Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

The IMF has recently been in New Zealand to conduct its annual review of our economy. Earlier this month it released its preliminary findings, and the IMF notes that inflation has been brought back to target after spending 13 consecutive quarters above the top of the target range. As a result of lower inflation, easier monetary policy will help growth pick up over the next two years. The IMF is forecasting growth in the New Zealand economy of 1.4 percent in 2025, rising to 2.7 percent next year.

Ryan Hamilton: What does the IMF say about fiscal policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The IMF says that the Government’s fiscal strategy “appropriately affirms its commitment to the necessary medium-term consolidation to support fiscal sustainability and rebuild fiscal buffers, emphasising prudent debt levels and strict spending controls.” It says the fiscal strategy should include tax reforms, including to the corporate tax regime. The IMF also highlights the growing cost of superannuation and says that changes to KiwiSaver could help achieve greater private retirement savings.

Ryan Hamilton: What does the IMF say about other policy areas?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The IMF makes a special mention of housing, which is a priority area for the Government. It says that bold reforms are needed to free up land supply, incentivise efficient land use, and ensure adequate financing of local infrastructure. And it specifically references the Government’s Going for Housing Growth programme. The IMF also highlights ongoing policy work to amend and eventually replace the Resource Management Act.

Ryan Hamilton: What does the IMF say about productivity growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The IMF says that productivity growth requires a comprehensive approach. It mentions refreshing competition settings, reducing the restrictiveness of the foreign direct investment regime to attract capital, accelerating capital markets development, encouraging innovation, and establishing a stable, long-term pipeline of projects coupled with the prudent use of public-private partnerships (PPPs). The Government has work under way in all these areas. And I would note that the IMF is clear on its approach to PPPs—unlike some people I could mention.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “We are very proud of what we’ve done on emergency housing, and it’s been a really good outcome.”; if so, are more or fewer people homeless now compared to when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can say is that from the data we’ve seen, we’ve actually seen that households that have been in emergency housing have dropped from, I think, 3,141 when we came to power down to 591. Most excitingly, we’ve taken 2,000 children out of living in motels and put them in proper homes. I think the member would, in the spirit of bipartisanship, want to say that that was a good thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he very proud of the fact that the Christchurch City Mission has reported an increase of almost 60 people living on the street in just one single month, including an eight-week-old baby living in a tent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have more work to do on homelessness, but what I am proud about is a Government that, starting on 1 April, put a very active management policy in place to take a number of households out of motels—that was a shameful legacy from previous Minister Woods and the Labour Government, and I’m very proud of the progress that we’ve made. In a short period of time, we’ve got results and put 2,000 kids into proper houses.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he see any relationship between the fact that there are 690 fewer households in Auckland in emergency accommodation now than when he became Prime Minister, whilst the number of people sleeping rough in cars, on the streets, or in parks in the city has increased to 653?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would just say to that member that his Government’s legacy on housing was abysmal: a 50 percent increase in homeownership, $170 per week increase in rental property, a fourfold increase in the social housing wait-list to over 25,000 households, and thousands of people living in motels when they shouldn’t have been there. This Government is dealing with housing. We have taken 2,000 kids out of motel rooms, and you should care about that, and you should be proud about that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Whilst I do indeed care about all of the issues that the Prime Minister has just catalogued in his list of complaints, it didn’t actually address the question, which was whether he sees a relationship between the fact that they booted 690 people out of emergency accommodation in Auckland, whilst there are now 653 people living rough on the streets.

SPEAKER: Well, let me just make it very clear: while there is the sort of barrage going on that there was during the answer to that question, it’s hard for me to make a determination like that. But I will—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Further point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no, well, I haven’t finished, so you can’t take a point of order—give a man a chance to breathe! I will ask the Prime Minister if he would like to address the question as it was asked.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, I am very proud that we have actually moved families out of motel accommodation and emergency housing, and 80 percent of those families have gone straight into proper housing. That is really important. For the other 20 percent, we are actually available to help with any housing assistance that is needed. But I am proud, because that was a shameful, shameful result from a Labour Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he see any relationship between the fact that there are 351 fewer households in Wellington in emergency accommodation now, compared to when he became Prime Minister, while the number of people rough sleeping in cars, on the streets, or in parks in the city has increased to 464?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have continued work to do on homelessness, but the answer of carrying on with the policies of the past and not putting 2,000 kids into proper homes—instead, raising them in motels—is unacceptable to our Government. So to move from 3,100 households in motel accommodation under the member’s last Government to where we sit today, with 591 households in motels and 2,000 kids moved out of them to proper houses and homes, with community housing providers and Kāinga Ora houses because of our active management of the individual cases, I’m incredibly proud about. Is there more work to do? Absolutely, but I am proud of what we achieved in a short period of time versus six years of a Government that purported to care about housing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister describe how difficult it was for the new Government to deal with the crisis in infrastructure, education, health, and—dare I say it—housing, when what we were confronted with was 133,000 net immigration brought in by the previous Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, my point very clearly is that Labour’s biggest public policy failure was in housing, whether you’re buying a house, renting a house, on a social house wait-list, or in emergency housing—they failed on all four counts. Our Government cares about people; we want them in proper homes, and that’s why we’ve done the work to methodically go through household by household, get into the data, and actively manage cross-agency and get these families and kids into proper houses.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of the following is he most proud of: a family of six living in a Portacom, a 75-year-old grandfather sleeping on a slide, full-time workers and students living in their cars, or the hundreds of additional people living rough on the streets because his Government decided that that was preferable to them living in emergency accommodation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I completely disrespect the characterisation of that question. I am not taking any lectures from that member or the Labour Party about housing. You had six years to fix it. You had three years with an absolute majority and you did a poor, poor job. That’s the reality of it. The Labour Party used to care about housing and people getting into housing, but you didn’t care about it in your six years and you didn’t deliver results. I know it’s bad and you’ve probably got regrets about it, but you did a poor job.

