Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially our action in recent days to make it easier for New Zealanders to see a doctor. We know that too many Kiwis wait too long to see their GP, which is why we’re putting more funding into primary healthcare. And thanks to that funding, Kiwis will see more nurses working in primary care, more international doctors working in their community, more opportunities to enrol with their local doctors, and more choice with the roll-out of a 24/7 digital service. Fixing the healthcare system won’t be easy, but our outstanding Minister of Health is backing patients and making sure we can get them the care they need—he’s funding more, he’s growing the workforce more, and he’s getting rid of the bureaucracy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has he expressed confidence in David Seymour’s ability to clean up the mess he’s made of the school lunches programme, given his own Minister of Education has refused to share that confidence?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, David Seymour is the accountable Minister. I’ve got every confidence he’s all over the detail and he’s going to make sure all the food and the meals get up to scratch.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Erica Stanford correct that David Seymour’s announcement cancelling teacher-only days overstepped the mark; if so, what has he as Prime Minister done about it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I have clear delegations and clear responsibilities. David Seymour is the accountable Minister for school lunches; he is aware of the issues and he will fix them. Erica Stanford is the accountable Minister for teacher-only days, and she will manage that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is Erica Stanford being left to clean up David Seymour’s messes while he fails to show up to meetings with her, and he as Prime Minister won’t do anything about it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you explain which meetings?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No—no you may not.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I don’t believe I need to explain questions—

SPEAKER: You may not. You can—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —but the Prime Minister might like to read the news.

SPEAKER: Excuse me! Just—can we move on to question No. 2 then, if that’s where we’re at.

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

SPEAKER: Well—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ve asked the Prime Minister a question.

SPEAKER: Yes, you did, and then you decided to qualify it when he gave an answer, and that was unacceptable. I’m asking you now to ask the question again and nothing else.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: OK, I’ll repeat the question: why is Erica Stanford being left to clean up David Seymour’s messes while he fails to show up to meetings with her, and why will he as Prime Minister not do anything about that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said before, I have every confidence that David Seymour is working his way through the issues around the school lunches. He’s aware of the detail, he’s on top of it, and I have every confidence that he will sort it out.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does Erica Stanford have the fortitude to repeatedly stand up to David Seymour that he seems to lack?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said—

SPEAKER: No—the last part of that question is not in order. Next supplementary.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it still his expectation that the new, cheaper, mass-produced school lunches will be at least as good, if not better, than the healthy locally made lunches his Government cancelled; if so, when can hungry school students expect him to deliver on that promise?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to that member, it’s a bit rich because we saved school lunches, because that Prime Minister didn’t fund school lunches. So we are spending more on school lunches and we are giving them to more kids. That’s a good thing. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: When the House comes to a little bit of quiet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If it hasn’t taken feeding children melted plastic, failing to deliver lunches at all, serving up the same food 13 days in a row, or serving pork to halal students, what will it take for him to finally step in and sort out the mess that his Government has made of the school lunches programme?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, again, I’d just say to that member, this is a Government that has actually put together a school lunch programme that is feeding more children and is funded. He hadn’t funded it; we funded it. We’re expanding the access to it. Yes, some of the food is not up to scratch, but the Minister is working his way through the issues and I have every confidence he will resolve it. And I just say to parents that may be listening to this, feel free to prepare a Marmite sandwich and an apple for lunch. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That is the last mass outburst that we’re going to hear today. We could be a very empty House if people continue to participate in that.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Recent data releases are consistent with a growing New Zealand economy. Yesterday, for example, the latest trade figures were released. These show that in the December quarter of last year, New Zealand exported $26.7 billion worth of goods and services. That’s an increase of 9.6 percent over the same period a year earlier. Dairy was particularly strong, making up almost a quarter of our total exports in the quarter.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What is driving this increase in exports?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, both export volumes and prices have been rising—that is, the amount of goods we export has been rising and the world price we get for those goods has also been going up. Furthermore, the New Zealand dollar is currently at a competitive rate for exporters. ANZ’s Commodity Price Index, which follows movements in prices for New Zealand exports like dairy, meat, horticulture, and forestry, has risen 15 percent in the past year when measured in world prices, and has risen 25 percent in New Zealand dollar terms. That is good news for New Zealand’s hard-working exporters and the people they employ.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How do export prices compare to import prices?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Import prices are, of course, the other side of the equation. Luckily, economists have a measure of a country’s export prices relative to its import prices, and that’s the terms of trade. New Zealand’s terms of trade have been rising strongly as export prices have been rising much more strongly than import price rises. Currently, the terms of trade is at a near-record high in a series that goes back to the 1950s. Now, that is good news. As New Zealand’s purchasing power has, effectively, gone up, we are getting more in return for what we export.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What other export industries are picking up?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’d like to share with you facts from a letter I received from New Zealand Apples and Pears, who tell me that New Zealand’s apple and pear industry has achieved $1 billion in orchard-gate returns for the very first time. I would like to congratulate the apple and pear industry, which also has revealed that this is worth $2.5 billion in revenue impact to the New Zealand economy—up 27 percent from 2023—with employment in the sector also increasing to more than 13,700 jobs, and this growth trend looks set to continue.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

