Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it the Government’s growth strategy to grow the number of New Zealanders leaving this country, with 191 New Zealanders leaving every single day and the number of young, qualified people desperately struggling to find a job?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our job in this Government is to make sure that we build a place where Kiwis can work hard and get ahead; that they can live in a community where they feel safe in their homes, their businesses, their communities; their kids get a world-class education, and their parents get looked after in healthcare. I just would say to members in the Labour Party and the Green Party that if you actually—it’s a bit ironic when you don’t support oil and gas and fast-track and construction and getting things done and built. And, actually, where do Kiwis go when they go to Australia? They go work in oil and gas and mining. Get on board: support mining, end the oil and gas ban—let’s get it done.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it good for the economy for his Government to have cancelled building of 3,500 State homes, shut down school and hospital and infrastructure rebuilds, effectively freezing the infrastructure pipeline and manufacturing sectors, leading BNZ’s senior economist to say, “The timeline for New Zealand’s long-awaited economic recovery just keeps getting pushed [out] further and further.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say is absolutely fantastic is that we have lowered the social housing wait-list by about 5,000 or 6,000 people, which is great. What is fantastic is that average rents—which I know that member often takes a lot of interest in—that previously went up $180 a week under the Labour-Greens Government, is now down $5. And importantly, we’ve taken 2,100 kids out of damp motel rooms, and they’re now in lovely homes and houses.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it good for the economy, for thousands of our talented young graduates and tradies, like nurses and engineers and builders, to be heading to Australia while his Government refuses to invest adequately in crucial health and physical infrastructure which would rapidly increase employment in this country—

SPEAKER: OK, sorry, I’m going to stop you there. Look, there are there are rules around questions. You can’t put into a whole lot of question suppositions; that might be the member’s view, but are not necessarily strictly a question. So have another crack at that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Was it good for the economy that his Government chose to slash $45 million from innovation in the Budget, while the co-president of the New Zealand Association of Scientists has said, “We lose something like $11 from the future New Zealand economy for every dollar [we] cut [in the science sector]”—a sector crucial for driving employment growth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m very proud of the reforms that we have going on in the science sector. What we are doing is making sure that our R & D efforts—and all our research and development that happens at universities and businesses and with our institutes—is actually converting and having impact. We want all research and development, and activity in the science sector, to convert into economic growth. We make no apologies about that. We’ve looked at good examples around the world where we see R & D being converted into economic growth—that’s very important to us; embrace more science, innovation, technology to grow the economy faster.

Hon David Seymour: Is it good for the economy that his Government is progressing a Gene Technology Bill that will bring New Zealand into the 21st century, so young people in that field don’t have to go offshore to pursue their passion, and would he encourage all parties to get on board with it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would. I think that’s an issue that has been a longstanding one for a long period of time, and I think we are following—we’re taking a very conservative approach to gene tech legislation, but I do acknowledge that the member, if she was really serious about climate change and solving emissions and actually being able to improve productivity in this country, you’d actually support it as a party, support the clean tech legislation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the inherited debt crisis the Government inherited, would trebling the Government’s debt be of any help?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for a very insightful question, which is quite true—is that somehow, miraculously, the previous Government managed to triple the amount of debt from $60 billion to $180 billion. We as a Government now spend almost $9 billion in interest payments on that debt. That is more money than we spend on Police, Corrections, Justice, Customs combined. Thank you, Labour; thank you, Greens.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How many jobs has this Government created with its tax cuts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as that member will be well aware, after Budget 2025 we expect the economy to grow in the order of about 2.7 percent on average over the next four years. And excitingly, there’s 240,000 new jobs about to be created over that period of time too.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it good for the economy for thousands of our young people to be forced to spend their days applying for hundreds of jobs, receiving only one to two interviews, leading them to see our country as a place with “No work. Shit pay. Why Stay?” [Holds up photo of protest sign]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Very odd question.

SPEAKER: No, no. Prime Minister, resume your seat. I’m not taking that question any further. No, I’m sorry, I’m not having that. I’ve had far too much criticism directed my way because some other member chose to use an inappropriate word, and I’m not putting up with that. Before I go any further, too, I just want to make very clear to the Government: I pulled up Chlöe Swarbrick for the content of one question; Speaker’s ruling 205/4 makes it very clear: you cannot bring other parties into the answers. I’m going to be a lot more attuned to listening to what people are saying in that regard.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: How are global events affecting the New Zealand economy?

Global events, of course, have a marked impact on the New Zealand economy. Around one in four New Zealanders derive their livelihoods from sectors that produce goods and services for export. Globally, the last few months have been particularly volatile. The United States announced new tariffs on imports from almost all countries, with rates being continually adjusted. Trade policy uncertainty is high, with little clarity on the final level of tariffs for particular counties when the current pause expires on 1 August. Conflict in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and Iran, has added to global instability and uncertainty. Uncertainty almost always has a negative impact on economic growth, and New Zealand is no exception.

