Oral Questions

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

This morning, Westpac released its latest quarterly economic forecasts. The report is called Turning the corner, and that is precisely what their forecasts show. Westpac expects growth in the economy to be positive in the December quarter of last year, and it is forecasting growth to pick up across 2025, and reach 3 percent in 2026. It also expects inflation to stay within the 1 to 3 percent target band and expects the current account deficit to narrow.

Tim van de Molen: What other recent economic reports has she seen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This morning, ANZ released its monthly Truckometer report for January. The Truckometer is useful because truck numbers and weights can be measured in real time and are a useful indicator of economic activity. A heavy traffic index continues to trend upwards, being 4.1 percent higher than a year ago on a three-month rolling average. That is consistent with a pick-up in economic activity over the end of last year and the beginning of 2025. I hope that members across this House welcome that, because economic growth is the best way to deliver good jobs for New Zealanders, rising incomes, and more financial security.

Tim van de Molen: When will the next Treasury forecasts be released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I should stress that forecasts aren’t reality, and as the shifting GDP figures show, even reality can be hard to pin down and measure. But forecasts do contain valuable information for people and businesses making economic and financial decisions, including the Government. Treasury will release its next set of economic forecasts alongside the Budget on 22 May, and the next Reserve Bank forecasts will come out next Wednesday as part of the Monetary Policy Statement (MPS).

Tim van de Molen: What is the market expecting from next week’s Monetary Policy Statement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, good news. The key part of the MPS is the Monetary Policy Committee’s decision on the Official Cash Rate (OCR). That is entirely a decision for the committee, but the market and most economists are expecting a 50-basis point reduction in the OCR. That would take the OCR down to 3.75 percent, supporting lower retail interest rates, lower mortgage rates, which in turn will support a growing economy.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and, in particular, the action we’re taking to get our economy moving. We know that life is still tough for a lot of Kiwis, but there are encouraging signs that we are making progress. Wages are rising faster than inflation, goods exports in December were up 17 percent, average mortgage rates have fallen now for two months in a row, and economists—as you’ve just heard from the Minister of Finance—are now predicting we’ll have more interest rate relief very, very shortly. So inflation is low, interest rates are falling, wages are rising, and our farmers and growers are kicking the recovery into gear. There’s a long way to go, but we’re heading in the right direction.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is it acceptable for a Minister in his Government to ignore repeated warnings that he’d not been given approval to drive a Land Rover up the steps of Parliament and do it anyway, to deny he’d been told not to, and to criticise the security guard who stopped him, or has he replaced standards of ministerial conduct with Health New Zealand’s new mantra of “fail early and fail often”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, the Speaker has dealt to the issue, but we don’t need to take 12 to 16 contraventions of the Cabinet Manual to get rid of Michael Wood.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does David Seymour’s conduct, in driving a Land Rover up the steps of Parliament, despite repeated warnings not to, along with his criticisms of the security guard who stopped him and his insistence that he should have been allowed to, meet his expectations in terms of ministerial conduct?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said before, this is an issue for the Speaker, and the Speaker has comprehensively dealt with the issue.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Issues of ministerial conduct are absolutely questions for the Prime Minister, not for the Speaker. It would be like saying if a Minister was charged by the police that would be a question for the police and not for the Prime Minister. Actually, regardless of what decisions you have taken, the Prime Minister is responsible for determining whether a Minister’s conduct is acceptable or not. He can’t deflect the question by saying it’s not his responsibility; it is.

SPEAKER: Some further elucidation on the question, or the question—ask the question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does David Seymour’s conduct, in driving a Land Rover up the steps of Parliament, despite repeated warnings not to, along with his criticisms of the security guard who stopped him, and his insistence he should have been allowed to, meet, as Prime Minister, his expectations in terms of ministerial conduct?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said before, that’s an issue for the Speaker to talk about the Parliamentary Service. But with respect to my Ministers, I have every confidence in all of my Ministers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is responsible for determining the standards of conduct for Ministers. I have asked him whether David Seymour’s actions met those standards. The Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, sets those standards; nobody else, not you as Speaker, not anybody else. It’s not unreasonable to get an indication—I appreciate I can’t insist that he says “yes” or “no”—from him whether David Seymour’s recent conduct, particularly on Monday, meets those expectations.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Before I hear any comments on the point of order, I just want to remind members that the Speaker is not responsible for any confidence issues around Ministers.

Hon Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister answered the question. He said, in relation to parliamentary security matters, that is a matter for you—quite rightly—and that he has confidence in all his Ministers. The question was addressed and answered.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’d just also make the point that there are several premises in the question which are very close to misleading. I haven’t insisted I be allowed to; I’ve actually accepted your ruling and given you an apology. I have not attacked a security guard; I’ve simply described the facts.

SPEAKER: No further on this. I think the Prime Minister might want to repeat his answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, with respect to parliamentary security, that is a decision for the Speaker. I have confidence in all of my Ministers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask him whether he had confidence in his Ministers; I asked him whether David Seymour had met his standards when it comes to ministerial conduct. The Prime Minister sets the standards for ministerial conduct, he is obliged to indicate to the House whether or not David Seymour is meeting those.

