Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Regulation: Will New Zealanders benefit from the Ministry for Regulation’s work to remove unnecessary rules and regulations; if so, how?

The answer is absolutely yes. New Zealanders pride themselves on being the nation of number eight wire and can-do Kiwi attitude and Hillary knocking off Everest. However, it’s hard to keep that national psyche going when New Zealanders too often find themselves bound by pointless and expensive compliance activity. That is why it is so important to have, within Government, a department that champions less red tape and regulation by removing unnecessary rules that currently exist, by vetting new proposals for laws, and upskilling the regulatory workforce right across Government. That is precisely what the Ministry for Regulation does.

Todd Stephenson: Can the Ministry for Regulation’s benefits be quantified?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Undoubtedly, they can. To give three recent examples: we have got rid of what turned out to be the pointless requirement for councils to go and inspect every hairdresser every year. That saves the average hairdresser around about $500, although often that cost was also being absorbed by the local council. I was thanked by a prominent mayor and former member of this House for that very fact at a recent Local Government New Zealand conference.

Hon Chris Bishop: Who was that?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: He was the Mayor of Nelson, who the member well knows. The agricultural and horticultural products review has estimated benefits of $272 million, while we’ve recently secured $90 million of medical conferences thanks to removing pointless restrictions that were preventing those.

Todd Stephenson: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hold on. Just wait—just wait. Carry on.

Todd Stephenson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What should someone facing outdated or unnecessary regulations do?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, they should do what over 800 people have already done and go along to the Ministry for Regulation’s red-tape tip line where people who are annoyed by silly rules that tie them up, add costs, and don’t actually achieve anything for anyone in New Zealand can go along and report their problems. The ministry then analyses the rules that they complain about, often finds that they’re unnecessary, and, within Government, ensures that they are got rid of. This is dramatically reducing the amount of annoyance that New Zealanders experience.

Todd Stephenson: What sectors are benefiting from the Ministry for Regulation’s work?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: As I mentioned, there has been a comprehensive review already of the rules around importing agricultural and horticultural products into this country, and we estimate that the savings from that will be over a quarter of a billion dollars. We’ve looked at hairdressing, which I’ve mentioned. We’re also in the midst of seriously transforming the rules around running an early childhood education centre. That will see the number of regulations fall from 98 down to two-thirds of that number, with most of the rules being severely simplified and the enforcement being made proportional, a move that is already seeing early childhood centres—

SPEAKER: That’s good.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —thank me for the improvements being made. We’re also doing sector reviews in telecommunications—

SPEAKER: No.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —and another two to be announced very soon.

Hon Peeni Henare: Haumi ē, hui ē, tāiki ē!

[It coalesces, it assembles, it is bound.]

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, the member’s already experienced once, in this House, the exit door. Interrupting like that could see it happen again.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to repeat the answer, which was clearly enjoyed greatly by the Opposition.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, there’s also a Standing Order about trifling with the House and the Chair; that comes extremely close.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, “The first thing that we’ve got to do is we’ve got to reduce the cost of living.”; if so, has the cost of living gone up or down under his leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m proud to report to the member is that inflation is down. We inherited a situation where it was running as high as 7.3 percent; today, it sits at 2.7 percent. That’s a function of really good economic management and a Government that understands the economy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “We are starting our 100-day plan with a laser focus on bringing down the cost of living”; if so, why, after 574 days, is the cost of living even higher and continuing to increase?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is exactly what we have been doing. We have been controlling Government spending, getting rid of the wasteful Government spending that was going on, and what’s the consequence? We’ve lowered domestic inflation, lowered inflation, lowered interest rates—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Prime Minister, thank you. There’s an unacceptable level of barrage—people just speaking for the sake of it. Interjections should be rare and reasonable.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I was explaining to the member, what we have done is we have made sure that we’ve got rid of the wasteful spending. In doing so, that brings domestic inflation down; that has led to interest rates coming down by 2.25 percent. That, of course, has led to growth in the economy—you saw the first-quarter numbers—and, of course, that’s actually going to lead, ultimately, to people getting more work in higher-paying jobs.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by Nicola Willis’ statement, “Prices coming down is exactly what we want to see”; if so, has the price of a typical family grocery shop increased or decreased under his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for his question and his interest in this area, because the great news is that food inflation is down to 4.6 percent from what was 12.5 percent. Just two years ago, actually, the price of eggs was up 67 percent, chicken was up 21 percent, pasta was up 12 percent, frozen veges up 16 percent—all under his Government.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the most recent Consumers Price Index revealed that 36 percent of the products monitored have come down in price?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can, and the two numbers that I want people to understand is that under the member’s previous Government, food prices were up 12.5 percent; today, they’re up 4.6 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he claim, one year ago tomorrow, that food prices have been falling under his Government and the cost of living was getting under control?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because they are. They’ve gone from 12.5 percent to 4.6 percent. We’re making good progress on inflation. We’ve got inflation back under 3 percent. We’ve got interest rates falling. I want to just say to the member that I really appreciate his interest, having created the cost of living crisis, in now wanting to help us solve it. I just say the biggest driver of inflation in this last week, as you would have seen, was council rates, and I’d love the member’s support to put a cap on council rates.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the purchasing power of someone on the minimum wage greater or lesser than it was when he became the Prime Minister, as a result of his Government’s decision to increase the minimum wage by less than inflation for two years in a row?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can say to the member is that infinitely New Zealanders are doing better under this Government than they would have done under his Government. Inflation is down from 7.3 percent to 2.7 percent. Interest rates are down 225 basis points, putting $320 a fortnight into an average mortgage holder’s back pocket. They’re the people we care about, and we want to make sure they’ve got money so they can navigate the cost of living crisis. And we’ve got our economy growing, after he put it into recession.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he promise $250 a fortnight to families with kids if he can’t point to a single family that has received it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I really look forward to that member reversing some positions, because he didn’t support us on tax relief for low and middle income workers, adjusting the tax thresholds; he doesn’t support the FamilyBoost policy; he doesn’t support construction workers, by U-turning on his fast-track repeal—he should give that up immediately. I just say to the member: it’s a tough time for Kiwis; why don’t you get in behind and actually try to reduce the cost of living?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t he accept responsibility for his own Government’s actions given that, under his watch, the cost of living continues to go up, unemployment is going up, the number of people living rough on the streets and homeless is going up, and the number of people giving up on his Government and voting with their feet and leaving to Australia is at near-record levels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the member understands that he took the keys to our economy and he put it in a great big ditch. We’re hauling the car out of the ditch, we’re turning it up the right way, we’re getting into first and second gear, and we’ve got a plan. Our plan is working. We’ve got wasteful spending under control, we’ve got inflation down, we’ve got interest rates down, we’ve got growth in the economy—those are good things that support New Zealanders in a cost of living crisis.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Think very carefully about the supplementary. The Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Was the Prime Minister at all taken by surprise when he was asked about “taking responsibility” by Chris Hipkins, of all people?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not something he can answer. I did suggest to the member that he think carefully about that question. It wasn’t in order, and I would suggest he doesn’t do it again, because he’ll be straight out.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Yesterday, Stats NZ released the latest trade figures for June. These reinforce how well New Zealand’s exporters are performing this year. In the three months to June, we exported $21.8 billion worth of goods. This represents an increase of 13 percent over the same period a year ago. Go exporters!