Catherine Wedd: How are tariffs expected to impact the New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As announced in April, New Zealand would be subject to a 10 percent US tariff, although this has yet to confirmed. In terms of direct impacts, tariffs may affect New Zealand businesses that export to the US—such as beef and wine producers—but the biggest impact on the economy is expected to be indirect. Growth in our trading partners—some of whom face the prospects of much higher tariffs than us—is expected to slow, so they are likely, then, to purchase less from New Zealand than they otherwise would have. Trade policy uncertainty also has an impact on business confidence, with New Zealand firms less likely to invest. Unfortunately, those factors are negatively impacting growth, jobs, and wages in New Zealand.

Catherine Wedd: What is the impact of other global factors?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Recently, some other sources of uncertainty have diminished. In particular, the ceasefire between Israel and Iran has reduced global volatility, with oil prices returning to pre-conflict levels—good news. Other global factors are, in fact, positive for New Zealand. Prices for New Zealand’s goods exports are high, for example, with the ANZ Commodity Price Index up 15.5 percent over the past year in New Zealand dollar terms. As a consequence, the export sector is supporting New Zealand’s economic recovery. As I said yesterday, Treasury’s conclusion in its latest economic update is that conditions for growth remain in place as mortgage rates continue to fall, and optimism for the future lifts.

Catherine Wedd: What is the Government’s response to this global economic uncertainty?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This is not a time to panic, as others have done when saying there is “absolutely a case for more spending to stimulate the economy.” On the contrary, the Government is sticking to its fiscal strategy which aims to get spending and debt under control, and the Government can help by giving businesses a reason to keep on investing. That is precisely what we have done with the new Investment Boost incentive, which makes new investment more attractive for businesses.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he still stand by Nicola Willis’ promise of fewer lanyards and more hard hats on Lambton Quay; if so, why does the Builder Sentiment report show a consistent decline in demand under his leadership, resulting in 15,000 fewer construction jobs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for his question and I acknowledge that he also has a responsibility there, given that he saw interest rates go to high levels that had a huge impact on the construction and building industry. But what I’m pleased to report is that there is $125 billion of projects under construction and there’s a pipeline worth $207 billion, and, right today, the good news is that if you’re from Christchurch, State Highway 76 and Brougham Street—we’ve just kicked that off this afternoon.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the building and construction sector is doing so well under his Government, why did the Government spend less on the things that he just mentioned in the last year than it did in the year before?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to that member that if he really cares about construction jobs, he would actually support fast-track legislation, wouldn’t he?—because that’s actually what you do. If you care about working people, you don’t just say it; you actually get rid of the regulations that are stopping them from getting into a house or stopping them from getting a road built, or stopping a hospital or a school getting built. So I’d just say to that member, I am looking forward to seeing if he wants to U-turn his repeal of the fast-track legislation or not.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which does he think is going to have the bigger impact on the building and construction sector: the promise of projects coming to market faster, or the fact that his Government actually took projects off the market, like new State house builds, school upgrades, hospital rebuilds, roading projects, and public transport projects, to name a few?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what will make a big difference is—what we are doing is getting spending under control to lower inflation and to lower interest rates, get the economy growing, and to get people into jobs. That’s how it works—that’s called macroeconomics. But the second thing I’d say is that if that member, again, really cares about construction workers, why are there three different public-private partnership positions from the Labour Party—eh?

Hon David Seymour: Is the Government’s objective to get more built faster, or to simply spend more money as if that’s somehow a solution and goal in itself?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Government’s objective is actually to build stuff and get things done. What we don’t believe in, on this side of the House, is what we call ghost projects. Some will remember something called “Auckland light rail”: six years, $300 million; nothing happened. But we’re up with Brougham Street, we’ve got the Hawke’s Bay Expressway up and running, and we’ve got Ōtaki to north of Levin. Those are real projects that are really happening; not ghost projects that are just pictures on A3 sheets of paper.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, is the chief executive of Engineering New Zealand wrong that his Government’s lack of infrastructure work has “devastated” the engineering profession?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, construction has been hit hard, but it’s been hit hard because of high interest rates. High interest rates happened because Government spending was out of control, and you let inflation get out of control. If you really cared about all of these issues, instead of the crocodile tears, why don’t you back the fast-track legislation? Do it today—do it today. Do the U-turn—do it right now. If you really believe in it, back our roads of national significance. If you really believe in it, back our Investment Boost. Go do that.

SPEAKER: Can I just say that while my vote is held in proxy by the whip from the party, I can, but challenging me in that way is not appropriate.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, that was inappropriate.

SPEAKER: Just think about the parliamentary language.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that since November 2023, Kāinga Ora and community housing providers have delivered 7,056 newly built houses, and that of the fast-track projects that have been applied for, they stand to deliver 12,000 homes, including one project that if approved this year, would have—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hold on there—hold it. Questions are asked in silence. [Interruption] I beg your pardon?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Nothing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s a speech, not a question.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s for me to judge, but when there was so much noise coming from the other side, it was hard to. The member will start again with the question, and make it a question that is not in the nature of a speech.