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

Yes, and especially our action to support Kiwis with the cost of living. We know it’s a tough time for New Zealanders, which is why it’s so important to get on top of wasteful spending, inflation, and interest rates. We’ve made real progress: repealing the Auckland regional fuel tax, delivering tax relief, and supporting young families with FamilyBoost. But there’s more to do, and that’s why the focus this year is on unleashing growth so that Kiwis have more money in their back pocket. That’s why we’re backing farmers; that’s why we’re backing exporters; backing tourism; fighting hard offshore in trips, like to Vietnam, to make sure that we actually create more deals for Kiwi businesses, to create more jobs at home and more money in the back pockets of Kiwis.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Ka Ora, Ka Ako is about supporting our tamariki to be healthy and well in order for them to learn, and, if so, can he tell the House how he can be proud of his Government’s roll-out of the updated school lunch programme?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m proud of it because that member was part of a Government that didn’t fund it, and this is a Government that has come in, has funded the programme, and has extended it to more children. That’s a good thing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Ragne Maxwell, principal of Porirua College, that the Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme is “one of the most direct ways to tackle intergenerational poverty”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think it’s an important thing for kids who come to school with no lunch. We’re not willing to let them go hungry, we don’t want them not to learn, and we don’t want them ending up on, or being consigned to, welfare or other things. We want them to have potential and a future.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement made this morning that some of the lunches aren’t “up to scratch”, and, if so, what is he doing as the Prime Minister to ensure our tamariki are given on-time, nutritious, edible kai?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the Minister who is accountable—

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, what are you doing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m talking to the Minister to make sure that he has got everything he needs to make sure that he gets the food up to scratch and that the food that was contracted is being delivered.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he as Prime Minister take responsibility for failing to achieve the purpose of Ka Ora, Ka Ako, and feed our tamariki?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we have funded the programme and we’ve extended it to more kids.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree hunger should never be a barrier to learning for the over 156,000 tamariki whose households cannot afford basic essentials, like food, and who deserve better from this Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is why we have a welfare system and a school lunch programme.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Government ever considered that there are comparisons of a former time when much poorer Māori families in largely Māori schools nevertheless provided the food for their children every day, with the older students doing the labour—the males—and the girls doing the cooking, and never relying upon the State at that point in time, when we were being better educated at the same time?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I do agree with the Minister that there is actually some parental responsibility. We would like not to have a State-funded lunch programme, but we do have one to make sure that we are supporting the kids who don’t or can’t have lunches, and make sure they can learn. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Someone is about to leave. That’s not to happen again. Unbelievable. All right? I know what I saw. I’m not going to mention names, because that would be naming someone. I’m not going to do that. Be very aware that that sort of level of barracking is not going to be accepted.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I think that’s one of the most chauvinistic displays that we’ve seen in the House in recent times. I think that is going to prompt a bit of a reaction.

SPEAKER: Well, we can’t, on the one hand, say that this is a House where people can, within bounds of decorum, speak freely, and then start asking the Chair to determine whether or not a view that’s held by someone is acceptable or not. Frankly, I’ve got my own strong views about lots of things, but I listen respectfully here in the House every day, and I expect every other member to do the same. You may not like what’s being said, but there’s every right for it to be said. I hope this isn’t going to keep us going on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I take objection from a number of people who get up and give their views when questions are being asked of, clearly, events that they know nothing about—poverty: how it smells, how it feels, what it tastes like—and they show it every day in this House.

SPEAKER: Well, that was helpful!

Question No. 4—Justice

4. to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with Mark Mitchell’s statement, “I think there’s a real risk of seeing a tragedy unfold with members of the public who have become exasperated … every week I’ve got to try and talk to people that want to take vigilante type action to actually protect themselves … That’s the worst possible thing that could happen. And I’d encourage people definitely not to go down that road”; if not, why not?

Yes—and I agree that many New Zealanders have become exasperated at the high level of crime occurring in our communities and that vigilante justice is not the solution. That’s why this Government is focused on restoring law and order, so people are confident that our justice system delivers real consequences for crime.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What advice did Police give the Minister of Police on the public safety risks of citizen’s arrest powers?