Cameron Brewer: Which exports have been doing well?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealand’s biggest goods exports are in the primary sector. Dairy, meat, fruit, and wood together make up over 60 percent of goods exports. These have all been performing strongly. In the three months to June, dairy exports were up 22 percent compared to the same period last year, meat exports were up 14 percent, fruit up 28 percent, and wood up 20 percent. I want to make a special shout-out to kiwifruit, which is now a $4 billion a year export industry; 12 months ago, annual kiwifruit exports were just $2.8 billion, so that is a significant increase.

Cameron Brewer: What is behind the increase in export value?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the value of New Zealand’s exports is a function of two things: export values, which is about how much we’re producing as a country. I am reliably informed that the Government’s efforts to remove barriers in the way of our exporters are paying dividends—for example, our renewal of the regional seasonal employment scheme has helped support that revival in the kiwifruit industry. It is also a function of the prices that exporters receive, which are largely set in overseas markets. The trade data released yesterday doesn’t do that breakdown, but an earlier Stats NZ release for the March quarter indicates that both export volumes and export prices have been rising.

Cameron Brewer: What does the future hold for New Zealand’s exports?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I am hugely optimistic for New Zealand exporters and, therefore, for the New Zealand economy and the prospects of New Zealanders. I have mentioned before in the House that international factors are likely to affect global demand compared to where it would’ve otherwise been. But Treasury forecasts in the Budget show both goods and services exports continuing to grow in the coming years. We make things the world wants to buy, and the Government—this Government—will keep backing hard-working Kiwi exporters. There is no better demonstration of that than the United Arab Emirates free-trade agreement enacted yesterday, so stay tuned for my colleague Todd McClay in question 11.

SPEAKER: Question—

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, supplementary. Apologies.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: You’re welcome. Does she regret doing a Facebook video waving a block of cheese, complaining it was too expensive, only to see it increase under her watch?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, not at all, because what I was highlighting at that time was that under the watch of the Government I was critiquing, food price inflation went to double digits—double digits—up over 12 percent. Every week, I recall coming down to this House and saying, “Would you please ease up on the wasteful spending? It’s charging the inflation and Kiwis are paying the price.” And you know what? There was a little election about that. Guess who won! [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Does everyone want to go early?

Question No. 4—Disability Issues

4. to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she agree with the findings of the Youth MP Parliamentary Working Group report that disabled people, especially disabled students, are consistently failed by our system; if not, why not?

Firstly, I’d like to thank all of the Youth MPs, especially Ryder Miller, who did an outstanding job representing the young people of Taupō. The disability working group engaged closely with the Ministry of Disabled People—Whaikaha, and I was really impressed with the work and the thinking demonstrated by the Youth MPs involved. Our Government is due to provide a formal response to the findings and recommendations of the working group by the end of August. I’m advised that Whaikaha is currently reviewing the recommendations in partnership with the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Disabled People has noted some parallels with ideas being considered as part of the work on refreshing the New Zealand Disability Strategy, which is a key focus for Whaikaha this year.