Hon Nicola Willis: Yes. Can the Prime Minister confirm that since November 2023, Kāinga Ora and community housing providers have built more than 7,000 new homes and that in addition to this, the fast-track projects promise to deliver more than 12,000 new homes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can, and I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing on housing. The fact that this Government in 18 months has taken 5,000 to 6,000 people off the State house social housing wait-list that the previous Government created is, I think, very good thing. I’d just say to the member on the other side as well, though, that if you were really serious about it, why don’t we actually do real projects—

SPEAKER: No.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —not ghost projects.

SPEAKER: No—that’s fine.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he confirm that not one of the 7,000 houses just mentioned by the Minister of Finance was funded in Budget 2024 or Budget 2025?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can honestly say is the houses are getting built and the State house wait-list is going down, and isn’t that a good thing? That’s a great thing that 6,000 people have a house now and they’re not on that wait-list that grew over four times under the previous administration.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he so desperate to report progress that the only progress he can report is progress that was made under the previous Government, and why, a year and a half into his tenure as Prime Minister, will he not admit that things are getting worse for New Zealanders—particularly those in the building and construction sector—and not better?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s why I would like that member to come on board and actually reverse his position on fast track, on Investment Boost, on actual mining, and on a bunch of things in order to get things built, because you can talk about stuff or you can do it. We do it, on this side of the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Didn’t pay for a single one.

SPEAKER: When you’re ready.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: So desperate.

SPEAKER: Excuse me.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Absolutely hopeless.

SPEAKER: Do you want to leave the House?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Not particularly, sir.

SPEAKER: Then be quiet between questions.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he stand by his statement that the United Nations letter regarding the Regulatory Standards Bill and its impact on Te Tiriti o Waitangi is “total bunkum” and “a waste of time”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think I’ve actually said all I want to say about that yesterday, but we’ve got a Minister of Foreign Affairs who’s going to reply very eloquently on behalf of our Government to that letter, and I’m going to leave that to him.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he also believe the more than 131,000 people who made submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill are “bunkum” and a “waste of time”, given most of them raised the same issues as the UN special rapporteur did in their letter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just reject the characterisation of that question outright. I mean, the Regulatory Standards Bill is designed to improve the quality of regulation that is passed in this Parliament by politicians, to make it transparent, to make sure that we have the rule of law upheld, and that we have property rights upheld. That has benefit, obviously, to Māori and to non-Māori.

Rawiri Waititi: How does he intend to repair the international reputational damage caused by the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of his Government, who described the UN special rapporteur as “insane” for raising concerns about indigenous rights?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think New Zealand should be very grateful that we have an outstanding Minister of Foreign Affairs, someone that is hugely respected around the world, someone that actually has left New Zealand and built and deepened relationships around the world and, I’d just say, knows the UN incredibly well, and I trust him to respond on all of our behalf.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, normally I’d let it go, but seeing as we have guests from the French Senate, can we please have it said “rapporteur”, not “repertoire”?

SPEAKER: I’m very sure a good number in the House are deeply appreciative of your correction and will put that in their vocab for future reference.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and we’ll hear it in silence.

Rawiri Waititi: The question was around the reputational damage made by the Deputy Prime Minister, not what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to do.

SPEAKER: No, I think the problem with the question is that it infers that there has been reputational damage without any particular—it might be the member’s view, but it’s not something we can work with, and the answer simply said this is a matter in the hands of the right honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he stand by his answer to the question on 31 July 2024 in which he agreed that “Article 2 of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi agrees Māori full and exclusive and undisturbed possession of their land, estates, forests, and other properties so long as they wish to retain them.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I fully respect article 2.

Rawiri Waititi: How does he reconcile his agreement with article 2 of the Treaty while also stating that he fully agrees with the content of the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter to the UN?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we get letters from the UN. In this case, it raised a number of issues on four or five points. We’re going to respond to those. We don’t agree with that position, but I trust the Minister of Foreign Affairs to actually draft a reply to the UN to actually articulate our position and our counterpoints as to why we don’t believe with the content of that letter or the substance of that letter, and I trust him completely to do that job for us.

Rawiri Waititi: How are indigenous peoples in Aotearoa supposed to hold this Government to account for violations to our rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi with a Prime Minister who completely disregards the Waitangi Tribunal, select committee submissions, and now the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because this is a Government that’s about outcomes and results for Māori or non-Māori. We’re working incredibly hard to improve the education of Māori, whether it’s in maths or reading by providing our materials in te reo. We’re making sure that we take many Māori kids that have been, sadly, consigned to emergency housing so that they get into proper, warm, dry houses. We’re focused on outcomes—outcomes for Māori and non-Māori.

