacts that they’re having, they would ensure that they have authorities to act and privacy waivers, none of which I’ve seen with the people from the Labour Party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: in terms of the problems that he currently faces, how many homeless people were housed by the 100,000 homes project of the Labour and Green parties?

SPEAKER: He has no responsibility for that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, he has. He can tell me how many got housed.

SPEAKER: No, he has no responsibility.

Tamatha Paul: Is the Auckland City Mission wrong when they report that rough sleepers with pneumonia and on dialysis have been rejected for emergency accommodation because they were deemed to have contributed to their own homelessness, and, if so, will he reverse the changes to emergency accommodation criteria?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That’s the first I’ve heard of that specific example, and I’m very concerned if indeed that allegation is proven to be accurate. However, the people, the kaimahi, who work at Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora—the Ministry of Social Development—have some very clear policies and practices that they must adhere to. If that’s a matter that concerns the member so much, it’s perhaps something that she will provide an authority to act around, of which I have not seen from this member to date.

Tamatha Paul: Does he stand by his statement that they will not be returning to the emergency housing model because “New Zealanders—including people sleeping rough—deserve better than that.”, or does he accept that rough sleepers would probably prefer emergency accommodation over freezing on the street?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This morning, I had the great opportunity to walk with and talk with people who work here in Wellington Central—the member’s electorate—and the nature of the emergency housing policies that were undertaken over the last six or seven years. The message that I got from those people was this: whilst emergency housing might have been a stopgap issue for those who are rough sleeping and others, it is not an enduring solution. We are focused on an enduring solution for those in genuine housing need.

Tamatha Paul: Have any social services providers that support homeless people supported his changes to emergency housing, and, if so, can he name one?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Many social service providers and community housing providers acknowledge that emergency housing in the form that was concocted by the previous Government was absolutely dangerous and outrageous and imprudent spending, governed by loose policy.

Question No. 3—Health

3. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his reported statement that Tōtara Hospice received 84 percent of its funding from the Government; if so, why does his account differ from that of the chief executive, who says the correct figure is 56 percent?

SPEAKER: The Hon Simeon Brown, with an inside voice.

In the context it was made, yes. The 84 percent figure is accurate and was calculated by the Ministry of Health based on Tōtara Hospice’s most recently published annual report from their website. I’ve been advised this is a much higher amount than the average 50-55 percent of funding for hospices across New Zealand. I’m further advised that Health New Zealand has provided the hospice sector with a 3 percent increase in funding this year as part of the Government’s $1.37 billion increase investment in health in Budget 2025. The Government values the vital role palliative care plays for New Zealanders, and we’ve asked Health New Zealand to work with Hospice New Zealand on a nationally consistent approach to palliative care through the National Palliative Care Work Programme.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why is he disputing the hospice’s accounts with the chief executive when he has met with the organisation and has had the opportunity to get on the same page?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The issue here was in relation to the media query—I provided commentary in relation to what their financial position was based on their financial analysis that was provided on their own website. So this information comes from Tōtara Hospice. It’s published on Tōtara Hospice’s website. But, look, I acknowledge we need to have a nationally consistent approach to palliative care throughout New Zealand. It is inconsistent. This is a piece of work which is a priority for me, and I’ve asked Health New Zealand to progress it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is he saying that the hospice in one of New Zealand’s poorest communities needs to fund-raise more?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Based on my answers to the primary question, I outlined the fact that 84 percent of the funding, according to their own information, is funded by the Government. That is a lot higher than the 50-55 percent funding the Government provides on average to hospices across New Zealand. We need to have a nationally consistent approach to how we fund hospice. That is a piece of work that I have asked Health New Zealand to progress so we can not only support Tōtara Hospice but all hospices across New Zealand to be able to deliver the critical work that all New Zealanders value, which is the palliative care of New Zealanders who are dying.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he intervene quickly to ensure Health New Zealand fills the hospice’s $3 million funding gap, or is he content to let 130 patients each month miss out on quality end of life care and leave families struggling without support?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This Government is investing more into hospice and we’re continuing to increase investment into hospice because we value the critical role that palliative care plays. But we need a nationally consistent approach to how we approach and how we invest in hospice across New Zealand. That is work I’ve asked Health New Zealand to do. Also to work regularly—I’m advised they are meeting weekly with Hospice New Zealand to work through these issues to ensure that New Zealanders can access the palliative care services that they rely on.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he understand that hospice is a lifeline to families losing a loved one?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, I do.

