Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s fiscal position?

I have seen a lot of reports recently. Some suggest the Government should impose new taxes, ramp up spending, and increase debt. I completely disagree with those suggestions. An economic recovery is now under way, but we cannot take it for granted. More taxes, more spending, and more debt would kill the recovery and take New Zealand backwards. The most important thing for Budget 2025 is to ensure we protect and enhance economic growth. In Thursday’s Budget, we will do just that.

SPEAKER: Good. Well, just for clarity as we continue, answers to questions or supplementary questions should be from a Government perspective.

Cameron Brewer: What happens when the Government spends more than it raises in revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: When that happens, the Government’s books are in deficit and it is borrowing to bridge the gap. Sometimes, running a deficit makes sense, but the thing to avoid is a structural deficit—when the deficit is not due to one-off events and not due to the current state of the economy. A structural deficit shows a fundamental mismatch between Government spending and revenue that would persist throughout the economic cycle. In 2023, this Government inherited a structural deficit caused by a sharp and unsustainable increase in spending. In Thursday’s Budget, members will see the progress we are making towards correcting that deficit with careful and responsible fiscal management.

Cameron Brewer: What happens if Government debt gets too high?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, higher debt means higher interest costs and, therefore, less money to fund public services. For example, the current interest bill on our debt is around $9 billion. For context, members, that is enough to pay for the entire operations of the New Zealand Police, the New Zealand Defence Force, the justice department, the Customs Service, and the prison service combined. Higher debt also constrains the Government’s ability to respond to a shock like an earthquake or a severe weather event. Treasury’s analysis shows that it’s unwise to have Government debt over 50 percent of GDP. I agree with that ceiling; so did Grant Robertson. Others think debt should go higher, then it shouldn’t, then it should again—it’s hard to keep up. For our part, the Government’s fiscal strategy is to put net core Crown debt on a downward trajectory towards 40 percent of GDP. Thursday’s Budget will show how we intend to achieve that.

SPEAKER: The question needs to be answered with some focus on the question.

Cameron Brewer: How will the Government fund new initiatives in Budget 2025?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Budget 2025 will contain initiatives to support economic growth and invest in the public services Kiwis rely on. The vast bulk of these initiatives will be funded from savings. As in last year’s Budget, existing areas of spending will be—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just stop there—stop. That’s just an unacceptable barrage. It’s not an interjection; it’s just heckling. It’s to stop. The Minister may continue.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As in last year’s Budget, existing areas of spending will be redirected towards higher priorities. Without these savings, new initiatives would have to be funded from yet more borrowing or by yet more taxes. Either would put New Zealand’s economic recovery at risk. Members opposite should consider—

SPEAKER: No—no need to comment on those.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who’s correct: the Prime Minister, who says the Government’s decision to unilaterally extinguish 33 active pay equity claims, covering hundreds of thousands of low-paid Kiwis—mostly women—and saving billions of dollars, was nothing to do with the Budget; or Brooke van Velden, who told the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions that the pay equity changes hadn’t been a priority for her, but her Cabinet colleagues had asked her to bring that work forward?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As the Minister has described before, it’s been a focus for the Minister from when we came to Government. It’s been a series of conversations over the course of the last 18 months, and we got to the decision we made last week.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government bring forward legislative changes to the pay equity regime—passing them into law immediately before the Budget—if not to save money?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because our primary focus is to fix the mess that we inherited to make it workable and affordable, and so that we don’t have librarians being compared to fisheries officers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he commit to revealing the impact on the Government’s accounts of scrapping all 33 existing pay equity claims on Budget day; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the first thing I’d say in answer to the member is that all individuals, all unions are encouraged—if they have a pay equity claim—to make a claim under the new laws. But of course, in the course of our Budget, we’ll be talking about our full fiscal situation on Thursday.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is buying new military equipment no longer Budget sensitive, but the cost of a law change Parliament has already passed, extinguishing 33 active pay equity claims, is still Budget sensitive?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The member will be aware from his time in Government that there is a series of pre-Budget announcements. Not everything is announced in advance of the Budget. Everything will be revealed on Budget day on Thursday.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he continue to diminish the value of work being done by low-paid workforces that are dominated by women, arguing that it is somehow wrong to compare the value of their work to work of comparable value undertaken by men?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to that member: there’s nothing stopping individuals’ unions making a claim under the new pay equity laws. The way that the member and his party has characterised this is scaremongering, disingenuous. This is a Government that backs pay equity and it’s a Government that backs equal pay.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with teacher-aide Jan Monds, who said: “the government have let us know that they really don’t value us nor the work [that] we do.”, and, if so, how can he justify sidelining front-line women workers like Jan to pay for tax breaks for landlords and tobacco companies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question. As teacher-aides have already had a pay equity settlement, I’d just say to the member the facts of this Government are very clear: this is a Government that’s not getting rid of equal pay. We’re not getting rid of collective bargaining. We’re not getting rid of pay equity. We’re not cutting women’s pay. We’re not reversing settled pay equity claims. We’re making sure we fix up Labour’s unworkable and unaffordable programme—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Listen, there’s going to be no further warnings. If people are going to keep up with that barrage, someone will representatively leave the Chamber.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with aged care worker Marianne Bishop, who warned his decision to cut the active pay equity claims “is going to make it harder to recruit and retain staff.” and asked, “Why would you want to work in aged care when you can get the same amount at a supermarket or McDonalds?”; if so, how does he expect to maintain essential care workers under those kinds of conditions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would just encourage—as I keep saying in answer to the previous questions—I encourage any individual, any union to make a pay equity claim under the new legislation. We fully expect, sadly, that there will be pay equity claims. The Government has put money aside to fund those, and we will continue to support that.

