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, and particularly around Budget 2025, which is all about growing the economy to create jobs and help Kiwis get ahead. The Government’s economic plan is working. By stopping wasteful spending, inflation is down, interest rates are falling, our economy is expected to grow, on average, 2.7 percent—that means 240,000 new jobs being created in the next four years—and, most importantly, wages are growing faster than inflation. This is a Government that’s proud of what it’s doing to get New Zealand back on track.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why did the Government not budget for its own increased KiwiSaver employer contributions, as the John Key and Bill English - National Government did when they made similar KiwiSaver changes in 2011?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we think we can fund that quite adequately through baselines.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he accept that if the increased KiwiSaver employer-contribution costs must be met out of agency baselines, driving wage growth lower than otherwise, and the cost will be represented in the next Budget, then for all intents and purposes, this is a predictable cost, which the Government has failed to budget for?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just disagree completely. This is a Government that makes sure we get maximum value for money out of every dollar that we spend, and we expect each and every year to be looking at the total pool of expenditure, not just the layer cake of new spending but the total spend that happens on a portfolio. We expect that to be worked over really hard to make sure we’re getting maximum value for money.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister saying there that he did not work really hard through the increased employer contributions to KiwiSaver that the Government is now liable for?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No—I’m just saying we’re very comfortable that they’ll be taken out of baseline.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister disagree with Treasury when it says, in their Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, that “We have assumed that employers will offset the majority (80 percent) of their higher contributions via lower-than-otherwise wage increases.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just say to the member that the feedback that we have had around Government contributions is that people understand we are increasing contribution rates for employers and employees; that’s a good pathway for New Zealand to be on. Whether I look at an 18-year-old on minimum wage, whether I look at a 30-year-old on the average wage, typically, it looks like they’ll have 25 percent bigger retirement balances. Increasing the employer-employee contribution is good because it makes New Zealanders wealthier and have bigger retirement balances.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister agree with the late Hon Sir Michael Cullen, who said, at the introduction of compulsory employer contributions to KiwiSaver, “The Government recognises that, over time, employer contributions may effectively form part of the wage negotiation process, which will be for employers and employees to mutually agree”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s right—yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When the Prime Minister says he’s going for growth, per Treasury’s own advice why is this “growth” at the expense of wage increases for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I am very proud that since this coalition Government was formed, in every single quarter, we have wages growing faster than inflation, and that was just not the case under a Labour-Greens Government before; it is under this Government. We take that very seriously, and when we look at the projected forecast out of this Budget, we see wages continuing to grow faster than inflation, we see low levels of inflation, we see 2.7 percent average growth rate over the four-year period, and 240,000 new jobs being created, because all the parties on this side of the House, in this coalition Government, believe in growth, growth, growth.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, especially in education where our Government is delivering the most significant investment in learning support in a generation to better support Kiwi kids and to make sure they thrive at school. This means more teacher-aide hours. It means more learning support coordinators and earlier intervention to ensure that our kids are getting the tailored help they need and that teachers have more time to teach the basics brilliantly.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his pre-election commitment to give Kiwi families with kids $250 a fortnight in tax cuts without cutting front-line public services or increasing borrowing; if so, how many families are actually receiving the full $250 a fortnight he promised them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t have the numbers with me, but I am very proud of what we have done to lower tax rates for working New Zealanders. And I just say, on this side of the House, this coalition Government cares about working New Zealanders and that’s why our tax relief plan, the first in 14 years, was of huge benefit to many New Zealanders and appreciated by working New Zealanders. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Interjections are supposed to be rare and reasonable, not commentaries from your seat.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why can’t Nicola Willis or the IRD identify one single family who have received the full $250 FamilyBoost that he promised them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just encourage the member to put his question in writing, and we can come back with a more fulsome answer. But what I can tell you out there is that low and middle income working New Zealanders who were let down over something like 32 months with wages growing slower than actually inflation, are very, very grateful that under this Government, with the parties in this coalition Government, we are making sure that we deliver for low and middle income working New Zealanders. These were the people Labour used to care about, but not any more.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how does an average $100 a week cut to the accommodation supplement for those working hard to make ends meet by taking in boarders help those low-income families with the cost of living crisis?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it isn’t unreasonable that we would expect that if you’re earning income from boarding—or from subletting, essentially—that that income is considered in your calculation. That’s a fair thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has this Government cancelled pay parity for early childhood education (ECE) teachers, a profession dominated by women who were already reeling from the fact that his Government unilaterally cancelled, without notice, their active pay equity claim?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Pay parity still exists in ECE, but all we’re doing is making sure that the owners of ECE establishments get to set the pay rates, not the Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how can he claim that pay parity still exists if it doesn’t exist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Exactly as I said: it does exist, but the question is we don’t believe that just because you’ve got a qualification and a Master’s degree you should be paid more and be mandated to pay more than someone who’s got 25 years of experience in ECE. That’s up to owners to determine what they pay their workers so that they can work out what they charge to their consumers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister: if a boarder is paying more than $100 per week, aren’t you better off as a consequence of the simple mathematical equation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just think it’s entirely reasonable, actually, that any income generated through renting or subletting out to a boarder—that income is included in any calculation that the Government offers support for.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How will early childhood education services pay any teacher salary increases when the Government’s offered them only a 0.5 percent funding increase, or does he expect them to pass that cost on to parents in the form of higher fees?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we’re leaving that for owners of ECE establishments to work out their cost base, to work out what they pay their workers, and, ultimately, what they charge their consumers. That is normal business practice.

