Oral Questions

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, “What’s mattering most to New Zealanders out there is what we are doing to reduce to the cost of living.”; if so, why is his Government increasing Kiwi household power bills by up to $25 a month through increased transmission and charges during a cost of living crisis? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a reminder that questions are heard in silence.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m very proud of the efforts of our Government to help New Zealanders with the cost of living. That’s why we’re getting control of Government spending, that’s why inflation’s coming down, that’s why interest rates are coming down. I just note that that member didn’t support tax relief for the first time in 14 years for low and middle income workers. We’re doing everything we can to put money back in Kiwis’ pockets.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is his Government’s decision to increase car registration fees by $50 a year, increase taxes on parking fines, and more than double the insurance levies on motor vehicles increasing or decreasing cost of living for Kiwi households?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What is improving the situation for Kiwis’ households is making sure that inflation is coming down, interest rates are coming down, and the economy is starting to grow. It was fantastic to see the economy grow at 0.7 percent in quarter four last year. Importantly, Labour didn’t vote for tax relief, Labour didn’t vote for Working for Families credits, and Labour didn’t vote for FamilyBoost.

SPEAKER: That’s enough—that’s enough. Thank you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will his Government’s plan to increase annual household insurance bills by between $400 and $948 a year increase or decrease the cost of living for Kiwi households?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We don’t set insurance premiums, but what we can control is the environment—which is an economy that’s incredibly well managed—to make sure that we’re bringing spending down, to make sure that we’re bringing inflation down and interest rates down, and that the economy’s growing so people have more money in their pockets and they can access higher-income jobs.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister might have misheard the question when he said the Government doesn’t set insurance levies, given that the question was specifically about the part of household insurance that the Government does set. The Government is currently consulting on a proposal to increase household insurance costs by $400 to $948 per year per household.

SPEAKER: The question is: is it the Government or a Government agency?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s a Government agency. But that is the Government.

SPEAKER: If it has a separate board, then the board will make that decision. But the Prime Minister might want to make that distinction.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s a Government agency. They have a separate board; they can make their own decision.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Government’s decision to reintroduce charges for pharmacy prescriptions, slash public transport subsidies, and increase the cost of rubbish disposal increase or decrease the cost of living for New Zealand families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to that member: I am incredibly proud of what this Government is doing to help New Zealanders with the cost of living crisis. That member and his party did not vote for tax relief—

SPEAKER: No, just talk about the Government.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —they did not support the things that are helping New Zealanders improve their cost of living.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his Government’s decision to increase the minimum wage by less than inflation for two years in a row—meaning those earning the minimum wage earn less now in real terms than two years ago—increase or decrease the cost of living crisis for low-income New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m proud of the fact that we are increasing entitlements by roughly the amount of inflation. But what I’m also proud about is the fact that real wage growth has grown for five quarters in a row, after declining for 13 quarters in a row under that Government.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that levies issued by the Natural Hazards Commission, formerly the Earthquake Commission, are driven by risk and global reinsurance costs; and if indeed the levy does have to increase, it will be because Labour left them—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t ask a question like that. He can’t speculate on that, but he can answer the body of the question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree: insurance levies are based off risk profiles of New Zealand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that “There might be just regular annual increments in some fees and levies across the piece, but that’s not a major focus.”, and, if so, does he acknowledge that increased costs for prescription charges, electricity lines charges, car registrations, car insurance levies, survey and title fees, insurance levies, and, in fact, fuel excise indicate that his priority isn’t fees and levies that impact everyday New Zealanders but rather delivering tax cuts for landlords and tobacco companies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answering part of that question—my focus is on making sure we run a great economy so New Zealanders can get ahead. We inherited a situation where the economy was run into the ground. We are making sure that we do everything we can to get growth back into New Zealand so we get money back into Kiwis’ pockets so they can get out of the mess that we’ve inherited thanks to that last Government.

Question No. 2—Economic Growth

2. to the Minister for Economic Growth: What recent announcements has she made regarding supermarket competition?