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Justice is not responsible for advice received by the Minster of Police.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, I assume?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes. Mr Speaker, this question was originally posed to the Minister of Police. The Government decided to transfer it to the Minister of Justice. Speakers’ rulings and McGee are quite clear that if the Government decides to transfer a question to another Minister, that Minister should be in a position to answer the following supplementary questions.

SPEAKER: Not to argue or correct you, but the decision by the Government has to be in favour of who can best answer the question that is placed as the primary question. I think the difficulty starts to arise where a question immediately reverts to a different Minister with an expectation that the Minister answering the question would have the same information. It’s a messy process—there’s nothing clearer. But I’ve sat in this House for a long time and seen this sort of thing occur before. I think it is fair to say that the question that was asked would be information specific to the police Minister, not necessarily related to the primary question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that—two points there. The first one is that the primary question was asking the Minister of Police if he agreed with statements that he had made before becoming Minister of Police. The issues may well occur when they transfer a question to the Minister of Justice, asking him to stand by a statement that someone else made. The second point is that if this Speaker’s ruling and the expectation outlined in McGee is not, in your view, applicable here, can the Hon Ginny Andersen have another opportunity to ask that supplementary—without penalty—in a way that the Minister of Justice may have a better chance of answering?

SPEAKER: Well, firstly, I’m not disputing anything that’s written there, but, clearly, it’s my job to interpret it. I think that would be a reasonable way to progress, if the Hon Ginny Andersen asked a question, perhaps, about awareness.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What advice did Police or the Ministry of Justice provide him on the safety risks associated with the new citizen’s arrest power?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There was a range of advice. The Police, quite frankly, were not broadly in favour of the changes; they had concerns around potential impacts. We weighed that up against our concerns about the current situation, where that, during the day—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is that why Mitchell is hiding?

SPEAKER: You can’t say that. Just calm down.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We weighed that against other advice and considerations, given the fact that New Zealanders currently have citizen’s arrest powers for things that happen at night. But then, if the same thing happens during the day, when somebody walks out of a shop with around $900 worth of food or clothing or electronics, nothing can be done about that, and we don’t think that’s the correct situation.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What consultation did the Minister of Police or the Minister of Justice undertake with the Police Association regarding the impact of citizen arrest powers on front-line police?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The proposals, in particular, came from the ministry advisory group led by Sunny Kaushal in response to a significant increase in retail crime over the past few years. New Zealanders are fed up with the level of retail crime that they are experiencing in our communities. That’s why this Government has considered proposals to change the rules, because if you want to have a different outcome, sometimes you have to change things, and that is what we are proposing. So, in the course of developing those proposals, the ministry advisory group talked to a wide range of people, and, of course, when we introduce this legislation it will go off to the select committee and then many New Zealanders will have their say, including the Police Association.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will there be Police operational guidelines issued to the public in addition to his advice, “[It’s n]ot necessarily a headlock, it’s just holding someone steady.”; and if so, how long will the members of the public be allowed to “hold someone steady” for?

Hon Chris Bishop: Minister Goldsmith is responsible for many things but he’s not responsible for Police operational guidelines.

SPEAKER: Have you got another supplementary?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is a store owner required to inform the parents of a child who is being held steady or detained in a storeroom?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the requirements if a situation occurs when somebody is stealing from business and reasonable force is being used to detain that person—the proposal is that they would then need to contact the police and follow instructions from police. Then that is the situation. It’s already the law at five past nine at night and our proposal is to make it the law during the day, and, ultimately, every retail worker needs to consider the broad circumstances and the situation that they confront. But this Government makes no apology for coming up with new ideas and new responses to deal with the significant increase in retail crime that we experienced over the past few years. New Zealanders want change and that’s what we’re going to deliver.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he justify a $3.6 million spend on the retail crime advisory group when there are 72 fewer police on our streets and methamphetamine use has doubled under his watch.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think people would recognise that retail crime costs our community billions of dollars, and all New Zealanders have to pay more for the things that they buy because some New Zealanders steal it and don’t pay for it. That is why we think a modest investment in a retail advisory group to come up with bold ideas—and the purpose behind the retail advisory group is to say, “Look, we have a Ministry of Justice and a whole justice sector that has continued its ways a number of times, and we’re open to radical new ideas coming from elsewhere, in order to come up with different solutions so that we can have better outcomes, and for New Zealanders to keep safe in their communities.”