SPEAKER: Well, I think him saying “I have confidence in all Ministers” fairly covers it. But ask the question a different way if you want to. We’re not going to try and get away from all this.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does driving a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament meet his expectations around appropriate ministerial conduct?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have expressed my views publicly on both the issues around the letter and the parliamentary steps. I have met with the Minister and had a positive and constructive conversation about it. And I have every confidence in all of my Ministers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does Todd McClay’s statement to another MP, “You’re not in Mexico now”; Shane Jones’ statement, “Send the Mexicans home”; and Winston Peters’ statement that immigrants should “show some gratitude” meet his expectations of ministerial conduct; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the last part of that question: I have huge confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister, who really believes in the Mexico - New Zealand relationship and visited the country and cares deeply about those relationships.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does Shane Jones’ threat to cut funding to organisations that disagree with the Government meet his expectations, as Prime Minister, of ministerial conduct, particularly given a backbench MP in the Key Government was made to apologise for doing the same thing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think you’ve actually heard from, in all of those cases, members expressing in the heat of the moment in this place that they may not have got their language perfect, and they’ve admitted as much.

Hon David Seymour: Does this Government have any plans to go through the telephone book and find homebuyers with Chinese-sounding names?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think his Government’s decision to adopt tobacco lobby suggestions as Government policy, add projects sponsored by donors to the coalition parties to the fast-track list, and appoint a gun lobbyist as firearms Minister have contributed to New Zealand getting its lowest ever rating in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m proud of the standing that New Zealand has in the world around transparency and no corruption. We are a high-performing country. I’ve just actually had meetings this morning talking about exactly that with ASEAN members as well. I’d just say to the member, it’s a little bit ironic, as I said yesterday, that we’re being lectured by someone who took 16 goes of contravention of the Cabinet Manual to get rid of Michael Wood. Meka Whaitiri didn’t even tell him she was leaving while he was travelling. We’ve got Stuart Nash with a multiple series of issues before he got sacked as a Minister, and you want to talk to me about conduct of my Ministers.

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

SPEAKER: Before you take the point of order, there are a number of people just sitting in that corner of the House who were constantly speaking—well, not actually speaking, barracking during that time. Stop it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect the reason for that was that the Prime Minister seems to be more comfortable making commentary on Ministers in the previous Government than Ministers in his own Government. Noting that all of the Ministers he mentioned actually lost their jobs because the previous Government actually had some standards, which his Government doesn’t seem to have.

SPEAKER: Also note that your question was about inappropriate sort of comments as you saw them. But you had a lot of inappropriate comments coming from your side during the answer to that question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he’s willing to accept a Minister breaking the rules and driving up the steps of Parliament, accept his foreign affairs and trade Ministers making anti-immigrant remarks, accept a senior Minister threating charities, and watch New Zealand’s international reputation crumble—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. There’s an old saying: when in Rome, do what the Romans do. The real issue here is no one can surely be condemned for expecting immigrants to come to this country to be grateful to the country they’ve come to. What’s wrong with us when that is a complaint from that side of the House? It’s virtue-signalling nonsense and he’s misleading Parliament.

SPEAKER: You’ve made a point but it’s not a point of order. Please don’t interrupt like that when we’ve got a question on. Start again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he’s willing to accept a Minister breaking the rules and driving up the steps of Parliament, accept his foreign affairs Minister and his trade Minister making anti-immigrant remarks, accept a senior Minister threatening charities, and watch New Zealand’s international reputation crumble, and his only solution seems to be to carve the country up and sell it to overseas investors, is he surprised in any way that more than half the country think New Zealand’s heading in the wrong direction under his leadership?

SPEAKER: Just before the Prime Minister answers, I think any reading of Standing Orders’ requirements for questions would find that falls short or is certainly very expansive on what might be expected in those questions. The Prime Minister may reply.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, I reject the premise and the conflation of all those issues in that question.

Question No. 3—Resources

3. to the Minister for Resources: What recent announcements has he made regarding the minerals sector?

On behalf of our pro-growth Government, I have been to a goldmine, located at Waihī, to launch New Zealand’s inaugural Minerals Strategy. Whilst I was there it was evident that economic seeds are germinating, buds are developing; no longer will this sector be shackled in green tape. No longer will people be able to carry on talking on smartphones, dependent on minerals—rare earth minerals imported into the country—when we have them in our own country. Also it’s my pleasure to tell the House that most of the people there reminded me they never left the Labour Party; the Labour Party left them.

Andy Foster: Why is the Minerals Strategy and the Critical Minerals List so important in ensuring the continued growth of this crucial sector?

Hon SHANE JONES: So the New Zealand economy may be conceived as a quiver of arrows and each arrow must strike a target. Consequently, the $3 billion target that has been set for this sector—clear and measurable—will achieved by 2035, but it will only be achieved as we operationalise fast track, an idea that is driven by growth, prosperity, and embraced and improved, based upon the model of the Labour Party.

Andy Foster: How has the strategy been received by the sector?

