Oral Questions

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, especially our action to unlock infrastructure investment. The Waikato Expressway is a great example of the impact that modern, reliable infrastructure can make for families and for businesses, and now we’re bringing the same experience to Northland—more jobs, more growth, more connectivity, and more opportunity for every New Zealander living north of Auckland. It’s no surprise that I saw today the Northland Corporate Group said the expressway is “exactly what our economy needs to drive growth, create jobs, reduce costs, and enable export expansion.” We’re serious about economic growth and ensuring that Kiwis can get ahead, and delivering infrastructure like the Northland Expressway is just one part of that vision.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is he willing to wait until term 2 for the chaos David Seymour’s caused to the school lunch programme to be fixed, given kids are going hungry; lunches are still arriving late or not at all; some of the food is inedible; and, in the worst cases, kids are being physically injured by exploding lunches?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the incident we saw last week was unacceptable and not something we want to see at all. I think the Minister has fronted really clearly on that, actually suspending those type of lunches. Importantly, he is working his way through the issues to make sure that we get better-quality food and better on-time performance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What will it take for him to finally step in and fix the mess his Government has made of the school lunches programme, particularly given the one Minister who actually seems to want to get it sorted out, Erica Stanford, is being ignored by David Seymour?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, this is a Minister that’s working incredibly hard through some very challenging issues to make sure that we get our food back to scratch and to make sure that we deliver on time, in full. There’s some improvement happening; there’s a lot more that needs to happen; and, as I said, the Minister is wanting to make sure there are improvements in place for term 2.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that one of the three partners in the school lunch collective going insolvent won’t lead to any kids going hungry; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is what we have been assured: that, despite the liquidation, the school lunches programme is not at risk. Obviously, that’s a commercial matter, but our key thing is to make sure that we are getting what we have contracted for and that that is delivered.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that yesterday’s on-time delivery for the healthy school lunch programme was 99.74 percent; and is that better than the delivery of the vaccine roll-out, which someone forgot to order?

SPEAKER: The first part of the question might be answerable—not the second.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can answer the first part of the question. The answer is yes. It’s been good to see improving on-time performance. Now we need to see what’s delivered in full, and I’ve got every confidence in the Minister to do that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has the number of rough sleepers in Auckland increased by 53 percent over the last four months, and is it a coincidence that that occurred at the same time his Government kicked 690 Auckland households out of emergency housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I am incredibly proud of our record on housing, unlike that last Government. We have stable rents; we have 4,000 to 5,000 people off the social housing wait-list, which went up four times under Minister Megan Woods; and, importantly, we’ve taken 2,000 kids out of motel accommodation and got them into proper homes and houses through community housing providers in Kāinga Ora (KO). I put our record up on housing against yours any day of the week. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That was the day’s worth of barracking all used up in one question. Calm it down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he agree with Tama Potaka that the link between people getting kicked out of emergency housing and a rise in homelessness is “not anecdotal, it’s real”, and, if not, will he provide evidence of where the kids in emergency housing actually went?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As we have said before, we have taken 2,000 kids that were being raised in motels under the last Government, and we now have them in proper homes and proper houses through community housing providers in KO. I thought that member would actually want to celebrate that and actually think that was a good thing.

Hon Chris Bishop: Is the Prime Minister aware that when the Leader of the Opposition says that people have been “kicked out” of motels, what he actually means is that they have been offered the opportunity to go into social, transitional, or private sector housing and are, therefore, in homes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is how I understand it—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —and, importantly, 80 percent of the people that have left—

SPEAKER: Hang on, I’m dealing with a point of order here.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sir, the Prime Minister is not responsible for what the Minister of Housing believes—

SPEAKER: The question was, “Has he seen reports?”, so that brings it into line.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am proud that 80 percent of the families that have been moved out of emergency housing have been moved into proper houses. That’s where you should be raising families. I think we should be celebrating across the aisle here that 2,000 kids have been moved out of motels and into proper houses. It was a debacle under that previous Minister, who did nothing on housing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What happened to the 20 percent who haven’t been moved into sustainable housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The message, very clearly, is that if they need our assistance and help, we are there to help and assist them. They haven’t needed it.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: When will the Treasury’s next set of economic and fiscal forecasts be released?

Each year, Treasury does two sets of forecasts: one to accompany the Budget, and another at the half-year update. In an election year, as a bonus, there’s also a pre-election update. Looking ahead, the next Treasury forecasts will be those that accompany the Budget, on 22 May.