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

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. Could I just say for the member, the barrage going on is not at all helping in both the order and form of the House and leaves me with a great difficulty in assessing whether a question is answered or addressed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. Every single one of my questions has been about the actions of this Government and the consequences of them. Every one of the answers has been about the Prime Minister’s alleged views on the previous Government. I’d point out that every single one of the families moved out of emergency accommodation into State housing was only possible because we built record numbers of new State houses. But he’s not actually addressing the track record of his own Government. The reason that you’ll get a heightened response from members on this side of the House is that the Prime Minister seems far more interested in talking about the last Government than his own Government, which has resulted in hundreds of additional people living rough on the streets.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a very interesting point of order, with a number of facts put before the House in that. Can I say that the Prime Minister’s statements today are not alleged, because he’s making them and we’re all hearing them. The second thing is that it is appropriate—and I’ve said this before, because former Speakers have asserted this—for a Government to refer to situations that they inherit when they come into Government. It’s not appropriate to attack. I haven’t heard attack. I think, with regards to the claim that the Prime Minister is not accounting for his Government, I’ve heard him cite numerous things that his Government is doing. Point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: A supplementary question.

SPEAKER: A supplementary—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How were the four needy groups outlined by Mr Hipkins in his last question assisted by trying to find housing, accommodation, emergency housing, hospitals, schools, and infrastructure for the 133,000 net that the previous Government brought in that we inherited? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on—hang on. We haven’t even had the start of an answer and we’ve got people under way. Show a little bit of basic courtesy.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree with the member. We inherited an infrastructure crisis—we’re working our way through it. But my frustration is this is not an issue to politicise—this is not an issue to politicise. We are getting families out of motels into proper houses—that is the reality of it. Eighty percent of those families in households are now in proper homes and houses. You can politicise it, but you shouldn’t be doing that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government remove the requirement for the Ministry of Social Development to consider whether declining an emergency housing application would risk someone’s life, welfare, or cause serious hardship?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I am proud of the work that our teams have done in a cross-agency way to make sure that we are clear that the people that have access to emergency housing can get it. I am also proud of the fact that, actually, if anyone needs any help, there are housing support and subsidies available to support them, and our Government remains open to support those that have left emergency housing but haven’t reached out to ask for our help—

Hon Phil Twyford: That’s not true.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —and we continue to do that. But I am not going to take lectures from that member about housing when it was an abject failure of the last Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, in his previous supplementary answer, accused me of politicising the situation when every one of his answers has been political. But my question was why his Government had “remove[d] the requirement for the Ministry of Social Development to consider whether declining an emergency housing application would risk someone’s life or welfare, or cause serious hardship.”—that’s a direct quote from the reporting of the decisions that the Government has taken. I’ve asked him why they made that decision, and instead he’s just given us a catalogue of things that his Government’s done that have nothing to do with the question.

SPEAKER: Well, there are a lot of things that are said in this House that are only vaguely relevant to what’s going on, but the point I note is that the Prime Minister did say—because I was listening for it, thinking that you probably would raise that issue—that the process remains open to people who seek help to receive that help. Now, that seems to me as certainly addressing the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It doesn’t give any answer. I mean, you could say, “Oh, there’s a process.” The question was why the process no longer requires them to consider whether declining an emergency housing application will risk someone’s life, welfare, or cause serious hardship. These are pretty serious issues, and I think it’s not unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister to respond to why the Government did that.

SPEAKER: It is a serious issue, and the member will also know that that is a process point for the department that actually runs it. If you’re telling me that there is a Government missive somewhere, then perhaps quote that missive or table it, but in the meantime, the question’s been addressed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government, the Ministers are answerable to the House for the actions of the entirety of the Government, including Government departments, regardless of where the direction came from. The Ministers are answerable to it.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know. Let’s be very clear: what I’d just ask you to do is to establish that the action’s been taken. I can’t judge that. I can only judge: has the question, as it’s asked, been addressed? And it has.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, the Prime Minister, of course, is free to say that the Government hasn’t taken that action.

SPEAKER: Of course he is.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Of course, then, he would be misleading the House, but he hasn’t done that either. He hasn’t answered the question or denied that what I said is true.