Hon SHANE JONES: So I can say with characteristic modesty, universal acclaim, that this is an area where even the conservationists, the green lobby realised that we cannot import minerals from the Congo whilst our own children and families know that profit, jobs, and opportunity exist in the mineral estate in New Zealand. Not only will Freddy the frog be protected because the mineral companies know that social licence is important, and guard rails will ensure that there’s the right balance, but there is also the opportunity for suitable locations in the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate to be opened up for economic development, once again within guard rails, because, as we’ve said on numerous occasions, stewardship land is not DOC land.

Andy Foster: What other steps are being considered to support the sector?

Hon SHANE JONES: Of course, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill has been introduced. Some drafting improvements are being worked upon as we speak, and this will overturn the worst energy decision made in the history of New Zealand, where an entire oil and gas sector was snuffed out by juvenile, childish green thinking, which is now being proven to have been shallow and irrelevant because the power companies today are now underwriting the importation of Indonesian coal. So that shows that not only our Resource Management Act improvements and our fast track but even our friends from the gremlin community know without coal, there will both be dole and no lights.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Absolutely, and especially all our Ministers taking action to promote growth and investment across our economy, as you’ve just heard. Just take fast track: it’s now open for applications for regionally and nationally significant projects. We’ve got roads, we’ve got energy, we’ve got housing, quarries, and aquaculture—more than a hundred projects that will make a big difference to our economy. And it doesn’t stop there, because applications are now also open for projects with significant regional or national benefits. It’s all part of our plan to get the economy moving again, and I can’t wait to see many of those projects kick off—and I hope the Greens support them.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction to meet child poverty targets, considering the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report found that, in the past year, most of the indicators monitored showed worsening or unchanged outcomes for children and youth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely, and that’s why this year’s Budget package takes 17,000 children out of poverty compared to the last year of the Labour-Greens Government, which put 23,000 more children in poverty.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Children, considering she is repealing the protections for tamariki Māori in section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, despite the Salvation Army finding that tamariki Māori still make up more than two-thirds of children in care?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the clause is being repealed because we want the paramount focus to be on the safety and safeguarding of a child. That matters above and beyond everything else. I just say to the member I’m also very proud to see in the Salvation Army report that youth offending is coming down, which that Minister’s been a great advocate for.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Māori Development when the material hardship rate for tamariki Māori was found to be more than twice the rate for European children?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because that Minister—Minister Potaka—has done an exceptionally good job getting almost 2,000 children out of motel accommodation in emergency motels. He has also delivered $200 million recently to Māori social housing. And what was the record of a Labour-Greens Government for that member, who was responsible for homelessness? A lot of reports. But in 12 months, Minister Potaka has got it done, and I think the Opposition should just simply say, “Thank you. Well done, Tama Potaka, getting 2,000 children out of motels, bringing the households from 3,151 down to 591. Thank you, Tama Potaka.” That’s all that’s needed. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait while everyone’s quiet.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he confident in his Minister for Social Development and Employment, when, in 2024, her response to questions regarding funding for food banks was: “If we’re serious about dealing with the cost of living crisis, we have to pull Government spending back.”, and, if so, will he then admit that it is his Government’s decisions that led to sharply worsening food insecurity in 2024?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, what has created difficulty and hardship for New Zealanders has been economic mismanagement from a Labour and Greens Government that let inflation out of control, drove interest rates up, put the economy in recession, and helped people lose their jobs. We care about people. If you cared about working people—I don’t remember the Greens or the Labour Party supporting tax relief or Working for Families relief recently. I don’t remember you actually supporting the more funding that’s going into healthcare. I don’t remember you actually supporting the more support going to Māori social housing.

SPEAKER: Just moderate the use of the word “you”—in this case, you had me quite concerned.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Housing to build 1,000 net new public homes in Auckland in 2026?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, look, he’s built 2,000 houses already. What I’d say to you is what he’s not going to do—is that housing was an abject failure under the last Government—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, sir. We need your guidance, in this instance. When we have a Minister, and, in this instance, the Prime Minister, making claims that he knows are not true—blatantly not true—in this House, what measures do we have to be able to pull this up? We cannot rely on him to come and correct it. We know that it’s not true. What can we do?

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, given the remark was made about me, apparently, that number is correct, and I invite the member to go to the—

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on, let’s—

Hon Chris Bishop: Government housing dashboard and look it up.

SPEAKER: That may or may not be helpful. The point is that I can’t sit here and know exactly whether a number relating to any one of the 70-odd portfolios that Ministers administer is correct. But the member will know that the process is that if someone is alleged to have misled the House, then writing to the Speaker is the process so that we can actually look into it and come to an appropriate conclusion.

Hon Marama Davidson: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, to clarify, the question relates specifically to 1,000 net new additional public homes in Auckland in 2026.

SPEAKER: Well, it should have stated so.

Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker, it did.

SPEAKER: Well, then, ask the question again.

Hon Marama Davidson: I will; thank you. Does he have confidence in the Minister of Housing to build 1,000 net additional new public homes in Auckland in 2026?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and we’re on track to do that. But what we will not be doing is driving up house prices 50 percent, adding $180 of rent per week, having a fourfold increase in the social house wait-list, and putting 3,000 to 4,000 families into motel accommodation in emergency motels. We care about New Zealand’s most vulnerable folk, and we want to help them out of those situations, and that’s what we’re doing.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the director of the Salvation Army’s Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit, who said in their State of the Nation 2025 report, “We can’t wish away the increasing levels of poverty and deprivation that this report is highlighting, but we can prioritise addressing the basic needs of people so that our whānau go beyond barely surviving to seeing them thrive”; if so, how does the level of children currently living in benefit-dependent households compare to 2023?