Rima Nakhle: What will the new economic forecasts show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Broadly in keeping with other published economic forecasts, I expect the Treasury’s forecast to show a return to growth in the December quarter of last year, then picking up over this calendar year. Consistent with other forecasts, they are also likely to show unemployment peaking in the first half of 2025 and then declining. Treasury is currently working through its detailed forecasting process. What I would say is it’s a hard time to be a forecaster, with a lot of uncertainty around the impact of other countries’ economic policies and responses.

Rima Nakhle: What will the new fiscal forecasts show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, again, the Treasury is still working through their process, and the Government is still working through our Budget decisions. What I do know from previous updates is that within the overall fiscal picture, some elements will show an improvement over the previous forecasts, and some will show a decline. For example, the outlook for global bond yields means that finance costs are likely to be greater than they were at the half-year update. That is to say, the costs of servicing New Zealand’s debt will be higher. And, given my experience of forecast revisions last year, I am not holding out hope for an overall positive fiscal surprise. That seems unlikely, but it is still early days. As with the economic forecasts, there are many risks that could affect the fiscal forecasts.

Rima Nakhle: What will her approach be to the new forecasts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has a deliberate medium-term approach to fiscal consolidation, and we’ve always said that we will not overreact to movements up or down in the forecasts. We have set Budget allowances that drive spending restraint and require savings to fund Government priorities. None the less, the Government will look at options during the lead-up to Budget 2025 and consider whether the new Treasury forecasts warrant any further action.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “We are taking steps to ensure that we will grow faster than we otherwise would”; if so, what is her growth target for jobs and incomes?

I may well have said that—it sounds like something I would say—but my office has not been able to access the verification, so I don’t know the context and am mindful that that member has quoted me out of context and incorrectly in the past. To the second part, the Government has a target for inflation but no explicit target for other economic variables. Needless to say, my ambition is to deliver policies that support more job creation and higher incomes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That was on notice. She should have asked the Clerk’s Office.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We did.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. If someone, as Carmel Sepuloni says, should have gone to the Clerk’s Office, and we did, and the answer was no verification, then I want to know why that question’s been accepted for this House without verification.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I can just clarify for members: we did seek from the Clerk’s Office what verification was offered. They said that that was for Labour to determine whether they would share that with us. Labour were not forthcoming in sharing it with us prior to question time commencing.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Point of order—speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Hang on. It’s getting to a bit of a “dates in scones” argument, which I’m not very keen on. But we’ll hear from you.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Speaking to the point of order. I appreciate the Minister’s concerns that Labour was not forthcoming; however, we did not receive a request for the authentication for the RNZ 18 March 2024 interview that we authenticate—that we used for this question.

SPEAKER: Right. Let’s move on.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, then, are there 6,248 fewer filled jobs than this time last year, according to Statistics New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As we have gone through in this House again and again, unfortunately, when inflation is left to go out of control and interest rates are hiked very far, that has a negative impact for both economic growth and for job creation. What I would highlight for the member is that the number of people unemployed today is markedly similar to that which was predicted in the pre-election fiscal update. Members, for your reference, if we go to Q1 for 2025, the number of people unemployed predicted at the pre-election update was 165,000. The half-year update confirmed exactly the same number. If the member wishes to say that this is a result of Government policies, I would commend to her that she then explain why the previous Labour Government were predicting exactly the same levels of unemployment.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she therefore committing to “grow the economy faster than [it] otherwise would”, as stated in a Radio New Zealand interview, than the annual growth figures of 3.4 percent for 2026, as forecast by Treasury in the half-yearly fiscal update?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, my ambition in all of the policies that we deliver is to drive our growth rate, and therefore job creation and income growth, higher. I have, however, within my arsenal, a small piece of humility, which is to say that, while our Government should be driving policies on a daily basis that will help the growth outlook, we should always be mindful that there are factors that remain outside of our control, not least of which are global economic conditions and the decisions made by other Governments. While that member is welcome to say that those factors somehow wouldn’t affect her, I’d suggest she consult with the new spokesperson for jobs and incomes as to what her view is.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why then have the Treasury or the Reserve Bank not upgraded their forecast, given her claims that the Government will grow the economy faster?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I outlined in my patsy question, the Treasury actually update their forecasts twice a year: at the half-year update and at the Budget update. The member can look forward to updated forecasts at the Budget.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she claim that she will grow the economy “faster than we otherwise would” when current job statistics, Treasury, and Reserve Bank forecasts do not reflect any of her claims?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because of two things. The first is, as I have outlined to that member laboriously, the forecast rate of unemployment is markedly similar to that which was forecast prior to the election. Second, I can stand here with great confidence and say that a Labour-led Government, at this juncture in history, would have done more economic vandalism—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t say that—no, you can’t say that. You can talk about this Government, but not any previous Government, other than reference to matters that directly affect the portfolio.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Gosh! How many mistakes did she make?