Question No. 5—Health

To the Minister of Health—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I haven’t called yet. We’ll have silence before questions are asked. Tim Costley—question No. 5.

5. to the Minister of Health: What recent progress has been made on childhood immunisation rates?

Good news: new data released earlier this week shows that childhood immunisation rates at 24 months continue to rise across the country. This reflects our strong commitment to improving health outcomes for New Zealand kids. National coverage has climbed to 79.3 percent in the third quarter of 2024-25. That’s an increase of 2.4 percentage points compared to the same quarter last year. This result shows that our clear focus on health targets, combined with the efforts of our front-line health workforce, are delivering real improvements for children. When you focus on delivery, you get results.

Tim Costley: What progress has been made across the regions?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The gains have been widespread and encouraging, with several districts showing strong improvements compared to the last quarter. Auckland’s lifted its coverage by 5.7 percentage points, Counties Manukau by 5.5, and Lakes by 5.2. Capital and Coast rose by 4.4 percentage points, while Whanganui achieved a 5.8 percentage point gain. In the South Island, Nelson-Marlborough saw a 5.2 percentage point increase, and South Canterbury delivered a remarkable 12.1 percentage point gain in that quarter. These results show that our investments in local services are working, and that our communities are stepping up to protect their children. However, there is still more work to do.

Tim Costley: Why is it important to increase immunisation rates?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Recently, we’ve seen cases of measles in the Wairarapa. This serves as a timely reminder of why immunisation matters. Measles is one of the most infectious diseases we face, and immunisation remains the most effective way to keep our children, families, and communities safe. We’re committed to giving every child the healthiest possible start to life, and that’s why we’ve brought back the health targets. These improvements are a vital step towards that goal.

Tim Costley: What other actions has the Government taken to lift immunisation rates?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re heading in the right direction, but there’s still more work to do, and that’s why, as part of our record funding boost for general practice, we’ve introduced performance payments for GP clinics that successfully lift childhood immunisation rates by up to 10 percent, or reach 95 percent of their enrolled population, with partial payments for partial achievement. We’re continuing to invest in community outreach, local services, and the workforce needed to lift immunisation coverage rates even further.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “the reason people leave a country is because they think they can earn higher incomes somewhere else”; if so, why?

Yes, I think that is a key reason people migrate, amongst others. Australia, for example, is a wealthier country than New Zealand and can pay higher wages, including in industries—such as mining and oil and gas—that members opposite have tried to shut down.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are the minimum wage increases that are less than inflation enough to keep Kiwis working here when they can earn more pay in Australia?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and minimum wage earners were among the 1.9 million New Zealanders who benefited from tax relief that that member would have denied them.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why does she believe 47,000 people moved to Australia last year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I outlined extensively yesterday, for similar reasons that a similar number left the year before, which is that the New Zealand economy has gone through an extremely tough period. We had a Government that drove inflation to record levels for an extended period; interest rates soared to control that. That has had a contractionary effect on our economy, and this Government is working hard every day to rebuild and recover the economy. I’m yet to hear from that member a single idea about how to do that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why would construction workers stay in New Zealand when, today, the Certified Builders Association said, “half of those surveyed expected conditions to get worse, [and] forward workloads declined”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m also aware of the Builder Sentiment report that was released by EBOSS this morning. That report stated—and I quote—“The percentage of builders anticipating improving sector conditions has doubled on last year from 22 percent to 40 percent”, and it said, I quote: “This shift in sentiment reflects growing confidence and a more balanced outlook for the industry. … While a full recovery will take time, there’s a growing sense that the worst”—i.e., you guys—“is behind us.”

SPEAKER: No, no—sorry. The Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise to the House for that last statement.

Hon Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis’ statement in 2023 that Kiwis are “voting with their feet”; if so, does that apply now when migration outflows are even higher?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. As I said yesterday, one of my driving missions and reasons for being in Parliament is that I want this to be a country where more young people feel they can pursue their ambitions and aspirations. The reality of how that is done is that we have to strengthen this economy so that businesses have the confidence to create not only more jobs but better paying jobs. That is why we have a Going for Growth agenda that is all about removing the barriers that have held New Zealand back from its growth potential for many, many years. We are making progress. There is much more work to do. We will keep doing it. As history has shown, as this economy recovers, more New Zealanders will choose to live their lives here.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When she said in 2023 that New Zealanders were fleeing, “a weak economy, and decaying public services”, why have 47,000 New Zealanders left for Australia under her watch?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have outlined, the New Zealand economy has been through a very difficult period. Now, there are some positive things—for example, the level of unemployment that was being forecast at the pre-election update in 2023 has not transpired under this Government. In fact, unemployment has come in lower than was being forecast under the plans of the last Government. So there are positive things happening; momentum will continue. The question for the member is this: do we think that more New Zealanders will want to live here if job creators, wealth creators, and savers are slammed with more taxes and asked to flee the place?

