Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his view that small-business owners who are struggling through tough economic conditions have created a parent-child mentality?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I addressed those comments extensively and publicly yesterday, apologising for how they came across, and I could have expressed myself better.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, was he correct on Sunday, when his office said that his comments disparaging small-business owners had been mischaracterised, or was he correct yesterday when he himself said that he was disappointed with how his comments had been reported, or was he correct hours later when he apologised if he’d offended anybody?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, I addressed that in my previous answer. But I’m proud of the work that this Government’s done to support, to empower, and to enable small businesses, whether that’s been through Investment Boost, fast track, Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, or opening up new trade deals.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Erica Stanford that his comments have “caused a lot of hurt and upset”; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as I’ve said, I addressed those comments in my earlier answer. But I’m very proud of our—particularly our programme around Investment Boost. It is without doubt the most transformative policy for small businesses in New Zealand. I would just ask the member to consider whether he is or isn’t supporting Investment Boost going forward.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know we’re three years into this, but the Prime Minister’s job is to answer questions not ask them, and he hasn’t actually addressed the question I asked, which is whether he agreed with Erica Stanford’s statement. Saying “I referred to that earlier”, when he didn’t, isn’t an answer to the question.

SPEAKER: I think you’ll find he started he answer with the word “yes”, but the Prime Minister may want to add to that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, I’ve addressed those comments extensively and publicly yesterday. The point I was making was that Investment Boost is a key policy for small businesses, and if the member actually cared about small businesses, rather than trying to politic—is he going to support it or not?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree then with his Deputy Prime Minister, David Seymour, “there are some people who call themselves businesspeople, yet always have their hand out to the Government”; if so, which businesses does he think fall into that category?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually very proud of New Zealand businesses. I, unlike the member, get to see many of them each and every week. I actually get out of the bubble of Wellington and go meet with them and understand what their needs are. That’s why we’ve advocated so strongly for opening up new trade deals; that’s why we’ve advocated so strongly for the Investment Boost, which I wish that member would get in behind and actually support because it’s good for local businesses in New Zealand; that’s why we’ve done RMA reform, fast track—things that that member’s opposed. Those are the things that make a difference to get small businesses working and to get them growing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I quoted David Seymour, the Deputy Prime Minister, directly to the Prime Minister and asked him whether he agreed that there are businesses in New Zealand who constantly have their hand out to the Government, and said, “if so, which businesses was he referring to?”—he didn’t address either of those questions.

SPEAKER: In this case, the Prime Minister could say a bit more, I think.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I won’t speak for the Deputy Prime Minister; I’ll speak for myself to say that I’m very proud of New Zealand’s small businesses across this country. They do an incredible job; they’re the lifeblood and the backbone of New Zealand. We care about them, in this Government, that’s why we get the settings right so that we can get out of the mix and they get on and actually grow the businesses and grow incomes, jobs, and wages. That’s what we want them to be doing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he said, “the last person I wanted ever to talk to as a CEO was the Government”, was he referring to his time as the chief executive of a Government-owned airline or his time as the chair of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s what led me to politics, my friend—having seen how rubbish the Government managed things in the last lot; it got me here very quickly. Can I just say: look, my comments were about empowering and enabling businesses. Because here’s the deal: economies work the best when, actually, Government gets the settings right—RMA reform, fast track, Investment Boost, trade deals—gets out of the way, and lets businesses get on with it. Here’s the difference between Labour and the coalition Government—

SPEAKER: Yeah—no, that’s enough.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think that being a manager at a large multinational company and earning a six- or seven-figure salary is comparable to running a small business in New Zealand; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m Prime Minister of New Zealand, that’s my current job, and my job is to make sure I get the settings right to make sure that New Zealand businesses can do the very best they can—opening up new markets, making sure we get the regulatory settings right so they can grow, raise incomes, raise jobs. What—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, Prime Minister. Why ask a question if no one on that side of the House wants to listen to an answer?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which reflects his view of business in New Zealand: that they have “a parent-child mentality”, that they are “C-listers”, that they are “wet, whiny and inward-looking”, or that they are “soft”—all statements he has made in the last three years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I believe is a Government should empower and enable businesses, unlike the last Labour Government that told them what they would do—actually, happened to them—and you’ve seen a very big difference between your Government running COVID and our Government running a fuel crisis. We work and partner with businesses; we don’t do things to them.