SPEAKER: Well, that could be a mistake—talking out loud like that too.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made on the Northland Expressway?

I thank the member for that excellent patsy. Yesterday, I was thrilled to announce, alongside the Prime Minister, the Government would formally open the registrations of interest for the first stage of the Northland Expressway at the infrastructure summit later in the week. This marks a significant milestone in this Government’s commitment to build roads of national significance around the country. Connecting Northland to Auckland in a new, resilient, safe, and efficient new expressway will unlock growth, boost productivity, and drive higher living standards.

Grant McCallum: What benefits can Northlanders expect from this Northland Expressway project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Northland Expressway will unlock the true economic potential of the North. The right analogy is the Waikato Expressway, delivered by the last National Government, which was a game-changer for Waikato and Hamilton, and the Northland Expressway will do for the North what the Waikato Expressway has done for Waikato. This is an investment in the upper North Island area—the economic powerhouse of the country, with 53.7 percent of our population and 55 percent of GDP. This is an investment in growth and productivity.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has the Minister received on this announcement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is great news, and that’s been reflected in the feedback. The chair of the Northland Regional Transport Committee says it will be “a real game-changer”. Northland Corporate Group co-chair Andrew McLeod says it will be “transformative for the upper North Island. Without it, the ability for Northland to support Auckland from the North, via logistics, energy, food … forestry, and construction … will remain underutilised and [barricaded].” And, of course, there is an New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report into the Northland Expressway, which shows significant economic interest.

Grant McCallum: When does the Government plan to begin construction on the Northland Expressway?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Formal procurement will begin this week on the first section. Registered parties will be invited to submit a formal expression of interest, with a request for proposal in mid-2025 for up to three short-listed bidders. The preferred bidder is expected to be announced early next year, and a public-private partnership contract finalised by the middle of the year, with construction expected to begin soon afterwards on the first section from Warkworth to Te Hana, which is expected to start in late 2026. We will be getting on with the other sections of the expressway, particularly around the Brynderwyns, which is a very important corridor to look at as well.

Hon Shane Jones: Over the top.

SPEAKER: Yes—that would be a good description of the contribution being made by the member.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes, and especially our actions to get our healthcare system focused on patients, not the back-office bureaucracy. We are already spending a record amount in health, but last week the Minister of Health, Simeon Brown, announced a range of new actions we’re taking to make it easier for Kiwis to see a doctor. We’re training more doctors and nurses, we’re paying them more, and we’re creating more opportunities for them to work in primary care, serving the community. We’re putting more funding into GP clinics so that they can enrol more patients, and we’re introducing a 24/7 digital platform so that Kiwis can see a doctor when they need it. Kiwis deserve timely, quality care and access to healthcare, and we won’t stop until we deliver exactly that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is homelessness in Auckland increasing or decreasing as a result of his Government’s decisions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say is that we’re getting more people out of emergency housing, we’re taking more people off the social housing wait-list, and rents are stable.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are answers like that why, when I asked the Prime Minister a year ago in this House, he refused to guarantee that nobody would be made homeless by his Government’s policies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can tell you is that our Government is doing everything that it can after the legacy that was left by a Greens-Labour Government that did an appalling job on housing. We are working on making sure we get more houses available for sale. We’re making sure that we get rents stable, we’re making sure we take people off the social housing wait-list that went up four times, and we’re making sure we get kids out of motels. That’s a good thing, and I think that that member would be wanting to celebrate that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm if every person currently sleeping homeless on the streets of Auckland City is able to get access to housing under his Government’s policy settings?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They are able to come to the Government and actually ask for and get the assistance that they need, and we will take anyone’s efforts to come and actually get the support that they need.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is more people sleeping on the street, following his Government’s decisions to tighten access to emergency housing, what he means by his “growth strategy”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can tell the member is there are less people in motels and emergency housing, and more—