Question No. 4—Economic Growth

4. to the Minister for Economic Growth: What recent announcements has she made?

At the weekend, I released an update on the work under way to improve New Zealand’s infrastructure. The update is the first refresh of the Going For Growth agenda that was launched in February to drive economic growth by backing business, improving infrastructure and skills, and removing barriers to innovation. The update highlights the importance of infrastructure to economic growth, and shows the Government is working at pace to build a stronger infrastructure pipeline and drive better value for money. In the short term, this means jobs for people and good incomes. In the longer term, it means better infrastructure and better living standards for everyone.

Rima Nakhle: What is the connection between infrastructure and economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The quality of infrastructure has a direct bearing on the performance of our economy. Good classrooms, hospital wards, and roads help children to learn, doctors and nurses to get patients back on their feet, and businesses to move goods to market quickly and efficiently. Unfortunately, New Zealand does not have a good track record of investing in infrastructure effectively. In comparison with other developed countries, we invest a large share of national income in infrastructure. However, historically, we’ve been in the bottom 10 percent of developed countries in terms of the value we get from that investment, and that is what the Government is working to correct.

Rima Nakhle: What is this Government doing to improve the quality of New Zealand’s infrastructure?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Our Government is turning around New Zealand’s poor infrastructure track record with faster planning and financing, better funding and financing, and smarter delivery of projects. In education, for example, the smart use of standardised designs and off-site manufacturing has reduced the average cost of a new classroom from about $1.2 million to $620,000. That means we can build more classrooms for less. The update on the Infrastructure for Growth work programme released at the weekend details 14 actions that have been delivered since February and another 24 that are under way. The Government is getting on with doing the things that make a difference to people’s standard of living.

Rima Nakhle: What has been the reaction to Sunday’s infrastructure announcement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As members will be aware, the update was released alongside a list of the $6 billion worth of construction projects that we are getting under way between now and the end of the year. Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Nick Leggett described the infrastructure project update as “good news” for the sector, and Civil Contractors New Zealand chief executive Alan Pollard said contractors “[couldn’t] wait to get worth working on these projects”. Importantly, Mr Pollard highlighted the importance of announcements translating into actions.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement, “we’ve been really focused on making sure that those people with genuine need for housing are given some sort of support”?

I absolutely am. I will stand by the statement and I’ll stand by it for many, many years. I stand by supporting the young lady in Tauranga that I visited, who had four children in emergency housing between 2019 and 2022, and establishing the Priority One decision-making process that enabled her to actually get into a social house. I stand by the people of Ngāti Maniapoto, who, yesterday, we announced an iwi-Crown relationship with to build 40 houses in Te Kūiti for Maniapoto and others in housing need. I stand by the comments of Minister Bishop when he announced an extra 1,500 community-housing provided houses over the next two years. I stand by Minister Willis, who just announced and reminded everyone in this House that rents have flattened. I also stand by the work that we have done to ensure that there is an agile response to some of the current challenges that are confronting us.