SPEAKER: No, sit down, don’t take it any further—don’t take it any further. Because while it is quite possible to suggest in a question that an action has been taken and then require the Minister being questioned to account for whatever is said in the question, that is not in all cases reasonable. My judgment simply has to be: has the question reasonably been answered? And that’s what I’ve judged. I’ve invited the member to at any point table the action that he’s referring to in a question so that it becomes absolutely specific.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: New point of order, Mr Speaker. So are you indicating that every single question that we ask in a supplementary question must be authenticated by you? If so, could you give us a process to do that before question time? It’s going to make question time somewhat farcical if every time we ask a question, you require an authentication of what we’re asking. No previous Speaker has done that. All members, including what you have just reiterated at the beginning, your ruling right at the start of question time—all members are taken at their word. So unless you’re saying that I’m wrong in my question, or the Prime Minister is saying I’m wrong in my question, the Prime Minister should answer for it. Ministers are answerable for the actions of all of their Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, can I—I could help you out here.

SPEAKER: Just—well, I would really hope that it is helpful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of course it’ll be helpful; that’s my intention. The reality is that we’ve had these sorts of debates over decades with far more acute minds having an open debate, but if the contest here is because somebody gets upset because of their lack of mental acuity, that is surely not a point of order.

SPEAKER: No, leave that—leave that.

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

SPEAKER: Just—hang on. I’m now going to—you can bring it up in a minute. What I want to say is that I wasn’t making any particular new ruling in that regard. I was simply pointing out to the member that if he expects a particular type of answer to a particular question, then it would help if there was something to refer to. I can’t know what is right and what’s wrong. I can simply judge: has the question, in the broad context, been answered? That’s been a ruling in the House for a very long time. I remember having that recited to me numerous times by the Hon Margaret Wilson. Would someone want to speak to a point of order?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes, point of order, Mr Speaker. You indicated yesterday your frustration at the Government members making personal attacks on people asking questions, and you said you were going to take a zero-tolerance approach to that. We’ve now had the Deputy Prime Minister abusing the point of order process to do exactly that. Did your words yesterday mean anything?

SPEAKER: That is an interesting way in which you put that, I must say. So for those who are watching, you’ll be quite surprised by my bumbling around on this. But the reality is that it’s seldom there is a challenge like that. But what I will say, quite clearly, is that if there is another attack on the other side as a result of an answered question, the person making that attack will be leaving the House for a period of time.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to draw to your attention, and maybe it’s the fact that I’m a bit closer to the action today, but I heard the Hon Phil Twyford direct a very unparliamentary remark towards the Prime Minister in the last question.

SPEAKER: Right, OK. Does the member want to respond to that in any way? I’m sorry, I didn’t hear it, so I can’t act on it.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I can certainly share that remark with you, if you—

SPEAKER: Well, why would you want to repeat an unparliamentary remark in Parliament?

Hon Mark Mitchell: Because, as in normal Labour fashion, he’s not taking responsibility for his own statements.

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what, I’m absolutely sick of this. It’s schoolyard stupidity and it’s got to stop. So we’ll now go to question number—oh!

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. In your most recent ruling, you said that the next member that used a point of order or a question answer to make a personal attack on members opposite would be leaving the Chamber. Mark Mitchell just did exactly that.

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, you can’t rewrite the Hansard script. I said that answers to questions that contain those barbs would result in that. It’s legitimate for members to take points of order. Some of them are completely hopeless and utterly stupid, but members do it anyway. I’ve got a high level of tolerance for that level of contribution to the House, because, often, it just allows a little bit of pressure and, I suppose, steam to be let off. Are there any further questions from the member?

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the clarification that you have made for this side of the House in answering questions. I am concerned, though, Mr Speaker, about what has been tolerated from the other side, that has been more direct in challenging your role than I’ve seen in quite some time. I would request that that is also taken into account, in terms of the response on this side of the House.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I’m not sure how the two are connected. I don’t feel like a shrunken violet at the present time. So we’ll carry on. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, question No. 3. [Interruption] Questions are heard in silence. That means there are no conversations going on around the House while a question’s being asked.

Question No. 3—RMA Reform

3. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What is his reaction, if any, to the Kaiwhakahaere for Ngāti Ruanui’s statement regarding proposed changes to the RMA that “This move breaches both our settlement and the Government’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”?

on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: I can confirm that the Government is committed to upholding Treaty settlements, particularly through this reform. We will be working with iwi Māori as we work through how the new resource management legislation can uphold these important settlements. The Cabinet has explicitly agreed that upholding Treaty settlements and related agreements is a principle of the reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

Rawiri Waititi: Can he explain how meeting with Te Pou Taiao regularly gave him the mandate or the permission on behalf of te iwi Māori to remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the RMA?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, I disagree with the characterisation in the member’s question. The Government is interested in a descriptive clause to uphold Treaty settlements rather than a generic one, and we intend to keep working with iwi Māori and Te Pou Tahua to deliberate on the details of how that is achieved.

Rawiri Waititi: Why does he see Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a barrier to progress in Aotearoa?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, I don’t.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister confirm that the existence of a Treaty settlement between Ngāti Ruanui and the Crown does not hobble, does not prevent this Parliament—a reflection of democratically elected representatives—passing legislation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Would it not be normal in this House, if you were a former employee and a member of, for example Ngāti Ruanui, you would state that potential conflict of interest before you asked the question?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

No, there’s no need to take a point of order. No, that’s not the case. A person’s interests are published annually and are well understood by the House.