SPEAKER: Question No. 3—just a minute. When everyone’s stopped having their little across-the-House natter, we’ll move on.

Question No. 3—Infrastructure

3. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent reports has he seen about New Zealand’s Infrastructure Pipeline?

Today, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission released the March 2025 quarterly update. It shows that there is $206.9 billion worth of projects in the pipeline—an increase of nearly $3 billion since the last quarter. It also shows the value of projects in the pipeline, where the confirmed funding source has increased by $3.7 billion, up to $111.6 billion. The commission tells me that this year there will be at least $16.6 billion spent across all infrastructure sectors, representing 4 percent of GDP.

Catherine Wedd: What does that National Infrastructure Pipeline do?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The pipeline provides a national view of current and future infrastructure projects: transport, energy, three waters, health, courts, schools, data centres, and more. It has information on over 8,000 infrastructure projects that are under way or being planned. There are currently 114 infrastructure providers from central government, local government, and the private sector that contribute to the pipeline. There’s a few recalcitrant councils that are not yet contributing and I encourage them to participate so we get them into the pipeline.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the National Infrastructure Pipeline important?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Some of the feedback that I think all members of Parliament receive around the traps is that it is important to have a public pipeline that is credible. It’s good for the sector, including contractors and engineers. It helps people plan for major upcoming projects, ensuring they can hire and retain key staff and invest in equipment. Most importantly, a strong pipeline means a growing and more productive economy, with more jobs and more opportunities that lift living standards for all New Zealanders.

Catherine Wedd: What has he done to improve the pipeline?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: When we came into Government, just 30 councils contributed to the pipeline. Members will be aware that councils are, of course, a major contributor to infrastructure around the country, particularly through transport spending. Thirty councils is not good enough, so we have encouraged all the councils to participate. And now 64—so that’s over double—are now contributing to the pipeline and, as I say, there are 14, I think, that need to lift their game and contribute. We’ll be following up with them. We will continue to make further improvements to the pipeline so that all New Zealanders, particularly the sector, have a clear and visible view about the great infrastructure work happening around the country.

Question No. 4—Rail

4. to the Minister for Rail: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding rail?

Budget 2025 allocates $604 million for rail, a sector generating $3.3 billion each year for the economy. This comprises $461 million for the national network and $143 million for Auckland and Wellington metropolitan networks. This is lifeblood economic investment, replacing bridges, culverts, sleepers, rail, and all the things that make the network work. Rail is what keeps our coastal ports moving, enabling more ships, which drives exports, imports, and trade for an export-dependent nation.

Jenny Marcroft: How does the Government’s funding commitment support commuters?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The $143 million announced today continues replenishing the busy Auckland and Wellington metropolitan networks. More than 22 million commuter journeys use the train in Auckland and Wellington, and that figure will rise once the City Rail Link opens—widely supported across the House—and when new trains arrive in Wellington. Reliability is what gets people using public transport, and fixing the network underpins the entire metro system. It’s all good news.