Kahurangi Carter: How will she respond to the findings that disabled learners remain an afterthought in resourcing conversations, and will she commit to the report recommendation to increase direct funding to learning support, assistive technology, and disability accommodations?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my response to the primary answer, Whaikaha are working closely with the Ministry of Education on a formal response to the Youth MPs. But what I would say as a reminder to the House is that in Budget 2025, the learning-support budget increased by $745 million thanks to the work from the Minister of Education, recognising that too many children are missing out on education, and that’s why this funding boost is significant.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree that teachers and teacher-aides are inadequately resourced to teach disabled learners, and, if so, what is she doing to ensure that teachers and disabled students are getting the funding, support, and training they need to succeed?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If the member has specific questions around education and education funding, I would invite her to put that to the Minister of Education. But what I would say, again, is that the working group of the Youth Parliament was very considered. There will be a formal response that will be led by Whaikaha but supported by the Ministry of Education. The other thing I would reiterate, again, is that we are working on a refresh of the New Zealand Disability Strategy, of which education is a core pillar, one of the five. No doubt, many of the issues that were raised in the Youth Parliament will be lined up as part of that work.

Kahurangi Carter: How will she respond to the finding that disabled young people are often marginalised, isolated, or shuffled into segregated spaces in schools due to being ill equipped, insufficiently resourced, and lacking support, which is in direct contradiction with their legal rights?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Again, I will say that for detailed responses around issues of education, I would invite the member to address the question to the Minister of Education.

Kahurangi Carter: Will the response from Whaikaha to the Youth MPs include any commitments to implement the recommendations from our Youth MPs, and, if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my answer to the primary question, work is under way at the moment. Whaikaha is working closely with the Ministry of Education, and I’m pleased to say that we will be giving a formal response to the Youth Parliament.

Kahurangi Carter: Does the Minister agree that disabled people’s support systems are chronically underfunded across all stages of life, despite making up 17 percent of the New Zealand population, and does she find it acceptable that disabled learners’ voices are being ignored when fighting for less than the bare minimum?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m not sure if the question is intended specifically around education, but I have answered part of that in terms of the funding boost secured by the Minister of Education in the tune of $745 million in learning support. I would also put on record, again, the $1.1 billion investment in Disability Support Services last year, and another billion dollars this year into Disability Support Services. I accept that the challenges of those—particularly young people—with disabilities is still great, and that’s why our Government is focused on doing things that improve their lives.

Question No. 5—RMA Reform

5. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What recent updates has he given about the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024?

This morning, I gave an update on the fast-track consenting regime. Six months in, things are going great. In the first six months, 50 projects have made applications. By the end of this year, at least eight projects will have completed, or are expected to complete, the full end-to-end fast-track process, including final decisions. Kiwis are sick of red and green tape holding this economy back. We cannot afford to hold these projects up. We need to grow jobs, grow the economy, and grow productivity to deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders.

Catherine Wedd: How many applicants has the Minister referred into the process to date?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Projects that are not listed in the Act can apply for referral. I’ve referred seven projects into the fast-track process, meaning they can progress to the next stage of the process. Sixteen other applications are also under consideration. The latest three referrals I’ve made are the second stage of the Auckland surf park—which includes a large artificial intelligence data centre, a residential development of 400 homes, and a village centre—and The Point Mission Bay, which would see 252 new retirement homes and amenities for residents and visitors. These are the types of projects the Government wants to see under way and being fast-tracked.

Catherine Wedd: When can New Zealanders expect the first approvals to be granted?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I said, eight projects are currently before expert panels. We are expecting decisions on those projects by mid-September. If they’re approved, they will contribute billions to our economy. My understanding is that some will be under way very soon after approval. The fast-track regime is critical for New Zealand getting on with the job of rebuilding this economy after years of neglect.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does the Minister stand by her target of reducing jobseeker numbers by 50,000; if so, is the target closer or further away from being achieved?

Yes, absolutely. Our Government is committed to having 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit by 2030. Jobseeker numbers have been rising steadily since 2022 and are expected to peak later this year. Unfortunately, the forecast has always been that numbers would get worse before they get better. That’s why we’ve created a more active welfare system to support more job seekers into work. It’s also why our Government is relentlessly focused on growth, so that businesses have the confidence to hire staff to create better-paying jobs and New Zealanders can share in the benefits of growth.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why is the Minister patting herself on the back saying that job seekers are moving into work when the number of people receiving jobseekers has gone up, homelessness has gone up, and Māori unemployment has increased every quarter since she’s been in office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said, rising unemployment is a lingering consequence of the economic times we have, and the numbers were always forecast to go up before they come down. That is the reality of where we are now. After years of high inflation, high Government spending, and low growth, jobs and employment are one of the last indicators to turn. But I’m really confident our approach is working, given that 98.4 percent of people who are on the jobseeker benefit are at green, which means they are taking the steps they need to in terms of their work obligations, and we’ve seen over 70,000 people exit the jobseeker benefit into work—a 19 percent increase on the same time last year. I think that’s pretty good news.

Hon Willie Jackson: How are people supposed to get off jobseekers when 753 people applied for a support worker role in the Waikato, 998 applied for one admin assistant role in Southland, and 740 people applied for a supermarket ad for casual work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said—and I want to just put on record, as I have previously, for those who have become unemployed—it is an incredibly challenging time, and the labour market is very tight. That is why our Government is focused on growth. We’ve heard—just the question before this—a list of the fast-track projects that are due to be approved, and some of them will start, we expect, before Christmas. That’s in addition to the announcement at the weekend around infrastructure projects. That will also mean more jobs. Our Government is focused. The jobs and skills hubs are doing a great job of ensuring that when those jobs are there, our people are ready and in line for them.