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

Hon TAMA POTAKA: May I remind the member that homelessness went up between 2018 and 2023, and also that the Auckland City Missioner does some absolutely fantastic work in confronting some of these issues. Of course, the Auckland City Missioner has a view. That view is not entirely consistent with the official Homelessness Insights report, which members opposite have paraded over, that says, “It is not possible to determine the extent to which changes described in this report reflect existing trends and broader economic and social contexts or are attributable to policy changes.” No one in this House wants to see other Kiwis living without shelter. However, we will continue—as they did under the opposite members’ Government. But we will continue to be agile and make sure that we provide enduring solutions and Government support to an issue that is not only the Government’s responsibility but lies amongst the entire community.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is he saying that Christchurch Methodist Mission’s Jill Hawkey is wrong when she said, “We could count on one hand the number of people who have been offered emergency housing, … Chris Bishop said in an interview that if people are homeless they could go to the Ministry of Social Development and housing support would be available to them … We know that’s not true.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve mentioned, homelessness is not just a housing problem, and it’s not just the Government’s problem to sort out, as members opposite know. We continue to work with community housing providers throughout this country and with Māori and iwi housing providers to support provision of housing for people in genuine need. We also ensure that there’s over $120 million of housing support products that are available through the Ministry of Social Development—Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora to help those people stay out of emergency housing. We are very agile in our response to the current concerns. We’ve directed our teams to get out there and understand where we can accelerate some targeted interventions, to liaise with some of the leaders whose names the member opposite has mentioned, and to ensure that we have an enduring solution and not one that relies on outbursts rather than outcomes and exclamations rather than execution.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How can he expect New Zealanders to believe the claim that people with genuine need will receive support when numbers of people sleeping rough have increased up to 250 percent while the applications for emergency housing being declined have increased from 4 percent to 32 percent?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes, there are some numbers that have been announced in the Homelessness Insights reports, and we know that there are many, many people in genuine need. We continue to respond with a whole range of initiatives, and half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ funding alone, and transitional housing, Housing First, and a number of other programmes. Is it perfect? No. Are we responding very carefully and prudently? Yes. And I will continue to work with many of the people who the member opposite has named to ensure that we do get targeted interventions: the right house, at the right place, at the right time for those in genuine need.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Who should New Zealanders believe: the Minister, who claims that housing is available to those who need it, or respected front-line providers who have said, “We know that’s not true.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I certainly can reflect on the $1.5 billion or so that was thrown into emergency housing, hurting people throughout the country, and yet emergency houses went up for a very, very long time under the previous Government. Certainly, I would like all members to consider the work of Minister Bishop and others to reduce the numbers of whānau who are on the social housing register. If you believe the focus that we have in this Government to reduce those who are living in squalor, to reduce those numbers of people who are living in dark, dank, dangerous situations, the Housing Register quadrupled in the time of the previous Government and under this Government it has reduced considerably.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The “Minister for Increasing Homelessness”. Well done.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Mr Speaker—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You should be proud.

Hon Nicola Willis: “Moaning McAnulty”.

SPEAKER: Now, hang on a minute. Just wait till the member over here is finished.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’m done.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, you’ll be more than done next time there’s an intervention like that. Question—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You hear that, Nicola?

SPEAKER: Question No. 6—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s not just me, mate. You going to tell that to Nicola?

SPEAKER: I didn’t hear that—look, hang on. Don’t push it. You’re right in my ear. You’re chipping away. It’s just sometimes that I hear you because of your very loud, rural voice. We’ll go to Dana Kirkpatrick—question No. 6.

Question No. 6—Tourism and Hospitality

6. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent reports has she seen on tourism in New Zealand?

Our “Everyone Must Go” campaign with Tourism New Zealand was all about encouraging Australians to pick New Zealand for their next holiday. The campaign has hit its results out of the park. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on a minute. Stop there—stop. You’ve got to slow it down. You can’t expect to talk all the way—at volume—through an answer. It’s question and answer. Listen a little bit, at least, to the answer. The Hon Louise Upston, please continue.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The campaign has hit its results out of the park, bringing thousands of visitors in a boost for regional communities across the country. Tourism New Zealand’s stats show that this initiative delivered an addition 7,981 visitors, which is exceeding the initial forecasts. These additional visitors generated an estimated $22 million in visitor spending to our economy. Tourism, we know, is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth. That’s why we made investments, including the “Everyone Must Go” campaign, to help bring international visitor numbers back to pre-COVID levels.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will targeting Australians improve overall visitor numbers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Tourism Boost was about delivering visitors in the short term, and visitor numbers from Australia are currently about 94 percent compared to 2019, so we know that there’s still room to grow. We also know that 4 million Australians are actively considering a holiday in New Zealand, so it’s encouraging to see a bump in Australian visitors from across the Ditch. The latest Stats New Zealand international visitor data shows an extra 145,000 visitors from Australia in the year ending May 2025, which, compared to the previous year, is an 11 percent increase. These positive results show that with the right investment in the right markets we can drive economic growth.