Question No. 3—Workplace Relations and Safety

3. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has she made about reforming WorkSafe?

Today, I announced that the Government has agreed to a range of changes that will significantly focus WorkSafe on critical risk and the issuing of more guidance and advice to businesses and workers. Last year, I travelled New Zealand and heard from businesses, workers, and people who deal with health and safety every day and who wished for more guidance and help from WorkSafe on how to comply with health and safety legislation only to be told it’s not WorkSafe’s job. My reforms address this issue.

Laura McClure: What changes are already under way at WorkSafe?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have written a letter of expectation to WorkSafe outlining this Government’s focus and expectations, and I am pleased to note WorkSafe are on board with the changes. WorkSafe have also begun the mammoth task of updating its website guidance. Removing and replacing outdated guidance will make it much easier for people to find the help they are looking for and ensure WorkSafe are giving consistent and clear advice. Also, WorkSafe’s road cone tip line is open and ready for business. You can find this at worksafe.govt.nz/road-cones.

Laura McClure: What is the Government’s intention with the announced reform?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My intention with these WorkSafe changes is to improve worker safety and reduce cost to business. A system that clearly focuses on reducing death and serious injuries rather than box-ticking exercises will see better outcomes. It will also reduce cost to businesses. This change is a benefit to both workers and businesses. The intention with the road cone tip line is that in future when members of the public see road cones on the road, they’ll know it’s for genuine risk reduction. Getting rid of overzealous use will be a benefit to all who see a road cone.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about business tax?

In the Budget, I announced a new tax incentive called “Investment Boost”. Investment Boost allows New Zealand businesses to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of qualifying assets on top of depreciation. That means a much lower tax bill in the year they purchase, create, or construct the asset. The remaining book value of the asset is depreciated at normal rates. Loading deductions into the first year means that cash flow arising from investments is more favourable; the present value of the investment is greater; the after-tax returns are higher; more investment opportunities stack up financially, so more will be made, boosting growth and wages.

Nancy Lu: What effect will Investment Boost have on capital investment in productivity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealand has long been recognised for its low rate of capital intensity—that is, we lack the machinery, tools, and technology per worker that other countries have. As I said in my primary answer, Investment Boost makes more investment opportunities stack up financially so more will be made. That will lift New Zealand’s capital stock. In turn, additional capital has an impact on the country’s economic performance, as more capital per worker means higher productivity and higher wages. So in answer to the question: Investment Boost will lift capital investment and it will increase productivity.

Nancy Lu: Who benefits from Investment Boost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as members in this House should know, a lot of people benefit when businesses do well. But let me quote from the regulatory impact statement that accompanied this policy—and bear in mind, members, this is Inland Revenue and Treasury officials speaking, not me—“Our view is the majority of the increase in national income from this policy would flow to workers. And this increase would come from a combination of higher wages and higher employment, and we therefore expect that the benefits of this policy will be spread broadly across a wide range of New Zealanders.”