Hon Willie Jackson: How are Pasifika meant to deal with the rising cost of living crisis, when the amount of Pasifika on jobseekers has risen to over 28,000 under her watch?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I know that the number of Māori and Pasifika and young people are disproportionately affected when we have higher numbers on the jobseeker benefit, which is why we are focused on programmes that are successful, like by having 490 case managers working each and every day on the front line. That is the most intensive programme and the most successful programme. So I think the members should take comfort in the fact that there was an increase in the number of Pasifika job seekers exiting into work over the same time last year—1,500 more, a 21.3 percent increase—despite it being challenging out there right now.

Hon Willie Jackson: In terms of young people: why should young people trust this Government, when young people are filling 21,000 fewer jobs than a year ago?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my last answer: unfortunately, young people are disproportionately affected when the jobseeker numbers are high. That is why our side of the House is absolutely focused on a far more active welfare system, and we are unwilling to accept young people staying on welfare for up to 20 years of their life. That’s why the under-25s are such a focus of our Government and we are rolling Welfare that Works out further.

Hon Willie Jackson: How many more people losing their jobs will it take before the Minister admits and takes responsibility for her Government that is failing Aucklanders, failing Māori, failing workers, failing women, and failing New Zealand?

SPEAKER: That’s a question that could be answered in part, but not necessarily responded to.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m very proud of our record, despite there being challenging economic times, significantly more people exiting off to the jobseeker benefit into jobs than a year ago. This side of the House recognises that having an ambitious target to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit is achieved one person at a time, one job at a time, because that one life is significantly improved, as is their whānau and their community. That’s why we will not shy away from this target.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding school property?

We are delivering the classrooms in schools that our students need to thrive. I recently announced that we have put an end to open-plan classrooms, we’ve had a major investment into more classrooms for the Auckland region, and the establishment of the New Zealand School Property Agency to improve delivery of school property across the education system. Last year, we reduced the average cost of a classroom by nearly 30 percent at the same time as delivering 30 percent more classrooms than the previous year. We’re building more classrooms faster at a lower cost so our funding can go further, and more students benefit.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What announcements has she made for school property in Auckland?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In response to Auckland’s rapid roll growth, we’re investing more than $120 million into classrooms that our students need. Through Budget 2025, we’re establishing a new school at Chapel Downs, and we’re building an additional 137 new classrooms across 24 schools, creating more than 3,000 student placements in the network. These projects are expected to enter construction in the next 12 months. We’ve also confirmed a site purchase for a new primary school in Pōkeno, because this is a Government of action and delivery.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What announcements has she made regarding school properties delivery?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: One of the recommendations from the ministerial inquiry into school property was the creation of a new separate entity to manage school property. We accepted this recommendation and will create the New Zealand School Property Agency. We will be bringing commercial discipline and oversight of a professional board to deliver better communication, better value for money, better transparency, and more warm, safe, dry classrooms for our kids.

Hon Chris Bishop: How does this contribute to the Government’s infrastructure pipeline?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Excellent question. Over the next six months alone, there is $794 million of investment in school property works that will be starting. That includes new classrooms, a new school, and new redevelopment projects.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has she received on these announcements?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The response to the Auckland classrooms announcements has been positive. One principal said, “I’ve been at this school for 23 years and never before has our roll been this high or have we had the need to have classes operating out of our library, professional learning, and kitchen spaces until now. We’re very excited about this project and look forward to the arrival of our new teaching and learning spaces.” In response to the School Property Agency announcement, one principal said, “It is my view that this will provide the opportunity to ensure greater systemic efficiencies and reduce inequities.”

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister point to any progress in extracting better value for money in the cost per new classroom built?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As it currently stands today, we are providing classrooms for half the price that we did at the end of 2023. At the end of 2023, it was $1.2 million; today, to provide classrooms, it is about $630,000.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: What specific Māori health outcomes, if any, will improve as a result of his proposed changes to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022?

Our Government is committed to improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. That’s why we’re passing the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, to ensure the health system is focused on delivery for patients, not bureaucracy. Following previous decisions to remove health targets and restructure the health system in the middle of a pandemic, patients are being left waiting longer for treatment, accountability has been lost, and outcomes have gone backwards for all New Zealanders, including Māori. We’re turning that around, and this legislation makes amendments to specifically put health targets into law, which will require every part of the system to focus on delivery, and this will be across all five of our health targets: shorter stays in emergency departments, increased immunisations, shorter wait times for electives and specialist appointments, and our faster cancer treatment targets. These changes are about improving outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What evidence does the Minister rely on to show that defunding Iwi Māori Partnership Boards (IMPBs) and removing Te Tiriti obligations will close the seven- to eight-year Māori life-expectancy gap rather than widen it?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, section 6 of the Act, which is the Treaty of Waitangi obligations, continues to provide the framework for giving effect to the principles of the Treaty.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Just to clarify, the question was: what evidence does the Minister rely on?

SPEAKER: Yes, I know that question asked about the removal of something, and the Minister basically said it’s not removed.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which iwi, if any, asked to have their powers over Iwi Māori Partnership Board appointments stripped?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We went through a process to make a number of changes. We sought advice from the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, and that advice has supported us in the process of drafting this legislation.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. My question was: which iwi, if any, asked to have their powers over Iwi Māori Partnership Board appointments stripped?