On Sunday, I outlined the Government’s next steps to drive more competition in the supermarket sector and deliver better grocery prices for Kiwi shoppers. I announced two things: first, a formal request for information (RFI) process to identify what is needed to support a significant, national-scale competitor to enter our grocery market. Second, I announced that I have commissioned specialist external advice on ways in which the existing supermarket duopoly could be restructured to improve competition. I would note that this approach is similar to that recommended by the last Cabinet in June 2023, when Minister Duncan Webb said that “It would make sense to consider the need for more detailed policy work on divestment to occur after the Commission makes its first report into the state of the grocery sector”. That report was delivered in September.

Joseph Mooney: What response has she seen to the announcement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There have been a range of responses welcoming the Government’s announcement, including from Grocery Action Group’s Chair, Sue Chetwin, who said the announcements were “terrific news for Kiwi shoppers”. Miss Chetwin said that “While the many recent regulatory reforms of the supermarket sector have been worthwhile, none has effectively curbed the duopoly’s market power.” Well-known grocery commentator Ernie Newman said the announcements were “A significant move”, and “The good news is the sense of urgency”. He added: “That said, this is necessarily a long-term project. I hope that all parties in Parliament will endorse the direction of travel.” Of course, the Government’s announcement builds on our coalition commitment with New Zealand First to ensure that there is greater competition in the supermarket sector. There are many other responses which reinforce the sentiment that change is needed, and I agree with them.

SPEAKER: Good.

Joseph Mooney: What other work is under way to address supermarket competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Commerce Commission is working to complete its wholesale inquiry, its analysis into land banking issues, and its second grocery report. My officials are also working to get as much involvement as possible in the RFI from market players, potential entrants, and investors. On that note, I was pleased to see on Sunday that Foodstuffs said in response to my announcements that it will “constructively participate in the Government’s RFI process.” I welcome their involvement.

Joseph Mooney: When will we see the next steps towards better competition in the grocery market?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the RFI is proceeding at pace and will close after six weeks. In mid-2025, once I’ve considered the evidence from the RFI and the Commerce Commission’s additional work, I will bring further recommendations to Cabinet. Depending on what I hear, I may seek Cabinet’s mandate to progress further design work on structural options to improve competition in the grocery sector. If legislation is needed, I would want to introduce it before the end of the year. We need to move fast and also with due care to ensure Kiwi shoppers get the benefits of stronger competition in our supermarket sector.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder if I could ask the Minister the origin of this brilliant, thoughtful, considerate policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, of course, the number one driver of this is the fact that all the evidence points to a lack of competition in the New Zealand supermarket sector, and in particular the fact that New Zealanders are paying more for their groceries than counterparts in other countries. This was recognised in the coalition agreement between the National Party and the New Zealand First Party, which identified this as a priority area for work. The attempts by the last Government have, in the review of the Grocery Commissioner, not improved competition in this area.

SPEAKER: That’s enough—that’s enough. Good.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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: Does he stand by the statement of the Minister of Housing, who, when asked whether his Government’s emergency housing policies were a success, replied, “Yes, we’re very proud of it”, and, if so, what is he more proud of: homelessness services across the country reporting increased homelessness or siphoning money out of services that our most vulnerable people in Aotearoa need to survive?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m incredibly proud that in a very short period of time, this Government has ended what I think is one of the blights on New Zealand’s social policies—the fact that we have taken 2,000 children out of squalid motel rooms and we have put them into proper, dry homes; the fact that we have taken 5,000 people off the State social housing wait-list who are desperate to get a home—that is fantastic. And so we should be very proud about that, and I think the House would want to join with me on that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he accept that it is his Government’s decisions that are resulting in reports of increasing homelessness, with less people being able to access basic supports that were available even this time last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. Government support is still available to people who need housing assistance, and will continue to be so. But what I am incredibly proud about is that emergency motel housing has been a major challenge in New Zealand for a decade or so—we’ve talked about it all the time—and this Government has finally done something about it through good, active management and getting the job done.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he understand that being denied housing support from the Ministry of Social Development, resulting in even just one night sleeping on the street, can have lifelong consequences for our rangatahi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There will always be Government support for people in need of housing. That has not changed.

