Oral Questions

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

Yes. In particular, I stand by the Government’s actions to provide certainty to the energy sector by repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration, and being prepared to co-invest in exploration projects. In many ways, the latter policy is one a Government wishes it didn’t have to have. However, it’s been made necessary by the flagrant, reckless—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —irresponsible ban under the previous Government.

SPEAKER: Let’s make it very clear that Ministers answering questions who today choose to have a flick at the Opposition in the answer to that question will be leaving the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Mark Mitchell that working Kiwis aren’t fundamentally feeling the economic recovery in this really tough economy?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I believe that New Zealanders are facing challenging economic times. However, the trajectory is one of continual improvement. When you have a Government that borrows $115 billion and leaves nothing to show for it except for inflation and high interest rates, the recovery takes some time. But since this Government has been in office, we have seen inflation fall from 5.6 percent down to 2.5 percent. We’ve seen the official cash rate fall from 5.25 percent down to 3.5 percent. We are seeing people’s mortgages come down, we’re seeing their rents come down, and we’re seeing their inflation come down, and that is what an economic recovery looks like.

SPEAKER: Let me also remind members that question time is for questions to be asked and questions to be answered, not speeches made. So we’ll be curtailing those question answers if that sort of practice continues.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is it his view that the cost of living crisis is over for New Zealand families?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The cost of living crisis is abating with every positive move taken by this Government. But the fact is that you can’t be the guy that dug the hole and then complain it’s a long way to dig out of it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he think it isn’t the Government’s job to figure out whether its policies are delivering for Kiwi families, as he indicated yesterday, given both Nicola Willis and the IRD haven’t been able to find a single family that’s receiving the full $250 a fortnight this Government promised them?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And I ask the member: has he found anyone sitting behind him who still supports him?

SPEAKER: I think the Acting Prime Minister could do a little bit better than that. And, once again, it’s attacking the Opposition, which is not the form that’s acceptable under Standing Orders. The member’s a very articulate man, I’m sure he can do better than he has.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it’s very simple: the member has a supposition in his question which misrepresents my position. I reject it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which part of his position is being misrepresented?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, unfortunately, the Speaker is asking me to make shorter answers, so I won’t be able to list them all.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —that cannot be a legitimate answer.

SPEAKER: No—thank you. Good. You can do a little better than that.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it’s too long and now too short. The member is misrepresenting my position by saying that I somehow am not concerned about the welfare of New Zealanders or evaluating the effectiveness of the Government’s policies. I can tell him that we are deeply concerned about the welfare of New Zealanders and deeply concerned about the effectiveness of our policies. The good news is that those policies are very effective and it brings us great joy to show concern in them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept the Government’s decision to cut early childhood education subsidies in real terms will increase fees for Kiwi parents?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is a nonsense. We have increased the amount of money that goes into early childhood education by a very similar amount as it’s been increased year on year, over the last decade.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is increasing early childhood education subsidies by 0.5 percent when inflation is running at 2.5 percent not a real-terms funding cut?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, people may recall not so long ago when inflation was running at 7.3 percent. And did that member, as Minister of Education, increase the funding by 7.3 percent? No, he did not. New Zealanders up and down this country were on the treadmill trying to keep up with the out of control inflation that these turkeys foisted on them.

SPEAKER: No—now hang on. No. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that last remark.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if, now that he’s got that out of his system, he could perhaps address the question that I asked him, which is how increasing early childhood education subsidies, as this Government has decided to do, by 0.5 percent when inflation during that time is running at 2.5 percent is not a real-terms funding cut. Because, in his previous answer, he indicated that they haven’t cut the funding, when they have.

SPEAKER: No, no—you’ve got to think carefully. I listened to this because of the expectation around questions about how the exchange would run. So the question was, as you said, asked. The member then spoke about the overall increase that had been put in place. It was established, and previous Speakers have established—not actually from my political persuasion; from another—it is appropriate to reflect on a previous Government’s performance, which I think is what he’s done. And I don’t think it’s reasonable to say he’s got to answer more.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept the Government’s order to hike public transport costs will drive up bus fares by as much as 50 percent from next week?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Government has made no such order.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What is the Depositor Compensation Scheme and when does it start?