SPEAKER: Yes, good. It’s a very long answer.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What feedback has she received on this campaign?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s been fantastic. The campaign attracted significant attention on both sides of the Tasman and across the world, and got people talking about New Zealand as a destination. New Zealand Airports Association said the campaign “will get people talking, which should deliver marketing reach far greater than the initial investment.” A key part of this success was the unprecedented support from the industry that created a sense of urgency, with more than 800 deals from 450 operators on offer to Australians, and, what’s more, we knew our Australian friends would recognise this opportunity. Just as they grabbed Phar Lap and our pavlova, it’s proved to be the same with “Everyone Must Go”.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will more international visitors support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth, as tourism supports almost 200,000 jobs and contributes $44 billion to our economy. Every time a tourist comes to New Zealand, spends money at a local shop, eats in a local restaurant, sleeps in local accommodation, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealand families. We know that when tourism grows, it boosts our economy, it creates jobs, lifts wages, and helps Kiwis with the cost of living. Our message is clear: New Zealand is open for business, and we welcome anyone, anytime, anywhere.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “We want to grow, promote and support the education workforce by backing and strengthening our educators”; if so, how does offering secondary teachers the pay offer of 1 percent each year for three years back and strengthen our educators?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and it’s exactly what we’re doing. The schooling teacher workforce grew by 2.5 percent in 2024, delivering 1,864 new teachers, the largest year-on-year increase since records began in 2009. On provisional figures for 2025, there has been a 30 percent increase in domestic students enrolling in initial teacher education for the first time. Our reforms are building a world-leading education system, and people want to be a part of it. In regard to the second part of the question, the negotiation is an operational matter. It is being undertaken by the Public Service Commissioner. I agree with his comment that the offer was carefully crafted to recognise the contribution of teachers while ensuring affordability for taxpayers.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she believe teachers deserve a pay offer that reflects the hard work that they do; if so, how is the lowest pay offer in 30 years even close to enough?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Teachers deserve what this Government has been delivering them: tens of thousands of teachers, having additional professional learning and development, their teacher registration fees being paid to the value of $53 million, and a brand new year-by-year knowledge-rich curriculum that’s being delivered to them, along with resources to implement them. It’s the largest investment in learning support in a generation to support our amazing teaching workforce, and the largest boost to teacher numbers in a generation shows that.

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’re back into the barrage mode. Give it a miss or leave the House—one of the two. The Minister will conclude briefly, I’m sure. Right—supplementary.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she dismiss concerns around blocking secondary school teachers’ pay equity claims on the basis that they had pay negotiations coming up, only to offer teachers 1 percent?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s very important that the member doesn’t conflate the pay equity with sector bargaining. Pay equity is addressing historic sex-based discrimination, and unions are free to raise claims. This was, as I’ve said, a reasonable first offer, and it is disappointing that the Post Primary Teachers’ Association did not take that to their members.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many Australian secondary schools stand to benefit from this pay offer?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, it’s excellent that the member raised that, because I hear this time and time again—that there is an exodus of teachers to Australia—whereas the reality and the facts speak for themselves. The teacher retention rate for secondary school teachers in New Zealand is 90 percent, which is unchanged from years and years, but the important thing is that the numbers do not lie—as I said in my primary question, a 30 percent increase in the first-time enrolments of domestic students in 2025. That means currently, today, an extra 925 students are training to be secondary school teachers. The Opposition should take note, because in 2023 it was only 690. That is a 34 percent increase under this Government, because, as I’ve said, we are creating a world-leading education system. People want to be a part of it, and they didn’t under that Government.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How does 1 percent help teachers with the cost of living when inflation has increased to 2.7 percent?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll reiterate what I said in my initial question. This negotiation is being undertaken by the Public Service Commissioner, and I agree with his comments. The offer was carefully crafted to recognise the contribution of teachers while ensuring affordability to taxpayers. But what I would note was that this offer represents between $3,100 and $8,000, including annual salary progressions, and it’s important to note that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Willow-Jean Prime asked a number of questions and after each one she interjected the whole way through. Are we to assume that it’s because as a questioner she’s absolutely incompetent, or is she allowed to do what she feels like in this House?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s not conducive to the order of the House to make personal comments about members, but perhaps the observation would be one that the public themselves might conclude, should they be watching.