Rawiri Waititi: Did he forget to tell the Minister for Māori Crown Relations about his plan to remove the Treaty clause from the RMA, or was the Minister for Māori Crown Relations not listening?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, I can confirm that Minister Potaka, who has acknowledged that he was part of the Cabinet decision to progress this policy—the questions put to him yesterday caused confusion because they implied that there would be no clause in the RMA replacement relating to the Treaty. That is not the case. In fact, what is the case, which was not represented to Minister Potaka in the initial questions, was that as per the coalition agreement with New Zealand First, the Government is currently reviewing all generic Treaty clauses in legislation, so it would be inconsistent with that to add a new one. Instead, the Cabinet’s preference is for a descriptive clause that specifically upholds Treaty settlements.

Rawiri Waititi: Why did he ignore the expert advisory group’s recommendations that the new RMA legislation should contain a Treaty of Waitangi clause?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, as I’ve said, as per the coalition agreement with New Zealand First, the Government is currently reviewing all the generic Treaty clauses in legislation, so it would be inconsistent with that to add a new one, and we believe there are better ways to uphold our Treaty obligations. And we further note that the problem with generic Treaty principles clauses is they are open-ended and amorphous and they create uncertainty and legal risk for everybody, Māori and non-Māori. There is an opportunity, through the development of a more descriptive Treaty clause, to really spell out everyone’s specific roles in the system, and I would encourage iwi Māori to work with us as we progress that.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plans to restore stronger consequences for crime?

The Government is making great progress. Today the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill was passed. This piece of legislation will put more serious offenders in prison for longer, to prevent them creating new victims. It does this by a range of sweeping changes to the Sentencing Act, including the capping of total sentencing discounts to 40 percent, stopping repeated discounts for remorse, and the addition of new aggravating factors to restore real consequences for crime.

Catherine Wedd: What is significant about the Government’s reform of the Sentencing Act?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it’s a significant milestone in the Government’s mission to restore law and order, and fulfils a range of commitments made in the coalition agreements. We promised to stop excessive discounts at sentencing, and we’ve done just that. Undue leniency undermines public confidence in sentencing and our justice system as a whole, and it’s an important step to restore confidence so New Zealanders can feel safe in their communities.

Catherine Wedd: Does he agree with comments that prisons do not make our communities any safer?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I don’t agree with the Greens on that issue. Some people, particularly serious violent and sexual offenders, need to be kept out of circulation so that they can’t create new victims. I haven’t been surprised that the Greens have opposed this; I have been amazed that Labour have chosen to oppose this legislation.

Catherine Wedd: What positive commentary has he seen on the Government’s plans to restore stronger consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, this morning I heard a comment on the radio about the success of the Government’s legislation that gives police more tools to deal effectively with gangs. That quote—“It’s gone a lot better than everybody thought it would.”—is from Ginny Andersen, and I thank her for her kind words and I look forward to the member’s similar comments on the sentencing bills to come in the future.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that was as close to flaunting the earlier ruling as possible.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree that the Treasury is the Government’s lead economic and financial adviser; if so, does she have confidence in advice from the Treasury?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. I also take advice from a range of other agencies and advisers, including the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, on economic issues. In answer to the second part of the question: in general, I do have confidence in advice from the Treasury. However, that does not mean that they always get everything right, and, like, many previous Ministers of Finance, I do not always agree with Treasury’s advice. I do not believe my role as the Minister of Finance is to be a rubber stamp for the Treasury, and it is safe to say that I am not one.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ characterisation of statements made in the context of Treasury’s pre-election fiscal update as being a “litany of lies”, and, if so, what was factually incorrect in the pre-election fiscal update?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I seldom have cause to disagree with Deputy Prime Minister Peters, and I have observed that the leader of the New Zealand First Party has a particular way with words.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he said the recent recession was the “deepest and longest economic downturn and recessionary retraction for over three decades.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agree that the recent period of economic history has done untold damage to households up and down this country, and the characterisation presented by Mr Peters is one that is familiar to far too many households—a period of sky-high inflation, a period of debt accumulation by both the Government and the private sector, a period of soaring interest rates, and a period of economic contraction and job loss. It’s been a very painful time, and I think it would be a callous soul who would disagree with that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree that the Treasury did not forecast a recession in the pre-election fiscal update, and does she accept that the recession only occurred in 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Treasury got its forecasts before the election plain wrong.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance: if the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update of September 2023 did not, for example, disclose the iReX blowout in terms of the ferries which happened nine days later—and there are countless fiscal cliffs like that—how on earth could it possibly be honest as a forecast of the future?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the pre-election fiscal update reflected both inaccurate forecasts and the poor fiscal habits of the previous Government, which included fiscal cliffs, short funding, and doing all sorts of things to make the books look better than they actually were.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How was it that the Treasury did not forecast a recession prior to the election, but her Government delivered what the Deputy Prime Minister called the “deepest and longest economic downturn and recessionary retraction for over three decades”, and do you trust the Treasury advice now?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because, as I have just said, the Treasury got their forecasts wrong. As they themselves have acknowledged, they have had to steadily unwind the assumptions that they made during the term of the last Government, which were over-optimistic. What I take responsibility for is fixing the sheer economic carnage that was left to us by the last Government.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. 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 he stand by his statement yesterday that “Profit is a good thing.” in the context of public-private partnerships, and, if so, how much private profit is he comfortable with the people of this country forking out for, on top of the base cost of providing public services and infrastructure?