Starting next week, 1 July, a new scheme will protect New Zealanders’ deposits at banks, as well as at building societies, credit unions, and finance companies who take retail deposits. The Depositor Compensation Scheme will guarantee a person’s deposits of up to $100,000 per institution in the unlikely event of a failure. The implementation of the scheme, which has been many years in the making, will give Kiwis peace of mind that if something were to go wrong at the institution they have entrusted their money to, that money will be safe.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What types of accounts will be covered?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Depositor Compensation Scheme covers money held in standard banking products like transaction accounts, savings accounts, and term deposits. The scheme starts automatically next week, and people don’t have to do anything to be covered. People should check on their bank, building society, credit union, or finance company website, or give them a call, to see exactly what is protected by the scheme if they are unsure.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How is the scheme funded and administered?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Depositor Compensation Scheme will be levy-funded. Banks, building societies, credit unions, and finance companies will pay the levy, based on the riskiness of their institution and the total deposits they hold that are covered by the scheme. The levies collected from institutions will build up over time in a fund so that money is available if compensation needs to be made—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Desperate today that you’re having to talk about a Labour scheme.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just said that it is “desperate” for me to be talking about a scheme which will guarantee New Zealanders’ deposits, and I would put to them that, actually, that is meaningful to everyday New Zealanders, and possibly more meaningful than the semantic games he prefers to play in question time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Good. We’ll take the—we’ll stick to the rules, sorry. Dana Kirkpatrick.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is the scheme being introduced?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It turns out that New Zealanders are interested in their financial security and whether or not the savings that they have can be guaranteed. If a bank looks like it could be in trouble, people typically want to take their money out of it. Such withdrawals can trigger a whole series of unpleasant events in the financial sector and across the economy. Depositor protection gives people confidence that their deposits are not at risk and is international best practice. New Zealand is now getting in line with that best practice. In addition, and importantly, I expect the scheme will improve competition, because New Zealanders are more likely to consider switching if they know their deposit will be protected. New Zealanders can be assured: the guarantee exists whether or not you’re with one of the “big four” banks or you are with a credit union, a building society, or another financial service provider. I think this is important for those who may have been reluctant to switch their banking services due to a sense that their funds may not be secure. The Depositor Compensation Scheme, I hope, will be a spur for greater competition in our financial sector.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When was the scheme referenced in the Minister’s answers passed into law and who was the Minister of Finance at the time?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I welcome this turning-around of events, in which me talking about the scheme was initially “desperate” and a terrible thing to do, and it’s now something the Leader of the Opposition wishes to take credit for. Well, that is “Flip-flop Hipkins” for you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straight question. The Minister was asked when the scheme was passed into law and who the Minister of Finance was. It wasn’t an opportunity to attack the Opposition; it was an opportunity to answer the question. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Some of you will be leaving in bulk if you interrupt a point of order. Make your point of order again so that those who were talking through it can hear it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The question was very simple: when was the scheme passed into law and who was the Minister of Finance at the time?

SPEAKER: Yes, I heard the question. We’ll just get a straightforward answer.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think that the Leader of the Opposition already knows the answer to that question, but I’m very happy to spoon-feed him, and I’d suggest he probably needs a bit more of it. It was introduced by the previous finance Minister Grant Robertson, and has the rare attribute that it was actually one thing he did that was helpful. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t out-balance the absolute mess he left the New Zealand economy in, which that member aided and abetted at every step.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, there are several members on the front bench of the Opposition who have put themselves in danger of leaving early this afternoon—not particularly looking at anybody, but just scanning the entire front bench.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ruling that you have just made right now is very much the same as the ruling you made regarding Ministers at the very beginning of question time. If you stuck with the first ruling, you probably wouldn’t have needed to make the second.

SPEAKER: Thank you very much for your advice. I look forward to you putting that in writing and sending it to the Standing Orders Committee so that they can record the wisdom of the Rt Hon Christopher Hipkins.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: is she telling us that it’s taken 19 long months for Mr Hipkins to find something commendable about Grant Robertson’s time?

SPEAKER: No, no, no—that’s not a question that the Minister can answer, much as she may want to. Moving now to—[Interruption]. Urgency—urgency just turns the place upside down.

Question No. 3—Minister for Oceans and Fisheries

3. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he stand by his statement, “The bottom trawling techniques that are pursued by the New Zealand fishing industry are relatively harmless”; if so, are current levels of bycatch acceptable?

on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: A range of management measures are in place to manage fisheries by-catch while enabling sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources. We continue to monitor the effects of fishing and assess whether additional management measures are necessary. The Government works in a number of ways to prevent and minimise by-catch from fishing. This includes restrictions on fishing in areas which overlap with particular habitats, as well as longer-term plans to prevent and minimise captures.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is it harmless that nearly 1,000 seabirds were captured by commercial fisheries in the first three months of this year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the seabird capture is down dramatically because of changed methods of fishing, but it’s an ongoing matter which crosses, of course, a whole lot of countries, not just New Zealand, and we’re in international discussions to ensure that we’re following best practice to minimise that occurrence.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it’s hypocritical that last year Aotearoa pledged $16 million to the Global Fund for Coral Reefs, yet this year we’ve had the largest coral by-catch event in 15 years, dredging up to 6 tonnes of ancient coral from the seafloor?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No such pledge was made by any such country as named by that questioner.