Finance

Question No. 2

RYAN HAMILTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, Mr Hamilton. No one speaks other than the person asking the question.

Asked by: RYAN HAMILTON, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: What impact will resource management reform have on the economy?

I’ve seen reports on the Government’s resource management reforms, including the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill. Later today, these bills will both have their second readings, following in-depth consideration by the Environment Committee. For too long, the Resource Management Act has been a handbrake on economic growth. These reforms will make it easier to build homes, deliver infrastructure, and invest in productive businesses by reducing unnecessary cost, complexity, and delay. That is good for investment, productivity, and, ultimately, for delivering higher living standards for New Zealanders.

Ryan Hamilton: How will those reforms impact economic performance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, these reforms will reduce unnecessary delays in compliance costs by making the planning system more consistent, more certain, and less resource-intensive. Officials estimate around 45 percent of consent applications required under the current Resource Management Act could no longer be needed at all. That’s between 15,000 and 22,000 fewer consents each year. That means less time for New Zealanders navigating bureaucracy. It means more building, higher productivity, and lasting compliance savings, creating better conditions for investment as we build New Zealand’s future.

Ryan Hamilton: What other actions has the Government taken to create conditions for businesses to thrive?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Resource management reform is only one part of the Government’s Going For Growth agenda. We’ve introduced Investment Boost, refreshed the Active Investor Plus visa, passed fast-track legislation, replaced the Holidays Act, reduced unnecessary health and safety compliance, improved Government procurement rules, concluded free-trade agreements with India and the Gulf Cooperation Council, and established Invest New Zealand. Together, these reforms are making New Zealand a more attractive place to invest, grow a business, and create jobs.

Ryan Hamilton: Why is creating the right environment for businesses so important?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, because businesses create jobs, invest in new equipment, develop new products, and generate the incomes that lift living standards. Government cannot grow the economy on its own. Our job is to create the conditions for businesses to succeed by maintaining stable economic settings, reducing unnecessary regulation, and encouraging investment. That is exactly what this Government’s Going For Growth programme is all about.

Arts, Culture and Heritage

Question No. 3

Asked by: TĀKUTA FERRIS, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Does he accept the Māori Land Court’s ruling that the Crown’s obligations extend to the entire Rangihoua waka miheke found by Imi Moriori on Rēkohu, not just the parts recovered; if so, what actions will he take to ensure that the Government meets those statutory obligations?

The Government is taking advice following the Māori Land Court’s judgment on 30 June 2026 on the matter relating to the discovery of the waka on the Chatham Islands, under the Protected Objects Act 1975, and, as this is an active matter before the court, I won’t be commenting further on the details of that. I will note, however, that this is an extraordinary discovery and, potentially, a significant piece of New Zealand history, which is why the Government allocated $1 million to the excavation and care of partial remains of the waka.

Tākuta Ferris: What confidence can the Minister give imi Moriori and Māori that the Government will protect taonga tūturu, given that the Crown’s interpretation of its obligations under the Protected Objects Act 1975 was rejected?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Every confidence, because we obviously have invested upwards of $1 million so far in terms of the preservation of the parts of the waka that have been uncovered and sent a specialist wet wood conservator to the area. We had an excavation undertaken in January and February last year. It’s in a very difficult area. It can be worked on during the summer, and we’ve put significant resources into it, but we’re taking further thought and consideration of the High Court’s judgment in the meantime.

Tākuta Ferris: Does the Minister accept the archaeological advice that recovering the Rangihoua waka miheke this coming summer offers the best opportunity to preserve it, and, considering it’s the Crown’s obligation, what is he doing to make that possible?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, as I said, we have already set aside $1 million and there may be more funds that need to be put into this task, which we are going about in a very careful and deliberate manner.

Tākuta Ferris: In light of the Māori Land Court rejecting the Crown’s interpretation of its obligations under the Protected Objects Act 1975, has the Minister sought advice on updating the ministry’s guidance to reflect the court’s ruling; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I have taken advice, and I’m awaiting that advice.