Question No. 7—Health

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Otirā tēnā tātou e te Whare. To the Associate Minister of Health: Is the Government on track to achieve the National HIV Action Plan’s goal of effectively eliminating locally transmitted HIV in Aotearoa by 2030—[Interruption]—if not, why not?

Sorry, there were people speaking during that question, so we’ll have the question again while the whole House listens in silence.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. How did this question get approved by you or your staff when in the last few words, he mentioned a country that is not known in this world, nor was it recognised by the United Nations?

Yep, an oversight on my part. Benjamin Doyle, ask the question again—[Interruption]—when the House is all silent.

Sorry, am I repeating the primary, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: The whole primary question—yes.

BENJAMIN DOYLE: Thank you. My question is to the Associate Minister of Health: is the Government on track to achieve the National HIV Action Plan’s goal of effectively eliminating locally transmitted HIV in Aotearoa New Zealand by 2030; if not, why not?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. You have approved, in my view, wrongly—but you’re entitled to your decision—this question, and now it’s not being read properly from the script.

That’s right, and I appreciate all the points that you make. Benjamin Doyle, one more time—as it’s written on the sheet.

7. to the Associate Minister of Health: Is the Government on track to achieve the National HIV Action Plan’s goal of effectively eliminating locally transmitted HIV in Aotearoa by 2030; if not, why not?

I’m advised that the cases of locally acquired HIV continue to trend down from their peak in 2016. Based on the downward trend since 2016, there is no reason to believe the goal will not be achieved of effectively eliminating locally transmitted HIV in New Zealand by 2030.

Benjamin Doyle: Is she concerned with the findings of the HIV epidemiology group’s most recent report that “locally-acquired infections overall have only decreased by 31 percent from the 2010 baseline set by the National HIV Action Plan … which is well short of the 90 percent reduction target by 2030.”, and, if so, what action is she taking to address it?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The figures that I have had reported as the target is a 90 percent reduction on the 2010 total, which was 149. The 2024 figures are 59, and four cases unknown. In terms of the action that we are delivering as a Government, it is a full commitment to the HIV action plan, and we are making solid progress in that regard.

Benjamin Doyle: Is she concerned by the Government’s failure to meet the National HIV Action Plan’s goal to maintain zero cases of transmission at birth, with new avoidable cases of perinatal transmission occurring for the first time in almost 20 years, and, if so, what will she do to turn it around?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Unfortunately, as the member knows, the cases he refers to are about two individuals that travelled to New Zealand who were pregnant at the time. I don’t want to discuss further details of those individuals, but, as I have highlighted, we continue to be committed to the HIV action plan. There are a range of actions that have been committed, and the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand are working well in that regard.

Benjamin Doyle: What, if anything, will she do to address the growing inequity in rates of HIV acquisition amongst trans, migrant, and Māori populations in Aotearoa, as highlighted in the HIV epidemiology group’s latest report as “highly concerning”?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I can advise the member of the recent completion of a request for a proposal to expand innovative testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections to priority populations. Eight contracts are now in place, and two providers have commenced service delivery. Overall, these services will improve access and uptake of testing, and include a new national online service, community-based testing, and peer-led testing for priority populations. I can also advise that the other priorities include recruiting contact tracers to increase the capacity and capability of contact tracing for people newly diagnosed with HIV and other STIs, modelling HIV prevalence in New Zealand to better understand the burden of HIV and where further resources should be directed in order to better prevent transmission, and completing an audit on antenatal screening to identify gaps. The budget of $18 million, which was set in Budget 2022, is on track to be fully delivered.

Question No. 8—Infrastructure

8. to the Minister for Infrastructure: Why are there more than 15,000 fewer people working in construction under this Government, and what impact does this have on the Government’s infrastructure pipeline?