Chlöe Swarbrick: But they’re on the street, mate.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, no, they’re not. Two thousand—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes, they are.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Would you like to hear the answer? When we—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just calm. Don’t barrack through the middle of an answer. You’ve asked your question; let him answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When this Government came into office, there were 3,141 households in motels thanks to the last Government. Today, there are 591. We have put more families out of motels and into proper homes, where kids should be raised. Almost 2,000 kids now live in houses, not in motels. That is a good thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, wait—just wait. Just wait—OK.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister spend just a few hours in Auckland Central to come and meet the people who his Government’s decisions have made homeless?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of the question. The last Greens-Labour Government made housing worse for all New Zealanders, whether they own a house, whether they rent a house, whether they need a community housing provider or a social house, or whether they’re in emergency housing. We are proud that through focused and good management, we have taken 2,000 kids out of motels and put them into proper houses. That’s a great thing.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the social housing wait-list, which is one very clear measure of unmet housing need, has increased or decreased during his term of Government, and how does that compare to what happened to that social housing wait-list the last time the Greens were anywhere near Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I mean, it’s an important context. The social housing wait-list went from about 6,500—it went up four times under the last Government. We have taken up to 4,000 to 5,000, from memory, out of the social housing list, and they are now off that list. That is a great thing. It means that people who are on the list have a better chance to get a State house or a social house.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Come look these kids in the eye.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just think that member should say that we’ve got work to do, but we’re making great progress—and we’re doing a lot, lot more than what you did in Labour-Greens.

Rawiri Waititi: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Māori do not make up 50 percent of that wait-list?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Rawiri Waititi: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Māori no longer make up 50 percent of that wait-list?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say is that by virtue of the wait-list coming down and by virtue of the 2,000 kids coming out of motels and into proper houses, there’s less Māori in emergency housing and there’s less Māori on the social housing wait-list. That’s a good thing.

Question No. 6—Tourism and Hospitality

6. to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made about increasing visitor numbers to New Zealand?

I have recently announced a range of investments and initiatives to boost tourism in New Zealand. This includes yesterday’s announcement of a $3 million boost to secure more international business events in New Zealand. This investment will allow Tourism New Zealand to increase their annual conference bid development from 90 to 110 bids, attract high-value incentive programmes, and sell New Zealand as a world-class location for business events. This is the next step in our tourism boost package, following previous announcements, including the Australia campaign and a regional fund to attract more international visitors to our fantastic regions.

Greg Fleming: How will these announcements improve overall visitor numbers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our visitor numbers remain at 85 percent of pre-COVID numbers, so we need to keep pushing to get back to those levels. Large-scale conferences result in large numbers of extra visitors, who may not have made the trip for a holiday alone. When people come to New Zealand for business, we want them to go home and to consider returning for a holiday, as well as telling their friends and families about our wonderful country and our warm hospitality.

Greg Fleming: What economic benefits does she expect to see as a result of these announcements?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Every visitor who comes to New Zealand puts more money in the back pockets of Kiwis. The additional investment in securing business events will deliver more than $30 million in incremental spend to the economy. Business event participants spend, on average, $175 more a day than other visitors and often travel during the off-peak season, boosting tourism and economic activity year-round. More tourists mean more people in cafes, more people spending in our shops, more bookings for local accommodation, and more job opportunities for Kiwis.

Greg Fleming: What feedback has she seen on these announcements?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve recently announced a range of investments, and the feedback has been incredibly positive. Business Events Industry Aotearoa chief executive, Lisa Hopkins, said the business events announcement was one of the best investments in the sector she has seen in her career. And she only managed to get 19 cartwheels in, hearing the news! The “Everyone must go” campaign has exceeded our expectations in terms of its reach into Australia. It has had unprecedented support from the industry and has created a sense of urgency, with over 900 deals now on offer for Australians. It is clear that New Zealand is open for business, and we are looking forward to welcoming more visitors to our shores.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: How many procedures were performed in the new Tōtara Haumaru surgical building for the most recent month other than January for which data is available, and how does this compare to the monthly average if Tōtara Haumaru’s projected annual capacity of 15,500 surgical and endoscopic procedures were evenly distributed throughout the year?

I am advised that in February 2025, a total of 720 procedures were completed at Tōtara Haumaru. As the member will be aware, this is different to the 15,500 procedures evenly distributed, as the facility was opened with the intention of delivering 2,000 elective procedures in the first financial year. I am advised that Health New Zealand is on track to deliver against this target, as work continues to ramp up at Tōtara Haumaru. Once operating at full capacity, it is projected that up to 8,000 surgeries and 7,500 endoscopy procedures can be performed within the complex each year.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his statement, “I want as much planned care as possible to be delivered in partnership with the private sector”, when existing public facilities are being underutilised?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As the member will be aware, the last Government, which built Tōtara Haumaru, failed to allocate the funding to operate it. It’s a bit like the Yes Minister show, isn’t it, where you’ve got an empty hospital and nothing is actually able to be done. The former Minister of Health had to find the operational money to be able to get the hospital operating. They’re now gearing up the hospital, so that—

SPEAKER: It’s not a speech—it’s not time for a speech.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it acceptable for surgeons to work in private hospitals during the hours they are paid to work in public hospitals, as requested by one of the private hospitals bidding for the Government’s outsourced procedures?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: If the member is wanting to have a debate around using the public or the private system, I would point her to a Cabinet paper taken by Chris Hipkins to Cabinet back in 2020, which said that there would be an increase in the use of private providers, in order to make the best use of all the capacity that is available in the health system.