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

Chlöe Swarbrick: When the Prime Minister says, “Profit is a good thing.”, does he mean the $1 million in excess profits a day made by the supermarket duopoly, or the record billions in profits made by banks and the energy sector that a former National Government partially privatised, or something else?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I mean, I actually am stumped for words because the Green Party is a degrowth party and the thought, I think, in that question, of Chlöe Swarbrick ever being a finance Minister in a Labour-Greens future Government—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s enough. Prime Minister—

Hon Member: Send him out!

SPEAKER: No, that’s not the case. Thank you for your advice. But what I will say is if you ask questions like that, you’ll get a political answer. And you may not think it’s a very political question, but it most certainly was. Now, please ask your next supplementary.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How much private profit is he comfortable asking New Zealanders to fork out for his public-private partnerships because he refuses to unlock domestic capital by fixing our tax system, which currently incentivises unproductive speculative investment in housing, recommended by known degrowth institutions like the IMF?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’m determined to do is to make sure that we actually build infrastructure in this country. This is a country—over many decades now—that has suffered from low economic productivity. It is a country that has suffered from capital thinness. Just look at our relative performance in the OECD at attracting foreign direct investment to New Zealand—and we have a major problem. So we make no apologies for accessing private capital—whether it’s overseas or domestic pools of capital—to get things built for New Zealanders. Because if we can build more roads, more hospitals, more schools, more wind farms, more renewable energy, that is a good thing for this country and that’s what we need to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister, has his Cabinet decided to review all over the world where Das Kapital still works, and do they as a Cabinet intend to take on those economic theories?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It would be safe to say that we are not proponents of Das Kapital or Thomas Piketty.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How much private profit is he comfortable asking New Zealanders to fork out for his public-private partnerships because he refuses to fairly tax the wealthiest New Zealanders in this country, who currently pay an effective tax rate half that of our nurses, our teachers, and our firefighters?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I am determined to get things built in this country. If you ask the question, “What do we need to do to improve economic productivity and to lift the standard of living for all New Zealanders?”, there are five things. We have to have a world-class education system; we have to embrace more science, technology, and innovation; we have to have more modern, reliable infrastructure; get rid of the red tape; and embrace trade and investment. Those are the five things that are proven consistently to lift economic productivity and the standard of living for all Kiwis. That’s what we’re doing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is the Government refusing to invest in publicly led, publicly funded, and publicly operated infrastructure, given that we all in this House know, given the reports that private companies, when they get involved to make a profit, it costs more for New Zealanders in the long run?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, there are so many assumptions in that question, but I just would reassure the member that this is a Government spending a huge amount of money on capital investment. We are pummelling more money into health. We are putting more money into education. We are opening up and spending more monies on core infrastructure. But it’s an “and”—“and” we want to access capital so that we can actually get things built faster and quicker rather than just relying on our own balance sheet at this time in a country that is already capital-thin.

Hon Shane Jones: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government inherited a green fund—the green fund hoped to find fellow investors who hoped to make a profit from clean green energy—and since the disappearance of James Shaw, what has changed about that group over there?

SPEAKER: No, no, the last part of that question is definitely not answerable, but you may answer the first part of the question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s fair to say that we’ve got some serious concerns around the performance of the Green Investment Fund, and I’m sure we’ll have more to say about that shortly.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What’s his message to the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who own their own small businesses or are self-employed and get out every day to deliver good quality services to their customers and hope at the end of the day to make a profit in order to feed their family, today, in this House?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I want them to know that we appreciate them. They are people of ambition and aspiration. They take a risk, they use their own capital to go off and build a business, to employ thousands of people—that is a good thing. We want to reward that behaviour, we want to encourage it, we want to see a lot more of it—more entrepreneurship, more innovation, more investment. [Interruption]

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just a minute. I think the House needs a moment to settle.

Question No. 7—Mori Development

ā

7. to the Minister for Māori Development: Is he across everything in his portfolio; if not, why not?