SPEAKER: The Minister might like to expand on his answer.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, we went through a policy process. We engaged specifically with the Hauora Māori Partnership Board, who provided us advice in relation to the changes. The legislation is now going through Parliament, and there is an opportunity for all iwi and IMPBs and other interested parties to put forward their submissions.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe my question was addressed. It was: “Which iwi?”

SPEAKER: Yeah, it was difficult to see how it was addressed. So if you perhaps just take another question, without loss of opportunity.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the Minister ignoring leading Māori health experts, like Professor Sue Crengle and Dame Naida Glavish, who have warned these reforms will cause direct harm to Māori communities?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in earlier questions, we engaged with the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee—many of those members appointed under the previous Government—on these changes, and, ultimately, the focus here is about improving outcomes for Māori. And all of those health targets which this Government has reinstated, which the last Government removed, showed that health outcomes went backwards for Māori when the health targets were not in place. We have reinstated those targets—

Hon Willie Jackson: Rubbish.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —and our focus now is on improving—I hear Willie Jackson say, “Rubbish.” Well, the reality is the rate of immunisations for our Māori tamariki went down from around 90 percent into the 60 percent under their six years in office. We are now focused on restoring the health targets and improving outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. [Interruption]

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Just wait for a moment while the House composes itself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to why the most critical element to change the effect of Māori longevity is diet, and why have we avoided that discussion in the health system?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there’s a range of issues which the health system needs to focus on, and the way that this Government seeks to focus that on is through the health targets, which ultimately seek to ensure the system is delivering for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is it correct that the Minister did not consult with any iwi?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There was no consultation with iwi during the process, but there is an opportunity through the select committee process for iwi and for Iwi Māori Partnership Boards to be able to have their say, and I encourage them to do so.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does the Minister reconcile his claim of improving equity, when Māori now have fewer rights, fewer resources, and less say on their own health than before this Government came to power?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I would put it to you, Mr Speaker, that when you look at the statistics as to what happened under the last Government, when the health targets were removed, the outcomes for Māori went backwards. Whether it’s shorter wait times in emergency departments—90 percent of Māori were being seen within six hours; when we came back to office, it was down to 71.6 percent. When it comes to immunisations for our tamariki, when Labour came to office, 89.3 percent of two-year-olds were being immunised; when we came back to office, in 2023, it’s down to 64.8 percent. The facts speak for themselves. By reinstating health targets and ensuring accountability of the system, we will improve outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Question No. 9—Infrastructure

9. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What is his plan to ensure there is the workforce to deliver the infrastructure pipeline, and how does it address the fact that more than a quarter of builders say that they don’t have enough staff to meet future needs?

A week ago, that member was complaining about how the people in construction were losing their jobs; and a week later, she was complaining about how they don’t have enough staff. The member needs to figure out what Labour’s position on—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Sir, this is a primary question on notice and it is inappropriate for the Leader of the House, in particular, to start with a crack at the person asking the question.

SPEAKER: Yes, that is quite correct. So while it might be appropriate to refer to a previous answer or a previous question, the manner in which that’s done needs to be somewhat more judicious than was exercised just then.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s good to see that the member acknowledges the significant infrastructure pipeline that is coming. We have $6 billion of central government - funded infrastructure starting between now and Christmas, where there are many elements to the Government’s plan to ensure that there are enough workers to meet this. One is ensuring we have a realistic infrastructure pipeline of deliverable projects, which we’re doing right now. Secondly, we’re ensuring employers have access to people that they need. We’re doing that through, in other ways, enabling immigration settings. We have a five-year work visa for high-skilled roles; we’ve dropped the median wage requirements for accredited employer work visas; we also have a green list for roles with significant skill shortages—there are eight roles on the green list in construction, eight roles in trades, and 28 roles in the engineering industry—and, of course, we have fast-track; and we have Resource Management Act reform to ensure our planning system is enabling.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Civil Contractors New Zealand’s chief executive’s summary of his infrastructure reheat as, “We knew of the projects anyway, so there’s no [real] surprises there.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well the projects are public, so there’s nothing particularly secret about that. What’s different is that, unlike the last Government that announced them, we’re building them. The Middlemore Hospital recladding was first approved in 2019, and nothing was done. There’s a long list of other projects for which funding was approved, but no actual spades in the ground. So there’s nothing secret about the projects; the difference is that we put the pedal to the metal and they’re going to start construction.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Josh Galuszka, senior consultant at Key Skills Recruitment in the Hutt Valley, who said, “Governments tend to get involved. Infrastructure and education and health all have construction elements … but what’s happened is this government hasn’t done that. They’ve just pulled the pin on everything.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no—no I don’t. The member mentions the Hutt Valley, which she has some connection with. The Hutt Valley is seeing, in the next five to seven years, $1.5 billion of investment in the Melling Interchange and RiverLink project, which will create thousands of jobs for tradies and engineers and civil constructors in the Wellington region and the Hutt Valley. The New Zealand Transport Agency and the council—both councils in Wellington—are engaging with the Chamber of Commerce and with local employers in order to upskill the workforce so that locals can be employed on that critical project.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the chief executive of the New Zealand Institute of Architects, who blames his Government’s cuts to infrastructure projects across social housing, health, and education for the downturn in work over the past two years; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, in relation to architecture—the member raises an interesting point—it is probably true that what the Government has done has led to a downturn in architecture. Let me explain why. In school property, for example, we are not building $1.3 million school classrooms and $100 million mergers of schools in Marlborough, which had bespoke designs and beautiful architecture for the school. In school property, we’re going back to basics, and, actually, that means fewer architects. On social housing, we are getting the build cost down for Kāinga Ora because we do not actually want architecturally designed, beautiful social houses; we want value for money. When it comes to roads, I’ve told the New Zealand Transport Agency, following on from the Hon Simeon Brown, to focus on building stuff. We don’t need the bells and whistles, we don’t need the gold plating, and we don’t need the architecturally designed artwork around the roads. What we actually need are roads built.