Hon Chris Bishop: Is it the case right now that it is legal to initiate a citizen’s arrest on someone stealing something at 9.01 p.m. at night with goods worth more than $1,000 but illegal to initiate a citizen’s arrest at 8.59 p.m. at night for stealing a toaster, and does he think that this is a particularly sensible move to bring these things into line?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I do think it is a sensible move. There’ll be a wide variety of views, and I would note that there is one fellow called Stuart Nash, who said, “I am a fan.”, and there’s no doubt about that. Of course, I can understand why he’s out of step with the current Labour Government, which seems to be wanting to defend the current situation whereby people walk out of stores during the middle of the day and nobody can do anything about it apart from escort them to their car. New Zealanders are tired of that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he take responsibility if someone in New Zealand loses their life because of his law change?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: What I can tell that member is that the only person that is responsible for losing a life in a situation like that would be the person that took the life—that swung the axe, that used the weapon to kill or hurt or maim somebody. If that member doesn’t understand that and wants to create excuses for that kind of activity, then I don’t think they understand how law and order should work in this country. We are very determined to ensure that New Zealanders are kept safe in their community, and that is why already in Government, we have brought back three strikes, increased sentencing reform, and given the police the powers that they need to deal with gangs. All of those things are designed to keep our communities safe.

Hon David Seymour: How long has the Minister believed that crimes were the fault of the person who committed them, and was he surprised to be asked about that fact just now?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, look, I think one of the biggest changes in the last year or two in justice policy has been a shift away from a culture of excuses for crime that we inherited under the previous administration, where crimes were the fault of all sorts of reasons other than the actions of an individual. This Government is about restoring responsibility for criminal actions to the people who undertake those actions.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

Yes, especially our action to build the infrastructure that Kiwis need to get the country moving and our economy growing. That’s why it was so positive last week to see the infrastructure pipeline continuing to grow, hitting almost $204 billion last quarter. We know that high inflation and interest rates have hit the construction sector hard in the last few years, and that’s why we’re so positive to see that $15 billion more than expected is going to be spent on infrastructure this year, with more than half that going to transport. New Zealand won’t get rich doing phantom projects like Auckland light rail or Let’s Get Wellington Moving. We’ve got real projects that have an impact and get Kiwis growing and get the country moving.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his statement that if parents are unhappy with the Government’s school lunches, they should “go make a Marmite sandwich and put an apple in a bag”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that parents are sending their kids to school hungry because they are too lazy to make lunches or because they cannot afford to make their kids’ lunches?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Some, yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the parents who have lost their jobs, who have had their benefits sanctioned, who have been thrown out of emergency housing, afford to “go make a Marmite sandwich and put an apple in a bag” for the kids who cannot eat the Government’s slop?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: For those that are not provided with a lunch going to school, there is a school lunch programme, which has been extended, as I’ve said before, to many more kids. There’s also a welfare system that’s available to help people in need. We continue to support both those programmes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will his decision to cut the school lunch programme make it easier or harder for children in low-income families who are already struggling to learn?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We haven’t cut the school lunch programme; we’ve increased it. We’ve funded it, which is what the last Government didn’t do.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: That’s not true. Supplementary—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. [Interruption] That’s enough, thank you.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: My apologies, through the Chair.

SPEAKER: Withdraw and apologise.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. I withdraw and apologise. What do you say to the 1 million people who can earn less than $30,000 and only get $2.15 tax cut per week when a loaf of bread costs $4 and 250 grams of Marmite costs $5?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d say that that’s why this Government’s working incredibly hard to grow the economy so that we can lift incomes and get people into more jobs so that they can have greater opportunity and more choices about how they get to live their lives.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Associate Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made to encourage overseas investment into New Zealand?

I thank the member for his question. On 23 February, I announced changes to the Overseas Investment Act. Cabinet has approved a package of legislative reforms that will ensure faster decision-making, greater investor certainty, and stronger national interest protections. Specifically, I announced reforms that will change the presumption of the Act to better acknowledge the benefits that international investment provides to New Zealand’s economy. It will reduce the time frames for the regulator’s assessment of most applications to 15 days unless escalated to a comprehensive assessment in more sensitive cases. These reforms will make New Zealand a more attractive place to invest, enabling businesses to access capital, grow, and create higher paying jobs.

Todd Stephenson: Why does the Government believe these reforms are necessary?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Because we follow economic evidence. The evidence in particular is clear around productivity. Our growth has stalled. It was at 1.4 percent per year from 1993-2013, but only 0.2 percent over the decade to date. One of the keys to improving productivity and driving growth will be reversing these trends by ensuring that Kiwi businesses get the investment they need to grow. When businesses get capital, they can invest in better technology, expand production, and pay their workers more. That’s what this Government is committed to enabling with these reforms.