Yes, I am, and I certainly hope that the member is across his remit as the Labour social development spokesperson, the Māori development spokesperson—

SPEAKER: Good—no need for that last statement.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why did the Minister say he was confused and didn’t know anything about the Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), when Chris Bishop said he did not know why Tama Potaka was unaware of the removed Treaty clause when he had signed off the Cabinet paper?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Some journalists have mischaracterised the proposed resource management legislation as not having a Treaty clause, but Cabinet has committed to pursuing appropriate protection of the Treaty, including Treaty settlements, rights, and interests, through descriptive clauses, not just another generic Treaty principles clause. I look forward to engaging with my senior colleagues, and Māori and iwi leaders, on ensuring the recognition accordingly—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. We’re about to go into an absolutely silent question time if that sort of racket keeps up. It’s completely unacceptable, and no one watching this or listening to it can for a minute imagine that their votes are being well represented at the present time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister Tama Potaka, is it the case that you as Minister are across everything, and not just cross at everything?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister confused about the Government’s position on the Treaty principles, given that he has approved the removal of the Treaty principles clause in the RMA reform?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In answer to the first part of the question, no.

Hon Willie Jackson: Did the Minister read the Cabinet paper titled Replacing the Resource Management Act 1991, published in October 2024, that said, “A perceived erosion of the Māori rights and interests recognised and provided for in the RMA could create significant challenges for the Māori-Crown relationship.”; and, if so, what feedback did he provide, if any, to his Cabinet colleagues?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In answer to the first part of the question: yes, and a number of other papers, including those that state that this Cabinet and this Government is committed to ensuring appropriate recognition of the Treaty, Treaty settlements, and other rights and interests in future resource management legislation.

Hon Willie Jackson: How can Māori have confidence in him when his own ministerial colleague Minister Chris Bishop has said, “I don’t know what’s in Tama’s head. But Cabinet has made a decision to not have a generic Treaty clause in the RMA.”, or is he so far down the food chain he’s simply given up—

Hon Nicola Willis: Oh, shame!

Hon Willie Jackson: —on trying to advocate—

Hon Nicola Willis: Come on! Shame!

Hon Willie Jackson: —for Māori interests?—shame on you.

SPEAKER: Good. Well, we’ll just let that question fly by, unless the member wants to reword it.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How can Māori have confidence in their Minister’s advocacy of Māori interests, when he embarrassed himself by not knowing what he had signed off on, or is he overwhelmed with the anti-Treaty agenda of this Government and has simply lost track?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Once again, I think that the member mischaracterises the position of this Government, as set out in the coalition commitments around Treaty settlements and a number of other matters.

Hon Shane Jones: Too much extravagant language.

Hon Willie Jackson: Ah, shoosh up, Jonesy!

SPEAKER: Yeah, well—[Interruption]

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s just not getting the publicity of your leader.

SPEAKER: You all right, now? You all done?

Hon Willie Jackson: No, I’m all done. I’d like another one, but I’ve run out.

SPEAKER: Good. We’ll just—

Hon Shane Jones: No more rhetoric, Willie.

SPEAKER: Hang on—Shane, it’s not the end of the year, for goodness’ sake. We’ll go to question No. 8, Sam Uffindell—in silence. Well, he can speak.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has she made about the Annual General Adjustment?

I am pleased to confirm that from 1 April this year, most Ministry of Social Development payment rates will increase through the annual general adjustment, or AGA. This is great news, as more than 900,000 superannuitants and almost 5,000 veterans are amongst the Kiwis set to receive a significant financial boost from next week. This increase will help provide relief from the cost of living, with an increase ranging from just over 2 percent to around 3 percent.

Sam Uffindell: What is the total number of New Zealanders that will receive an increase?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: About 1.5 million New Zealanders will get an increase: 409,300 main beneficiaries, 47,400 students will see an increase in their allowance, 70,000 non-beneficiaries getting supplementary assistance are expected to be better off, and, as I mentioned earlier, over 933,000 superannuitants and close to 5,000 veterans will get a boost to their superannuation and veterans pensions.

Sam Uffindell: What will be the impact of these changes for seniors?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: People getting superannuation will receive an extra boost this year, with their total increase being about 3 percent. This is so that superannuation remains at 66 percent of the average wage. Superannuitants have been doing it tough in recent years, and this change will have a material impact. A married couple who both receive New Zealand superannuation will be better off by approximately $25 per week, and a single person living alone and receiving New Zealand superannuation will be approximately $17 a week better off.

Sam Uffindell: What other initiatives have been implemented to support New Zealanders with the cost of living?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In addition to the upcoming AGA payment increase, the Government has introduced other initiatives to support New Zealanders. For instance, the one that stands out for me is FamilyBoost, which has provided financial support to over 51,000 households by helping with the cost of early childhood education. As of last week, this initiative has injected nearly $32 million into the pockets of low and middle income families, further assisting people with their financial challenges. These initiatives demonstrate our Government’s ongoing commitment—

Hon Member: Ha!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —to supporting New Zealanders through challenging economic times—and it’s a real pity that the other side of the House doesn’t recognise the very real challenges that some New Zealanders are going through.