on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: The construction sector has certainly been affected by the economic downturn and higher interest rates. The construction industry is very sensitive to changes in interest rates as construction projects are heavily reliant on debt funding. So no wonder construction has been affected; interest rates have been high in recent years to fight inflation, pumped up by reckless Government spending. But the member is overegging the impact on construction jobs by using a data series that Statistics New Zealand says has provisional status. Stats New Zealand notes that the household labour force survey (HLFS) is the data source for official statistics about our labour force, and since we came into Government, the HLFS shows a more moderate decrease in construction jobs of around 4,000. So I reject the extent of the member’s claim. In relation to the second leg of the question, the Government’s infrastructure pipeline is strong. Over the next six months, we will be breaking ground on at least $6.4 billion worth of publicly funded infrastructure builds across this country.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many construction companies have been impacted by the Government cancelling 3,500 Kāinga Ora homes, and what number of these companies have had to lay off workers?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, this is a to and fro with that member that it seems will never be resolved because the fact is this, and I say it again: since November 2023, Kāinga Ora and community housing providers have delivered 7,056 newly constructed homes, funded not with Labour’s money, not with National’s money, but with taxpayer money. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait until your own side give you the courtesy of silence in the House.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What does it say about this Government’s blueprint for the construction sector when 750 firms have gone under in the past year and half of those surveyed by the New Zealand Certified Builders Association say the conditions are expected to worsen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I feel very strongly for any business that is unable to operate in a difficult economic environment, and it remains the focus of the Government’s activity to ensure that there are better business conditions and better settings in which businesses can thrive. In terms of the sentiment that is in the sector, I again quote the report I quoted earlier in question time, which has come out today, which shows that, in fact, sentiment amongst builders is increasing quite dramatically. I would also point to one very tangible action that the Government is taking that’s going to help a lot, and that is the fast-track legislation. There are up to 17 projects that have indicated they would commence this year if approved through that process, creating among them hundreds of construction jobs; jobs that the members opposite would cancel because they oppose fast track.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When will she accept responsibility for the fact the number of apprentices being trained is not enough to replace those who have left, given her Government cancelled the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineering?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I just reject that. What actually happened with Apprenticeship Boost was another of the fiscal cliffs left to us by the last Government, which is that they did the dirty; they said, “Oh, we’re funding this apprenticeship scheme, but oops, by the way, only for one year, not for the future.” Well, our Government came in, we rescued Apprenticeship Boost, and we found the funding for it. We continued that scheme. And, of course, we are now also bringing regional leadership back to training in our areas, rather than a nationalised Te Pūkenga that removes the ability of employers to have the influence that they want on things like apprentices.

Hon Chris Penk: Is the Minister aware of the report, the EBOSS survey, released today that included a reported nearly doubling of the increase in demand for builders doing building work, in addition to the statistic that she cited earlier in terms of the near doubling of those within the building sector who expect improved conditions next year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Well, on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure, yes, the Builder Sentiment report released this morning by EBOSS confirms that while times are tough, sentiment is improving, recovery is under way. The report found that the percentage of builders anticipating improving sector conditions has doubled on last year to 40 percent, and there was also a drop in the percentage of builders concerned about the current economic climate, the cost of lending, and material costs. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for his very hard work to ensure that we remove regulatory barriers that have driven up construction cost in New Zealand.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with the principal economist of Infometrics, who said, “If you’re a builder and want to keep being a builder, it may be Australia is the best option for you to continue being a builder for now”; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I agree that when New Zealand’s interest rates soared to extremely high levels, it made it very hard to be in our construction sector because it is very difficult to get finance for a project for which the interest costs are extraordinarily high. That is exactly why our Government has focused on doing everything we can to support inflation to come down and interest rates to come down. And the record speaks for itself. There have been more than two basis points of interest rate reduction since we came to office. Inflation is back on target. Those are the conditions that will allow for a healthy, sustainable construction industry.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the Minister admit that canning the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineering was a bad idea, her Government has no workforce plan, and her pipeline is a pipe dream?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: What recent results has she seen about literacy and numeracy achievement for the NCEA co-requisite?

I was very pleased to see the latest results show a marked improvement in student achievement across all year levels. In numeracy, 57 percent of students achieved a significant increase, from 45.6 percent in May last year. In reading, this year, 61.2 percent, up from 58.7 percent last year. In writing, 55.3 percent of students achieved, holding steady from May last year. More than half of this year’s year 12 students who did not meet the co-requisite last year have now achieved it, moving the overall NCEA level 1 pass rate from 71.5 percent to 79.6 percent. More students are achieving in numeracy and literacy, meaning more young people are set up for success in the future.

Greg Fleming: What results has she seen for high-equity index schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The results for students in high-equity index schools are the ones that I am the most proud of. Whilst there is still some way to go, significant improvements have been made, with positive gains in reading, writing, and maths. There was an almost 15 percent jump in numeracy achievement, from under 20 percent last year in our low-decile schools to 34.1 percent in May this year. For reading, it was 41.2 percent compared to 34.7 percent. And, again, writing held steady. We can see that the persistent effort and focus on the basics from our students, and the incredible hard work and dedication of our teachers, is achieving meaningful results.

Greg Fleming: What investment has she made to support schools with the co-requisite assessments?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: When we were made aware of last year’s results, we knew that we needed to provide additional targeted support for young people in literacy and numeracy. That’s why in 2024 we invested $2.2 million to support students in 141 lower-decile schools to get the foundational literacy and numeracy skills they needed to get across the line. Schools received targeted training and funding for teacher-release time to support teachers to directly work with groups of students in the greatest need. This is a Government of action that responds when there is a need, and we have a relentless focus on raising student achievement.