Question No. 8—Mental Health

8. to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made about Gumboot Friday? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on a minute. There’s a whole lot of noise in the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning, I attended an event with I Am Hope to mark the first 12 months in ongoing Government funding for Gumboot Friday. Over the last year, Gumboot Friday has been able to scale up and deliver more than 30,000 free counselling sessions and has supported more than 10,000 young Kiwis who might not otherwise have access to timely support. The Government committed $24 million over four years to the Gumboot Friday initiative, under the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, to scale up its support for young people across the country. We’re turning the corner with reducing wait times, increasing the workforce—initiatives such as Gumboot Friday are helping drive that change.

Greg Fleming: How has the Government funding enabled Gumboot Friday to scale up their services to young people?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: In addition to the 30,000 sessions delivered and 10,000 young people seen last year, Gumboot Friday also increased their number of counsellors. There are now more than 700 qualified counsellors registered on the Gumboot Friday platform, a 33 percent increase over the last year. This is an additional 175 counsellors. This has given our young people a greater choice of the counsellor they see and has ensured that if someone is reaching out, they are seen when and where they need it.

Greg Fleming: How will Gumboot Friday support more young New Zealanders over the next year?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: That’s a good question. This Government is focused on increasing access to timely mental health and addiction support. By partnering with grassroots organisations like I Am Hope, we can make a real difference in the lives of many young New Zealanders. The Government is backing Gumboot Friday to deliver more. Funding for 2025-26 will deliver up to 40,000 individual counselling sessions, reaching as many as 15,000 young Kiwis. Over the next 12 months, the organisation will be looking at how it can scale up and encourage even more young people to access free counselling.

Greg Fleming: How does Gumboot Friday support the Government’s targets for prevention and early intervention?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Ultimately, what we want to do is ensure young people have timely access, because it’s a real red flag in mental health to have young people stuck on a waiting list. The Government knows the value of prevention and early intervention. We know intervening early can stop small problems from becoming big issues. There are not many organisations that can get our young people off waiting lists, into support, often within just a few days. Gumboot Friday are doing a fantastic job of delivering services to our young people quickly. I want to take the time to acknowledge the tireless team at I Am Hope, the amazing work that team and their counsellors are doing to turn the corner and, ultimately, give vulnerable young Kiwis more timely access to mental health and addiction support.

Question No. 9—Local Government

9. to the Minister of Local Government: Does he agree with the comments of Selwyn Mayor Sam Broughton that “There’s some basic things that councils have to get involved in because central government isn’t stepping up to fit the needs of local communities”; if not, why not?

I do not accept the premise of that quote. This Government is one that is invested in the needs of local communities and was elected with a clear mandate to get councils back to basics. When councils lose focus, rates go up and it hits Kiwis in their back pocket.