Yes. This morning, I attended the presentation of the report, and I want to start by acknowledging the Salvation Army for the outstanding work they do in our communities. Our Government is under no illusion that poverty and deprivation can be wished away. That’s why this Government has introduced FamilyBoost, we’ve increased personal income tax thresholds, and we’ve increased the in-work tax credit. In difficult economic times, we always knew things were going to get worse before they got better, but we have improved these numbers once, and we can do it again. The number of children in a benefit-dependent household in September 2017 was around 172,000. This increased by around 50,200, or 29 percent, to 222,500 by December 2023. Since then, it has increased to 232,800 as at December 2024. Our Government is committed to growing the economy so that more New Zealanders can have a job and afford the basics. There is more work to do, but our Government is not afraid of hard work.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she acknowledge that we are experiencing the highest level of children with food insecurity in a decade and that this largely comes down to more Kiwis out of jobs and now on benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, which is why we’ve said in this House on multiple occasions—whether it’s the Prime Minister, whether it’s the Minister of Finance, whether it’s myself—when you have a period of economic mismanagement, high levels of Government spending, it leads to inflation, high interest rates, followed by recession, and people losing their jobs. For those New Zealanders who are without a job at the moment, that is devastating. That is why our focus, in going for growth, is to provide the opportunities for Kiwis to have a job, to be able to put a roof over their own head, and to put food on the table.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why are one in four children reported going without food sometimes or often—and for Pasifika, it’s one in two—and how does she reconcile this with fewer Ministry of Social Development (MSD) hardship grants being granted and less money for food banks?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I want to start by addressing the question around less food grants because, on investigation, there have been fewer requests for food hardship grants. So I would say to any New Zealander who is struggling right now, please seek assistance from MSD. There is assistance available, and we know in these times, as a hangover of the previous Government, families are doing it tough. So I say to you, reach out for help.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What is she doing to help people into work, especially the one in 10 Māori and Pacific people now unemployed, and what impact will their high rates of unemployment have on their child poverty rates?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: They are absolutely connected, which is why our Government is focused on reducing the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by the year 2030. So, despite there being incredibly challenging economic times, I’m proud of the work that we are doing as a Government and that the MSD front-line staff are doing, and that we’ve had 33,000 people exit the jobseeker benefit into jobs in the last six months—29 percent more than the same time a year ago when the economic conditions were better.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the only thing her Government is growing the unemployment rate, the number of children going hungry, and the number of people living in homelessness?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, unfortunately we have come into times that are incredibly challenging, and we will not shy away from the very difficult challenges that we know New Zealanders are facing, which is why, in Budget 2024, measures will lift 17,000 children out of poverty. We have a target to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by the year 2030. It won’t be easy, but it’s not impossible, and we’re willing to do the work.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding better transport connections in Christchurch?

Some more good news in the transport space, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to tell the House that last week we announced the delivery of upgrades to State Highway 76 Brougham Street in Christchurch—I’m sure you’re familiar with that site, sir. We are committed to delivering transport infrastructure to boost economic growth and productivity and reduce congestion. Brougham Street carries 45,000 vehicles per day, a critical route servicing the commercial, industrial, and residential areas of Christchurch.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What will be included in the delivery of this project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s a very important project. It includes intersection upgrades and other interventions along the corridor to improve—

Hon Member: Megan Woods delivered it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —efficiency and safety.

SPEAKER: Just hang on a moment. Calm it down. He’s talking about an electorate that’s a million miles away from yours. Carry on—quite close to where I live.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I was going to say, it’s not far from you, sir. It also includes an overbridge between Collins—and I did enjoy this when I learnt the news—and Simeon Street to ensure local residents and school children can safely cross over the highway. I’m advised it’s about a thousand people—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What about the ones hitchhiking to get to school?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —including kids, that cross over that very busy section of State Highway 76—listen up, you might learn something—rather than using the existing level crossing.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How does this drive economic growth?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We are committed to delivering transport infrastructure that boosts economic growth. State Highway 76 upgrades are going to improve productivity and reduce congestion. It is the main freight route to the South Island’s largest port at Lyttelton. Getting freight to places as efficiently as possible is a key part of our plan to grow the economy.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What reactions has he seen about the Brougham Street upgrades?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Let me quote the Mayor of Christchurch, His Worship Phil Mauger: “This is a truly fantastic day for Christchurch.” It’s going to be a game-changer for Brougham Street. Vanessa Weenink, a very hard-working local MP, said residents in her electorate and in the wider region have told her it’s an important route. And it was great to welcome the congratulations from the member for Wigram, the Hon Megan Woods, saying it was a huge win for the local community—of course delivered under this hard-working coalition Government.

Question No. 7—Housing

7. to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “We are focused on using every lever at our disposal in the housing market to improve affordability”; if so, how is opting for zero growth of the public housing stock using every lever?

Yes, and we haven’t.