Greg Fleming: And how will the Government’s plans to teach the basics brilliantly enable students to continue to achieve success in the co-requisite?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: These early improvements are supported by a comprehensive reform package that is focused on lifting academic achievement. We’ve introduced a new year-by-year curriculum that’s internationally benchmarked in English and in maths. We’ve implemented structured literacy and structured maths and provided schools with hundreds of thousands of high-quality maths text books. We’ve trained tens of thousands of teachers in structured literacy and structured maths. We’ve implemented an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths. And, today, we called time on open-plan classrooms. While these results are positive, there’s still a lot of work to be done, and that’s why this Government is unapologetically reforming an education system, with a focus on academic achievement.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding New Zealand’s anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism regime?

I recently announced a series of practical changes to the anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism regime to reduce red tape and costs for everyday New Zealanders. The current system is overly risk-averse, making it unnecessarily difficult and expensive for people to access basic financial services. It shouldn’t take a mountain of paperwork to open a child’s bank account or to buy a home. That’s why we’re reforming the system, introducing simpler customer due diligence for low-risk situations, supporting common-sense compliance for families and small businesses, and minimising costs wherever possible.

Todd Stephenson: What changes is she making to reduce unnecessary red tape for Kiwis using family trusts?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The current rules make selling property held in a trust a bureaucratic nightmare. Sellers are required to provide extensive documentation about trustees, beneficiaries, and sources of wealth. I’ve announced changes to give businesses the discretion to apply simplified checks for low-risk trusts such as family trusts. This will significantly reduce paperwork, lower service costs, and make it easier for Kiwis to buy and sell homes.

Todd Stephenson: Will the changes the Minister makes allow more Kiwis to access banking services?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. Current rules have made it too hard for New Zealanders, especially children, to open basic bank accounts. As a mother, I know how important it is to teach kids early how to save. That’s why I’m changing the law to reduce the documentation needed to open low-risk accounts. In many cases, only a birth certificate and proof of a parental relationship could be required to open a bank account for a child. This will make it easier for families to start saving and help set their child up for a stronger financial future.

Todd Stephenson: What changes is she making to provide relief to New Zealand businesses?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Many small businesses are weighed down by rigid anti - moneylaundering regulations that slow their operations and increase their costs. For businesses that use accountants, the changes I’m introducing will simplify the compliance process. Accountants will only need to confirm that payments are consistent with the business’s usual activity, removing the requirement to apply the enhanced customer due diligence checks to every transaction. This reform will save time, reduce costs, and ease the compliance burden on small businesses and their clients.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why is she considering using taxpayers’ money to give compensation to crypto traders for the loss of their crypto ATMs, which support organised crime, when ordinary New Zealanders can barely afford their groceries?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I am a little surprised that the member across the way there doesn’t understand the process that we go through, as a Government, to determine whether or not compensation should be paid. This is some advice that I’m waiting on. Of course, whenever property is looking to be confiscated, there should always be advice on whether or not there is compensation that goes with the confiscation. I’m still awaiting that advice.

Question No. 11—Vocational Education

11. to the Minister for Vocational Education: How many jobs at polytechnics have been cut, or are proposed to be cut, since she took office?

While I am not responsible for staffing numbers for the business division of Te Pūkenga—or polytechnics, as they will soon be referred to—I can confirm that since I took office, staffing numbers have reduced by 620 fulltime-equivalents, including approximately 150 less in Te Pūkenga head office. This has occurred as independent financial advisers have worked with individual polytechnics to develop their pathway to financial sustainability. I acknowledge how difficult that will be for those individuals, but this work should have been done more than five years ago. I will note, for context, in contrast, Te Pūkenga took almost 2½ years from when it was set up to produce their first long-term finance strategy and a short-term financial plan—and, even then, the Tertiary Education Commission noted that further work was needed before there was a credible plan to achieve financial sustainability.

Shanan Halbert: Point of order, Mr Speaker. While I acknowledge that the Minister answered the first part of the question, she didn’t bother to answer the second part, which was about the proposed cuts moving forward.

SPEAKER: Well, she did because she said she wasn’t responsible for those organisations once they become quite separate, so I think that’s a reasonable answer.

Shanan Halbert: Why won’t she assure the sector that all polytechnics will still be open in two years’ time under her watch?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because, unlike that member when his party was in Government, I don’t intend to run polytechs from Wellington. They will be run by communities. They will have councils that are appointed by communities that understand what is needed in their community, and so they will have accountability for ensuring they stay on the pathway to sustainability, which I’m very grateful for because, under the previous Te Pūkenga, they ran a deficit of $80 million in 2022, a deficit of $38 million in 2023, and budgeted a further deficit—had that previous Government still been in power—

SPEAKER: No. Look, you can talk about the facts, but don’t have a lash at the previous Government or the Opposition. It’s very clear and I warned people earlier today.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Budgeted for a deficit of $93 million for 2024, but instead—

SPEAKER: Good. I think that’s well answered the question.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —turned a surplus.