Tākuta Ferris: Are you sure?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, I am positive. Unlike you, you dickhead.

Hon Marama Davidson: OK. Does he have confidence in the sustainable management of fisheries when 60 percent of fish stocks being managed are not assessed, and, of the remaining stocks, 15 percent are not being managed sustainably?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I wonder if the member can ask that question again, because there was interruption on my right.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no. Hang on, the House will be quiet while a question is asked.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the sustainable management of fisheries when 60 percent of fish stocks being managed are not assessed, and, of the remaining stocks, 15 percent are not being managed sustainably?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, both those figures are totally incorrect.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he stand with the 80 percent of New Zealanders who agree that the Government should ban bottom trawling on sea mounts and protect these biodiversity hot spots?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The bottom trawling is an ongoing consideration by the New Zealand Government. Of course, the procedures have dramatically improved, but there are some stock which cannot be caught any other way—orange roughy happens to be one of them at certain parts of the country—so that is why it’s an ongoing discussion, ensuring that we follow best practice.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he stop insisting that bottom trawling is harmless when clearly the indiscriminate method is causing wide-scale death and destruction of our native species and ecosystems?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, we reject the premise of that question. Again, it is stated on assumptions which have not been proven and are not of the best and latest science that we have available to us.

Tākuta Ferris: Point of order. I’ve witnessed many times in this House disparaging comments being made between sides, and I’m quite sure that being called a “dickhead” would fall in line with that tikanga of the House, we might say, Mr Speaker. So if Mr Peters wants to call me a dickhead across the alleyway here, I think that we should consider something for him.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting point of order. Until the member brought it up, I had no idea that that was the allegation being made against him. But if he has obviously found it offensive, I’d ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he hasn’t found it offensive, has he?

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on. It’s not something—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He did not raise the matter of offence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on—hang on. We’re about to get terribly excited.

Tākuta Ferris: I take personal offence to the comments made by Mr Peters over here calling me a dickhead.

SPEAKER: On that basis, I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the basis that when I was trying to get my thoughts together on the answer to Marama Davidson’s questions, he was interrupting me. I apologise for calling him what I said he was.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that now an acceptable way of withdrawing and apologising? Because the House will have a lot of fun if that’s the case.

SPEAKER: Just a moment. While there was a point of order being taken by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, there was a lot of noise, and I did not hear everything that he said. I heard the last part, which was “on that basis, I apologise”. So—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, hang on, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m not going to take this any further. I’m going to review the Hansard and come back to the House tomorrow. Simplest way through it.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. I wonder if you might also reflect on your earlier rulings with relation to political motifs on T-shirts and badges in relation to anything you may have seen in the last few minutes.

SPEAKER: Yes, I certainly will.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. to the Associate Minister of Housing: How many New Zealanders are homeless now, compared to when the Government was elected?

Any response to that question is influenced by how I define homelessness, but I’ll use two data sets for the purposes of this question. If you mean those households living in emergency housing, in October 2023, there were 3,402 households living in emergency housing; in May 2025, there were 510, a drop of circa 3,000 households. If I use those persons living without shelter, in Census 2023, as we know, there were 4,965, quite a bit more than Census 2018—3,624—and, today, there’s no formal comparative figure to the census stats.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why, when front-line providers are telling him consistently that his policies have contributed to unprecedented increases in homelessness, does he refuse to admit that homelessness has increased under his watch?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Following up from earlier discussions and kōrero between the member and myself at the scrutiny session, there are a range of observations; there are a range of views as to the causes and the contributors to emergency housing. There is not one single cause or reason why people become homeless, live without shelter, or end up in emergency housing.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Who are the “some providers” that he says don’t link rising homelessness to his policies?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: May I refer to the Homelessness Insights report, which I’m sure the member has had access to and pored over vigorously in the last few weeks. That report states that there may be—from the providers, that may be attributable to changes, but there are also a range of cost of living, health, drug addiction, and a whole range of other factors that can contribute to homelessness.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why did he claim that the census was the “single source of truth” when it came to measuring homelessness, when the census was abolished by his Government the very next day?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It has been the single formed source of truth for these numbers. However, we continue to seek and have proffered to us and furnished to us a range of reports, including the Homelessness Insights report, which is due shortly.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he, now that the census will be abolished by this Government, finally listen to the front-line providers who have told him that his policies have made homelessness “the worst it’s been in living memory”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve said earlier, there are a range of observations and views not just from providers but also from iwi and Māori organisations like the Ōwhata 2B and 7D trust, which I recently attended to celebrate the opening of various housing developments that they had, and commit to funding for further housing that they can build and go to. There is no one conclusive view right now across those various sources of information.

Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Minister considered pledging, as previous Ministers have, to shelter all homeless people within four weeks of coming to office, or does he judge that there are often complex reasons for people’s homelessness that Jacinda Ardern should have realised before she made that broken pledge?

SPEAKER: Look, how many times have I warned about that? I’m telling the Minister that’s the last time—this week, next week, the rest of the Parliament—that a question is used to attack the Opposition. Unacceptable.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with Dr Ang Jury from Women’s Refuge, who said, “The refuges are having a huge amount of difficulty getting emergency housing support for our clients. It used to be really easy to access, to be honest, if someone arrived at a Work and Income office with a Refuge advocate then it was a done deal. But it’s not like that any more”; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The allegations and assertions that the member made last week in scrutiny in relation to these related matters are serious and, as a result, I have called the member to ask for further evidence and attribution around the claims that were made at scrutiny week. I’m still awaiting specific info—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, quieten down.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —because Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora, the Ministry of Social Development, has told me as late as this afternoon that there is no evidence to show that emergency housing has been declined to anyone on the basis that they contributed to their housing need as a result of being a domestic violence victim, and I still await that specific information.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and asks: does he stand by—

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on.

TODD STEPHENSON: —all of his Government’s statements and actions?

No, wait—wait. Questions have to be heard in silence. Please ask the question again.

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

Yes. In particular, I stand by the Government’s announcement welcoming the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Plan. It’s a tribute to members of the Government, including Chris Bishop, also people like Simon Court, who are addressing a major problem with our infrastructure planning, which can be summed up as the political cycle being far too short compared with the project cycle. When Governments change and priorities change, major projects stop and start, capacity is built up and built down, and not enough gets done at a competitive price. This plan will deliver long-term infrastructure planning, smarter funding and financing, efficient delivery of critical projects, and better maintenance of assets so that all New Zealanders can get around and get homes more affordably, at better quality.

Todd Stephenson: What announcements has the Government made about access to new medicines?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, many. This Government has taken the view that if something is good for New Zealanders and there is no reason to prevent them having it, then they should have it. We’ve done it with pseudoephedrine; we’ve done it with melatonin. We also take the view that funding medicines is a critical priority for any Government. Not only did we fill in a major fiscal hole to the tune of $1.776 billion upon taking office; we added another $604 million, which has allowed dozens of new medicines to help over 200,000 New Zealanders get access to new medication. Then we extended the prescription time frame to 12 months for some of the most important things that people need to get for their health. Altogether, this Government has a fantastic record, allowing Kiwis to access medicines better.

Todd Stephenson: What announcements has the Government made about GP funding?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, they say that a stitch in time saves nine. Getting to the doctor is not only critical to health but it has critical benefits to the rest of the healthcare system—ensuring, for example, that emergency departments are not clogged up. So I’m so proud to be part of a Government where our health Minister, Simeon Brown, has just announced a 13.89 percent uplift in GP funding so that people are more likely to get into their GP, taking pressure off the hospitals and improving New Zealanders’ health.

Todd Stephenson: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the following statements in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill: “principles that pretty much anyone should support” and “Those principles are incontrovertible. … as my colleague Lianne Dalziel said, [they] are the basis on which [any] legal system rests”?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not something you can make any comment on whatsoever. So sit down and have another go at the question.

Todd Stephenson: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with any statements that he’s recently seen in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I do, as a matter of fact. I have seen statements that say the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill are something that anybody should agree with and, in fact, are incontrovertible.

Hon Peeni Henare: Sounds like David Seymour’s playing a victim.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And it may interest people across the other side of the House, like Peeni Henare, to know that those statements were not made by me. They were made by a very wise man, a lawyer, and a member of the Labour Party when it had some intellectual heft.

SPEAKER: No.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Those statements were made to this House by Charles Chauvel.

SPEAKER: Good, OK. While I’m tempted to pull the member up for misleading the House, I want to make it very clear that you cannot use supplementary questions to amount any kind of attack on the Opposition.

Hon Chris Bishop: That wasn’t an attack—no, it was praising him.

SPEAKER: And you might think that’s crazy, but, unfortunately, I know the man.

Question No. 6—Statistics

6. to the Minister of Statistics: How will he ensure that scrapping the five-yearly Census will not magnify the problem of under-counting Māori and Pasifika populations?