Jenny Marcroft: What rail announcements has the Government made for the South Island?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, last Friday, we officially opened the Hillside Workshops in Dunedin, re-energising mechanical engineering and freeing up land for private industrial development. On the same day, the Hon Shane Jones announced an $8.2 million contribution to Southern Link Logistics. This will build a three-track rail-siding into the venture, and adding road freight to feed the inland hub and rail to take it the distance. This is standard, efficient economics around the world, and we are putting our rail system back together again. And let’s not forget, the entire South Island will remain connected to rail thanks to our decision to keep rail ferries on the Cook Strait.

Jenny Marcroft: Has the Minister seen any reports on light rail?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, alarmingly, I did. Last week, we were stunned to see a proposal to build light rail in three cities for $11 billion.

SPEAKER: I’ll just point out to the member that you can’t use a supplementary to attack Opposition parties in the House. I’m sure he can work his way through that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What suggests I’m attacking anybody at the moment? Are you a mind-reader?

SPEAKER: I know. I most certainly wasn’t. I was just reminding someone, which is not an unreasonable—it’s a very polite thing to do on my part.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I start again? Yes indeed, last week we were stunned to see a proposal to build light rail in three cities—in three cities—for $11 billion, when Auckland alone would have cost $15 billion at the minimum, and some were saying $30 billion. So today we have shown what heavyweight rail looks like, and it contrasts sharply with lightweight railers and wailers. If they want an education, pull into the station.

SPEAKER: Very good.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Fa‘afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with Hon Brooke van Velden that “the Government, under Minister Nicola Willis’ pay equity reset, suggested that the funded sector would not be funded by the Government for pay equity”; if so, how much was set aside in Budget 2024 for the funded sector pay equity claims?

Minister van Velden’s full quote begins with: “My understanding is that this may have been information provided maybe a year ago”, and I agree that was her understanding when she answered the question. The Government, last year, made a series of decisions, starting with the pay equity reset, and through to recent decisions this year that have removed the assumption that all funded sector claims will always be fully funded by the Government. We do expect pay equity claims will be progressed against private sector employers, including some who rely on Government funding. Cabinet has agreed that any Government contribution towards future costs from funded sector pay equity settlements will no longer come from a specified contingency, but will instead be managed within existing baselines or against future Budget operating allowances. In answer to the second part of the question: a contingency was retained in Budget 2024, but I will not be outlining the size of it today or at the Budget, because I am advised that to do so could compromise future negotiations. I will be making transparent, at the Budget, the overall sum of pay equity savings returned from various contingencies.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has any Minister sought Cabinet approval to increase their operating baselines, due to the change in the pay equity contingency?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, but I would note that pay equity has been noted as a fiscal risk in Treasury documents for some time, and that will remain the case at this Budget.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How is this process fairer when the public has no idea if there is enough money to cover the costs of future claims?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to stress that when the member discusses the funded sector, what she is talking about are private sector employers, some of whom are listed, profitable entities on the New Zealand Stock Exchange. What our Government does not think is wise is to say to those employers, “Go to the bargaining table without us, bargain whatever you like, and we’ll write you a blank cheque.” That was the approach of the last Government, and we do not think it is wise.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does this provide assurance to sectors such as hospice nurses who are looking to make a pay equity claim, when the criteria has been significantly tightened and they have no idea if their claim will be funded?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would offer any worker in the aged-care sector—in the sector that the member raises—this assurance: if you have a claim based on sex-based discrimination, we encourage you to raise that claim and it will be judged according to the legal framework; where that claim relates to sex-based discrimination, settlements will be reached. When it comes to other issues to do with working conditions and pay, issues that arise for every worker in New Zealand, the normal bargaining process will continue.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said, with respect to the funded sector, “we’ll look at those as they come through case by case.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do agree with the Prime Minister, but I find it interesting that that member doesn’t seem to agree with her leader’s views on debt.

SPEAKER: No, no. Don’t comment on that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How was this process clearer, when the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, just last week, said that the funded sector will not be funded; the Prime Minister says it will be on a case by case basis; and she won’t confirm if there is sufficient money for the funded sector that has been set aside?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I again reiterate the principle I outlined earlier, which is that we do not think it is wise, when the Government is not at the negotiating table, to write a blank cheque for every single private sector employer who may have a pay equity claim raised against them. In fact, what we think would be best is if those employers did pay their workers fairly, and where that doesn’t occur, and where there is sex-based discrimination, those workers raise claims. And if we are required to give funding to help support those providers to meet those settlements, we will consider it on a case by case basis, trading it off against all of the other priorities that every Government faces.