Celia Wade-Brown: Does the Minister recognise that councils own 26 percent of this country’s infrastructure, and, if so, does he consider rates funding is adequate to maintain the estimated $75 million of infrastructure owned by local councils?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It is clear—and this side of the House clearly understands—that there are clear expectations that matter to Kiwis in regard to infrastructure. That’s why we are unlocking land for housing, that’s why we have infrastructure announcements targeted on growth, and that is why this side of the House is working in partnership with local government to execute city and regional deals that will turn the dial, increase economic growth, increase productivity, and increase jobs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: how can he possibly calculate that if local government owns 26 percent of the infrastructure value of this country, it amounts to $75 million, as was prefaced in the question that came to him last?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I don’t think it’s within the scope of my responsibilities to comment on other members’ ability to calculate maths. However, what I can say, and give an example of, is what a core service of local government is. Well, it is fixing a water pipe. What is non-core? Well, spending $17,000 to paint a statue of a doughnut in Selwyn—non-core.

Celia Wade-Brown: Is he aware that local government rates—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Just ask the member to hold on a minute while everyone is quiet. [Interruption] When everyone is quiet.

Celia Wade-Brown: Is he aware that local government rates to pay for that $75 billion of infrastructure—just to be clear—have remained at around 2 percent of GDP? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Questions are heard without any comment. The member will start her question again, without adding any little bits to it.

Celia Wade-Brown: Is he aware that local government rates have remained at around 2 percent of GDP for over a century despite increased obligations and infrastructure requirements, while central government taxes have risen as high as 35 percent of GDP, and, if so, does he accept that the problem is actually a broken funding model that leaves councils with no choice but to raise rates to meet basic infrastructure needs?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can assure the House is that last year the average rates increase in this country was 9.6 percent and the inflation rate was 2.2 percent. I make no apology that on this side of the House the Government is standing up for Kiwis in a cost of living crisis. Ratepayers are not a bottomless ATM, and rates caps and other interventions are there to protect ratepayers. This Government is on the side of ratepayers who are sick and tired of seeing their councils spending on nice-to-haves. They must address the basics.

Celia Wade-Brown: Does he accept officials’ analysis that the removal of the four wellbeings will have limited impact on reducing rates and that it may create further implementation costs and issues for local government?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The simple fact is that when you define what core services are, then, as a result of that, councils deliver the basics. As it stands at the moment, what is included within the four wellbeings includes pretty much everything—and that is a major problem. It is a major driver of the increase in rates, and the increase in rates is a major and contributing factor to increases in inflation. That is why, on this side of the House, this Government is taking action through the implementation of legislation last week.

Celia Wade-Brown: Does he regret his comments at the 2025 Local Government New Zealand Conference comparing democratically elected councillors and mayors to undisciplined children, and does he think these comments show respect to the communities who elect them and correctly represent his Government’s views on localism?

Hon SIMON WATTS: This Government is focused on ensuring ratepayers get value for money. The prior Government drove the cost of living crisis, and a large portion of inflation is now driven by rates increases. This is a critical issue for Kiwis, and this side of the House, this Government, is taking action to provide relief for those ratepayers.

Celia Wade-Brown: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a graph comparing local government rates and general taxation as a percentage of GDP. It’s researched from the Parliamentary Library and is not publicly available.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 10—Media and Communications

10. to the Minister for Media and Communications: Does he stand by the decision to cut funding to Radio New Zealand in Budget 2025; if so, why?

Yes, because the country couldn’t go on spending at the levels that we were spending at when this Government came into power, and so we’ve had to make tough decisions. When I looked around the arts and the media context, I looked at entities that had significant increases in funding over the previous years, and Radio New Zealand (RNZ) was one such entity, and so a modest element of savings was required.

SPEAKER: Just before you start, questions are heard in silence.

Reuben Davidson: What advice has he received regarding job losses and voluntary redundancies because of the Government’s decision to cut funding to RNZ?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, Radio New Zealand has been looking at voluntary redundancies, and that’s a process that they’re working their way through. I am certainly aware that the number of people working at Radio New Zealand increased dramatically after 2017, from about 265 through to about 365—so over 100—and there may be some reversal of that flow, but there will still be a lot more people there than there were some time ago, and they are delivering a great job for New Zealanders.