Nancy Lu: What reactions has she seen to the Investment Boost policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Investment Boost has been welcomed by New Zealand businesses and tax experts. I’ve had MPs from across the country share with me their positive stories about investment being brought forward and expanded in their communities. Robyn Walker, tax partner at Deloitte, said of Investment Boost that “Overall, this is a really positive change for businesses.” Russell McVeagh said, “The Government’s flagship Budget 2025 policy … is a credible demonstration of its focus on driving economic growth … and investment in New Zealand infrastructure.” Even members opposite have said that Investment Boost is “a good business initiative”—that was the Hon Barbara Edmonds—and “doing something in this space is a good idea”, and that was from the Hon Deborah Russell.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement about the Budget that “Wages are forecast to grow faster than the inflation rate, making wage earners better off, on average, in real terms”; if so, what is the effect on wage growth over the forecast period of removing the $12.8 billion from future pay equity claims?

Well, in answer to the first part of the question, yes, and that is borne out by the Budget documents. To the second part, I don’t agree with the member’s characterisation. In the Budget, $12.8 billion was removed from contingencies put aside to meet potential pay equity settlements under the previous regime that were expected to be wide ranging and increasingly divorced from actual sex-based discrimination. Those settlements may or may not have happened. Adequate funding remains in contingency to meet potential costs of future public sector pay equity settlements under our new regime. On that basis, compared to the half-year update, I’m advised that wage growth is forecast by Treasury to be slightly lower across the forecast period because of pay equity and macroeconomic changes, and slightly higher because of Investment Boost. Overall, wage growth is expected to be slightly lower but starts from a higher base, meaning that actual wages in dollar terms—which is what really matters to New Zealanders—are expected to be higher right across the forecast period compared to the half-year update.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to Dame Marilyn Waring—former member of Parliament for the National Party—who says, “We want to know why such a large”—

Hon Shane Jones: Fossil fuel.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: —“number of women who are not well paid become the collateral damage of balancing the Budget”?

SPEAKER: Before we hear that answer, can I say to the member who interjected during the question: do that again and it’ll be a very early afternoon exit from the House.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I would say to that individual that she mischaracterises the nature of the Government’s approach to pay equity and she should listen less to the misleading statements from the other side of the House. This Government is upholding pay equity with a workable, affordable, sustainable pay equity regime in law. We have also put aside funding for what we anticipate will be future settlements.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to Roezy Thomson, a 33-year-old elderly support worker, who says that the changes to pay equity “makes me feel … so undervalued and it makes me feel like quitting, but I actually love my job … We’ve been waiting for this … pay rise [for ever] and this is just absolute [BS].”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What I would say to that person is your work is very much valued by this Government, and I think valued by all New Zealanders. You can anticipate that just like other workers across the country, when you enter bargaining—whether via a collective bargaining process or through an individual employment process—you will be able to bargain for increases according to your wages and conditions. At the same time, if you as an employee or your union wish to lodge a pay equity claim, the law will allow you to do so.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Fiona Archer, a retired support worker, who says, “I have fought my whole life for equitable treatment of women, and I cannot believe we’re having to do this again.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I would say to that individual that if they have a pay equity claim which has merit in which they are able to demonstrate sex-based discrimination, then the law allows them to negotiate a settlement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, it doesn’t. You actually stopped them being able—

SPEAKER: Enough. The member’s trying to ask her questions. Hold back a little bit.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Dame Judy McGregor, a former human rights commissioner, that “I think this is a cruel abuse of human rights and I think the Government will pay for it. I don’t think women will take this lying down.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she say she is committed to pay equity when many working women across this country disagree with her and instead believe they are paying the price for her Budget decisions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the facts are this: the Government has legislated a pay equity regime in law. The fact that members opposite are choosing to continue to tell New Zealanders that not only has the Government removed equal pay but we’re also cutting women’s wages and that pay equity has been eliminated is not my responsibility. But I would caution members to be careful about the statements they make to New Zealanders and the veracity of those statements, because boys who cry wolf don’t get listened to.

Question No. 6—RMA Reform

6. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made on reforming national direction under the Resource Management Act 1991?