Hon Marama Davidson: So does he stand by the statement of his Minister of Housing that “There is always support available for people who are sleeping on the streets,” and, if so, why are community-based homelessness organisations saying that they are unable to get support for people who urgently need housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to properly resourcing community-based providers who are already supporting those doing it tough, or will our rangatahi continue to be abandoned to sleep on our streets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The member’s line of questioning is not acknowledging that we had 3,141 families and households in motel accommodation in New Zealand—completely and utterly unacceptable. This Government—a Government that cares about outcomes, cares about people and making sure they find housing—has reduced that to 591 families. We now have 2,000 kids out of motels and in proper houses. Whether that is State housing, social housing, transition housing, or the private rental market, that is a great outcome and we are very, very proud of it.

There were at least five people on my left who were talking almost constantly through that answer. That is a barrage that has to stop, and the people who were part of that group of five will know who they are.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “The Government is focusing on the things that make a difference to the quality of people’s lives”; if so, do the changes coming in today reflect that?

Yes and yes, because the annual general adjustment changes coming into effect today help New Zealanders, with greater increases to payments, including those who are receiving New Zealand superannuation, veteran’s pensions, and benefits, which will help them with the cost of living. I note that for those that are adjusted according to the after-tax average wage, the increases are larger than they would have been otherwise because of the tax adjustments delivered by this Government in its first Budget.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does a 35c per hour increase in the minimum wage—less than the rate of inflation—make a difference to the quality of people’s lives?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the first thing I would note is that our Cabinet is mindful of the fact that the minimum wage is paid by employers—small businesses and medium businesses up and down the country—and we are conscious that in recent years, they have undertaken a very difficult period in which they have faced significant inflation and rising interest rates. We want to ensure that they are now in a context where, given the choice between letting a worker go and hiring a new worker, we minimise the costs that they face and ensure that we do not put New Zealanders’ jobs at risk.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does the planned removal of the living wage for Government-contracted cleaners, caterers, and security guards make a difference to the quality of people’s lives?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member is referring to the procurement changes which the Government is consulting on, which intend to improve the quality of New Zealanders’ lives by ensuring that when the Government is choosing who to contract with, instead of ticking a lot of boxes, small businesses and medium businesses in New Zealand are invited to submit on the impact their business will have on New Zealand as a whole, including the jobs they create, the training they create, and the positive impact they have in their community. We think this economic impact test is an important way to ensure we make the most of Government procurement.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does removing free public transport fares for under-25s and reducing public transport subsidies make a difference to the quality of people’s lives?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In our first Budget, what we did was we ensured that we were able to offer tax relief to millions of New Zealanders, fully funded by savings across government, and what we can say is that that has allowed many New Zealanders to have more money in their bank accounts than would otherwise be the case. At the same time, we have ensured that inflation is back in the target range, minimising the price increases that New Zealanders face across the general economy, which has allowed interest rates to reduce—again, improving the cost of living for many families.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that she “is focusing on the things that make a difference to the quality of people’s lives” when public transport costs and car registration fees are up and power prices, insurance levies, and rates are up, but our lowest-paid workers only get a 35c an hour raise or won’t receive the living wage?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, picking up on the last part of that question, it’s important to note that minimum-wage workers are in families with a range of different household circumstances, and what we have been advised is that in many cases, those workers will be eligible for additional Working for Families and accommodation supplement support, such that in some cases, a minimum wage increase will actually be eroded by the abatement in those payments that would occur otherwise. The significance of this is that, actually, what New Zealand families want is pretty simple. They actually want jobs, and we’re ensuring our policies support that; they want a cost of living that’s under control, and we’ve ensured that a lower inflation rate delivers that; and they want to be part of an economy that’s growing so that there are more and better-paid jobs and so that their cost of living is controlled in the medium term. The alternative approach is that of the last Government, where they sprayed the money hose around, crossed their fingers, and hoped, and what that delivered was a cost of living crisis that made many New Zealanders worse off.

Question No. 5—Rail

5. to the Minister for Rail: Is the Cook Strait ferry replacement programme “on track”?