Tamatha Paul: Why has Kāinga Ora cancelled at least 103 public housing projects—comprised of 965 much-needed houses, including 398 houses in the last five months—if the Government is using every lever?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Kāinga Ora’s housing funding ran out, as that member knows—well, the member may not know—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Because you didn’t fund it!

Hon Ginny Andersen: You didn’t fund it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —from June 2025. No, no—no, no. The people who didn’t fund it, my friend, were you, who, in Budget 2023, pretended that there would be no ongoing operational funding required for Kāinga Ora. It was a fiscal cliff left by Grant Robertson to try and make the books look better in the lead-up to the 2023 election. So we’re not going to stand for that on this side of the House. So as the member may not know, that is a fact—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just—the Minister will stop. That’s ridiculous; an interjection is one or two words, not a running commentary. I’m incredibly short on patience for this. I don’t want to have to flick someone out of the House, but it’s not far off.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: So I’ve answered—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. I take your point and accept it, that an interjection should be short and brief. Surely, a response to an interjection should have the same criteria required.

SPEAKER: Well, if a Minister is giving an answer to a question, then I think the answer should proceed. Carry on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think I’ve dealt with the first part of the question. In relation to the second part of the member’s question, at any one time Kāinga Ora has a range of projects and developments around the country, and, indeed, this was true under the last Government. Some of those projects will proceed; some will not. Land economics and development economics change at any one time. Some projects are required and others are not. There are lots of projects over the years where Kāinga Ora has bought the land and where they may or may not proceed at any one time and, indeed, they may proceed in the future.

Tamatha Paul: How does the Minister reconcile his statement ruling out a mass sell-off of State houses when he is increasing annual State house sales by 2,000 percent, compared with 2017 to 2023?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, what we’re doing is taking a sensible approach to the housing stock that Kāinga Ora owns. For example, I don’t know many New Zealanders who think it is an economic use of land and houses for Kāinga Ora to own around 200 houses, most of them in Auckland, worth $2 million or more. Actually, what Kāinga Ora can do with those houses is divest themselves of those houses and use the proceeds to reinvest in many more houses. The Leader of the Opposition himself said, around a week or so ago, it makes sense for Kāinga Ora to sell houses in places where they don’t make sense, to sell houses where the houses have come to end of life, and that when that is reinvested in building greater density, for example, and making much more economic use of the land, that makes a lot more sense. I agree with him; that is exactly what we are doing.

Tamatha Paul: Will the Minister implement Nicola Willis’ pre-election commitment to building net 1,000 new public houses in Auckland every year, including beyond 2026, and, if not, should we just not trust any commitment his colleagues make to forums of over 500 community organisations?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s a three-year term in Government. We are 15 months in, and since 27 November 2023, when this Government took office and we got sworn in as Ministers, over 2,000 net new social houses have been built in Auckland. So we’re well on the way to meeting the 1,000 per year commitment and we’re 15 months in. Three-year commitments are not broken within 15 months; you’ve got to wait till the end. We will honour that commitment.

Tamatha Paul: Will there be 1,000 net new public homes in 2026, as promised by Nicola Willis and the Prime Minister just now?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member needs to listen to the answers I’m giving: I just said we have delivered over 2,000 net new social houses in only 15 months. Again, we will honour that commitment, because we are going to grow social housing, but if you define public housing as “houses owned by the Government”, that is one thing; we have a broader view of social housing in this country, and we think public housing includes not just Government-owned houses through Kāinga Ora but also the community housing sector. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. We’re going to hear the rest of this question in silence. It’s unbelievable, the amount of commentary that’s coming from those who are not answering the question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d just make the point that in the previous question put by my colleague Tamatha Paul, we had interventions from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister sitting next to him.

SPEAKER: OK, then, I’m sorry I didn’t pick that up, but it doesn’t change what I’ve just said: we’re hearing the balance of this in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My question to the Minister is: given the inability for some members to understand the facts that are being told by you in the answers, could he configure the future answers in cartoon form to make it more understandable?

SPEAKER: No—don’t answer that. Is there a further question?

Tamatha Paul: It’s a point of order. I seek leave to table the commitment that Nicola Willis signed at the forum of over 500 community organisations to build those houses.

SPEAKER: Good. Was this something that is already in the public arena and publicly available?

Tamatha Paul: No, it’s not.

SPEAKER: Well, how could it not be? [Interruption]

Tamatha Paul: It’s not publicly available—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. No further commentary. If it’s something that is an election commitment, then clearly it is in the public arena.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s online.

Tamatha Paul: It’s not online. It’s not publicly available, this form.

SPEAKER: It must be at some point.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Speaking to the point of order, the fact that she is holding up a copy of the photo of it indicates people know about it; it’s a publicly available document.

SPEAKER: I’m going to just save the House and myself a lot of stress, and the House a bit of time: leave is sought; is there any objection? Thank you. Question No. 8, Barbara Edmonds, and we’ll try and—[Interruption]. Excuse me. Listen, someone has got to go, because I’m just going to erupt in a minute, and it could come from all over the place. So this question, of course, will be heard in silence, and the answer will be listened to respectfully.