Hon David Seymour: Has she, as the Minister of Finance, encountered any circumstances where huge promises were made to the public and there really wasn’t any money set aside to pay for them?

SPEAKER: Well, in so much as it relates to Government activity, that question could be answered. But it cannot be used as an attack on a previous Government, as the member knows.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, those examples were riddled through the set of Government books that this Government inherited. I want to point out, in respect of pay equity, that the last Government never made it transparent that it was allowing to go through to forecasts, the costs of Cabinet decisions that were made to fully fund all private sector claims—that money was never revealed to New Zealand, that decision was not made transparent or clear, and I’m proud that our Government is being far more up front.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She just didn’t bother to read it.

SPEAKER: Oh, well, someone’s going to have a lot of time for reading, very shortly.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on delivering new and improved urgent and after-hours services?

As part of Budget 2025, Kiwis needing care will benefit from our $164 million funding boost for urgent and after-hours services across the country. Once implemented, our investment will mean that 98 percent of New Zealanders will be able to receive in-person urgent care within one hour’s drive of their homes. We’re taking action so that Kiwis across the country will have better access to the care they need when they need it, because delivering timely, quality healthcare is a key priority for this Government.

Sam Uffindell: How will this announcement improve access to 24/7 urgent care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good news: Budget 2025 will support five new 24/7 urgent care services identified in Counties Manukau, Whangārei, Tauranga, Palmerston North, and Dunedin. These new services will help ease pressure on hospitals and keep emergency department (ED) wait times down. We know that around 450,000 emergency department attendances each year are considered lower urgency, and many of these patients could be suitable for treatment through urgent care services as an alternative to EDs, helping to reduce pressure on our emergency departments.

Sam Uffindell: What does this announcement mean for other urgent and after-hours services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Around 5,000 New Zealanders visit urgent care clinics every day, but the availability of after-hours services has declined in recent years and access remains variable across the country. That’s why this announcement is so important. Funding through Budget 2025 allows us to maintain existing urgent and after-hours healthcare services across the country whilst also identifying new and extended daytime urgent care services in other provincial towns and cities, benefiting the great people of Lower Hutt, Invercargill, and Timaru, and extending hours in other towns up and down the country.

Sam Uffindell: What is the Government doing to strengthen our primary care workforce?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: To support this announcement, the Government is also focusing on expanding the health workforce in primary care. That’s why this investment builds on our primary care announcements made in March. Through that package was training for GPs and nurses, providing training pathways for overseas doctors, and funding new incentives to attract and retain staff in primary care. We’re delivering 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors in primary care, 100 additional doctor training places at our medical schools over the course of this Government, up to 50 graduate doctors training in primary care annually, up to 120 training places for nurse practitioners in primary care annually, accelerated tertiary education for up to 120 primary care nurses, and recruitment incentives for up to 400 graduate nurses into primary care each and every year.

Question No. 7—Workplace Relations and Safety

7. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that “the Government, under Minister Nicola Willis’ pay equity reset, suggested that the funded sector would not be funded by the Government for pay equity”; if not, why not?

I do stand by my full statement, in the context it was made, and also my clarification later in the same line of questioning, where I said that we will still be funding some of these claims. However, I acknowledge that if the member had put that specific question in writing, she would’ve received a more nuanced answer. To clear things up, the pay equity reset that I referred to last week included a decision to remove Cabinet’s agreement in principle to fund claims in the funded sector. Decisions for the Government’s role in funding future funded sector claims will be considered on a case by case basis.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was Cabinet informed about whether the Government would fund pay equity claims in the funded sector or not?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I refer to my previous answer that this was a discussion that was made last year, but anything that relates to anything Budget sensitive or to do with funding that could be related to this Budget is not a question that should be for me; it should be directed to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is it the case that pay equity claims in the funded sector will now go through the process of having their claim heard without knowing whether the Government will actually fund it if successful?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Referring to my previous answers, what this Government has done is remove the default setting of the previous Government that when people are negotiating, the Government will fund it. It is true that this decision will be done on a case by case basis now.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Who will pay for potentially successful pay equity claims for hospice workers, Plunket nurses, and early childhood teachers, if not the Government?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: It will be for the taxpayer and it will be for the private organisations.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Has the Government been inconsistent and opaque about the funded sector on purpose to discourage future pay equity claims within that sector?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No. There’s a few things to ensure we get across as a Government. The pay equity system remains; people can still bring a pay equity claim. What this Government has done is remove the default setting that the previous Cabinet agreed to, that there would be funding by default for all funded sector claims. That is a decision that was made by this Cabinet, which I referred to last week, which the member would’ve been aware of last year.