Todd Stephenson: How do these reforms compare with overseas investment regimes in other countries?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: New Zealand is currently one of the hardest countries to invest in. Other OECD countries such as Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom protect their natural interests effectively; meanwhile, they receive billions more foreign direct investment than we do. The reality is that other countries are competing for global capital while we’ve been scaring it away. That must change and it is changing, including with these changes to the Overseas Investment Act, making us a country that actually welcomes our friends around the world sending their money and their ideas to our country so we can trade value for value, and get stronger together with higher wages and better jobs.

Todd Stephenson: What protections remain in place to safeguard New Zealand’s national interests?

SPEAKER: A concise answer would be good.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That was concise; there’s just a lot of quality content.

SPEAKER: Well, if that’s concise you’re rewriting the dictionary.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: This Government believes in smarter regulation, not more regulation. We are retaining screening for farmland, residential property, and fishing quota, and we’re strengthening our ability to intervene if an investment is genuinely against New Zealand’s national interests. These reforms ensure that the Government has the power to step in when needed. A ministerial directive letter will provide clear guidance to Land Information New Zealand in case additional scrutiny is needed to protect our true national interests, in particular our national security and our public order.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that school lunches would be “the same quality or better”; if so, why?

I thank the member for her question. Yes, I do stand by that statement, and the reason is that the programme has been set up to ensure that the nutritional standards under the previous iteration of the school lunch programme will be met under this iteration.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How are plastic containers melting into food the same or better?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Plastic containers melting into food is not a part of the programme. For the member to claim that would be to say that every single failure, including, if I recall, seven different food safety investigations into the prior scheme, were a feature of that programme. Now, I’m sure the member wouldn’t think that the Ministry for Primary Industries investigations into the lunches she served were a part of the programme. However, in this particular instance, we have taken it very seriously and done so rapidly. We have investigated the cause, which was the overheating of plastic by using the wrong temperature in an oven in one of the 27 regional kitchens and then failing to do correct quality control before they were sent out. The people concerned have been spoken to about this and we are taking steps to ensure that it won’t happen again. And this is important because we are here to make things better every day, and we are—

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s ChatGPT at this point.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I beg your pardon? She said it’s ChatGPT. I tell you what, if that member used ChatGPT, she’d make a lot more sense. And ChatGPT doesn’t hallucinate as much as that member.

SPEAKER: OK. That’s enough.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How are undelivered meals, that leave kids hungry all day, better?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That would be no better if it were true. However, it is not. As I said in my primary answer, if the member heard me say that, the specifications and standards for the healthy school lunch programme are equal to those under the previous programme. But I tell you what they are much better than: they are much better than zero, because people tend to forget that when the previous Government budgeted for the healthy school lunch programme, there was a fiscal cliff where there was no money in the Budget for the healthy school lunch programme in 2025. That’s a Minister, in the past, who budgeted no money for healthy school lunch programmes; this Government is delivering.

SPEAKER: Those answers can go on for as long as they like as long as that barracking continues.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you.

SPEAKER: It’s ridiculous.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How is providing the same meal 13 days in a row better?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I think I addressed this question, and it speaks to the issue of what people are happy to have and not. In this particular instance, I seem to recall it was actually butter chicken. Now, a lot of people I know, if someone gave them butter chicken for free 13 times, they wouldn’t be complaining. They’d actually be thrilled. Namaste.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How is school staff having to go to a bakery to buy sandwiches because their school’s lunches were not delivered better?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Throughout this programme we’ve been upfront and honest about any teething problems we’ve had, and then we’ve fixed them. That’s what you do when you have challenges. You own it, you accept it, and then you fix it. And in terms of fixing it, yesterday on 3 March, we achieved 99 percent on-time delivery up and down New Zealand. That’s how you start off with a problem—you put on your thinking cap, you solve it, and make the world a better place. And if that member had done it when she was the Minister, we wouldn’t have to work quite so hard.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How are hundreds of local jobs being lost up and down the motu in favour of a centralised system that clearly doesn’t work better?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I believe that it is working better. Wherever there are problems, we fix them, and in many instances, we hear from children that they believe that the food is better. There’s been some confusion. For example, that member tweeted outrage at the quality of the healthy school lunch programme, but we all know how this ends. She forgot it was a picture that had been sent to her of the school lunches that she was responsible for. [Interruption] And I’ve got something else. I’ve got news for the member. I heard a rumour that cannot be substantiated that that picture was sent to Jan Tinetti by Young ACT. [Interruption]

Hon Jan Tinetti: If his school lunch—

SPEAKER: Just wait, please.