We’re not scrapping the census; we’re adopting a new approach that first uses administrative data already collected by the Government. This will then be supported by smaller annual surveys and targeted data collection, particularly for underrepresented communities. This new approach builds on successful models previously used by Stats New Zealand, where admin data has helped ensure that Māori and Pacific population undercounting is reduced. It also gives us the opportunity to continue working with these communities on an ongoing basis to develop tailored solutions and ensure Māori and Pacific populations are being accurately represented in data collection.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How will the Minister uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori data sovereignty under the data collection framework that is set to replace the census?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: In 2019, Stats New Zealand entered into an arrangement, the Mana Ōrite arrangement, with the Data Iwi Leaders Group, which describes the umbrella and the activities that Stats New Zealand will have in their engagement with iwi Māori and how they’ll take those considerations into account.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his Government’s commitment to closing the Māori data gap, if any?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We do have commitment to closing that gap. We’re working constructively with Te Kāhui Raraunga and seeking their advice and counsel as to how we can do a better job representing underrepresented populations in the data sets.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How will the Government be able to identify communities of need when administrative data will only be collected from those who engage with the Government services, and our most marginalised people do not engage with these services?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: That’s exactly why the community attribute surveys, which will encompass roughly 3 to 5 percent of the population with their annual surveys, and the targeted surveys will be looking to go out and seek information from those underrepresented populations.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What impact will the scrapping of the census have on the revitalisation of te reo Māori?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’ve already commented that the census is not being scrapped; that we’re taking a new approach, but what’s also true is that we are aware that te reo Māori is a variable that we need to pay attention to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister address the earlier question from the questioner, which was where in the Treaty of Waitangi does it reference the Māori population being counted?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Under the wider Mana Ōrite agreement, how Stats New Zealand engages with iwi Māori around Treaty of Waitangi discussions and issues are covered.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Will the Minister commit, therefore, to fully funding the Māori data governance model laid out by Te Kāhui Raraunga to close the Māori data gap, to accurately identify communities of need, and to uphold Māori data sovereignty?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We’re working with Te Kāhui Raraunga as we speak, and I’m encouraged by the constructive suggestions that they are actually bringing to that consultation.

Question No. 7—Infrastructure

7. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent reports has he seen on New Zealand’s infrastructure sector?

Today, the Infrastructure Commission released the draft National Infrastructure Plan. It’s an independent view on the current state of our system, what we need in the future, and the projects and policy reforms that will bridge this gap in the most effective and value-for-money way. It’s been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission. As I said this morning launching the plan, this is not the coalition Government’s infrastructure plan; it’s New Zealand’s plan.

Rima Nakhle: Why is having a national infrastructure plan important?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the things that I’m sure all members will have heard over the years is what we really need in this country is a long-term plan that transcends political cycles.

Hon Ginny Andersen: That someone doesn’t cancel.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government—are you not in favour of that?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Not cancelling it, no. Fifteen thousand construction workers—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh righty-o, OK.

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. Just answer the question. Don’t engage with comments across the House. Those who are commenting across the House risk leaving the House early.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the points the Infrastructure Commission makes in the draft plan is that our system is not performing well. There has been near systemic neglect of the underlying institutional settings and policy frameworks over successive Governments. Contrary to popular perception, the Government spends a lot on infrastructure. We’re in the top 10 percent in the OECD for investment, but the bottom 10 percent when it comes to getting quality and bang for buck from spending. So there are a range of very sensible recommendations in the report that the Government looks forward to advancing.

Rima Nakhle: How will the National Infrastructure Plan help build consensus on infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The plan is a conversation starter and it’s a draft plan, but it’s built on robust evidence, data, and analysis. It’s not as simple as everyone getting into a room and agreeing with each other. We need strong systems and institutions, robust investment frameworks, high-quality evidence, and advocacy for policies and projects from a better-informed public. As part of the Government’s response to the plan, I will be engaging with other political parties in Parliament—that work has already started. I’m also intending to ask the Business Committee to hold a special parliamentary debate on the plan next year. We need to move away from the rhetoric that we need greater bipartisanship on all projects and instead build consensus on the idea that Governments of all flavours should use best practice to select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after our infrastructure.

Rima Nakhle: What does the plan recommend?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m encouraging all members to read the plan. It makes 19 important recommendations—in draft form. Many of these recommendations align with work the Government has under way—for example, making better use of pricing and user charging to fund infrastructure investment; adopting spatial planning, which I know the previous Government did a lot of work on through the resource management reforms; relaxing land-use restrictions, which, again, I note the previous Government did some work on; reforming our transport funding system; prioritising infrastructure through the resource management system; and drastically improving asset management, which has been a 30-year problem for New Zealand. There are serious recommendations in this report for a serious country and I’m looking forward to advancing these reforms.