Yes. By Christmas 2029, two brand new ferries will have rail on them and it will save the taxpayer billions. This is met with positive reactions: Carl Findlay, Maritime Union, said, and I quote, “Particularly happy for the workers who now know that they have a future”. Nadine Taylor, Marlborough Mayor, said this: it’s “the certainty [that port] needs to move forward”. Anthony Delaney, CentrePort, said this “gives … surety to all the people who rely on the provision of a safe, reliable and affordable ferry service”. And Don Braid of Mainfreight said this: “It’s a pragmatic, logical, sensible decision.” And he went on to say this very important note: “there’s a good number of people, politicians included, who are a little naïve as to how much freight actually moves by rail”. And then this self-appointed economist said this: “Rail-enabled ferries are a no-brainer”—that’s Julie Anne Genter.

Andy Foster: How does this Government’s plan compare to previous plans?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the greatest maritime fiction, since Moby-Dick, was delivered by Chris Hipkins when he said this: mega ferries “wasn’t the wisest decision.”

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How was that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: How was that? It landed big time; that’s how it was.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough. You can’t use a question to abuse the Opposition. You can talk about factual matters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that’s what he said.

SPEAKER: Well, you didn’t present it that way. Started out like you were reading a novel.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He said, “How did”—no, the question—point of order.

SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The question: “How does the Government’s plan compare to 2020?” That’s them in power; that’s their decision. You didn’t stop that, did you? So here comes the answer.

SPEAKER: Ha! The question’s in order; the answer has to be as well. And so let’s see how you go. You’re a very experienced man.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He need only ask Todd Valster, from the rail union, for an education. He said this—well he used to work for him, see—“It was the infrastructure and the terminals that blew out and just kept blowing out”.

Andy Foster: How will the road and rail marshalling yards be different compared to Project iReX?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, under iReX, both yards were proposed to lift by a metre at huge expense. There’s a lot of stone and concrete with new buildings, roads, and a rail on top. It was far beyond the modest alterations we had planned in 2020. They said lifting yards would mean extreme weather events would not disturb the ferry operations. That would have cost hundreds and billions of dollars alone. Here’s the point: why build a halo around a car yard when you could increase the culverts to stop the build-up of water in the first place? This can be done at a fraction of the cost and means we can keep using existing yards. It’s blindingly obvious to some of us, but not to those in charge between 2021 and 2023, or Mr Hipkins.

Andy Foster: How have the terminal buildings been considered in the Minister’s thinking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are retaining the existing terminal buildings. They are simple structures that can battle weather and earthquakes. Picton has a new concrete foundation, a steel structure, and we have been told it has a long future. Wellington’s building is in the right location beside the wharf, and so certain was KiwiRail and CentrePort about the terminal’s future that they started building a new baggage area months ago. The previous Government’s plan included—unbelievably—multi-storey new terminals with concrete so thick there was barely any room for the passengers and fixtures; so flash, even Louis XIV would have been embarrassed. While some may regret the absence of a Taj Mahal in Picton and the Sydney Opera House in Wellington, the people paying their taxes will not. And that’s why, over there, it hurts so much.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: What is he doing to address systemic violence against Māori by the police, in light of three incidents in the past months alone where an 11-year-old autistic child was misidentified by police and forcibly medicated at the Henry Bennett Centre; a 15-year-old boy had his jaw broken by police in Napier; and Sam Matue, who was tasered, pepper sprayed by police, then died on the scene while being arrested at Ōrere Point?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I won’t comment on individual cases, as that member will understand, given investigations that are ongoing, but I just say that I am very, very proud of the police, and I back our police.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he support the Māori Party policy requiring police officers to wear mandatory body cameras for their own safety and for the safety of the public, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll take my advice from the Police, and if that is a tool that they wish to have, I back them with any tools that they need to do their job. But I’m very proud that our police are out there on the beat. They’ve increased the beat police by 30 percent, and the public are feeling safer in their businesses, in their homes, and in their community, and that’s a good thing.