Hon Jan Tinetti: When did she first become aware that her statement to the House last week was incorrect?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: It is not incorrect; I’ve simply clarified it for the member.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. 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.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will his funding boost to urgent care include making services free and publicly delivered to ensure cost is not a barrier to accessing urgent healthcare?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we’re doing—and I thank the member for their question and for raising the investment that the Government is putting in to expand urgent care and after-hours services—is we are making sure that we are targeting our support for children, for young people, and for those on community services cards, and as part of this process we want to see a clearer framework on fees overall.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that urgent-care services can be prohibitively expensive, with one woman in Palmerston North paying $260 just to be seen, and, if so, what action will he take to reduce the cost of these services?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Government’s putting in $164 million to make sure that we stabilise the existing services so people have access to services when they need them, and, importantly, as I said in answer to the first question, we are targeting children, young people, and those on community services cards—those that are most vulnerable and those that most need it.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept the view of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners that there are not enough doctors to staff his urgent-care announcements, and, if so, will he lift the funding cap to maximise the training placements at Otago and Auckland universities to 889 by the year 2027?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just say to the member that there have been a series of announcements over the course of this year, where we have talked about expanding the number of training places for doctors in our medical schools. I think there’ll be something like an extra hundred added into our medical schools just over the term of this Government. We’ve also talked about doctors that may have been qualified in overseas jurisdictions and how we can get them working in our GP and primary-care sector as well, as well as massive investment with our nurses to make sure we can get more nurse prescribers and more nurse practitioners working in primary care. I think if the member took a step back and looked at the series of announcements that we’ve made, she would see that we are doing everything we can to make sure we improve our healthcare system, which is important.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he fund pay parity for the primary care nurses working in urgent care so they are paid the same as Te Whatu Ora nurses, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, our Government’s putting more money into healthcare than any other Government in the history of New Zealand. The Minister of Finance has already foreshadowed that we’ll have more money for healthcare in the Budget, and we are doing everything we can to make sure that we put more money in, that we hire more doctors and nurses, and that we have clarity on the targets of what we expect the healthcare system to deliver, and we need to improve the performance of Health New Zealand big time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If, as it’s been claimed, the average New Zealand household is earning $433 billion a year, why has he got problems with social welfare delivery?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m not quite sure how to answer that question, if I’m really honest with you.

SPEAKER: The point is you don’t have to answer it, because it’s not about an action the Government is taking, nor something the Prime Minister is responsible for.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: This better be a good one.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, there was a claim on the weekend exactly saying that—$433 billion per year for an average New Zealand household. Now, around about then, I thought some of our colleagues have missed what’s going on, and maybe we’ve been far too stringent about social policy delivery in this country.

SPEAKER: Well, let me be clear—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do you want me to table the document?