Shanan Halbert: How many jobs are proposed to be on the chopping block at Otago Polytechnic?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I said, I don’t have responsibility for determining the staffing level. What I will say, though, is that it seems—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, the member will stop. Look, that sort of just screaming out is unacceptable. Please carry on.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s absolutely imperative that this country has a vocational education and training sector that is viable, not running multimillion-dollar deficits each year. A viable network is how we will ensure there is provision in Otago—in every other region—for those people who need to gain the skills and the training to be able to gain meaningful, well-paid employment and contribute to the economy of this country.

Shanan Halbert: How many more jobs are proposed to be put on the chopping block at Toi Ohomai, Western Institute, UCOL, Whitireia, and NorthTec?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I continue to remind the member that I will not be responsible for determining—

SPEAKER: No. Sorry, I’ll stop you there. Speakers’ ruling 181/5 makes it very clear that although you might not be legally responsible for the entity, you are responsible for the portfolio. The questions that relate to it should be answered. Those entities themselves don’t get the opportunity to be accountable to the House. That’s why we have a Minister. So please rephrase your answer.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Those are operational matters that the councils of those polytechnics will make decisions on as they decide what level of funding they need for the programmes that they deliver. I will, though, give you an example, if this is—

SPEAKER: No, no, it’s not necessary.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Not necessary?

SPEAKER: It’s taken a lot of time over these answers.

Shanan Halbert: How many jobs are on the chopping block moving forward at her old stomping ground, Southern Institute of Technology (SIT), and how does that compare—

SPEAKER: I’ll stop the member right there. He can’t expect me to be pedantic about the Minister’s answers at the same time as he’s starting a question with the various colourful descriptions in his question. Keep a straight question.

Shanan Halbert: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many jobs are on the chopping block—

SPEAKER: No, that’s the problem. You can’t possibly know that that is the case. So you can ask a question without those sort of, you know, colourful descriptors.

Shanan Halbert: Thank you. How many jobs are at risk at the Southern Institute of Technology and how does that compare with other polytechnics across the country?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: That will be an operational matter for the council and the management of SIT. But can I just say, I would expect SIT to continue a long and distinguished history of running in a—

SPEAKER: OK—[Interruption] Stop.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —business-like manner with prudent attention to their financial situation. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: I said she’s shutting the Hornby campus down.

SPEAKER: Well, why are you interfering with the opportunity of your colleague to ask his question?

Shanan Halbert: Why won’t she share the financial information available to her to prove that her new model is in fact financially viable?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: What I’m very proud of is that for the past year we have had financial advisers working with each individual polytechnic to form a pathway to financial sustainability. We still have some work to do with four of the polytechnics, but they are well on the way to being able to achieve that. It isn’t appropriate to share that until they have worked through what is needed with their own staff, and I am very confident that we are well on the way with at least 10 to be able to stand them up to be financially viable, and it is the work that should have been done five years ago.

SPEAKER: One of the quirks of our Standing Orders and consequent Speakers’ rulings is that while Ministers will occasionally refer to a matter being operational that they don’t have any responsibility for, there needs to be a qualification around it. Ministers are responsible for the operational detail of the entities for which they have portfolio responsibility—Speakers’ ruling 182/3. So we’ll be watching for that in the future as well.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?

SPEAKER: I just want to make it clear, too, that while this question was accepted, there is a supposition in this that should not be there, and the question should not stand. I’m inclined almost to knock it out on that basis, but we will allow a very short answer.

Very well. Following changes to strengthen the sentencing regime and give Police more powers to deal with gangs, the Government announced further measures to restore law and order, strengthening trespass laws, and announcing changes to the Crimes Act to protect retailers from shoplifting, and strengthening criminal offences for assaults on first responders.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government proposing changes to strengthen trespass laws and protect retailers from shoplifting?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because retailers—their staff and their customers—should feel safe in our shops and public places. Public confidence in our justice system in recent years has been eroded by rampant shoplifting and this Government says “enough is enough” by introducing an infringement regime for shoplifting to deliver swift justice. Additionally, we’re giving businesses extra tools—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Half a million in three months.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —oh, nonsense—to better protect their properties, keep offenders away, and stop them from coming back. Our retailers and their customers deserve to be respected and to be kept safe.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government proposing to introduce new measures to protect first responders?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because first responders and prison officers are often the first to run towards danger on behalf of all New Zealanders, and they deserve the extra cloak of legislative protection. The Government, as part of this coalition agreement with National and New Zealand First, is introducing new offences to ensure that those who assault our first responders and prison officers spend longer in prison.

Rima Nakhle: What other new criminal offences has the Government announced?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we are introducing new specific coward punch offences to ensure perpetrators receive tougher sentences. Those cowardly attacks can cause lifelong brain injuries and death. Committing a one-punch attack and causing grievous bodily harm will carry a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. I want to thank New Zealand First for their strong advocacy on this issue.

Each day after question time, I ask members who have to leave the House to do so quietly and without conversation on the way. That’s out of respect for whoever has to speak following their departure. So today, when you leave, leave quietly. Don’t engage in conversation, otherwise you may not be coming back.