Rawiri Waititi: Will his Government implement the recommendations of the Understanding Policing Delivery report, in which the New Zealand Police found that structural racism within the policies is the reason Māori are more likely to be stopped, tasered, and prosecuted than any other group; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I back our police. Our police are out there making sure that they catch criminals and that they keep the community safe. They do a great job. There are obviously processes that people can have investigations or can make complaints around, but our police, each and every day, are out there protecting and serving this community, and I’m proud of them.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he accept any discrimination in the Police?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t agree, with statements that I have seen, that there is structural, racial discrimination in the Police at all.

Rawiri Waititi: Why is his Government considering giving a further $1.2 billion in corporate tax cuts, on top of the $3 billion he has already given to landlords, when 46 percent of retail-trade companies paid no income tax at all in the last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, I don’t understand the question that the member’s asking. Can he repeat it?

Rawiri Waititi: Why is his Government considering giving a further $1.2 billion in corporate tax cuts, on top of the $3 billion he has already given to landlords, when 46 percent of retail-trade companies paid no income tax at all in the last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, well, there’s no decisions that have been made, but I just say to that member, we want to make sure we get our tax and regulatory settings as good and as competitive as they can be so that we can unleash growth in this economy. We want growth, growth, growth. We want that above everything else. It’s so important. It’s how Kiwis get ahead. That’s what we’re focused on.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, sir. The first portion of that question—why did you not intervene? It’s a long-established tradition in this House, consistent with the Standing Orders, that any Police matter that may involve investigations should not be traversed in question time.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a good point. I’ll have to take that on board and consider it further. I think the question was satisfactorily answered, though, in that regard.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Are her policies working; if not, why not?

Yes. We have been working hard to create a more proactive welfare system to support more job seekers into work. In the year to February 2025, there were 67,281 exits from the jobseeker benefit into work—an increase of 11 percent from the year before—despite the challenging economic conditions. We also know our policies are working because 98.1 percent are at green under the traffic light system, which means they are meeting their work obligations. Our Government is relentlessly focused on growing the economy, because when businesses have the confidence to grow and succeed, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for people, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealand families.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she agree with the Salvation Army that “benefit sanctions had little to nothing to do with them finding a job.”, and, if so, why is she pursuing a programme that doesn’t work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I disagree with that member because, as I said, 98.1 percent of those who are on benefit are complying with their work obligations. They’re taking the steps they need to. The economic conditions we inherited mean it’s a very challenging labour market, but, despite that, there has been an 11 percent increase on last year of people leaving the jobseeker benefit and going to a job.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about the Salvation Army, not about myself. I can put the question again, if you like. That’s no problem.

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK.

Hon Willie Jackson: Put it again?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Hon Willie Jackson: OK. Does she agree with the Salvation Army that “benefit sanctions had little to nothing to do with them finding a job.”, and, if so, why is she pursuing a programme that doesn’t work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I disagree with the Salvation Army, just like I disagree with that member.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister comfortable with 22,000 more people on a jobseeker benefit, a jump of 12 percent in 12 months, who were potentially made homeless as a result of her punitive sanction policies?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m proud of the result that our Government has in terms of an 11 percent increase in the number of people leaving the jobseeker benefit into a job. I’d love to be in a position where we didn’t inherit the economic environment that we have, where high levels of inflation and interest rates mean that we’re now dealing with higher levels of unemployment than we’d like. But we’re dealing with the problem. We’re getting people into work, we’re taking the steps that are necessary, and our Government is ensuring that more New Zealanders have the opportunities to be in a job.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she expect that more students will be arrested at the border as a result of her policy to increase interest rates on overseas borrowers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, that is an operational matter, but what we are focused on, on our side of the Government, whether it’s in welfare or student loans, is that we want to see people fulfil their obligations. There are rights and responsibilities that they owe to other taxpayers. We expect them to fulfil them.

Hon Willie Jackson: How can the community have confidence in her policies when under her leadership there are 22,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit, and she said that she would support the workers of Kinleith, but it’s shut down and more people are unemployed than compared to this time last year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I’ve said, it would be great for this side of the House if we didn’t inherit the unfortunate economic climate that we did. We always knew—and Treasury forecasts from the previous Government as well as from our Government expected unemployment rates to rise. That is indisputable. What is on record, though, is our success in actually getting people off the jobseeker benefit into work. We’re still ambitious. We have a target—50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker is a target that’s worth working for.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen on trust and confidence in the Police?