Tākuta Ferris: When the Minister visits Rēkohu later this month, what assurances can he give that he will secure the $3.5 million needed to recover and conserve the Rangihoua waka miheke, or will he arrive empty-handed and leave one of Aotearoa’s most significant archaeological discoveries without the funding needed to preserve it?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I certainly won’t be arriving empty-handed, because I’ll be arriving wearing my other ministerial hat, as well, as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations with the intention of signing a settlement with Ngāti Mutunga, which has been something that the Government and Ngāti Mutunga have been working on for many, many years, and it will be a cause of great celebration.

Prime Minister

Question No. 4

Asked by: Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs to speak for him and his Government on all matters relating to New Zealand’s foreign policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Were comments made by Winston Peters last week regarding China and Chinese New Zealanders racist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve made my views on these offensive remarks pretty clear over the last week. I’ve addressed this issue over the last few days. The Chinese community know that I strongly support—I’ve previously called them out as offensive and racist.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can he have confidence in a Minister of Foreign Affairs who makes comments that he himself has called racist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because he made the comments in a general debate speaking as the New Zealand First Leader, not while exercising his Foreign Affairs functions. The conduct of the debate in this House is a matter for the Speaker, and the Speaker ruled it inappropriate. The New Zealand - China relationship is in good heart; it’s a longstanding one. I’d just say the Foreign Minister and the Chinese ambassadors have had spats from time to time, including when he was Foreign Minister for the Labour Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There is so much of a din coming from the Labour party, I wonder if you could do us a favour and call Helen Clark and ask her to quieten them down.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t tend to take instruction from anyone of that nature. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She quietened him down when she dumped him from Cabinet.

SPEAKER: And no one else—no one else is speaking.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That last statement was a lie, and I ask him to withdraw it—that last statement was a lie, and I ask him to withdraw it.

SPEAKER: No. No, sorry, Mr Peters, that won’t be happening. I make a decision about what gets withdrawn and what doesn’t. You’ll be aware that I made a decision last week along the lines of the manner we’re just currently discussing. If I were you, I’d leave it alone.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Just a minute, we’re getting a bit out of order here.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are you saying that a statement in this House that is made that is false—and the person who made it, knowing it’s false—is not capable of being addressed by this House? Well, what are my rights now?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Sit down—I’m not finished. When the House has resumed its composure—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I’m just responding. Mr Peters, in actual fact, there was so much noise going on in the House—people will find it hard to believe that, although you’re sitting in an elevated position here, sometimes there’s so much noise it’s difficult to pick out what was said. I’ll give an undertaking to have a look at the Hansard and come back to the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order.

SPEAKER: The Hon Marama—ah. The Hon Chlöe—ah, sorry!

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll take it!

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, not until you earn it. Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, I’m just seeking your guidance on the use of the terminology and accusation of a lie. You have punished me personally, multiple times, for the use of that word, and I just am seeking your guidance as to whether this rule applies universally or there’s one rule for us and another for him.

SPEAKER: No—careful how you approach that. Every situation is quite different, and I’ve just undertaken that I’ll have a look at the Hansard and make a call on that, because the member’s own party was party to some of the noise that was going on not only in that last exchange but also, I might point out, last week.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he have confidence in his Minister of Foreign Affairs, given his statement that people from China “lie like flatfish”, and his calling the ambassador of our largest trading partner a “communist shill”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, I publicly called the remarks offensive, and our Chinese community know I strongly back them. But with respect to the capacity in which he—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’ll hear the rest of the answer without any response from anyone else in the House.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said before, the remarks were passed in this Parliament in his capacity as the New Zealand First Party leader. The Speaker is responsible for conduct in the House. He deemed it inappropriate. There have been historical spats between the Foreign Minister and Chinese ambassadors. As I’ve said, it happened also when he was Foreign Minister under a Labour Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been widely reported in both the New Zealand media and the international media that the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in New Zealand issued a statement standing by the speech that Winston Peters delivered in the House. To say that it is not therefore a ministerial statement is wrong. If the Minister of Foreign Affairs issues a statement endorsing a speech that they have delivered in the House, in whatever capacity it is, then it is a ministerial statement.