SPEAKER: OK, that’s one for everyone for the day because there’s too much noise on both sides of the House during that time. There’s one member on the cross benches at the back there who does need to modify his interventions a little bit.

Hon Erica Stanford: Can the Minister confirm that, last year, in school property, we built 583 classrooms compared to 2023, which was 444 classrooms, dispelling any myths that we are building fewer classrooms?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You cancelled $2 billion worth of projects.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, in relation to that interjection from the member who likes to talk a lot, you can’t cancel a project that had no funding. The previous Government was good—this is my exact point—at saying, “Oh, yes, this thing’s going to be built in the future here.” They were good at appropriating money and not very good at building stuff. They were past masters at big, glossy announcements and useless at building stuff.

SPEAKER: Just wait for a moment.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Who will carry out his infrastructure builds, considering Civil Contractors New Zealand’s chief executive says, “It’s going to be quite difficult to find people.”, now that more than 17,000 construction workers have had to pack up their tools, many of whom have headed offshore?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I pointed out at the start of the answer that the member has spent most of this year impotently raging into the void about the number of people who are losing their jobs in construction. She’s now claiming there aren’t enough workers. You can’t have it both ways. In answer to the question, the people who will be doing the work on the construction project in the next six months will be workers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the Minister finally admit that his Government’s cuts to public housing and hospital projects have axed 17,000 construction jobs, gutted the construction workforce, and self-sabotaged his own plans to deliver infrastructure that we all need?

SPEAKER: Right, we’ll just have a little bit of silence, and then we’ll have a very, very concise answer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s hard to know where to start. Public housing building has continued, Kāinga Ora built thousands of houses in the last two years, and we have funded a future pipeline of social housing. Over the last 18 months, there has been a record investment in road maintenance, and the National Land Transport Fund is at record levels, and it is being spent alongside councils. The infrastructure pipeline, published by the independent Infrastructure Commission, shows that there are many projects in delivery both in the private and public sector. Right now, for example, Auckland Airport is building the biggest infrastructure project in New Zealand history. If the member wants to think that cancelling Auckland Light Rail, Lake Onslow, and Let’s Get Wellington Moving that were going to start construction, even under optimistic scenarios, in 2037, has led to a reduction in the number of construction workers right now, the member is entitled to that view—

SPEAKER: That’s quite enough.

Question No. 10—Foreign Affairs

10. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What new commitments, if any, has the Government made to protect Aotearoa New Zealand’s marine environment following the United Nations Ocean Conference in France last month?

I attended the United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice, France, last month. No such country turned up, nor is such a country a member of the United Nations.

SPEAKER: Sorry. Look, I ruled on this back in March. You can go against the tide if you want, but it is not inappropriate for members to refer to “Aotearoa New Zealand”. That’s a ruling that’s been made in the House and one that should be obliged. I’ll ask Teanau—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the name of this country in all the documents, and the membership of the United Nations, is New Zealand. We are not going to have somebody unilaterally—without consultation; without consulting the New Zealand people—change this country’s name. For a start, it’s not the name of the South Island, for a start, where the Māori are concerned, and we are not going to put up with this sham, bogus pretence that our name has been changed when the New Zealand taxpayer has never been consulted.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. No further on that. I’ve made a ruling. The ruling is there. I’ll make it available to the member once again, but I’ll have Teanau Tuiono ask the question one more time.

Teanau Tuiono: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will follow the Standing Orders and read it exactly as it is written on the paper. What new commitments, if any, has the Government made to protect Aotearoa New Zealand’s marine environment following the United Nations Ocean Conference in France last month?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because no such country exists, we made no such commitments. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Is everybody ready? Now, we’ve got a bit of a problem, because in the ruling that I made earlier in the year, I noted that the New Zealand Geographic Board also recognises and uses the term “Aotearoa New Zealand”. It would be utterly ridiculous for this House to ban such use if the Geographic Board itself is using that; it is a Government agency. If there is to be any change to the Government agency the Geographic Board’s position, it should be done by legislation by the Government. Ask the question again, and the question does need to be addressed in a reasonable fashion.

Teanau Tuiono: Again, what new commitments, if any, has the Government made to protect Aotearoa New Zealand’s marine environment following the United Nations Ocean Conference in France last month?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In all the discussions, all the debates, and all the papers before that conference, this country’s name was never mentioned in the way that that questioner has framed it. And I’m not going to be dishonest with this House and say that it was represented, because it wasn’t.

SPEAKER: Supplementary?