Hon Jan Tinetti: If his school lunch programme is better, how is it that he won’t even show up to a meeting with the education Minister, the Hon Erica Stanford, to discuss it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it’s very simple. We had a meeting scheduled, contingent on our respective caucuses finishing on time. But the ACT caucus is a very tight, busy, and productive group of people, and we can’t always be ready for that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: And who chairs it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, the chairmanship of the ACT caucus I’m being asked about now, Mr Speaker; I’ve got to say that I am a great admirer of David Seymour’s chairmanship.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made to improving access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced a boost for primary healthcare to help Kiwis access timely and quality primary care for all New Zealanders. This includes 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors to work in primary care, incentives to recruit up to 400 graduate nurses per year for the next three years, a new 24/7 digital healthcare service for online medical appointments, and a $285 million performance-based uplift for general practice over the next three years. Our Government is putting patients first, and these measures will help ensure Kiwis have more access to the care they need, where they need it.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why is the Government increasing the numbers of overseas-trained doctors working in primary care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we all know that we need more doctors. That’s why we are funding a new two-year primary care training programme for up to 100 extra overseas-trained doctors. It makes no sense that overseas-trained doctors living in New Zealand who are willing to work in primary care can’t, because there aren’t the training opportunities available to them. By funding 100 clinical placements, we will provide them with the support needed to work in general practice with our most needed, putting their skills to good use so that New Zealanders have improved access to both timely and quality care.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will the new 24/7 digital healthcare service improve access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we are investing in a new digital healthcare service that Kiwis can see a doctor or a nurse, get prescriptions and lab referrals any time, anywhere, using their phone or laptop. Enabling Kiwis to access video consultations with registered clinicians at any time from anywhere will play a key role in improving access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What reports has he seen from the healthcare sector about the Government’s healthcare boost?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, good news. I’ve seen some very positive reports from the sector. The chair of General Practice New Zealand, Dr Bryan Betty, said, yesterday, that our Government’s investment will “help ensure that patients receive the care they need when they need it, while also strengthening the sustainability of the workforce.” The College of GPs’ president, Dr Samantha Murton, has backed our actions, saying that “focusing attention and resources on general practice and primary care will go a long way to turning our health services [around].”

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Associate Minister of Police: What announcements has she made regarding the Government’s commitment to boost front-line police numbers?

On Sunday, I announced that the New Zealand Police will be opening a training base in Auckland, increasing the training capacity of police and supporting the attraction and training of quality new officers from our largest market. This Government is committed to restoring law and order, and adding a training facility in Auckland is another example of what can be achieved with a Government that is backing police. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the calm to come. Yeah, when you’re ready.

Tanya Unkovich: Why is another training facility needed?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This Government wants to do everything they can to drive recruitment, increase the number of police, and make our communities safer. Opening a training facility in Auckland is a concrete example of that. This Government knows that delivering our additional 500 police is not just about delivering people but implementing the systems and providing the resources that invest in the front line, which includes expanding our training facilities.

Tanya Unkovich: How does adding a training facility in Auckland complement other work being done to boost recruitment?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Police now have record numbers of applicants, and having an extra training location will support their efforts to get applicants through the pipeline and into training faster. I would like to recognise and commend the efforts of the recruitment teams and the Police front line, who have worked diligently to improve processes, create efficiencies, engage earlier with our applicants, and achieve an outstanding pipeline of quality recruits that are now entering the college.

Tanya Unkovich: How are Police recruitment processes becoming more agile and fit for purpose?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m advised that Police are holding recruitment days where resources will be on site to assist applicants in moving through the first stages of recruitment processes at the time to help reduce wait time within the current processes. We have reconfigured the advertising campaign with the relaunch of the He Ain’t Heavy campaign to ensure that the quality of police is recognised and the service they deliver is recognised. We have also recently launched an updated version of the recruitment management system to allow candidates to better manage their recruitment experience and support Police to understand what options there may be for future improvements. Police are working incredibly hard, investing resources nationally and across the districts, and I would also highlight the Round the Bays efforts, which will be in Christchurch at the end of this month, where we are actively engaging with the public to attract recruitment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, does this build on the multi-tranche record of New Zealand First with respect to 2,338 new front-line police when we were last in Government?

SPEAKER: In so much as the Minister’s got knowledge of that.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, I can commend that, and it is the reason that we recognise that we also need to complement investment and training resources and trainers and capacity to meet the added demands for front-line police.

Question No. 10—Rail

10. to the Minister for Rail: Did he discuss in his meeting with Hyundai on Friday, 28 February 2025 the cancellation of the rail-enabled ferries; if so, did Hyundai raise any concerns about future shipbuilding contracts with the New Zealand Government?

I want to thank that very sensible member for his very sensible question. We shared with Hyundai the fact that a two-ferry project in May 2020 involving $400.1 million of Government funding, when I was Minister, was on track to reach over $4 billion under his Government—that is, the Opposition now. The core objective of infrastructure to safely berth ships blew out to involve the highest possible specifications for the renewal of almost every piece of infrastructure, all at the taxpayer’s expense.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m going to ask the Minister to consider the question that was asked and perhaps make some comment, at least, on the intent of that question, which was about—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I used the words “We shared with Hyundai”—that’s the answer to the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, it isn’t.