Last week, I announced, alongside the Hon Todd McClay and the Hon Simon Watts, the largest package of changes to national direction rules under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to make the RMA more workable while we develop our new planning system at pace. There are three documents open for consultation now: infrastructure and development, primary sector, and fresh water. They have been designed to have immediate impact on the ground without requiring millions and millions of dollars in implementation costs from councils.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How do these changes enable better infrastructure and support more housing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The most notable change is the introduction of a national policy statement on infrastructure. There is no instrument in the RMA that clearly states that infrastructure development is a good thing. It makes it harder for decision makers to properly take into account the clear and undeniable benefits of infrastructure, so we will have a national policy statement on one. We are also proposing new national direction to help our housing crisis: we are developing a national environmental standard on granny flats and also, for the first time, a national environmental standard on papakāinga housing to synthesise the rules around the country to make sure that people who want to use their whenua can do so. We’re also proposing a range of changes in relation to renewable energy and putting some real meat on the bones of the existing renewable energy national policy statement. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait while the House sort of gathers itself and just remembers that interjections are rare and reasonable.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What changes can Kiwis expect to better enable our primary sectors?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are a range of changes across the three documents. One notable one is to make it easier to consent a quarry or a mine. It is very difficult in New Zealand to consent or expand or even open a new quarry. And if we want 21st century living standards and the kind of infrastructure and roads that New Zealanders increasingly demand, we need the aggregate and the fill in order to build those roads. So it will be easier to open or expand a quarry. We are also making changes to the rules around highly productive lands, removing land use class 3 land from protection, letting farmers do more with their own land; we’re removing the restrictions on non-intensive grazing of beef, cattle, and deer in wetlands; and a range of consenting requirement changes to better support our aquaculture and our forestry sector. I acknowledge the strong advocacy of the Minister for Regional Development and indeed the Minister for aquaculture, the Hon Shane Jones.

Hon Shane Jones: Heavy metal! Heavy metal!

SPEAKER: What, are you going to play us some?

Question No. 7—Resources

7. to the Minister for Resources: What announcements has he made regarding energy security in New Zealand?

Gas is short. Talk is cheap. We’re not talking about red or green effluent. New Zealand’s natural gas reserves have been in decline as a consequence of a foolish and dangerous decision. Our Government has set aside a contingency of $200 million to overcome sovereign risk perceptions that have grown since a fateful decision of 2018. It signals a willingness for the Crown to take a commercial stake—10 percent or 15 percent, possibly—to turn around the declining fortunes in our energy sector.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. It is not appropriate for questions of a Minister’s own party to be used to make what is quite clearly a political point. It is one thing, as you’ve outlined, to indicate a situation, but that was loaded with commentary that is debatable. That was actually not a factual statement; that was a political statement and it shouldn’t have been allowed.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry; I completely disagree with you. I was listening to these answers. I said before that it’s not unreasonable for a Government to comment on a previously made Government decision. That’s what happened here. As for other commentary there, if it’s debatable, it’s debatable. It’s not necessarily out of order as an answer to a question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. For clarity, are you saying that it is OK for Ministers to label previous Governments’ policies as foolish? Because if it is, that is actually quite a move from the previous directions you’ve given this House.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t believe it is along the lines that you’re suggesting. It would be odd if a current Government could not refer to something that they had campaigned against as having a particular characterisation. So with all due respect, I don’t think that is a reasonable point for me to follow up.

Tanya Unkovich: Why is security of gas supply critical for New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: Decisions riddled with woke ideology of the past Government—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Stop. Members should not continue speaking while I’m on my feet. Now, this really does go right to the heart of it, and before I get the point of order from the Hon Kieran McAnulty—which, this time, would be something I should work on—I think the member needs to start again without the descriptions of various commitments that elected members of this Parliament have held. I think that’s most unreasonable.

Hon SHANE JONES: We are the first nation to transition from gas to imported coal to get through our winters. It is evidence of unintended consequences from decisions that have been made. Natural gas will continue to produce a critical level of firming, to enable Kiwis to enjoy affordable energy, security of energy, for at least the next 20 years.

Steve Abel: A finite resource.

Hon SHANE JONES: As I’ve said, enough of the Green emissions. This is not about haka expulsions; this is serious commerce. I say to my colleagues across the House, as the sake of energy is far more important than the tawdry and minuscule beliefs of minor parties such as—

SPEAKER: No, no. I don’t want to terminate the question, but if we keep going down that line, I will. Tanya Unkovich—one more try.

Tanya Unkovich: How does the planned co-investment in gas production by the Government address sovereign risk concerns?

Hon SHANE JONES: Sadly, ideological sludge does not make for good energy. This Government is rebuilding investor confidence, which, in the gas and petroleum sector, suffered a decline, and nowhere will we do it more rapidly than in the brilliant area of Taranaki, where my voice and ideas are being widely embraced. Then we will turn our attention to Te Wai Pounamu, the South Island, where there is a huge gas field just waiting for investment.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: When will he release Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) advice—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’re not having that conversation or conversations while a question’s being asked.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: When will he release MFAT advice on the impact of the $200 million gas subsidies on New Zealand’s free-trade deals?