Teanau Tuiono: Did he share with world leaders at the UN conference that this Government has abandoned plans to establish a new ocean sanctuary, allowed commercial fishing in the marine protected areas, fast tracked seabed mining projects, and repeatedly blocked international attempts to restrict bottom-trawling on vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems in the South Pacific, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If by “this country”, that questioner is asking about a country called “New Zealand”, no, I did not share that information because it is a total falsity.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just grabbed off the Table in front of you the Budget at a Glance, published by Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa, which is translated, of course, as “the New Zealand Government”. Is it the position of the House now that it’s acceptable for any Minister to stand up and say, if questioned on the Budget documents of Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa, that no such country exists?

SPEAKER: No, and if you think about the last answer that was given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, he made it very clear that the term was not used as it was asked in the question. It was well answered, given the question that was asked—but we’re not going down that particular track. There are some semantics involved here, without a doubt. Teanau Tuiono, you had another question?

Teanau Tuiono: Am I asking the same question again?

No. A new supplementary.

Teanau Tuiono: OK, cool. Does he agree with the former Minister of Foreign Affairs who said, in 2006, that “New Zealand has been prepared to support, in principle, the concept of an interim global moratorium on bottom trawling on the high seas, if such a proposal had sufficient global support”, and, if so, does he believe that New Zealand being the last country in the South Pacific to still allow bottom trawling constitutes sufficient global support?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Seeing as that member has raised a very insightful comment on 2006, yes, I totally agree, because we said “in principle” and we are still working on it.

Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister introduce legislation to allow our country to join 49 other countries, including several of our neighbours in the Pacific, in ratifying the High Seas Treaty to preserve biodiversity in the high seas, or is he willing to allow us to lag behind our international partners?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I dismiss the last part of that comment; it was totally out of order? He did not finish with a question; he just finished with a criticism, and you should rule it out.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I didn’t quite pick that up so we’ll hear the question again.

Teanau Tuiono: Hear the question again—cool. Will the Minister introduce legislation to allow our country to join 49 other countries, including several of our neighbours in the Pacific, in ratifying the High Seas Treaty to preserve biodiversity in the high seas, or is he willing to allow us to lag behind our international partners?

Well, a question can be asked with two legs. The Minister should at least address the first part of the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, addressing the first part of the question: since the third United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice in June, New Zealand has made several policy and financial commitments in the areas of sustainable fisheries in the Pacific, including in ocean science, management, and governance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Read it like you mean it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, like you, you mean?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I always read it like I mean it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Double-cross that bridge when you come to it. We have also launched an island restoration project and are building capacity across the entire Asia-Pacific in the area of seabird-safe fishing, and we will soon be updating New Zealand’s national plan of action to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and we’re not going to have a bonfire of the vanities when we have decided on this policy.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he stand by his statement that “As a maritime state with one of the world’s largest and most”—

SPEAKER: Sorry. To the member, would you mind saying again—there was a lot of conversation going on, making it difficult to ensure I know what you’re actually saying. Please, speak again.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he stand by his statement that “As a maritime state with one of the world’s largest and most biodiverse marine areas, New Zealand strongly supports a … system that secures the conservation and sustainable use of our oceans.”, and, if so, is he concerned about our international reputation, given that this Government has failed to announce a single new policy to protect the ocean?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That last statement is demonstrably incorrect. The Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana and south-east coast of the South Island are two clearer statements. I don’t know where the member was when all this work was being done. There is more protection in place now than there ever was.

Question No. 11—Trade and Investment

11. to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What opportunities will New Zealand exporters have following the third reading of the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill yesterday?

A $500 billion opportunity. The New Zealand Government has cleared the way for Kiwi exporters to tap into a $500 billion market that imports 90 percent of its food. This agreement delivers real benefits for New Zealand exporters by lowering costs, increasing market access, and securing a strong presence in the Middle East. Two-way trade between New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was worth $1.35 billion last year, and this agreement will accelerate growth by reducing red tape, boosting services trade, and supporting investment links.

Mike Butterick: What is the significance of a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the UAE?

Hon TODD McCLAY: This is the highest-quality and fastest-negotiated agreement by New Zealand that will immediately remove tariffs on 98.5 percent of New Zealand exports upon entry into force, rising to 99 percent just three years later. This high-quality trade agreement builds on New Zealand’s strengths and our FTA network. UAE consumers are actively seeking safe, fresh products from around the world and are willing to pay more for them, giving New Zealand exporters an opportunity to lead in this very competitive market.

Mike Butterick: How will the New Zealand - UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) boost New Zealand’s economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The agreement will see zero-tariff rates on entry into force for key New Zealand exports, including all dairy products, beef and sheep meat, honey, seafood, forestry products, horticultural commodities, and many industrial items. On entry into force, it unlocks $42 million of immediate savings and growing market access, which helps New Zealand double the value of exports over 10 years. Last year, New Zealand exported $84 million of services to the UAE; whilst a modest amount, this agreement grows two-way trade and has specific mention and focus on services, and business connections will quickly surpass the $1 billion mark in coming years.

Mike Butterick: How else is the Government strengthening ties in the Middle East?