Question No. 9—Children

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

Yes, in the context in which they were made at the time. I especially stand by my recent statement regarding the review of privacy practices at Oranga Tamariki, which came about after a high number of serious privacy breaches in 2022 and 2023—that, while the issues covered in the report predated this Government, they could not be allowed to continue under our watch. I also stand by my statement that Oranga Tamariki has not had any serious notifiable breaches in the last 12 months.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What is the reoffending rate for the military-style academy pilot participants?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: My position remains the same as it has been over previous questions in this area. To protect these young people from the pressure of public scrutiny and to maintain their privacy, I will not be providing play-by-play information on their circumstances. Oranga Tamariki will be providing public updates at appropriate intervals, and I will confirm that all nine young people are still participating in the pilot.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was, “Does the Minister stand by her statements and actions?” Now, unless the accusation was that the Minister herself has been reoffending, I don’t see how that supplementary linked to the primary.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the word “actions” gets you there, but I think the answer perfectly dealt with it.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she say that it isn’t in the public interest to provide the reoffending rate when eight out of the nine participants in the pilot have allegedly reoffended?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m not going to be confirming any numbers, and I am not even going to say whether that member is right or wrong. I will continue to say that there are reviews that will be released at appropriate intervals, and they will be made publicly available.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why hasn’t Oranga Tamariki released the reoffending rate given they work collaboratively with the police and they know the rate?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This is a pilot that is currently still running and is under review, and as the review goes through, there will be statements to be made at appropriate intervals.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has anyone in her office indicated in any way to Oranga Tamariki that information about the reoffending figures should not be released?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki is of the understanding that they follow my instructions that these young people’s privacy is the most important thing, and making sure that we’re taking care of the wellbeing and the safety of these young people comes first and foremost before anything else.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen on the effectiveness of the community beat teams?

I’m pleased to report that our community beat teams are doing an outstanding job. Last year, for the first time since 2018, we saw a year-on-year decrease in violent crime. In Wellington CBD, when comparing 2024 to 2023, we’ve seen a 5.5 percent decrease in violent crime. In Christchurch CBD, we saw a 4.7 percent decrease, and in Auckland CBD we saw an 11.5 percent decrease in violent crime. I want to thank all our outstanding beat officers for their work.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How does the Minister see community beat teams strengthening trust and confidence in police, given the success?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The decreases we have seen in violent crime aren’t just numbers; each of those is a victim with a potentially life-changing trauma. Seeing our police officers on the beat provides reassurance, and the feedback that I’ve had from our beat officers is that they’re loving the increased positive contact with the public. It was nice to see this year that public confidence in our police is on the rise again.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What have CBD businessowners shared with the Minister in relation to community beat teams?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’ve been lucky enough to be out on patrol with our beat sections in both the Auckland and Wellington CBDs. A couple of examples: in Wellington CBD, a shop owner that had two entry and exit points to his shop that he had to close in recent years because of the rate of retail crime; in working with our beat section, for the first time he’s been able to open both those doors again to his business. Another businessowner in Wellington said an overnight change on the streets, with police walking past, was making their staff feel safe.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Does he think that a strong visible police presence is what communities are asking for?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Undoubtedly. In the letter of expectations that I sent out when I became police Minister, I noted that police need to be highly visible in communities and providing assurance. Police have responded extremely well to this, and both the public and police are enjoying increased presence, positive interaction, and reducing crime rates.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received any submissions from MP Tamatha Paul saying that police patrols are just a waste of time?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’ve seen reports in the media and comments from members in this House that we do not need a police force, and heavy criticism of our police. I just want to say in the House that I’m extremely proud of our police service, I’m extremely proud of the people that serve in our police force, and I’m extremely proud of the work they’re doing to protect the communities they serve.

SPEAKER: While that question was answered, it was in the nature of an attack on a political party and not at all desirable. It was, none the less, asking a question that was directly related to the in-tray of the Minister.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement regarding record levels of methamphetamine in waste-water testing, “Well, I don’t know whether that’s dealers dumping methamphetamine”; if not, why not?

Yes. From personal experience as a front-line police officer, it was common practice for gang members to try and flush drugs through the waste-water system—sometimes in large quantities—if they were at risk of being caught. So, as I’ve stated, I wasn’t sure if this was a contributing factor. I’ve been told that the current testing would not detect large quantities of dumped meth-related product. We have inherited big challenges in relation to restoring public safety, including meth dealing. This is why we’ve been hitting the gangs so hard—because they are big drivers in the supply and control of meth. To underline this, the recent takedown of the Barbarian Mongrel Mob in Ōpōtiki has seen a reduction of meth detected in waste-water testing. I know we have a problem and I’m focused on dealing with it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What has driven an “unprecedented 96 percent increase in methamphetamine consumption” when comparing 2023 to 2024?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think policies like giving the Mongrel Mob in Hastings—the biggest peddlers of meth—almost $3 million was not helpful. I think, without a doubt, that the 501s coming to this country has been a big aggravating factor. They’ve got big global networks, they’re well organised, and this is a big issue and problem for us to deal with. That’s why you see this Government coming out with gang policies and gang legislation that just about everyone in the Opposition would not support, or is opposed to. We know that we’ve got a methamphetamine problem—this is a global problem—and we’re very focused on dealing with that. This is not a new problem; this was a problem that we inherited in terms of the use of methamphetamine. The last aggravating factor, of course—as I’ve mentioned today—was the fact that we’ve been through tough economic times for the last two or three years. We’ve had inflation that’s been high for far too long and we’ve had interest rates that have been high for far too long. This creates immense pressure on households and, often, people seek ways of trying to escape that reality, and it’s through alcohol and it’s through drugs. We are working hard as a Government—

SPEAKER: OK.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —to make sure that we’ve reduced—

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —inflation, we’ve reduced—

SPEAKER: It’s in answer to a question—

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —interest rates, and we’re reducing that pressure that is on those households that is driving that sort of behaviour.