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s difficult to answer a question which contains a lie.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, you’re going to have to withdraw and apologise for that reference and then try a different answer.

Hon SHANE JONES: I withdraw and apologise. It is not the view of either this Minister or the Government that the policy represented through the $200 million capital fund is a subsidy.

Tanya Unkovich: How does this help—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Just wait for a minute. All questions are heard in silence.

Tanya Unkovich: How does this help the New Zealand economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: Energy is essential for the growth of the New Zealand economy—energy in relation to access to imported coal, further gas developments, the development of new sources of geothermal energy—and it’s a part of a broader strategy, not the least of which is mining for mineral sands off the coast of Taranaki.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister give the House any reason why a country would prefer inferior coal from another country rather than superior coal from its own?

Hon SHANE JONES: Naturally, our economy does have coal. Our country produces export coal. At the heart of the issue—which is why this particular Minister is producing great outcomes in relation to natural resources—we must stop relying on other sources of coal and critical minerals in terms of self-sufficiency, which is why titanium and vanadium, soon to be discovered in vast quantities off the coast of Taranaki, is on its way.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement in relation to emergency department wait times, “I expect Health New Zealand to empower clinicians at local levels to fix bottlenecks in real time”; if so, is he confident this has occurred ahead of winter 2025?

on behalf of the Minister of Health: In the context it was made, yes. Our Government has made it clear that our focus is on putting patients first and ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to timely, quality healthcare. That’s why we’ve brought back the shorter stays in emergency departments (EDs) health target. I’m advised by Health New Zealand that every region and district has a winter preparedness plan in place to improve acute flow through their emergency departments this coming winter.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he think empowered clinicians would choose that only one in 10 patients got timely treatment for a heart attack at Middlemore Hospital, or is it a sign of under-resourcing and indifference from the Government?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister: I’ve been very clear at the frustration at the pressure on our emergency departments. That member quoted about empowering our clinicians; that’s why we wouldn’t have taken a wrecking ball to the health system in the middle of a pandemic. That’s why we’ve brought back four regions of Health New Zealand to ensure we have local decision-making, to have readiness plans in place.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he think empowered clinicians in Middlemore emergency department would choose for patients to suffer harm on 43 separate occasions, as reported, or is it a sign of under-resourcing and indifference from the Government?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This Government has put a record amount of funding into health: $16.68 billion over three years. We’re empowering our clinicians by returning decision making as close to the front line as possible, unlike that last Government that took a wrecking ball to the health system in the middle of the pandemic.

SPEAKER: Now, look, you’ve got to stop using terms like that. You can say that they made some changes or some other such, but not those sort of particular descriptors.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If the Minister’s claim of record investment is correct, why were clinicians’ requests for merely $3 million in one of our largest emergency departments to ensure it was properly staffed turned down by the Government?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I think that member should get her facts straight. Nothing was declined. What she is referring to is a quality report that went to a quality committee. There was a number of initiatives in that report. Some have been completed, some are under way, and they’re been assessed at the moment, including opening up 20 new beds in a ward to ease flow in that ED that she’s referring to.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the Minister saying that a request for $3.6 million to address staffing in Middlemore Hospital’s emergency department was not made?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the health Minister: I have been advised that there was no request. It was a quality report sent to a quality committee, and that member should quite rightly get her facts straight.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Well, why won’t he accept responsibility for under-resourcing in the department instead of passing the blame on to clinicians and management, when he’s the Minister of Health?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the health Minister: there is nothing more than taking responsibility and accountability by returning health targets. When we left office, the health target for six hours’ wait in ED was at 90 percent. In 2023, that went down to 70 percent. That is taking responsibility, unlike that member who asked the question—when she was on the front page: “New health minister at odds with front-line health workers over staff shortages [in ED]”.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough. You can’t do that.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made regarding learning support as part of Budget 2025?