The New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey Cycle 7, taken from October 2023 to October 2024, showed that, for the first time since the introduction of the Police module to the survey, the proportion of people with high trust and confidence in Police increased from 67 percent to 69 percent. This coincided with the proportion of people with no trust and confidence in Police dropping to its lowest level, at 2 percent. This research confirms that a visible presence of Police, and community engagement, such as the community beat teams, impact positively on trust and confidence in the Police and reverse a trend of declining confidence in Police.

Mike Butterick: What other good results for Police were reported in the survey?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: In Cycle 7, 74 percent of people who had contact with Police were satisfied with that contact. The number of people who were dissatisfied decreased significantly—from 16 percent the year prior to 12 percent last year.

Mike Butterick: Why does he think trust and confidence in Police went up?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The initiative of the community beat teams has played an important role in having Police visible in cities, reassuring the public. I know that Police are doing outstanding work to respond to crime: the targeting of boy racers in the Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa over the last month that resulted in infringements and impoundments, or responding quickly to reports of a sighting of a person holding a firearm outside an Auckland address yesterday and seizing two pistols, a shotgun, and a rifle. It’s critical in letting communities know that Police have their backs.

Mike Butterick: How have communities responded to the increased presence of police out and about?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’ve seen a recent media query to Police that asked them to comment on a poll run by The Star newspaper in Christchurch, which shows 82 percent of respondents feel safer as a result of beat patrols. The Canterbury metro area commander responded, noting that the poll aligned with the feedback that Police have been receiving and a 5.8 percent reduction of victimisations in his area. On this side of the House, we back our police. That stands in stark contrast to some people who now think that the Green Party has raised some legitimate issues with regards to our police.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context they were given. In particular, my commitment to delivering a knowledge-rich, year-by-year, world-leading and internationally comparable curriculum. Yesterday, the Ministry of Education released the draft year 7 to 13 English curriculum for consultation. It is underpinned by the science of learning and designed to support teaching the basics brilliantly. There are clear progression outcomes in spelling, grammar, sentence structure, reading, writing comprehension, and oral language. The draft also proposes a new requirement for year 12 and 13 students to consider at least one work by Shakespeare, one 19th century text, and texts by New Zealand authors as part of their studies. We believe in setting all Kiwi kids up for success and this is just another step we’re taking to do just that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she tell the House that she is, “kept up to date” about school lunches, when she wasn’t informed of Libelle’s liquidation by David Seymour when he knew a week earlier and had told the Prime Minister?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Because the Associate Minister of Education and I had a conversation twice around these issues where he kept me up to date with their supply issues.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why was she, as the Minister of Education, the last to know about Libelle’s liquidation?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: My expectation of the Associate Minister is that he was solely focused on the continuation of supply of school lunches during that period, which he was.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she have confidence in her Associate Minister given he did not inform her about Libelle’s liquidation when he knew five days earlier?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have confidence in the Associate Minister to ensure continuation of supply during that time, which he did.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why won’t she step in and fix the school lunches programme when research shows students are getting meals that fail nutrition standards and give them around half the energy they used to get under the old model, given the overwhelming evidence that underfed kids fall behind at school?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The delegation for school lunches is the responsibility of the Associate Minister, and any decisions around that are decisions for the Prime Minister.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that the school lunch programme has been contracted to deliver meals at the same nutritional level as last year and the years prior, when, none the less, up to 40 percent of meals were found not to meet the contracted standard, and can she confirm or at least tell the House what yesterday’s on-time delivery numbers were?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In response to the second part of the question, I understand that yesterday, I think, around 112,000 meals were delivered, and the on-time delivery rate was 99.5 percent.