Simon Court: Has the Minister seen reports that three consortia have qualified to bid for the Northern Corridor public-private partnership (PPP), and what does it say about the sector’s confidence in this Government’s refreshed approach to PPP procurement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed I have seen those reports, largely because I released it. We have three consortia bidding for the Northland Expressway—very important project—that will unlock the economic potential of Northland. It’s very heartening to see that all three of the international consortia bidding had representatives at the New Zealand Infrastructure Investment Summit earlier in the year. I think that would have given them greater confidence to participate in this very important project.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by statements made on her behalf that high inflation and high interest rates were main factors in job losses in the construction sector?

Yes. Unfortunately, the economic conditions that we inherited, including high inflation and high interest rates, created the environment for increasing unemployment. Under our Government, interest rates have come down, inflation is within the target band for the first time in over three years, business confidence is at a 10-year high, and construction costs have stabilised. Our work to grow the economy and the investments in Budget 2025, including our Investment Boost package, will see more businesses have the confidence to grow and hire more people.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many jobs were lost because her Government cancelled approximately 3,500 Kāinga Ora home builds?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I’m really proud of our Government’s National Infrastructure Plan and the work that’s under way, both in terms of hospital rebuilds, new classrooms, as well as State housing buildings. But what I’m more proud of is that this Government has got high interest rates down, inflation under control, and stabilised the costs of building. So, actually, we can build more with less.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question to the Minister was how many jobs were lost as a result of those houses being cancelled for builds. I don’t believe the Minister got anywhere near addressing that question.

SPEAKER: Well, it depends on how you view it. The Minister might like to have a look at it, but I do need to say that asking how many jobs are lost on a cancelled project is kind of a double negative. The projects are cancelled, there were no jobs. So let’s have another crack at the answer.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Sure. A project is a project when it’s funded, and so if the member would like to think about funded initiatives, then actually there’s no change.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did her Government cancel the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineering?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, if the member would like to ask the appropriate Minister that question, then I’m happy for her to do that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Employment—employment!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, it’s about looking at delegations, looking at who’s responsible for what, and I’d invite you to do that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What is her plan for engineering students who are unable to complete the required 800 hours of work experience in New Zealand because there is no work available here?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I say, it would be really useful for the member to put the question to the relevant Minister because I think that would be useful, in terms of tertiary education, in terms of vocational education. But, look, I’m proud of our Government’s plan around infrastructure, our investment in hospital rebuilds, school classrooms, and housing. We are a Government that is investing in growth, which is exactly what Budget 2025 was all about.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What workforce planning is under way to ensure construction companies will be able to get back the workers who left for overseas after major construction projects were cancelled by her Government?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said, a project can’t be cancelled if it wasn’t funded in the first place. But as I say, the Minister beside me, the Hon Chris Bishop, has announced today the National Infrastructure Plan, and Budget 2025 is filled with investment projects that our Government has committed to and funded, which is where jobs get created.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that there is approximately $3 billion to $4 billion of construction of infrastructure projects starting in the next six months, including the Melling Interchange project, the Ōtaki to north of Levin project, and the Brougham Street State Highway 76 programme down in Christchurch?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I can indeed, and I can also say proudly about the industry partnerships that the Ministry of Social Development have under way with organisations like Downer—who were here in Parliament a couple of days ago—who have got 1,600 job seekers off the benefit and into work because of infrastructure projects.

SPEAKER: Just wait for 30 seconds. Can I just say that a commentary about the appropriateness of Ministers answering are covered by the fact that it is the Government of the day who decides what Minister can answer any particular question. So while the pick and choose might be something that’s fun to speculate about, it’s not reasonable.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the fact that there are 15,000 fewer jobs in the construction sector evidence that her Government strategy to cancel 3,500 Kāinga Ora builds, scrap the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineers, and axe workforce development councils has failed, and National is just making life harder for Kiwis?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I absolutely refute the numbers that that member referred to. We know she’s not good with numbers; that’s more examples of that just now. I’m really proud of our Government’s record when we have come into economic conditions where unemployment has been rising since 2021. Unfortunately, high interest rates and high inflation lead to recession and higher unemployment rates. Instead of putting our head in the sand, we are focused on getting job seekers into work, and our work exit rates show that what we are doing is working.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston—[Interruption] The Rt Hon Winston Peters and no one else.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister learnt of the good news of the significant number of home and unit do-ups, additions, renovations, extensions in Auckland Central?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I’m really proud of our Government’s focus in Budget 2025 around improvements and funding for bringing older social homes and State houses up to scratch, which is one of many measures in Budget 2025 around infrastructure and building and construction.