SPEAKER: You can attempt to table any document at any time, but the Prime Minister cannot make a response to something that is clearly an initiative from another party.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why would nurses want to work in primary or urgent care when they would get paid more working in our hospitals as a result of the pay gap between Te Whatu Ora and primary care nurses?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we have a lot of work to do in our healthcare system, and this is a Government that is spending more. It is recruiting more nurses. I think there’s been 1,700 more nurses added to our system and 200 more doctors added to our system since we came to power, and, importantly, we’re making sure that actually our nurses are well paid. They are paid on average, I think, $126,000, including allowances, and that is comparable to what they receive in New South Wales, which is, of course, 30 to 35 percent wealthier than New Zealand.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his own statement that “Where we see it, we call it out.”, in response to being asked about the “Māorification” of New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just would caution the member that there was a media outlet that interviewed me earlier in the week and has subsequently corrected what it reported on because it was incorrect. But what I’ve said to you was it was particularly on an issue around stop-go signs. We expect stop-go signs to be unambiguous as to what the direction is to motorists because it’s about road safety. That’s a legitimate thing.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: As a Prime Minister, does he have responsibility to “call out divisive rhetoric” such as the term “Māorification”—misunderstood or not—instead of enabling it as it is perceived in the interviews?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s that member’s judgment. I disagree with the characterisation of that question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: As Prime Minister, does he believe it is appropriate to challenge the use of te reo and the promotion of tikanga, rather than taking a position of promoting it and supporting it as part of Te Tiriti obligations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have official languages in this country—te reo, New Zealand Sign Language, and of course English—and we support all languages.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does the term “Māorification” mean to the Prime Minister, given he had no issue with answering the questions about it yesterday?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I refuse—I don’t know what the member’s actually asking the question about. I mean, that’s not a term that I’ve used.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sorry—to the Speaker: I wasn’t able to hear that answer.

SPEAKER: No, that can be a problem at times. The Prime Minister may wish to make the answer again.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I haven’t used the term.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he give an example of when his Government has proactively sought tikanga Māori advice to guide decision making in his term of Parliament?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think we’ve had very good advice from iwi leaders around the country. I’m thinking particularly in Tairāwhiti, where last Friday we opened up 149 social homes, which is a great collaboration between iwi, Government, and also business, and that was very good advice—

SPEAKER: Prime Minister, you’re going to start again, and the question will be heard in silence. Now that’s the last warning at that barracking. I’m going to turn around, see someone participating, and they’re off for the afternoon.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t dispute that at all. I just note that there have been three warnings to this House in regard to barracking. However, you’ve had to intervene on eight separate occasions to remind Ministers not to use questions to have a pot-shot at the Opposition and I note there have been no warnings given to them.

SPEAKER: Well, if you consider that my raising it so frequently on the first day of the week was not effectively a warning, then you perhaps don’t know how I operate. There is going to be a day where a Minister is going to overstep and that will be the end of their week.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There have been many instances where we take advice from iwi leaders. In particular, I’m thinking of two. One is with respect to our conversations around the Waikato-Tainui Brookfield infrastructure investment, which is an extra billion-dollar investment that’s come together to expand the Ruakura Superhub. The second one that I was alluding to was the outstanding work—the really exciting work—where we’ve seen iwi, Government, and business come together and collaborate in an awesome way to deliver 149 homes to iwi community. To be able to speak with those people who are getting their very first homes because of that collaboration was pretty special for Minister Potaka, myself, and Minister Mitchell last week.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he accept that his Government’s decisions, including repealing Te Aka Whai Ora, removing Treaty clauses, the Regulatory Standards Bill, and the unprecedented suspension of Māori MPs, are being seen by many as an attack on Māori—

SPEAKER: No, sorry. That’s the end of that question. You got that hopelessly wrong. Now, I’ll be very generous and give the member one more shot, but you ask the Government questions about the Government, not about Parliament.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Ka pai. Does he accept that his Government’s decisions, including repealing Te Aka Whai Ora, removing Treaty clauses, introducing the Regulatory Standards Bill, are being seen by many as an attack on Māori visibility and voice?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. I think Māori, when they see inflation down from 7.2 to 2.5 percent, when they see interest rates coming down an extra $300 a fortnight on a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years, and they see a growing economy, and they see iwi doing deals with international infrastructure firms, they understand this is a Government that’s working hard for Māori and non-Māori, women and men, and all New Zealanders.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: We’ll just wait for silence.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Just in respect of the earlier question that was answered in respect to the “Māorification”, I just need to clarify—sorry to the Speaker; there was a lot of noise—that the Prime Minister has refuted that that interview that has been circulated is incorrect. That’s what we heard, isn’t it?

SPEAKER: No, he said in answer to your question that he didn’t use the term. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Just, sorry—point of order.

SPEAKER: This is not the place to debate that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, hang on, a bit of order. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister: in the question on the issue of “Māorification”, would it be “Māorification” if every Thursday I went down and got myself a suntan?

SPEAKER: No. That is one of those questions where I made the point before to the Hon Kieran McAnulty that at some point, some Minister is going to overstep and take an early afternoon. So I’d suggest that the Rt Hon Winston Peters remove himself from the House now. [Interruption] Well, you didn’t hear what I said earlier, unfortunately. It’s not debatable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll be back—don’t you worry.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s something that everyone’s noticed throughout your career.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Mr Speaker, a new point of order, please.