Budget 2025 delivers the largest investment in learning support in a generation. The Government is transforming and boosting the Early Intervention Service, extending it to the end of year 1, with hundreds of additional specialist teachers; delivering a learning support coordinator to every school with year 1 to 8 students; delivering a historic shift to the way our Ongoing Resourcing Scheme, or the ORS scheme, is funded, guaranteeing that every child who is eligible for the service gets the support they need; and, across the system, we are giving over 2 million teacher-aide hours from 2028, starting with an additional 900,000 from next year. My message for teachers and parents is that we’ve heard you and we have delivered.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How does the expansion of the early intervention scheme deliver for learners with additional needs?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We are heavily investing in expanding the Early Intervention Service to reach thousands more children with the support they need. We’re delivering the expansion of the Early Intervention Service from early childhood to the end of year 1, with an additional 560 fulltime-equivalent specialists, including educational psychologists, speech language therapists, and early intervention teachers. This investment will do two things: it will provide additional support to the 7,000 students already receiving the service and will reduce wait times for the over 3,000 children currently on the wait-list. Supporting the transition to school is vital, and this is what delivery looks like.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How is this announcement supporting schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Every part of this package is designed to deliver more support to schools, but—importantly—Budget 2025 delivers a learning support coordinator for every school with a year 0 to 8 student, and, as part of Budget 2025, every school with a year 0 to 8 student will have a learning support coordinator. That will benefit 300,000 students who currently do not have access to a learning support coordinator in their school. Importantly, we are guaranteeing that every small and rural school will have a minimum of a day a week with a learning support coordinator, and they will be able to be used flexibly. Schools without a learning support coordinator have been let down for years. This is what delivery looks like.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How is this announcement supporting teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have been at schools up and down the country where teachers have consistently asked for extra support in the classroom for their children with additional needs. We are powering up the front-line support and investing early to ensure our kids get the tailored help they need by building up to a total of 2 million teacher-aide hours from 2028, with an additional almost 900,000 kicking in from next year. We’re also funding our teacher-aides to undertake professional learning and development so that they have the knowledge they need to help our learners with neurodiversity and behavioural needs. Teachers have asked us for this support and we are delivering.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What feedback has she received regarding these announcements?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, one principal wrote to me to say, “What is written here is significant and far better than I have seen from any Government. It is clear that you have listened.”; another principal wrote that she jumped for joy when she heard about the investment into learning support; and, finally, I received this text from another principal, saying, “Thanks for listening and understanding what we need to enhance the educational chances for all students. I have just put off my retirement so I can be part of these exciting changes.” Instead of spending the last 18 months on Cabinet papers that went nowhere and reviews that delivered nothing, we have just got on with delivering.

Rima Nakhle: This side of the House is so happy. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Everything all right down there?

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

10. 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, and especially around driving economic growth. That’s why our Government is proud to have introduced Investment Boost—a tax incentive which makes it easier for tradies and farmers and small-business owners to invest in new assets, to increase productivity and lift wages. It’s only through a strong, growing economy that we can create the jobs, lift wages, and help New Zealanders get ahead and deal with the cost of living.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned, then, that the Treasury’s forecast in his Budget found that child poverty rates are set to remain overall at their current levels until at least 2029, meaning tens of thousands of tamariki will continue to grow up in conditions that will undermine their chances of a healthy, productive life?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there is always more for us to do around improving and fighting child poverty. But the way we do that is that we run a really good economy, and that means cutting the wasteful spending, lowering inflation, lowering interest rates, getting the economy growing so that people have great jobs and great work, and that’s what we’re doing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned, then, that Treasury forecasts found the two primary policy changes noted in his Budget’s Child Poverty Report—which is lifting the Working for Families threshold and changes to the accommodation supplement—will not have a statistically significant impact on child poverty measures?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually proud of this Budget, because what we’re doing is growing our economy so that we can lift wages for all. We are making sure that we actually have targeted cost of living support for Working for Families that is helpful for low and middle income working families, but, importantly, it’s getting the macroeconomics right. It’s about managing this economy well, and that’s what this coalition Government is doing. We’re getting on, fixing up the mess left behind, and dealing with it.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Dr Bonnie Robinson, director of the Salvation Army’s Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit, who said, “This Budget shows a government content with maintaining the status quo in terms of child poverty. But when the status quo means children living in cars and families relying on foodbanks, that is simply not good enough.”, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think it’s a bit rich coming from the member whose Government—that last Labour - Greens Government—had 23,000 more kids go into poverty. This is a Government that’s working incredibly hard and has prioritised economic growth so that we can actually help all families do well in New Zealand. We’re proud of what we’ve got going on here. We have got rid of the wasteful spending. We’ve got inflation down, lowering the cost of living. We have wages growing faster than inflation every quarter of this Government, unlike the previous one.