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.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister think “profit is a good thing”, as he said in question time last week, in the context of supermarkets making $1 million in excess profits a day?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We think profit is a good thing. Excessive profit is a bad thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept that a fixation on profit at all costs leads to a rising cost of living for New Zealanders, as found in analysis through the COVID period that rising profits contributed to more than half of domestic inflationary pressure?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the member seems to have a challenge or a problem with organisations making a profit. My point is that that is a good thing. They are investing, they’re taking risks, they’re investing capital in order to drive growth, and we support that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept that the prioritisation of profit at all costs, without any Government intervention, results in concentration of market power and higher cost of living for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I accept is that we want to tap into as much investment from overseas domestically in order to get more roads built, to do more mining, to do more housing, to do more schools so that we can actually get the economy growing with great infrastructure.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are there any circumstances, such as in, say, healthcare, education, or when we see it so clearly driving the cost of living, where the Prime Minister might agree that corporate profiteering is not “a good thing”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just reject totally the way the member is characterising profits. The reality is that corporates and businesses, people out there, 97 percent of our businesses in New Zealand are small businesses. They are people who take a risk, they invest their capital, they build a business, they employ people, they grow an economy, they create opportunity and choices for families. They should be celebrated, and it’s right that they make a return.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister please explain that if a business does not make a profit, it goes broke, and the employer, and employee, the staff, and everybody loses their work?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is exactly right; that’s how it works. If you don’t make money—as we saw because of a short-sighted energy policy that led to mills laying off workers because they couldn’t be profitable, they couldn’t make a return to cover the investments that they’ve got in their capital and their assets—that’s exactly what happens. If you care about low and middle income working New Zealanders, you run and manage the economy as a fiscal conservative. That’s what we’re doing in this Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister see, understand, and articulate a difference between excessive corporate profiteering and the profits of the likes of small New Zealand - owned businesses?

Hon Member: Changing your tune now.

SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on. Sorry. Once you’ve asked the question, let someone answer it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, could you repeat the question. I want this on the record.

SPEAKER: When the House is quiet.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister understand and articulate, for the public of this country, the difference between excessive corporate profiteering and the likes of profits from small New Zealand - owned businesses?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I understand business and commerce well. I just say to that member that businesses making profits is a good thing. Where there are market failures, where there are excessive profits, it’s why we have a Commerce Commission, some guidelines, some rules around all of that—that continues under this Government. But I just reject the member’s degrowth mindset from her party. That is not what New Zealand needs right now. If you are a working New Zealander and you want to create a future for your kids or your grandkids, you need growth. For that to happen, we need free enterprise, and we need companies and businesses to be able to make profits. That’s not a bad thing.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister agree that the profit motive is a key principle of a capitalist market economy, and would he advocate other forms of economic philosophy such as, for example, Marxism?

SPEAKER: I’m sorry. [Interruption] That was asking the Prime Minister to answer a question for which he has no responsibility. He may have an opinion, but not as a Prime Minister. Those sorts of questions are going to be dealt with very severely from this point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister, or any member of his Cabinet, tend to take the views of someone who started a small business which went bust on them in about five weeks, and then comes to this Parliament and starts preaching to the rest of us?

SPEAKER: I doubt he has any particular responsibility for that.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm there is not only great value in Shakespeare but there’s value in the book called The Wealth of Nations—although the former has a famous saying, “We are [the] stuff [upon which] dreams are made [of]”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think there are a lot of merits in Adam Smith, yes.

SPEAKER: Question 11, Tangi Utikere. [Interruption] No, I tell you what, just wait. There are a whole lot of people seeming to want to have a bit of a say while you’re about to speak.

Question No. 11—Rail

11. to the Minister for Rail: When will New Zealanders know the cost of their new Interislander ferries and how the requisite port-side infrastructure will be funded?

Later this year. We will not approach this like Wellington Water, by which we mean revealing our budget while negotiating the price. That turns a buyer’s market into a seller’s market. When these ship and port agreements, when they are signed, the member will know the total cost and the shares between the Government and the ports.

Tangi Utikere: Is he then simply kicking the costs for required port-side infrastructure upgrades on to ratepayers?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can you repeat that.

SPEAKER: Repeat the question.

Tangi Utikere: Is he simply, then, kicking the costs for required port-side infrastructure upgrades on to ratepayers?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the land-side infrastructure costs and funding will be included in our ferries update, and this was the ferries update which was sent to Cabinet. As we said yesterday, today, and no doubt again tomorrow, until the lesson sinks in: we do not show the budget to the contractor. We have set aside sufficient funding, and it is billions less than the previous Government planned on spending, and Ferry Holdings will now negotiate with shipyards and ports on those matters.