Reuben Davidson: How many people have lost their jobs in the media sector since he became the Minister?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I wouldn’t give the member the exact number, but there have been substantial job losses, as everybody is aware, across the media sector. The way that people get their news and entertainment and information has changed dramatically over the past few years, and so people are ultimately competing for attention and eyeballs with a whole host of different things, including TikTok and a whole lot of things that the member may or may not be aware of. That has meant that funding has followed some of that, and so the industry is going through a time of change, and that’s very unsettling for many people involved in that. But I have every confidence that the broader sector will find a sustainable economic path through this. It’s been interesting to see some announcements around investment in both Stuff and TV3 recently. I welcome those.

Reuben Davidson: Does an $18 million cut to Radio New Zealand represent the “immediate action to support New Zealand’s media” that the Minister promised last year?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it’s one of the responses we’ve had to a broader issue, because it did enable us to put some extra resources into New Zealand On Air—$6.4 million—which will help a whole host of entities create New Zealand stories. Of course, some of the things that we’ve done include the legislation that was before the House around Sunday advertising. I do thank the member and the Labour Party for their support of that in the spirit of bipartisanship, and I encourage them to continue on in that vein.

Simon Court: Is it correct that Radio New Zealand’s funding increased by 50 percent between 2017 and 2023, and does he agree that Radio New Zealand should not be immune to having to make savings during tight fiscal times?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I do agree that Radio New Zealand did have a significant increase in funding under the previous Government. As I said in my initial answer, the country couldn’t go on spending at the levels that it was under the previous administration, and so many parts of Government have had to look for savings, and Radio New Zealand has participated in that. But I still remain confident that Radio New Zealand can continue to provide an excellent service.

Reuben Davidson: When can New Zealanders finally expect to see some of that “immediate action” that the Minister promised the public more than a year ago?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’ve seen some of that immediate action already. There were changes made to funding so that Shortland Street and other such entities could have the funding. We’ve got the broadcasting bill on Sunday advertising. If the Minister wants me to forge ahead with the digital—

Hon Members: You are the Minister.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, thank you very much. If the member wants me to forge ahead with changes around the digital space in the geopolitical context that we’ve got at the moment, I’d encourage him to keep talking that way, but we are taking a very measured approach and watching changes very carefully.

Simon Court: Is he aware that Radio New Zealand’s trust score has dropped by 14 percent since 2020, and why is it so important that the media is trusted?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it certainly is a challenge in the media, and in many institutions across the world there are falling levels of trust, and so I have certainly, in my letters of expectations to both RNZ and TVNZ, encouraged them to have a real focus on a plan to improve those levels of trust. I’m glad that they’re working very hard on that, and I encourage them to continue in that work.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that between 2018 and 2023, there was a massive injection of finance to RNZ and Morning Report, and despite the fact they have declined from No. 1 to No. 8—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, no comment at all from anyone in the House, and I don’t want to mention names. No comments while the question is being asked. Please start again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that there was a massive injection of funding between 2018 and 2023 and, despite that, Morning Report and RNZ have gone from No. 1 in the market in the last five years to No. 8, is it capable of being salvaged or is it just plain hopeless?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I find listening to Morning Report highly motivational, and I do it most days. All politicians will have a variety of opinions on that, but I’ve got every confidence that Radio New Zealand can continue to deliver a high-quality service. We are expecting a better performance from them, as we are from every agency across Government.

Question No. 11—Housing

Thank you. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. My questions are to the Associate Minister for Homelessness, and it reads: how has the Government’s declining of 28 percent more emergency housing applications in March 2025 compared to the year before contributed to the Auckland, Far North, and Whangārei territorial authorities reporting the highest number of homeless whānau in Aotearoa according to the Homelessness insights report June 2025?