Hon Marama Davidson: Can he explain how cutting financial support for around 13,000 low-income households who have boarders, often family, to make ends meet, is consistent with a commitment to reduce child poverty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s all about fairness and making sure that when an assessment’s undertaken to get support from the taxpayers, all sources of revenue are considered in that. That’s an anomaly that we’re fixing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with economist Shamubeel Eaqub that this Budget is “anti - young people, anti - poor people and anti - brown people.”, or is this a mischaracterisation of cuts to early childhood education funding, cuts to young people’s benefits, or removing targeted funding for Māori housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. As the member talked on housing, I think this is a Government that’s incredibly proud of its housing record. We have house prices stable, we have rents stable, we have taken 7,000 people off the social housing register, and, most importantly, we’ve taken 2,100 kids out of motel emergency accommodation and they’re in great homes with social housing providers and with Kāinga Ora. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yelling across the House like that is just not on. It’s something I’ve tended to tolerate because of the member’s position in the House but it can’t continue.

Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety

11. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her proposed changes to WorkSafe; if so, why?

Absolutely—last year, I travelled New Zealand and heard from businesses, workers, and people who deal with health and safety every day who wished for more guidance and help from WorkSafe on how to comply with health and safety legislation, only to be told it’s not WorkSafe’s job. My reforms address this issue.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was she advised in her briefing to the incoming Minister that “organisations inspected by WorkSafe have lower rates of serious ACC claims compared to non-inspected organisations.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’d have to cast my mind back nearly 18 months to all of the briefings that I received when I first arrived, but if I look at one of the briefings that I know I did see, because I still have this one in front of me, this was the Business Leaders’ Health and Safety Forum report, which found that in comparison to another country that we quite often compare ourselves to—Australia—we have far more use of enforceable undertakings than Australia, we’ve had more legal proceedings yet fewer won than Australia, we’ve had far more fines imposed relative to our economic size than Australia, but we don’t have the same proactive relationship. That’s the report that I recall seeing and that’s what I’m focusing on.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she stand by her April 2024 statement, “If people know that there’s a possibility for a labour inspectorate agent to come into their place, or the WorkSafe agents to come into their place and inspect whether they are complying with the law, you’ve got both a carrot for compliance and the stick.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Of course I do. That’s exactly what’s still happening. We have WorkSafe inspectors going into worksites every day. That’s not stopping; that’s continuing. We’re still having enforcement activity, prosecutions will still happen, and it’s important that we do have that stick. But what we’ve heard time and time again from business owners and workers is that when they’ve been asking for guidance and advice on what they need to do to comply with the law, they haven’t received it. It’s important we have the upfront guidance for people who are asking for it so that WorkSafe is there to help; it’s not just there to harm.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Will her changes refocusing WorkSafe from an enforcement agency to an advisory agency decrease workplace accident and fatality rates; if so, by how much?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My intention with this policy is worker safety. We want businesses, we want workers, and we want WorkSafe focused on critical risks, the activities that will lead to death and serious injury. We have had far too much focus on tick-box exercises—making sure that people are complying and having a paper trail rather than identifying those critical and serious risks so we can focus on it, we can have guidance for it, and we can make sure that our workers are safe.

Hon Jan Tinetti: What modelling has she commissioned that shows refocusing WorkSafe from an enforcement agency to an advisory agency will decrease workplace injury and fatality rates?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I think the member will be very aware that we are a Government, we are not a business. We set the rules that allow businesses to then follow them, and there are more things that happen in a business than just the rule that the Government sets. You’ve got the health and safety; you’ve got the Holidays Act; you’ve got so much red-tape regulation imposed by Government; you’ve got individual contributions; you’ve got managers, workers, individual workplace relationships. It’s not possible to model every single interaction that workers and businesses have on a shop floor. But what we can say with confidence is that our intention is that we will see a decrease in deaths and a decrease in serious injury because we are asking business owners, workers, and WorkSafe to focus on reductions of critical risks.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she still expect WorkSafe to undertake at least 2,200 interventions a year to ensure minimum compliance with employment standards, as they were required to do under now removed performance measures?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The previous Government removed and changed performance measures within WorkSafe. We have not seen good accountability of WorkSafe for years. We, as a Government, are refocusing WorkSafe’s efforts so we know where the money is going, we know that it’s being spent on guidance documents for businesses and workers who are struggling to know how to follow the rules. It needs to be easier, but we’re also asking them to enforce the law too. You can have both the carrot and stick.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about social housing tenancies?