SPEAKER: It had better be a new point of order.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yeah, I think it is. So what I was getting at is that while I understand that the Prime Minister did not make the comment, he does have a responsibility to the culture of the comment, and the answering of it—

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on—no. I’m sorry, you can’t ask me to start interpreting your questions for the Prime Minister. That is not a point of order.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions relating to pay equity?

Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received any advice from officials on the potential sex-based undervaluation of secondary school teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, I have received some verbal advice.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. I’m terribly sorry, but I don’t think the microphone’s working. We couldn’t hear that.

Well, OK. There’s obviously a problem with the microphone. Can someone who is in the booth pick that up and try and sort that out? If the member doesn’t mind, we could move to question No. 11 and you start your question again, if you want. Is that OK?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is more responsible: an emissions reduction plan to reduce gross climate-changing emissions, or banking a third of your climate plan on unproven technology—as his Government has—which the private sector, this week, tells us is economically unviable?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry—I missed a part of the question. Can you repeat it?

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is more responsible—

SPEAKER: No—hang on. It’s not that he couldn’t hear it; it’s just that you are speaking very, very quickly, and perhaps the intention of the question was missed. Just present a little more slowly, if that’s OK—for old people like me.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What is more responsible: an emissions reduction plan to reduce gross climate-changing emissions, or banking a third of your climate plan on unproven technology, as his Government has, which the private sector, this week, tells us is economically unviable?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member knows, we have an emissions reduction plan 1 and 2. They are on track to deliver our—

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, they’re not!

SPEAKER: Look, I’m sorry, an outburst like that is going to see you join Mr Peters in the lobby. It’s just not acceptable.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That is a horrible threat.

SPEAKER: Punishment can be rough sometimes! Prime Minister, you could start answering that question again.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member knows, we are on track to meet our emissions carbon net zero 2050. In fact, under emissions reduction plans 1 and 2—and what we see as the outlook for emissions reduction plan 3—while there’s more work to do, there’s even a possibility we could do it six years earlier.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that he is not aware of the fact that the industry—the sector that he is relying on for fully a third of his emissions reduction plan—has come out this past week and said that that technology he is relying on is economically unviable?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m aware of lots of comments about our emissions reduction plan. There are things that are in the plan; there are things that are outside the plan. I’m also aware of things like Fonterra’s programme—which, actually, we haven’t baked fully into the plan—that could be upside. But with respect to carbon storage, we think that’s a very legitimate activity.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister tell the House exactly how high the carbon price would need to be to make the carbon capture and storage projects commercially viable for the likes of Todd Energy at Kapuni Field?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. I’d ask you to listen very carefully to those questions in the context of Speakers’ ruling 196/2. Questions are expected to be shorn of outlandish claims, descriptions of a reality that is not based in fact. That leads to disorder, and we’ve had far too much of it from that particular element of the House.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry that you feel that way. It clearly did not intend to reflect on my judgment, but that’s the consequence, and that has pretty big downside as well. Chlöe Swarbrick, ask the question again, but with that in mind: don’t make outlandish statements in a question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If I may respond to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, not really, no—just carry on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister tell the House exactly how high the carbon price would need to be to make the carbon capture and storage technology—the projects mentioned in his emissions reduction plan—commercially viable for the likes of Todd Energy at Kapuni field?

SPEAKER: You can’t expect the Prime Minister to answer the question that is the right domain of Todd Energy. He’s responsible for a lot of things, but not for the management of that company.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister, then, accept the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment’s Climate Implications of Policy Assessment, which stated that “The emissions impact of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is uncertain. It depends on the extent businesses choose to invest to deploy this technology. There are a limited number of businesses within New Zealand where it would be technically and commercially viable to use CCS given the current cost of this technology.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I mean, there’ll be lots of different technologies that come along our way, as there have been in the last 10 years, as there will be in the next 10 years. Each of them will have a different set of cost parameters and economic viability parameters and, you know, we’ve got a plan at the moment—I’d just reassure the member—that is putting us on track to deliver for net zero 2050. That’s a good thing.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe that “innovation” can lead to better technology with lower cost, and sometimes people even do this “innovation” because of profit?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree—I think the profit motive is a good one to drive innovation and, actually, what we need in this country is more innovation to deliver on our climate objectives, not bankruptcy of farmers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister, then, reject the statements that we have heard on the public record from the sector involved in carbon capture and storage this week, which his Government’s emissions reduction plan relies on for fully a third of its reduction; does he reject their statements that this technology is currently economically unfeasible?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can’t talk for an individual company—