Question No. 9—Climate Change

To the Minister of Climate Change: does he stand by his statement that “it is our expectation that we will”—

Just hang on, hang on. I don’t know what’s going on today, but the amount of conversation going around the House while questions are trying to be asked is unacceptable. Chlöe Swarbrick, please start your question again.

9. to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he stand by his statement that “it is our expectation that we will remain an associate member” of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance; if not, why not?

I stand by the statement in the context in which it was given last November, which was that the Government’s intention to repeal the offshore oil and gas ban did not necessarily mean New Zealand would not be able to remain a member of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. Subsequently, the New Zealand Government made the decision to withdraw, in good faith, our associate membership, and informed the alliance of this decision on 21 June 2025.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly does a $200 million taxpayer-funded subsidy for new fossil fuels, which the Government’s own advice says will take at least a decade to produce new gas, help the energy transition, as he said in his statement today?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, while loosely connected to the primary question, the reality of the situation which this Government faces is that due to a shortage of gas in the electricity sector as a result of prior decisions by prior Governments, we are now dealing with a critical situation in the context of needing to ensure that we have more gas available to keep the lights on, and, as climate change Minister and energy Minister, I make no apology that my primary focus is to ensure that we can keep the lights on for New Zealanders.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister stand by his statement, also from November, that our membership of the coalition to phase out fossil fuel subsidies “fits well with New Zealand’s leadership of the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Group and our role as Chair of the recently signed Agreement on Climate Change Trade and Sustainability,”, and, if so, how exactly does that align with his Government’s $200 million taxpayer subsidy for new fossil fuels?

SPEAKER: Look, I’m just going to suggest that the member needs to reflect, in supplementaries, either on an answer that’s given by the Minister or the content of the primary question. The last two have barely done that. The Minister may answer if he is able.

Hon SIMON WATTS: I stand by the statements in the context in which they were given last November. The New Zealand Government remains in the position that we will undertake a just and orderly transition away from fossil fuels.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is “just and orderly”, in terms of a transition away from fossil fuels, about the Government’s commitment to $200 million in a new fund for fossil fuels that will begin production in 10 years’ time?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can be very clear about is, “just and orderly” is not repealing oil and gas and causing significant uncertainty to New Zealand industry in cutting off the fuel that actually powers New Zealand industry and produces a huge amount of economic value, including the majority of our primary sector.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the value of our international reputation, or our commitments to international agreements, if this Government continues walking away from and breaching them?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I reject the premise of that question, but what I can comment on is that the importance of the New Zealand relationship in the context of our global partners has never been more important than now, and the importance of the fact that our Prime Minister is currently overseas doing significant positive work on behalf of this country to double the value of our exports by 2035 and ensure that we are open for business should be something that we should all be very proud of.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that this is the first time as climate change Minister he has ever been asked a question from the Greens’ climate spokesperson?

SPEAKER: Well, that’s so far wide of the primary question that it probably is not fair.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. to the Minister of Agriculture: Why is the Government banning full farm-to-forestry conversions on our highest quality productive land?

The Government is concerned about the effects that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) has on our most productive land, with whole farm-to-forest conversions harming rural communities. When farms are planted in trees because of the carbon market, we lose the ability to produce the high-quality, safe food that consumers demand. We lose rural jobs, export earnings, and the families that go with them. The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, which passed its first reading in this House last night, will preserve our most valuable land that grows food for exports and that sustains rural communities.

Miles Anderson: What effect has full farm-to-forest conversion had on the rural economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: A significant effect. The number of farms converted to forest amounts to more than 300,000 hectares since 2017. The primary sector has said that has resulted in the loss of more than 2 million sheep and beef stock units. Exotic carbon forests offer short-term economic boosts, through activity often decades apart. These boosts can be significant in the short term, but they cannot come at the total expense of farming communities that contribute each and every year. This legislation will address the harm that has been done to many regions around New Zealand, through the interaction of the emissions trading scheme and conversion of farms to forest.

Miles Anderson: How will the bill protect farmland from full farm-to-forest conversion?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The bill puts in place restrictions—a moratorium—on the planting of trees to go into the emissions trading scheme, on land-use classes (LUC) 1 through 6, with farmers being able to choose to plant up to 25 percent of their own land. On LUC 6 land, which is some of our hillier sheep land, there will be an annual quota of 15,000 hectares to go into the emissions trading scheme. The legislation has exemptions for classes of Māori land so that they will be able to continue to plant. The bill also includes temporary exemptions where an investor can provide evidence of a qualifying forestry investment between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024, which is when this policy was announced and will take effect from. For instance, the purchase of land and ordering of trees prior to 4 December 2024 would be an example of proof of a qualifying investment, whilst either of these actions alone would not be.