Talofa lava e te Māngai o te Whare. In March 2024, the Government directed Kāinga Ora to remove the Sustaining Tenancies Framework and take firm action against abusive Kāinga Ora tenants. Over the past 12 months to April 2025, 63 tenancies have been terminated for disruptive and abusive behaviour—a significant increase on the previous 12 months, which saw 11 tenancies terminated; and two the year before, 2022-23. This is highlighting improvements in Kāinga Ora tenancy management as a result of firmer and faster action being taken.

Paulo Garcia: How have these improvements been achieved?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Under the previous Sustaining Tenancies Framework, disruptive and abusive behaviour in taxpayer-subsidised Kāinga Ora homes had little formal response from Kāinga Ora, resulting in some communities living in angst and in fear. Kāinga Ora has increased their use of formal notices under the Residential Tenancies Act by 600 percent on last year’s activity, with 1,463 being issued in this financial year. Where tenants receive three formal notices, Kāinga Ora can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to end the tenancy. Only 2 percent of notices issued in the past 10 months have been third notices, signalling that the change of approach is working.

Paulo Garcia: What impact is this having on communities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We believe in strong whānau and strong communities. The vast majority of the tenants across the 76,000 Kāinga Ora homes are neither disruptive nor abusive. The approach this Government is taking ultimately benefits everyone involved by recalibrating negative behaviour through formal warnings and following through with real consequences in the rare circumstances that tenants’ behaviour doesn’t improve. This Government will not tolerate disruptive or abusive behaviour in Kāinga Ora housing, and there are many, many whānau on the social housing register that are willing to move into such housing if vacated.

Paulo Garcia: What supports are in place for tenants who receive formal warnings or have their tenancies terminated?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are many support services—transitional housing, Housing First, rapid rehousing, housing support products—that provide financial assistance and tautoko, including rent and bond support. Kāinga Ora uses relocation to another neighbourhood as a tool to incentivise tenants to change their behaviour, unless the behaviour is very severe. If the tenancy is terminated and another home is not offered, Kāinga Ora often seeks to help them move on by referring tenants to an alternative provider and support service. Where such whānau have significant vulnerabilities, Kāinga Ora will try to work with providers and support services to secure accommodation before ending the tenancy.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Finance and Expenditure Committee

1. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: Why did he respond to the referral by the House to the Finance and Expenditure Committee of the Regulatory Standards Bill with a six-month reporting deadline by issuing a call for submissions with a four-week deadline?

I received a letter as Finance and Expenditure Committee chair from the Minister for Regulation on 23 May stating that he had misspoken on his intended report back during the first reading on 22 May, when he stated, “I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 23 December.”, when he in fact meant to say 23 September. Taking the Minister at his word, my decision, which I’m empowered to make as chair, was to open submissions for four weeks from 26 May. Submissions will close on 23 June.

Stuart Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that Labour are out of supplementary questions.

SPEAKER: Well, they might be, but this is nothing to do with the normal question roster, and for a question to a member, it’s entirely at the Speaker’s discretion.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Will he call meetings and manage the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s business in accordance with a shortened time frame, as requested by David Seymour; or in accordance with a six-month time frame accorded by this House, given the considerable interest in the Regulatory Standards Bill?

CAMERON BREWER: The member can make as many claims as he wants, but he is dancing on the head of a pin. Can I quote that according to McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, “it is not uncommon for bills referred to select committee for four months to have a submissions period of four weeks”. In fact, the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill and the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill are both currently being considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for four weeks.

SPEAKER: Would the member now like to address the question that was asked, which essentially was asking: is the decision of this House to be disregarded?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This House has issued no such explicit instruction; there is no such decision to regard. There’s merely a default convention.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry, but the Standing Orders disagree with you. Please answer the question.

CAMERON BREWER: I genuinely believe that it was not the intention of the House. The member clearly misspoke. He would not have put a seven-month report back on, nor would have he suggested it be reported back a week after Parliament rises before Christmas.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very simple: will he do what this House has directed; or will he do what David Seymour, by correspondence, has directed? He still hasn’t addressed the question.

SPEAKER: Well, he did in his earlier answer point to the fact that—he quoted McGee, which is a great document of guidance to this House, augmented by the work of Dr David Wilson who sits in front of me, making it very clear that those decisions can be made by the chair of the select committee, which he’s done. That will end the matter.