Question No. 8—Finance

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

Yes, in the context in which they were given or made. In particular, I stand by my statement that economic growth means more and better-paying jobs for Kiwis. This should of course go without saying, but it is a good reminder for some members of this House who seem to believe that if only the Government borrowed more, taxed more, and spent more, nirvana would come. Well, the past Government tried that, and we are still cleaning up the wreckage it left.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When she said she was going for growth, did that mean growing the number of people that are unemployed?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. My desire is to see as many Kiwis who want to work and can work in good-paying jobs. But I would remind the member of this statement: at the pre-election update, forecasts were released for where unemployment would be right now, and rather than interpreting for myself, I will refer to a statement by the previous finance Minister, who said, “Unemployment is forecast to remain below the long-term average of 5.8 percent - peaking at 5.4 percent before declining to 4.6 percent at the end of the forecast period.” We are tracking exactly to those forecasts, and I would highlight to the member that the previous finance Minister was quick to note that we remain below the long-term average.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, then, in the HYEFU, is unemployment due to grow to 5.4 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, at the pre-election update, we had the following forecasts for unemployment. It was to be 5.4 percent in 2025; HYEFU has it at 5.4 percent for 2025. It was to be 4.8 percent for 2026; HYEFU has it at 4.8 percent for 2026. It was to be 4.6 percent for 2027, and HYEFU has it at 4.5 percent. So if the member is suggesting that somehow it is the actions of this Government that have led to unemployment, she needs to explain why her previous Government was forecasting exactly the same levels of unemployment that are occurring today. I suggest to the member that the basic economics are this: when you let inflation get out of control, when interest rates have to surge to get it back under control, you constrain activity in the economy, and you put people out of jobs. Your party chose to do that, and we’re cleaning it up.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was she going for growth when she put the country in the deepest recession for the last 30 years, with the exception of COVID—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’m going to now give the last warning to anybody in the House. When a question is being asked, no one speaks. If it means a whole block of the House leave the House, so be it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was she going for growth when she put the country in the deepest recession for the last 30 years with the exception of COVID, and the accelerating number of company liquidations and closures?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is a shame to me that I have to give this explanation to that member. The situation our economy is in today is not a result of actions taken by this Government. It is a result of an extraordinary set of decisions made by a Labour-led Government which saw inflation surge to generational highs, all while they spent more, which saw interest rates having to be cranked up at such pace by the Reserve Bank that it killed off all sorts of activity in the economy. So what has happened since we have come into office? Well, interest rates are coming down fast, inflation is back in the target range, and growth is forecast to return. I don’t take responsibility for making your mistakes; I take responsibility for fixing them.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can we trust that she is going for growth, when we have record unemployment, 13,000 less construction roles in the economy, record net migration, record company liquidations, more hungry children and homelessness, all because of her choices, and half the country doesn’t think she’s up for that job?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, in reference to the second part of the question, the question that she refers to asked whether Nicola Willis will deliver good economic growth over the term of this Government. I don’t know about that member, but I have a slightly more humble view of the role of the finance and economic growth Minister. My job is to create the conditions in which growth can occur. Do you know who’s going to deliver it? It’s not you and it’s not you; it’s the New Zealanders who get up in the morning, the farmers who milk their cows and get more for their milk, it’s the businesses who choose to hire more people, it’s the entrepreneurs who decide to start a new business. This is a Government that is on their side. I am confident that with us on their side, the economy will grow, and the Treasury backs me up on that, the Reserve Bank backs me up on that. The only one who wants to say the sky is falling is you, Barb.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s very clear in the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that members should refer to other members with their full name. I take offence that she referred to me in a nickname just to have a jab at me.

SPEAKER: Look, I think that’s fair enough. A withdrawal and apology for that part of the answer would be appropriate.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, given that all communications are about understanding, in the second question asked by Barbara Edmonds, she referred to this place called HYEFU; can you tell us where in the world this place is?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Minister makes a good point. The preponderance of acronyms when it comes to descriptions of the economy can be problematic, and it’s certainly something I’ve had words with my officials about. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update is simply a set of forecasts about where the economy and the Government’s books will be over the forecast period.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about driving better outcomes for Māori students?

Right now, for the first time ever, we are delivering, to 310 classrooms across the country, nationally consistent maths resources including student workbooks, teacher guides, and tactile materials in te reo Māori. These world-leading, curriculum-aligned resources, grounded in the science of learning, will benefit 27,000 ākonga across the country, learning in immersion settings. And as the Minister responsible for a bilingual education system that strives for excellence and equitable outcomes, I’m being intentional about replicating my English medium work in te reo Māori so that all Kiwi kids can reach their full potential.

Greg Fleming: He rawe [That’s great]. How are these resources setting up ākonga for success?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, structured and sequenced resources grounded in the science of learning will help deliver on the Government’s commitment to teaching the basics brilliantly and raising student achievement. As we introduce the refreshed Te Marautanga o Aotearoa Curriculum, it’s essential to support kaiako with high-quality, curriculum-aligned resources. This not only reduces teacher workload but helps build confidence, capability, and consistency in the classroom. Whānau will be able to walk into classrooms and see these workbooks and know more about how their tamariki are progressing.