SPEAKER: That’s all good. But the question will be asked again.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it acceptable for surgeons to work in private hospitals during the hours they are paid to work in public hospitals, as requested by one of the private hospitals bidding for the Government’s outsourced procedures?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, if the debate is going to be around whether or not we should use the public system or the private system, I would point the member to a Cabinet paper taken by Chris Hipkins, as the Minister of Health, to Cabinet in 2020, where he said, “There will also be an increase in the use of private providers in order to make the best use of all the capacity that is available.” It also said, “The ministry is facilitating discussions with the New Zealand Private Surgical Hospitals Association to ensure a national approach is developed”—

SPEAKER: No—that’s enough. That’s enough. I’m sorry, it might be interesting to some, but we’ll hear the question again, and the Minister will attempt to answer the question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it acceptable for surgeons to work in private hospitals during the hours they are paid to be working in public hospitals, as requested by one of the private providers bidding for the Government’s outsourced procedures?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, one of the things we’ve outlined is to ensure that there are proper arrangements between public and private systems, particularly around workforce, to ensure we are growing the workforce together and so that the ad hoc basis that had been happening in the past—and she outlined an example, which is the type of behaviours that had been happening in the past. We want to see long-term agreements put in place, just as was outlined in the Cabinet paper that Chris Hipkins took to Cabinet in 2020.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who is correct: Christopher Luxon, who on 7 June 2022 said, “Privatisation is not a big philosophical driver for me at this point in time”; or Simeon Brown when he said, “I’d like to see as much planned care—those elective surgeries—done by the private sector”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I think the answer to that question is that Kiwis needing elective surgery don’t care who is providing it; they want it done in a timely manner, and under the last Government the number of people waiting more than four months for elective treatment increased by 2,500 percent. We’re on the side of getting things done, and just as Chris Hipkins took to Cabinet in 2020, we’re going to use the public system and the private system to get it done.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the basis of that answer, is there a medical condition called “an own goal”, and can it be fixed?

Hon Peeni Henare: I think it’s called Lester Levy.

SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall—just wait till everyone has calmed themselves down.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has he been advised that performing 10,579 additional elective procedures in private hospitals will mean that the milestone of 63 percent of patients waiting less than four months for elective treatment in the current financial year will be met?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’ve been advised that Health New Zealand will be both insourcing and outsourcing in order to achieve that number by the end of this year so that we can make sure we are increasing the number of elective surgeries being done. As I said in my previous answer, I don’t think Kiwis waiting for elective surgery are caring too much about who is delivering it; they want it done, and that’s what we’re focused on doing.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: What exactly is his growth strategy to utilise and develop our local wealth base here in Aotearoa so we aren’t reliant on risky offshore capital?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Hon Marama Davidson: What exactly is his growth strategy to utilise and develop our local wealth base here in Aotearoa so we aren’t reliant on risky offshore capital?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject outright the characterisation of that question. New Zealand has done a very, very poor job, over a number of decades, of attracting capital to New Zealand. Frankly, whether it’s international pools of capital or whether it’s domestic pools of capital, we want to be able to partner with that private capital so that we can actually get infrastructure built—more roads, more hospitals, more schools. That’s what New Zealanders want, and that’s how we deliver better public services for them.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is it fair that the overseas banks New Zealanders bank with bring in $3.5 billion of excess profits a year and the half-overseas-owned supermarkets New Zealanders have no other choice but to shop at squeeze them out of $1 million in excess profits daily when most people are struggling to get by?