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Please don’t give an answer of that length again.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he stand by his statement that “we’re getting drug dealers off the streets,” when drugs and waste-water testing results for 2024—the past year—show methamphetamine use has doubled?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, we are getting drug dealers off the streets, and I’ll point to two operations: one was the takedown of the Comancheros—the entire chapter of the Comancheros—in Christchurch, and the other was the outstanding police work in the Bay of Plenty, where they took down the Barbarians Mongrel Mob in Ōpōtiki, who were a wrecking ball in that community and had been taking over the town and causing all sorts of issues. As a result of that, we’ve seen a reduction in methamphetamine in the waste-water testing.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Did he just say that waste water has reduced?

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Ginny Andersen: I think the Minister just said that waste-water testing methamphetamine has reduced.

Hon Members: Yeah, in Ōpōtiki.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s not my job to do—tell me, what was—[Interruption] Sorry, what’s the point of order?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Oh, I’ll move on to the supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Well, don’t waste the House’s time with those sorts of trivial points of order.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Police advice that reducing methamphetamine use would reduce gang violence and family violence, and, if so, why is he not prioritising an action plan to break the cycle of crime?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, of course the reduction of methamphetamine would reduce violence right across the whole of society. It’s a wrecking ball for us as a country, and it has been since when it first entered the country several decades ago. This Government is heavily focused on dealing with the drivers and the dealers of this methamphetamine—the peddlers of the misery—and that is the gangs. So we’ve introduced a whole lot of new legislation that’s proving to be very effective for the police to use. It’d be nice to have some support from the Opposition, instead of their having to belatedly admit and concede that, actually, what we’re doing is starting to work.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he admit that business is booming for the gangs, with methamphetamine use on the rise, gang numbers up, and police officers leaving faster than he can recruit them?

Hon Member: More Ginny facts.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well—more Ginny facts—the reality of it is this. It is that we’re doing very well—

SPEAKER: No, no, no—start again. Sorry, start again.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the reality is this: actually, the police are doing an outstanding job with recruiting, and, actually, we’re starting to see some police officers return from Australia who want to come back. We’ve now got an outstanding Commissioner of Police in place who is doing very good work, and I’m very proud of the work that our police officers are doing. As we came into Government, we inherited an environment that was very permissive for the gangs. They’d been operating with impunity. That has changed—that has changed. We’re putting enormous pressure on the gangs. We understand the problems and the misery that they peddle—

SPEAKER: Yep—good.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and that’s why you’ll see the pressure continue to ramp up.

Question No. 12—Health

12. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “Our Government is focused on delivering timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders”; if so, has he contracted the build of the inpatient building for the Dunedin Hospital yet?

on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, I stand by that statement. This Government is committed to delivering timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. In January, we confirmed that a new Dunedin Hospital in-patient building will be built on the former Cadbury’s site, with a total project budget of $1.88 billion. On opening, it will provide 371 beds, 22 theatres, and a significantly expanded emergency department to serve Otago and Southland. Health New Zealand is actively progressing the next stages of the project, including detailed design planning and contractual negotiations. As the entity responsible for delivery, Health New Zealand is responsible for ensuring all necessary steps are taken to advance construction in a timely and fiscally responsible manner.

Scott Willis: Is he concerned that Te Whatu Ora has found that insecurity about Dunedin Hospital’s progression and repetitive resets could lead to staff loss and workforce project fatigue; if not, why not?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister, Health New Zealand is aware of the uncertainty that some staff are feeling while it confirms next steps. Health New Zealand will continue to provide support to staff and keep them updated where it can through regular communication channels.

Scott Willis: Does he accept that his failure to deliver a timely and much promised Dunedin Hospital could see an exodus of specialists out of Aotearoa New Zealand, which could jeopardise future infrastructure projects?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister, this Government has given the people of Dunedin certainty that we will build a new Dunedin Hospital that will futureproof the provision of timely, quality healthcare for the Dunedin community and surrounding Otago and Southland regions. This will be a new, modern hospital, and the announcements are clearly delivered within the fiscal budgets that we have available.

Scott Willis: How exactly does he think that delivering Dunedin Hospital through a complex public-private partnership will deliver more timely and quality healthcare?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The primary question in this was about the delivery of the project, and I can confirm that the delivery of the project is on track, and commercial negotiations are ongoing for the main contract and inpatient building for Dunedin. If there’s more specific questions the member would like about health services in Dunedin, he’s happy to put those questions to the Minister.

Scott Willis: Would Crown borrowing to fund Dunedin Hospital be faster, simpler, cost New Zealanders less, and be less risky than public-private partnership arrangements?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister, no.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. While members leave the House quietly, those who have duties elsewhere, I call the Hon Peeni Henare. If you’re leaving the House, don’t have conversations on the way. Move off swiftly.