Miles Anderson: What is the impact on rural communities of whole farm-to-forest conversions?

Hon TODD McCLAY: We’ve seen entire farms converted into exotic carbon forests under the ETS. Whole-farm conversions don’t just affect landowners; they affect entire communities. Schools, local businesses, and services all depend on the steady year-round activity that farming provides. Three hundred thousand hectares of conversions is not sustainable for our food production, and it’s not fair for the rural communities who bear the brunt of these conversions. From Southland and Central Otago, to the East Coast, across the King Country, and as far as Northland, schools have closed, services disappear, and rural businesses are struggling. The bill is about finding the right balance. It preserves choice: the choice to farm, the choice to grow trees, and the choice to sustain rural communities for generations to come.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he stand by statements made on his behalf that his proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Act 2003 would “include provisions for repayments but not mandate them”?

If the member is asking that pātai by reference to a Northern Advocate article published earlier this week, no—fake news. Fake news. That statement imputed to me was not made by me or on my behalf. The journalist has now corrected the article, and I recommend that the member follow up with some light rereading of that article in due course.

Ingrid Leary: Will he commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms?

SPEAKER: Sorry, I, unfortunately, missed seeing who was speaking during the asking of that question, but I’d advise them not to interrupt it again. Ingrid Leary.

Ingrid Leary: Will he commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a number of matters that we are considering as part of a broader reform of this matter, including dispute resolution protections, and a wide range of consumer protections and various matters, including those that the member referred to, will be considered and are still under active consideration.

Ingrid Leary: What other sectors are there where people have no control over when someone pays them back their own money?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That is quite a broad and open question, but what I can say is this Government is responsibly reviewing a wide variety of matters, including consumer protections for elderly folks that are living in retirement villages.

Ingrid Leary: Why does he think operators here wouldn’t survive a mandated repayment period when parts of Australia have had one for 26 years, where no operators have gone bust as a result?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are some very loose comparisons that are being made, but we are really focused on ensuring that we understand fully the implications of some of the issues that are being raised and we will take policy decisions in due course.

Ingrid Leary: Will he support a law change which requires operators to give residents their money back within three months, or has lobbying by the big operators convinced him that only incentivising them and not mandating will somehow magically fix the problem?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: If the member is asking me to jump in front of Cabinet and make decisions by way of a question and answer session, I will not be doing that. What I will be doing is diligently and professionally undertaking my responsibility as Associate Minister of Housing to explore these issues and bring these matters through the policy decisions and, ultimately, to this fine Chamber.

Question No. 12—Mental Health

12. to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements have been made for the assessment and prescription for people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)?

Good question. Yesterday, the Ministry of Health and Pharmac announced that, from February 2026, GPs and nurses will be able to diagnose and start treatment for adults with ADHD. For those under 18, the change will allow nurses working within child health or mental health services to diagnose and start treatment for ADHD. The Ministry of Health will work with sector representatives to develop a clinical principles framework for assessment and treatment to ensure there is quality and consistency for patients with ADHD. This is a common-sense change that will make a meaningful difference in many lives of New Zealanders.

Tom Rutherford: How will the changes benefit people with undiagnosed ADHD?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Too often, I’ve heard stories of people with ADHD who have been unable to get a diagnosis and treatment in a timely manner, due to long wait times and costs associated with seeing a specialist. This change will help break these barriers and improve access to support. It will lead to faster assessments, fewer delays, and lower costs for those seeking help, and will be life changing for many people. The Ministry of Health estimate that these changes will improve access to treatment for 7,000 Kiwis in the first year and a total of over 50,000 new people accessing treatment in five years’ time.

Tom Rutherford: How do these changes reflect feedback from those with lived experience and advocates for those with ADHD?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I want to acknowledge the many advocates with lived experience, and others, who spent years advocating for this change. This decision is based on the recommendations received from both healthcare professionals and patients who have been through this before. I’m pleased their feedback has been heard loud and clear. I hope they know the positive impact this decision will have on many people’s ability to access what is often life-changing medicines. In particular, I want to acknowledge the work of Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick, and the mental health cross-party group, all advocates for this important change.

Tom Rutherford: What support from the public has the Minister seen for this change?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’ve seen numerous messages from members of the public and the ADHD community supporting these changes. Luke Bradford from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners said it will help people access diagnosis and treatment, make it quicker and more affordable. ADHD New Zealand’s reaction was one of excitement—completely welcomed the change, noting it had been 25 years in the making. Tash, who messaged me, said, “Thank goodness, great news. It makes access so much easier and will take some stress off the specialist.” Brilliant to see so many messages from people impacted by ADHD welcoming this common-sense change.