Greg Fleming: How will the new decodable books in phonics check Hihira Weteoro support better outcomes for tamariki learning into te reo Māori?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: From right now—this term—kura and immersion units can use newly developed purpose-built tools used to monitor student progression in reading in te reo Māori. Students will be checked at 20, 40, and 55 weeks of schooling to see how they’re progressing with identifying sounds, letters, and words, if they can segment and write words, and whether or not they can read sentences comparing basic sight words. Data from these phonics checks will help us better target structured literacy interventions to those learning through te reo Māori.

Greg Fleming: He pātai mutunga [A final question]. What feedback has she received from schools who are benefiting from these new resources?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Just today, Dr Sarah Brown from Kerikeri Primary School wrote to me about the new te reo maths resources being used in her bilingual classrooms. She said, “The content is both relevant and comprehensive, making it a valuable asset for structured learning in literacy and maths.” She said, “Our tamariki are finding the resources motivating and easy to engage with. The kaiako—teachers—have reported that they are being seamlessly incorporated into daily lessons. It is clear that these resources are making a real difference in our classroom. We truly appreciate your work and dedication to the future of te reo Māori education.”

Question No. 10—Housing

10. to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “those people who have a genuine need for a short-term stay in temporary accommodation known as emergency housing have a pathway to do that”; if so, what is his reaction to the finding in the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation 2025 report that “there are rising numbers of people who are homeless”?

Āna. Kei te tautoko au i tāku i kī ai, ki te nuinga o ngā tāone me ngā tāone nui i roto i a Niu Tīreni. [Yes. I support what I said, in the majority of the towns and cities within New Zealand.] A lot of whānau are doing it tough, and often because of the cost of living challenges and other health challenges that they face. But I acknowledge the Salvation Army and their very supportive mahi, particularly at Grandview Road in Hamilton West. I’ve not read their whole report, but note that it does report on the number of households in emergency housing being the lowest in eight years, and reducing over 80 percent. We are proud of this reduction and the reduction of over 5,000 households on the Housing Register. These reductions have happened, notwithstanding the increase in the number of people being reported as in severe housing deprivation, which rose by 10 percent between 2018 and 2023.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he seriously expect New Zealanders to believe his claim—

Hon Shane Jones: Yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —that the numbers—

SPEAKER: Sorry, that’s just not on. Let it go. Start the question again.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he seriously expect New Zealanders to believe his claim that the need for emergency housing has reduced when front-line providers such as the Salvation Army have shown that the real reason emergency housing numbers have dropped is due to his policy to stop people getting in?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I do believe that most New Zealanders recognise that there has been a severe cost of living crisis that has contributed to a number of housing challenges throughout the country. A lot of people are doing it tough. There continues to be a number of avenues for people to access better housing support, whether or not that’s Housing First, Rapid Rehousing, transitional housing, or, indeed, when there’s a genuine need for a short-term stay in temporary accommodation in most towns and cities for emergency housing.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he feel ashamed celebrating the reduction in emergency housing costs when a pregnant woman sleeps not in a social house, nor in emergency housing, but in the doorway of the Salvation Army’s Rotorua base?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am very concerned by the number of people with severe housing deprivation throughout the country, and this is some of the legacy that we’ve inherited over the last 15 months.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why won’t he just admit that the drop in emergency housing numbers is a crock, that his policies have led to increased homelessness, and, actually, all this is about is saving costs, not housing people?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m actually very proud—indeed whakahīhī, in a humble way—that we have committed our efforts, our energies, the taxpayers’ resources, and our networks to ensure that we can reduce the number of whānau and households living in emergency housing by over 80 percent. What I’d also acknowledge is this: when we arrived, we knew where about 50 percent of people were going to once they left emergency housing; now we know where there’s more than 80 percent. I think that’s progress; don’t you?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why should New Zealanders take him seriously when he has broken his promise to build more houses than the previous Labour Government; when Chris Bishop broke his promise to build enough houses to eliminate the housing waiting list; and when this pledge, signed by Nicola Willis, promised a net increase of 1,000 State homes in Auckland but demonstrates that her word is worth nothing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We’ve traversed these matters at various times during the last hour and, of course, over the last 15 months, but what we do know is that we continue to be committed to facilitating the use of taxpayer funds to build houses through community housing providers—1,500 by June 2027, Kāinga Ora is probably 2,650 by June 2026, and the numbers of Māori housing projects that we continue to facilitate using taxpayer funds. We’re actually very proud of that. We’re also very proud of the reduction in numbers of households and whānau living in dank, dark motels in far out places like Masterton.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You should be ashamed.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, that’s fair enough, sir. He should be ashamed.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that would be a better way to put it. But it’d be better if you’d said nothing at all.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about Kāinga Ora?

In March 2024, this Government instructed Kāinga Ora to end its Sustaining Tenancies framework and introduce a new rent debt policy with fairer consequences for tenants who do not pay their rents and meet their obligations. Between 2017 and 2023, Kāinga Ora tenant debt increased from $1 million to $21 million, with some whānau struggling to repay their debt. We are seeing blue shoots on action with disruptive tenants, and we want to continue that momentum to ensure that Kāinga Ora tenants pay their rent.