SPEAKER: Yes, it is.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, it is—you’ve got to get an education.

Tangi Utikere: Did he discuss the $300 million break fee with Hyundai; if so, what did they have to say?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be unusual that a Minister in that circumstance did not have that as part of the background information, but with respect to that discussion, that lies with KiwiRail and Hyundai in a contractual sense. However, that so-called $300 million break fee has been misrepresented by the questioner in the sense that there were a whole lot of infrastructural costs that made up that $300 million, not just the iReX project.

Tangi Utikere: How confident is he that Hyundai will put in another contract bid for the new Cook Strait ferries when they are currently negotiating out of an existing contract with this Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ve got some good news for the member: their head, S Y Park, was delighted to meet us. With his team, we had a very, very amiable and profitable discussion, and we were delighted to learn of their renewed interest in this tendering process.

Tangi Utikere: Is it correct that it was his Government that triggered the multimillion-dollar break fee with Hyundai that’s now required him to go back calling for a redo?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is correct that when this present Government realised that a $400.1 million project was blowing out past $4 billion, in the interests—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s not true.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, it is probably not true—it’s probably $4.2 billion, but I’m being modest now.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s just not true.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If that part is not true, it probably would have been $400.2 billion. It is true, and what would that member know about costing? He’s said in his speeches recently that the mistake they made with all of their calculations was that they didn’t do the work on it in the first place—and this was just one more example.

Tangi Utikere: Did he consult with the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, before inviting a new bid from Hyundai, and, if so, what was her response?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In this Government, we’re famous for consulting with each other, and she wished me the very best and hoped that I could fix up the Labour Party’s mess.

Tangi Utikere: If Hyundai signs another contract for new ferries with this Government, is he confident that Nicola Willis won’t pull the rug out from under them again?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that no responsible finance Minister could not take the action that the Minister of Finance took, because—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, oh!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the responsibility of a good Government is to be as careful about spending the taxpayer’s money as they are about spending their own—not borrow and hope, frivolously throwing it away, and running the country into tens of billions of dollars of debt, which is the reason why they’re over there and we’re over here.

Question No. 11—Infrastructure

11. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made about improving infrastructure funding and financing to get more houses built?

Last Friday, I announced pillar two of the Government’s Going for Housing Growth policy, five improvements to infrastructure funding and financing to support urban growth: replacing development contributions with development levies, regulatory oversight of those levies, increasing the flexibility of targeted rates, improving the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, and broadening existing tools to support value capture. We’re developing a flexible tool kit to support growth paying for growth, to allow a responsive supply of infrastructure where it’s commercially viable to build new houses. A flood of urban land coming to market plus responsive infrastructure will unlock an abundance of development opportunities, drive down the price of land, and make housing more affordable.

David MacLeod: Why do our existing funding and financing tools need to change?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I think many members around the House acknowledge and recognise, as indeed councils and developers do as well, there are significant challenges in our infrastructure system around funding and financing. Development contributions, for example, can only recover infrastructure costs for planned and costed developments, meaning councils need certainty about when and where the growth will occur. It is true that some councils have not been able to effectively recover growth costs, leaving ratepayers to pick up the cheque and cross-subsidise that growth—for example, at Drury, and there are other examples that members will be aware of around the country. We are creating an environment in which there are no ceilings on how high our cities can grow and there are no rings around how far our cities can expand. And that means the days of careful drip-feeding of land into a hot market fed by artificial scarcity, driving up land prices and therefore house prices, is over. We are creating a system where if you want to build and you can fund the infrastructure to build it, subject to normal environmental constraints, you can go for it.

Hon Nicola Willis: What impact will these reforms have on New Zealand’s economic productivity and growth, and how would that compare with a scheme such as, say, KiwiBuild?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the single best things New Zealand can do to get productivity going in this country is fix our dysfunctional housing market, make housing more affordable, and make sure we get on top of the $4 billion we spend as a Government every year on housing subsidies. Bigger cities are better cities and they are drivers of economic growth and productivity, so we are focused on fixing the fundamentals, not tinkering around the edges but focusing on what actually drives our housing market: land supply; responsive infrastructure funding and financing; and, in due course—with our friends in the ACT Party—we’ll get to incentives as well.

Hon Nicola Willis: In devising these new reforms, did the Minister reference at any point a speech given to The New Zealand Initiative by the Hon Phil Twyford, and has that influenced his thinking at all?