Tangi Utikere: How much disruption will New Zealanders face with fewer Interislander sailings over the next 4½ years until his ferries arrive, given operating the Aratere until 2029 is “simply not possible”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All the advice that we have had from KiwiRail is that the requisite cargo and passenger movements will be up to scratch, and that was supported by somebody from Mainfreight—who would know more about this than anybody in this House—when he said it was just plain common sense to go forward in this way. We are going to be ahead of the market when we get these new ships as well.

Tangi Utikere: Is the plan that he has announced after three months better than the deal Nicola Willis couldn’t deliver in one year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality was that Nicola Willis, as Minister of Finance, inherited a nightmare. She was facing a blowout which Treasury forecast to go to $4 billion and beyond when she was going to be—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Rubbish!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know it’s rubbish. That’s your specialty—that’s why I’m talking about it. It’s total rubbish. And we stopped that rubbish and the Minister then had to make a decision, which, weighed against other options, was not the right decision. But she did make the right decision to look at other options. That’s two right decisions, which is two right decisions, unique to a Minister of Finance in the last nine years.

Tangi Utikere: Why is his Government willing to spend more than 15 months and over $1 billion only to leave Kiwis adrift, waiting three years longer for new Interislander ferries and still with no idea of how much they will cost?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the option was to buy two massive ferries for which there was no infrastructure, and repeat what’s happening in Tasmania right now. They’ve got two new ferries and no infrastructure—

Tangi Utikere: Who ordered them?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —they can’t even use the ships. What’s wrong with that? Well, it’s not moron time over here.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Just before I call on question No. 12, in response to the point of order raised by the Hon Shane Jones, police inquiries are not sub judice, and members can raise matters related to those cases. The prohibitions are through Standing Order 116, where a prosecution or a court is hearing a case; or if there is a question of an independent prosecution, which is Speaker’s Ruling 182/4. While members can’t always know whether or not a matter is before the courts, Ministers most certainly would be expected to know that and respond accordingly. So the question, in short, was in order.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing to lower building costs and make it easier to build?

As I’ve commented before in this House in response to a similarly searching line of question previously, we want to make it more affordable and also to enable people to build more on time. For that reason, we are working on the building costs, which have increased by 40 percent since 2019, and we’re taking decisive action this week with, all going well, the passage of the overseas building products legislation.

Nancy Lu: What does the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill do?

Hon CHRIS PENK: This bill will make it easier to use high-quality building products in construction sites all across New Zealand. Currently, each of the 67 different building consent authorities approves building products, and because the councils currently have joint and several liability, they can be on the hook for as much as 100 percent of the total cost of a failure. And, therefore, they’re extremely risk-averse and only approve familiar products. For this reason, there’s often little competition and we see the establishment of effective near monopolies. We’re determined to do something about that to improve competition.

Nancy Lu: Will this mean a drop in building standards?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Thanks for the opportunity to address this question. The answer is, of course, absolutely not, and we have designed the legislation in such a way that will ensure that only equal or higher standards from overseas are to be met in New Zealand in order for the scheme to qualify. In passing, I’m pleased that, across the House, this point has been recognised, and we’ve enjoyed the support of various different political parties so far in the passage of the legislation. And so I commit that we will continue to consider whether the jurisdictions overseas that we will be leaning into are comparable and credible.

Nancy Lu: What else is the Government doing to lower building prices?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Last month, we published the first annual set of data across the nation for building-consent processing time frames that takes into account the real time involved in the issuing of consents. In other words, we were able to highlight that in two out of every three cases, councils have been pausing the issuing of building consents. Now, whatever the reason for those pauses having been made, nevertheless, the effect is that the real-world productivity gap has not been highlighted so clearly before. And, for this reason, in terms of the overseas building products but also the other major work that we’re taking on, streamlining inspections, making trusted builders accountable for their work, and structural reform of the building consent authorities will continue.