SPEAKER: The question would be OK without those various descriptors that are in it, but the Prime Minister can have a shot at answering it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to the member, that’s why this Government wants to make sure that there is real competition in banking and in energy and across all of our sectors in this economy. That’s what we’re doing. Sadly, it didn’t happen under the last Government.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is it fair that the biggest early childhood education provider, which New Zealanders have to send their tamariki to so they can go to mahi, pulled in $32 million of tax-free profits last year while most people are struggling to get by?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I mean, this just characterises the Greens’ position, doesn’t it? It’s a de-growth agenda of living in a hermit kingdom. Actually, it’s OK that commercial enterprises that provide products and/or services to consumers or customers or to the New Zealand public actually make a fair return for their efforts. That’s quite OK.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, you get three—sorry, I’ll come to you next.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the PM acknowledge that the higher costs of borrowing and the need to pay dividends to shareholders mean that privatisation ultimately ends up costing New Zealanders more than if public services stayed in public ownership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I mean, there’s quite a lot to that question that is, I think, rather disjointed and doesn’t hang together, but I’ll answer the first part. I can give you very good examples where, actually, New Zealanders can get operations that they need in the healthcare system, and, frankly, whether it’s delivered through the public system or the private system, we want them to get the procedures and the help that they need. Private hospitals in many cases are geared up at scale to deal with a number of procedures and operations that New Zealanders can get quicker if we use that capacity, so it’s not a private versus public argument.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that New Zealanders have been bringing capital from across the seas since Kupe showed up in a sailboat with some kumara, but, sadly, xenophobic attitudes have been here nearly as long?

SPEAKER: Well, in so much as the Prime Minister has responsibility.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can confirm is that we know that the New Zealand economy has suffered from what we call “thin capital”, and we have done a poor job of attracting capital to New Zealand and investment to New Zealand. We know we need the investment because it’s actually capital to grow our businesses, which actually creates higher-income jobs and more jobs for people. It’s that capital and that joint venture that actually end up creating those international connections and those networks and that knowledge that’s transferred into New Zealand. That’s a good thing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Prime Minister increase public ownership of the basic things we all need just to live—like school lunches, healthcare, and childcare—or will he choose to sell off Aotearoa and funnel even more profits to offshore corporates instead?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have to say the Greens are totally deluded on economics. I mean, I don’t know how to say it any other way, but, honestly, that is a question that just makes no sense, and I reject it.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “Emergency housing will always be available as a last resort for those who need it”?

In the context in which that statement was made, yes. Emergency housing was intended to be a last resort—not the first resort—and it remains a last resort in most towns and cities in Aotearoa New Zealand for those with a general need for a short-term stay in temporary accommodation.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is the Minister saying that those who are homeless in Auckland, which has risen 53 percent in only four months, aren’t in genuine need of emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are many people with a genuine need for emergency housing in New Zealand, and there continues to be transitional housing places in Auckland.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is he saying that those who are homeless in Wellington, which has risen over 40 percent, aren’t in genuine need of emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m also saying that there are a number of programmes and pathways for those who are either homeless or with severe housing deprivation to actually reset their situation. For example, there is Housing First, rapid rehousing, transitional housing, single site supported housing, and even private housing that people can access by way of housing support products, which continue to be supported by this Government.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is he saying that front-line providers, the very people who administer those programmes and pathways he just outlined, are wrong when they provide him with examples of people unable to access emergency housing because of the policy changes that he brought in?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can observe, as does the census data from 2018 to 2023, that severe housing deprivation actually increased over 10 percent during those five years. I can also observe that those providers which the member refers to also have the opportunity to engage on these other programmes which I’ve enunciated in my previous answer.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he therefore meet and engage with front-line providers, with cameras present so that everyone can see, and tell those—

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, for goodness’ sake!

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Shall I start again, sir?

SPEAKER: There are no comments while a question is being asked. Start again.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you. Will he meet with front-line providers, with cameras present so everyone can see, and tell those very people who are dealing with increased homelessness every day, looking them in the eye and saying that he is right and they are wrong?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I sense and completely understand the member’s and the Opposition’s frustration at our successful delivery and commitment around over 3,000 children leaving emergency housing in the last 15 months and 2,000 by way of the Priority One decision making. And I sense the member’s frustration that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough, thank you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —his Opposition, when they were in Government, were unable to deliver on these matters. But however, I’m very proud of the efforts that we’ve taken. Officials continue to monitor the situations that have been described, and I do also engage with housing providers and others on these very issues.

Question No. 10—Regulation

10. to the Minister for Regulation: What recent announcements has he made about cutting red tape?

On 27 February in the mighty Invercargill, Ministers Penny Simmonds, Andrew Hoggard, and I released the findings from the Ministry for Regulation’s review into agricultural and horticultural products. Rapid access to veterinary medicines and agricultural chemicals is essential for lifting agriculture productivity and growth in the agricultural and horticultural sectors. Yet some firms have waited over five years for Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) approval, costing hundreds of millions of dollars in lost productivity. The review has made 16 recommendations to approve the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO) and agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines (ACVM) processes, which Cabinet has accepted. EPA and MPI have begun implementation, and the two Ministers responsible expect to get it done very quickly.