Miles Anderson: What is Kāinga Ora’s new rent debt policy, and what differences will it make?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The new policy focuses on preventing tenants from getting into rent debt, acting quickly when rent payments become overdue, preventing large debts in the future. Kāinga Ora will continue to support tenants who fall behind on rent but are making genuine attempts to get back on track. Kāinga Ora will also be firm with tenants who regularly skip payments and refuse to work with Kāinga Ora to address the debt challenges. In those situations, and if necessary, Kāinga Ora will take steps to end the tenancy. The new approach will endeavour to ensure that tenants who get into more than 12 weeks’ worth of rent debt when their tenancy has ended—this means that Kāinga Ora will begin that process of ending the tenancy earlier than in the past.

Miles Anderson: Why did Kāinga Ora’s rent debt increase so significantly?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Tenant rent debt increased significantly between 2019 and 2023, skyrocketing to nearly $22 million by January 2024. A range of things contributed to this, such as the lockdowns, the cost of living crisis, and the economic challenges. But the Sustaining Tenancies approach, directed before my associate housing role commenced, meant that the efforts of Kāinga Ora, in taking appropriate action under the Residential Tenancies Act, were very minimal, causing fiscal implications to whānau, seeing them get into unsustainable amounts of rent. Operational changes at Kāinga Ora has seen debt fall from a peak of nearly $22 million to $16 million at the beginning of the year—more blue shoots. This Government expects Kāinga Ora to work carefully and prudently with their tenants; be firm but fair.

Miles Anderson: Why is Kāinga Ora forgiving some of the debt owed by its tenants?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This Government is committed to turning around Kāinga Ora and delivering better public services for all in Aotearoa New Zealand. Some tenants of Kāinga Ora have been left to accumulate huge amounts of debt under the previous Sustaining Tenancies framework. The reality is that if left, some whānau would spend the rest of their lives with the stress of having a huge debt hanging over their head that they simply cannot clear. We support the Kāinga Ora board’s decision in forgiving some of the debt to a reasonable amount for those tenants who are working carefully with them to pay down their debt. This policy will provide some debt relief to tenants who are struggling with the level of debt they have, but Kāinga Ora is adopting a firm but fair approach that this Government will tautoko.

Question No. 12—Health

12. to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in New Zealand’s health system?

Our health system is faced with significant challenges. We know that Kiwis are waiting too long to be seen at emergency departments, to receive first specialist assessments, or have elective surgeries. There has been a steep decline in delivery in recent years, exacerbated by members on the other side of the House who thought removing health targets and reforming the health system in the middle of a pandemic was a good idea. My focus is on patients and backing our health system to turn this around. New Zealanders rightfully expect access to timely, quality healthcare, and that’s what my absolute focus is on.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he have confidence in health commissioner Lester Levy, given that under his programme of funding cuts, teams within Health New Zealand have been told that, “Failing often and failing early is the way to succeed.”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have confidence in the commissioners and the work that they are doing to get Health New Zealand back on track and focusing back on delivering for patients. You cannot manage what you don’t measure, and they got rid of the health targets, and I just say shame on them. People are waiting too long to get an elective surgery, waiting longer at emergency departments, immunisation rates declining. They need to look at the mirror and actually look at the results that they left, and we’re fixing it.

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

SPEAKER: I think I anticipate the point of order and I’m going to say right now: that sort of answer to a question is going to mean that the Minister answering the question is terminated. That’s unacceptable. This is a question and answer session. Stick to the answers, not the hyperbole that might somehow varnish an answer.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can he confirm how many health commissioners there are in New Zealand and why won’t he support Mr Levy, who was hand-picked by the Prime Minister to be health commissioner?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there is one commissioner; there are three deputy commissioners. I support the commissioners in the work that they are doing to deliver on the Government’s priorities. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, when the last Government came into office in 2017, there were 918 people waiting longer than four months to get their first specialist assessments. When we came to office, it was 59,000—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can he state to the House and name Mr Levy as a person with his confidence?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, Mr Levy is the commissioner of Health New Zealand. He has my confidence and he is focused on delivering on the Government’s priorities.

SPEAKER: Good. That answers the question.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister confirm: is he the “one vanilla-flavoured brown-bag common cheap solution per problem” that Health New Zealand leaders are describing in their presentations?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I have been called many things in my career in politics and I’m sure that’s probably not the worst.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I’m going on your ruling with respect to what the Minister was being allowed to say. Now, you saw from that last supplementary question the epithet of insults and the Minister’s now been constrained in his reply. I have looked at parliaments and democracies all over the world. This is the most constrained one now because some members here can’t take it when somebody hits back at them. It’s an essential part of this Parliament that we have a vigorous debate. And I would ask you to reflect upon your rulings and have regard to the past times when this was a better Parliament because people came here better prepared.

SPEAKER: Well, let me just respond to that by saying that I reflect upon the Standing Orders, which are relatively clear, and for the most part allow a huge amount of variation from those Standing Orders. I think, when a straight question is asked, it should get a straight answer without the additions to it. That last question, I hope the Minister would have understood, being deeply political in nature, would have allowed him enormous amount of room to say whatever he liked. That comes to the end of question time. We’ll just take 30 seconds while those who have other duties quietly leave the House without discussion on the way.