Simon Court: Point of order. I’m not sure if other members of the House heard it, but I think I heard that member ask the question without reading the question on the page, and addressing it to not the Minister but the Minister of something else. I’m just wondering if any other members might have heard it.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Speaking to the point of order?

SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] Wait a minute. I was watching it, because if it’s a long question, I always watch it. So if there was something that was picked up by you, what specifically was it?

Simon Court: Mr Speaker, I think the member addressed the question to the Minister for Homelessness.

Hon Member: Wasting the House’s time.

SPEAKER: Then I’m sure the member—[Interruption] Well, look, it’s members’ of the House time—the member can ask the question again.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My questions are to the Minister for Housing—I can read the “Associate Minister of Housing”. Should I read the question again completely?

SPEAKER: Read the whole thing as it’s written on the page, one more time.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: My questions are to the Associate Minister for Housing. Forgive me if I got that wrong before. It was obviously in the context.

SPEAKER: That’s all right—no need. Just carry on. Just get on with it—please.

11. to the Associate Minister of Housing: How has the Government’s declining of 28 percent more emergency housing applications in March 2025 compared to the year before contributed to the Auckland, Far North, and Whangārei territorial authorities reporting the highest number of homeless whānau in Aotearoa according to the Homelessness insights report June 2025?

Whilst our data sets are improving, accurate numbers are still hard to pin down. But the attribution of declines or any other factor to homelessness are difficult to quantify. That’s why we are so hopeful that Māori housing providers, for those in genuine need, in the member’s rohe, efficiently deliver on housing in places like Utakura, Te Hāpua, and others which have fast-track legislative support like Bisset Road in Kaikohe and Ngāi Takoto in Awanui, and others who the Prime Minister and I talked to last Thursday about these challenges in Te Tai Tokerau.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he agree that it is fair and just that 22.5 percent of all emergency housing applications that were denied to whānau were declined on the grounds that their “circumstances could have been reasonably foreseen”, and, if not, will he commit to instruction the Ministry of Social Development to accept these applications instead of condemning our whānau to the streets?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are very clear responsibilities, framework, and criteria that kaimahi at Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora now have in order to make an assessment of whānau and individuals who are applying for emergency housing. Those matters remain in the purview of the operational arms of the Ministry of Social Development. However, it is very helpful that we have more reporting across these various categories.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about making building in New Zealand more affordable?

Building in New Zealand is too expensive because it’s too difficult, uncertain, and slow. Costs have increased between 2019 and 2023 by some 40 percent, and we’re doing something about it. Recently, the Government announced that we would remove the rigid aspect of the insulation rules to ease the burden on builders, thereby lowering costs without lowering standards.

Grant McCallum: How will the changes to insulation standards lower building costs?

Hon CHRIS PENK: By official estimates, the changes are expected to lower building costs by up to $15,000 per new build. By providing more flexibility, to builders they will be able to meet the building code standards in a way that is more cost-effective. Currently, the prescriptive pathway known as the schedule method doesn’t allow for design trade-offs. By providing more flexibility, we can achieve the same outcomes at a lower price.

Grant McCallum: What announcement has he made regarding Northland?

Hon CHRIS PENK: We’ve announced that we’re working on designating Northland as a separate climate zone under the building code, further evidence of adopting a more tailored approach. I’ve heard from the Far North District Council that building costs there are miles above the rest—approaching $5,000 per square metre. They’re pushing for a change to deliver more homes for locals at a reasonable price, an ambition that we fully support.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has he received from the North on the proposed changes?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The feedback’s been incredibly positive, including when I was up North with the member asking the question making that announcement recently. I’d like to thank in particular the Far North District Council, including Mayor Moko Tepania for his advocacy on this important issue. It just so happens that we bumped into each other at a Northland focus function last night and were able to catch up on that—and, of course, the advocacy of their excellent member of Parliament as well. Recognising Northland’s unique climate with a separate zone is a sensible step that can lower costs and unlock much needed housing supply.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Those who have to leave the House for other business should do so quickly, quietly, and without those conversations on the way.