Mark Cameron: What are the potential economic benefits of improving access to regulated agricultural and horticultural products in New Zealand for these products?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The costs of getting this wrong, as we have been, are substantial. Sense Partners, an economic consultancy, estimate that halving approval times for agricultural products could lift productivity in the sector by $272 million. Conversely, losing EU market access for fruit and vegetables due to delayed product approvals as the EU moves on with its standards and our farmers and horticulturalists can’t get the right products, that is estimated to risk a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar loss. Being able to get these products through a sound regulatory system is vital to our productivity. By bringing together two disparate ministries that have been dis-coordinated, the Ministry for Regulation is making that happen.

SPEAKER: That’s a very, very long answer.

Hon Penny Simmonds: What particular recommendations did the review make regarding the approval process under HSNO?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the review identified reducing the backlog of EPA assessments as a high priority. Setting robust targets to accelerate assessments and reduce the queue is a key recommendation. Increasing the use of group standards and rapid equivalent pathways will also accelerate approvals. I would like to thank the Minister Penny Simmonds and her officials for their work throughout the review and now in implementing these recommendations quickly.

Hon Andrew Hoggard: What particular recommendations did the review make regarding the approvals process under the ACVM?

SPEAKER: What’s the ACVM? I hate acronyms.

Hon Andrew Hoggard: Agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines.

SPEAKER: It’s easy to say. Carry on.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: At the risk of lengthening my answer, I will read out all of the acronyms in full. While smaller than the Environmental Protection Authority’s backlog, the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines queue also requires improvement. The review recommended expanding registration exemptions, enabling self-assessments, and using international assessments to save time on agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. Minister Hoggard is already implementing these through his modernisation programme, and I’d like to thank him and his officials for this work in making this review a success and implementing its recommendations quickly and efficiently for the benefit of our farmers and our horticulturists.

Question No. 11—Land Information

11. to the Minister for Land Information: What announcements has the Government made about making it easier to deliver critical infrastructure projects?

A wide Public Works Act reform is under way, but we’ve announced recently critical infrastructure streamlined proposals, whereby incentive payments of an additional 15 percent of the value of the land will be made available to landowners for early agreement; an additional 5 percent of the value of the land in addition, as a recognition payment, acknowledging the special significance of the land in question for these critical infrastructure projects; and a streamlined objection process, whereby the landowner, himself or herself, can object directly to the decision maker, saving time and money, while preserving Land Valuation Tribunal and recourse to judicial review if necessary.

Tim Costley: What projects will benefit from this streamlined land acquisition pathway?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Thank you very much for the question and the opportunity to answer it. This faster and fairer process will apply to projects consented in Schedule 2 of the Fast-Track Approvals Act, along with, and including, roads of national significance, as identified by this Government in its ambitious work programme. These might include, for example, Mill Road, Woodend Bypass, Cambridge to Piarere, the Northland Corridor—aka expressway—and a second Ashburton bridge.

Tim Costley: How will Kiwis benefit from these changes?

Hon CHRIS PENK: New Zealanders will benefit enormously from these changes. As I say, these will be faster and fairer for all involved, including the payments and processes that will benefit the landowners themselves. But, of course, the transport infrastructure, for example, will enable emergency services to get much more quickly to the scenes of accidents when they occur, as opposed to being stuck in traffic or having to take the long way round. Parents will get home much more quickly on the way home from school, or out to their workplace for that matter, and our farmers will get their food and fibre to tables around the country and to our ports that much more quickly. This is a real gain for New Zealand families.

Tim Costley: How do these changes fit in with the Government’s wider PWA—correction, Public Works Act—reform?

SPEAKER: What’s PWA?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Mr Speaker, the Public Works Act was then spelt out—

SPEAKER: We shouldn’t use acronyms. Half the people listening to this have no idea what that is. That’s why I don’t like acronyms. Say the whole thing. Ask the question again.

Tim Costley: How do these changes fit in with the Government’s wider Public Works Act reform?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Thank you, sir. For your information—or FYI—the Government is making—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I haven’t got around to terminating a question yet, but I’m very close!

Hon CHRIS PENK: Thank you, sir. In relation to the Public Works Act, we’ve announced a broader package of reform on which we will make further announcements in due course. In the meantime, we will shortly be introducing legislation to give effect to these critical infrastructure elements of the fast track and roads of national significance Public Works Act regime.