Hon TODD McCLAY: New Zealand and the Gulf Cooperation Council concluded negotiations last year on a trade agreement that will unlock a $3 trillion regional economy and deliver duty-free access for 99 percent of our exports over 10 years. With the UAE CEPA combined with that, over half of New Zealand’s exports to the region will be tariff free from day one. Saudi Arabia presents a $1 trillion opportunity for New Zealand exporters. With 33 million people and 80 percent of its food coming from overseas, it’s a market where demand for high-quality, trusted products is growing. The Government will lead a trade mission to Saudi Arabia later this year to facilitate better trade for exporters and boost the economy, because when we grow our trade, we grow our economy, creating jobs, lifting incomes, and delivering better opportunities for every New Zealander.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does this amendment bill have the support of all the political parties in the New Zealand Parliament?

Hon TODD McCLAY: It has the support of political parties that believe in trade and want to grow the economy, so it’s every party in the Government, but no—to the Minister—disappointingly, there are still some parties in our Parliament that put politics before the best interests of growth and jobs for New Zealand.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. to the Associate Minister of Housing: How have homelessness statistics changed in each major urban centre, according to the Homelessness Insights report he received in June 2025, both in absolute numbers and percentage terms, when comparing the most recent reporting period to the previous one?

This Government takes homelessness seriously, and resolving homelessness is more than just housing. No one in this House wants to see fellow Kiwis living without shelter. The homelessness insights report confirms there are many people with housing need, but accurate numbers are hard to pin down, especially when you ask for absolute numbers or percentage terms across any centre.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Tama—the Hon Kieran Mog—Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s all right, we all know who you mean—it’s all good. Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, some people may not—you’re not that well known.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Ha, ha! I am in Eketāhuna, sir, so that’s all that matters.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I tell you what, it’s centre of the Earth.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Anyway, we’ll get on with it, shall we?

SPEAKER: Yep.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The question, again, was on notice and it was very carefully worded. It was asking for comparisons from the homelessness insights report that was released publicly today, to the previous one released in December. The Minister does not need to provide specifics or concrete numbers; he just simply needs to be able to provide the comparison between the two reports, as was outlined in each of them. He did not come close to that, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, the point is he did address the question, and whether or not the question is satisfactorily addressed is not for me to judge.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister confirm that the homelessness insights report finds it difficult to find data and relies on census data, and that will cause a challenge, given the Government’s decision to cancel the census?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This homelessness insights report has come about as a result of the new administration and over the last 18 months. The only official data and estimate of those living without shelter, and in other categories of homelessness, come from the census, the latest of which, of course, was Census 2023. As a result of this insights report, we know that there is a genuine need for housing, and many front-line providers have amplified that message.

Hon Peeni Henare: How can he claim his policies are working, when his own report has shown that homeless in Tāmaki-makau-rau has near doubled from 426 in September 2024 to 809 in May 2025?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There is no doubt that the various reports from council, community housing providers, and others have expressed and exhibited a genuine housing need, particularly in the areas of homelessness. But what the report also says is—and I quote—“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.”

Hon Peeni Henare: Can he guarantee that the homelessness figures in the report he released a few hours ago have not been changed and has been released in full since he received them in June?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can guarantee that this Government’s solution is not putting another $1.5 billion into a dark and dank moral catastrophe known as emergency housing. What we’ve actually done is asked Government officials to report and advise on further targeted interventions for those living without shelter, to provide recommendations to better utilise the existing half billion dollars that is put towards transitional housing and a number of other programmes, and, of course, to engage with credible providers. [Interruption]

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Had had there not been those outbursts from that side of the House, making an inference against the Minister, I might have asked for the question to be answered again. Is this a point of order on that matter?

Hon Chris Bishop: Yes. I seek leave to table the original homelessness insights report, as received by Ministers Potaka and Bishop, and the subsequent version that has been released today, which shows that there are no changes beyond—well, the members can judge for themselves, but there aren’t any changes to the data.

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

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

Hon Peeni Henare: Following the report, does he still believe the rise in homelessness is anecdotal, and, if not, when will he finally accept responsibility and admit that his Government’s housing policy is failing, making homelessness worse in our beautiful country?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we all know and, of course, is confirmed by this report—the homelessness insight report—there are a number of front-line providers who have confirmed there is a genuine need amongst many, many New Zealanders. What we are doing about it, of course, is taking action, whether or not that’s the announcements around Māori housing that we undertook at Waitangi Day, $200 million for an additional 400 homes; whether it’s the “going for housing growth” mahi that Minister Bishop is leading; whether it’s the half a billion dollars of taxpayer funding that is put through transitional housing, Housing First, and a range of other programmes for which we seek to understand the optimal utilisation around; whether it’s the community housing providers, the 1,500 extra homes that we’ve supported on an income-related rent subsidy basis and the various methods in which we can help finance and fund those organisations asking for advice; whether it’s additional meetings on the national homelessness data report; and a whole range of activities being undertaken in Minister Upston’s office down at te Manatū Whakahiato Ora around housing support products or housing brokers. I think that this Government is taking action and resolving some of the concerns, the catastrophes, and the cataclysms that were left behind by our former colleagues from the other side of the House.

SPEAKER: The time for oral questions has—

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. I apologise to the House. I seek leave to correct a statement I just made in relation to the tabling of those documents.

SPEAKER: Well, leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Chris Bishop: I think I said—

SPEAKER: Wait on—is there any objection? Carry on.

Hon Chris Bishop: I think I said at the end of my seeking leave to table that no data had been changed. From memory, there are a couple of items: I queried whether or not a figure was correct, and the final document shows that the figure was wrong, and it was subsequently updated by officials. I didn’t want to mislead the House.