Hon Member: I hope not.

Hon Member: Good question.

SPEAKER: Those little chips are not particularly helpful. The House knows that someone can be questioned about what reports they’ve seen or what information they might have received. Both those questions complied with that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the theses advanced by Mr Twyford in his New Zealand Initiative speech—I think it was from May 2019—was that—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s not the way to do it. You were asked about what you’d seen. You don’t need to go through what he said or where he was going. Have you seen it or not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I was answering the question—which is that urban containment policies have driven up land prices and house prices, and that is the underlying thrust of the Government’s policy ambition in this area, which is to let our cities grow. We are a country with a land mass the size of the United Kingdom. With only 5 million people, we have created a housing market that has seen the fastest house price growth in the Western World in the last two decades. The solutions to that are to let our cities and regions grow, and sort out the infrastructure system so that they can, and that’s what we’re doing.

Simon Court: Mr Speaker, supplementary.

SPEAKER: Simon—

Hon Members: Court.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Peeni Henare: I thought they could swap with each other.

SPEAKER: Simon Court.

Hon Peeni Henare: Simon somebody or other—simple Simon!

SPEAKER: My apologies, Mr Court, I wasn’t expecting you.

Simon Court: Minister, how do the new funding and financing tools, announced last week, line up with the value capture—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member Simon Court, asking the question, but Peeni Henare made a comment, first of all, by the nature of which I think he should withdraw and apologise if he respects the House; and, second of all, he should be silent while a question’s being asked, as with when somebody’s raising a point of order.

SPEAKER: Look, I don’t know what was said—I didn’t hear it. I’ll have to ask Mr Henare, was there something that was said that might be slightly out of order and therefore require a withdrawal?

Hon Peeni Henare: Speaking to the point of order, if I may, sir. For my comment, I withdraw and apologise. For the second point that the member made, the question hadn’t even started, which is the offering of help I gave and offered you and the House, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you very much. I always appreciate that, much less than people realise.

Simon Court: Mr Speaker, thank you very much. How do the new funding and financing tools, last week, line up with the value capture approach outlined in the ACT-National coalition agreement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s been good to work with my under-secretary on this policy. One of the changes that didn’t receive a lot of attention last week was a change that Cabinet has agreed around value capture for major transport projects, which we believe will unlock a new funding stream for city-shaping infrastructure like highways, rapid busways, and potentially metro. Our simple proposition is that those who benefit from publicly funded infrastructure should help contribute to the cost of it. So the changes that the Government’s making will allow infrastructure funding and financing levies to be charged on landowners, for example, to help to fray the cost of major State highways and, indeed, other public transport projects that are located next to them that drive up the value of that land and make it more likely that people will actually utilise that land.

David MacLeod: What feedback has he heard from the sector about these changes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, this is a complicated area but we have worked through the issues with the expert advisory group and it is very pleasing to see much support from around the community. The Property Council New Zealand says it’s an important step towards creating a more sustainable and transparent approach. Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale and Hamilton Mayor Paula Southgate said it was a much-needed change. Local Government New Zealand said it was a game-changer and developers have also said that it will save cost, resources, time, and, at the end of the day, the end user gets a cheaper product. I do want to acknowledge the support of the Opposition on this—genuinely—who said that it seems like a step in the right direction. I’m in the middle of arranging a briefing for the Opposition in relation to these reforms. It does pick up on some of the thrust of where Mr Twyford was taking things when he was housing spokesperson. I am keen to get bipartisan buy-in to these things. It is one of the most fundamentally important things this Government or, indeed, this country can do to fix our housing crisis.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

12. 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 the statement of his climate change Minister regarding the Paris Agreement that “It’s not a liability on our books, it’s intent and there is no legal obligation in the context around that.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree that we are working incredibly hard to deliver on Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) 1 for 2030, and I also note that we have signed up for NDC2 in 2035.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Government committed to meeting the Paris Agreement or does he agree with his climate change Minister that Aotearoa be just “seen to do its part”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we’re committed to doing is going incredibly hard on economic growth and we’re going to make sure that it’s in our national interest to continue to do so. We’ll continue to put Kiwis first and make sure that we’re acting in our own national interest. But we are determined to drive for growth, and we are going to do everything we can to deliver on net zero 2050.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is the Prime Minister so far unwilling to use the word “committed”, as in the Government is committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’m very pleased about is that our NDC2 2035 target now finally aligns with our internal targets for New Zealand net zero 2050.That’s a good thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister and his Government committed to meeting our Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are committed to delivering on net zero 2050, as we have consistently said from the beginning.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister committed to meeting our Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement, and can he be specific about that commitment under the Paris Agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve got nothing further to my previous answer.