Question No. 12—Trade and Investment

12. to the Minister for Trade and Investment: Will the Government honour Christopher Luxon’s pre-election promise for a free-trade agreement with India within its first term?

Well, New Zealand’s relationship with India had been run down over the past six years, much more than we realised. There had hardly been any ministerial visits, no Prime Minister visited in the six years of the Labour Government, and the then Labour foreign Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, during a press conference with the Indian foreign Minister in New Zealand, said that a trade deal with India was not a priority for New Zealand. Well, I can confirm that Prime Minister Luxon is much more ambitious for New Zealand, and we have increased engagement, at official and ministerial levels significantly, including a meeting between Prime Minister Luxon and Prime Minister Modi. Of course, the Prime Minister will lead one of New Zealand’s largest business delegation visits to India next year. And for the member, yes, we remain committed to delivering improved access for Kiwi exporters through a trade agreement with India this term.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does he agree with the Prime Minister on Radio New Zealand this morning, who said that dairy is a “difficult conversation” with India?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yes, I do. It’s clear that dairy is important for both our countries and both Governments, but the one thing that we won’t be doing is litigating or negotiating trade deals with any country of the world via this Chamber or via the media. I know that member was opposed to that when the Labour Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, in that very chair, said she was off to Europe to do a deal and didn’t allow that Minister to bring back the meat and dairy access he would have got without that Prime Minister selling him out.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will he set a minimum threshold for agricultural market access for dairy in any free-trade agreement with India, given that it is our single largest export industry; if not, why not?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I think it’s clear that successive Governments have always argued for a better deal for New Zealand exporters, particularly the high-quality food producers from New Zealand. Most concerningly, what we do need to address before we even have a chance to negotiate with a country like India is the decline in trade we saw over the six years of the Labour Government, where our exports to India fell by $550 million. In the very same period of time, Australia increased their exports by $7 billion into that market. That member, like every New Zealander, can rest assured that we work hard to get the very best deal that we can with India for New Zealanders, because our relationship with India is a priority for this Government.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Supplementary.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: One more here. You know there’s a three-question rule.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it sounds like five already.

SPEAKER: It might have felt like that, but it’s only three.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will he rule out signing the promised comprehensive free-trade agreement with India if it excludes dairy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, it will be called a comprehensive economic partnership agreement, like the one with the UAE in six months and the NZ-Gulf Corporation Council that the previous Government said wasn’t possible—all done within a year. But I won’t be negotiating via this Chamber or the media with any Government around the world.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister promise not to return from India, as a trade Minister once did, promising that he had secured $500 million of potential orders when it was zero?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yes. Most certainly, when this Government makes a commitment, we work hard to honour it. But what has happened since the election in just 15 months is, whilst over the six years of Labour our exports to India went down by $550 million, through working hard to get non-tariff barriers down through the Deputy Prime Minister and I visiting India six times in total, from memory—more than Labour did in their entire time in Government—our exports to India have grown by more than $300 million, which is good for New Zealand companies.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Was it correct for the Prime Minister to say on Radio New Zealand this morning, “We didn’t even have a relationship with India”, given the commitment and efforts of Indian and New Zealand business people and politicians over many years to build that relationship?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yes, it was correct. The reason for that is that member’s foreign Minister stood in public in Auckland, beside the Indian foreign Minister, and said a trade agreement with India is not a priority for New Zealand. How unambitious can you be? Businesses around New Zealand, New Zealanders, Indian - New Zealanders have worked hard on that relationship. They always did. They were let down by a Labour Government over six years.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister: how will the relationship between New Zealand and India benefit from the trade delegation to India next week, which will include prominent Kiwi-Indians and representatives from across Parliament?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, when Prime Minister Luxon met Prime Minister Modi last year, a personal invitation was extended to our Prime Minister to visit India with a delegation. Next week, we will have a 120-strong delegation full of New Zealanders travelling to India with the Prime Minister. There are a number of Cabinet Ministers; cross-party, four MPs from across this House, including the Opposition; 19 members from our community groups, including a significant number of Indian New Zealanders; a strong business delegation; media; a kapa haka group; senior officials from our ministries; and two notable New Zealand cricket representatives who will join us also. We want to strengthen the relationship across the board with India. It is a significant strategic priority for us, from people to people, from culture, areas to work together in the Pacific, and certainly by growing trade between our two countries it is good for the citizens of India and will be good for the citizens of New Zealand.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. For those who have other business outside the House, please leave without the conversations on the way. There’s an awful lot of noise for conversations being taken outside.