SPEAKER: That’s exactly right. Prime Minister, that’s it. You can’t ask a question—it’s like asking him questions about any old thing at all that he’s got no responsibility for. He’s not responsible for what they think; he’s responsible for Government actions. You could have asked that question a different way; perhaps you should try it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If the Government can act with urgency to cut off 33 active pay equity claims and make it easier to kill our native wildlife—

SPEAKER: No, sorry, you can’t do that either. That question is concluded. Question No. 12, Dana Kirkpatrick. Oh, sorry, we go back to the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions relating to pay equity?

SPEAKER: The Hon Erica Stanford—speaking into the mike would be a good idea.

I was! It’s working now. Yes, in the context of which they were made.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received any advice from officials on the potential sex-based undervaluation of secondary school teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve had a range of verbal advice.

SPEAKER: Now, look—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Sorry, the microphone’s been turned up to maximum. You’re going to have to speak more into the microphone. I couldn’t even hear that.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have had a range of verbal advice from my officials.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What was the advice?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The advice was that, for teachers especially, the situation is somewhat complicated. The unified pay scale makes the situation more complicated, and the advice was that claims may be raised and would be worked through.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received any advice on the cost to settle the now discontinued pay equity claim for secondary school teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received any advice on the cost to settle the now discontinued pay equity claim for primary school teachers and support staff in residential schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Was the Minister made aware that secondary school teachers will not be able make a claim under the new rules prior to the changes being made?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I knew because I understand the ratios of female to male employees in secondary and primary, and I knew that when we were discussing raising the rate that that might have an impact for secondary school teachers.

SPEAKER: The member’s used up all the allocation of questions. Can I thank the member for assisting while we fix up that technical issue.

Question No. 12—Housing

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

This Government is committed to the delivery of more affordable homes in partnership with local communities, including iwi and Māori providers. Last week, along with the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, and the Hon Mark Mitchell, we announced a new partnership with Tairāwhiti iwi collective Toitu Tairawhiti to fund Toitu nearly $50 million to deliver 150 new affordable rentals next to the Gisborne hospital. This marks a significant milestone in the Government’s commitment to partnering to deliver better housing outcomes alongside iwi and Māori. Tino tautoko te Kāwanatanga i ēnei momo mahi. [The Government very much supports these types of endeavours.]

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is the Government partnering an iwi-led housing solution?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Projects like this Gisborne development to build in areas with significant housing needs, like Te Tairāwhiti, should be led by credible and competent groups who know their communities best, and that local leadership is what makes these solutions enduring. This partnership mahi with Toitu Tairawhiti demonstrates confidence in iwi capability and experience, and the Government is investing in improving solutions, where Māori are not just at the table; Māori organisations are designing and delivering the homes and manaakitanga support that their people genuinely need, in places where they need it.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What are the outcomes for whānau from this mahi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Affordable, warm, and secure housing is a foundation to improving whānau outcomes, particularly those who are in emergency housing and other difficult circumstances. This project will enable up to 150 whānau, with some focus on single mothers with young tamariki, to access affordable, quality homes, reducing housing stress and addressing overcrowding. The homes will be developed with wraparound manaakitanga in mind. The kaupapa Māori approach of Toitu Tairawhiti ensures that whānau are supported not just with housing but with access to tautoko that improves health—tinana, body; hinengaro, mind—education, and employment outcomes. That’s the value of a credible iwi- and Māori-led solution.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What will this project do to support the local economy?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The project continues support and tautoko for long-term jobs and regional economic resilience. Homes will be constructed in Tūranga, meaning more local jobs across planning, civil works, and construction phases. It will also provide contracting opportunities for Māori tradespersons and small and medium enterprises, helping to grow the regional economy and enhancing construction capacity to support the five East Coast marae who are receiving funding to rebuild their facilities after last week’s additional announcement regarding recovery from cyclones Gabrielle and Hale.