SPEAKER: Yep, thank you. Ask your question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he have confidence in his Minister of Foreign Affairs, given his statement that people from China “lie like flatfish”, and is calling the ambassador of our largest trading partner a “communist shill”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, I’ve publicly called the remarks offensive. But the New Zealand China relationship is a longstanding one and it is actually in good heart. The Minister and the ambassador have had spats in the past and that’s what we’ve seen, and I’m quite comfortable with the relationship that we have between New Zealand and China. It’s in good heart.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that Winston Peter’s statements are consistent with the Cabinet Manual’s rules that state that Ministers must at all times “uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards”; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ve publicly called the remarks offensive, I’ve been clear about my views on the conduct, and I’ve spoken to the Minister about it. My view is that we are 90 days away from an election. New Zealanders can exercise their vote as they see fit at the ballot box. But I just will not be lectured on the Cabinet Manual from the man who had difficulty controlling his own front bench. Remember a guy called Michael Wood?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he stand by his statement on 24 November 2023, not long after becoming Prime Minister: “I’m responsible for all ministers irrespective of which party they’ve come from”; if so, why hasn’t he acted regarding comments made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he himself has said were racist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ve been clear about the conduct, and every time language that I disagree with is said, I say so.

Transport

Question No. 5

Asked by: GRANT McCALLUM, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made about progressing the Northland Expressway?

Fantastic news. Last week, I announced that the National-led Government is getting on with the first section of the Northern Expressway from Warkworth to Te Hana. It’s one of the most significant infrastructure investments this Government is making to support jobs, unlock growth, and provide a safer and more resilient connection for people and freight between Auckland and Northland. The agreement was finalised last Thursday between the Crown and the Northway consortium to design, build, finance, maintain, and operate the expressway. Very good value for money for taxpayers. There’s a net present value of $3.649 billion, around $250 million cheaper than if it was delivered under a traditional public sector procurement. It’s the 12th road of national significance to be procured under past and present National Governments. It is an important project for Northland.

Grant McCallum: What does the first stage of the Northland Expressway include and what are its benefits?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s a new 26-kilometre, four-lane expressway, with grade separated interchanges at Warkworth, Wellsford, and Te Hana. It also includes 15 standardised bridges and twin tunnels of around a kilometre long. Over the life of the expressway, the benefits are expected to include 145 fewer deaths and serious injuries, travel time savings of seven to 10 minutes, more than a thousand fewer closure hours due to severe weather, and the removal of around a thousand vehicles per day from the main streets through Wellsford and Te Hana. This is a game-changer for the Northland economy.

Grant McCallum: What lessons have been learnt from previous public-private partnerships?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This is something I’ve been particularly interested in. This is the largest public-private partnership in New Zealand history, and we have learnt the lessons from previous examples like Transmission Gully (TG), including taking a more sophisticated approach to risk allocation, securing property and resource consents earlier—which was a real issue with TG—and establishing a stronger evidence base for affordability thresholds. The procurement process was also strengthened through bid cost reimbursement to encourage competitive participation. The New Zealand Transport Authority has retained intellectual property on those proposal, and so we’ve learnt the lessons from the past and we’re moving forward into the future with confidence.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has he seen regarding this announcement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I have seen feedback from the local Northland MP, Grant McCallum, who said that the Northern Expressway will revitalise Northland’s economy, creating jobs, and boosting wages. I thank him, alongside staunch advocates for the projects Dr Shane Reti and the Hon Chris Penk for their support. Northern Regional Transport Committee Chair Joe Carr—a very hard-working man—acknowledged the unanimous and strong support of all four Northland councils. Northland NZ, the economic development and tourism agency, hailed the public-private partnership deal, enabling it to go ahead and calling it a win. Northland has incredible potential, and this is a major milestone in unlocking the infrastructure, jobs, and economic growth that the wonderful region in Northland needs and deserves.

Finance

Question No. 6

Asked by: Hon BARBARA EDMONDS, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. Was the Prime Minister correct when he said that small businesses have a “parent-child mentality” and look too often to the Government for help; if not, why not?

Well, I first note that the Prime Minister did not specifically refer to small businesses in the comments that the member is referencing. Regardless, the Prime Minister has acknowledged he could have made his point better. As I say, his comments were not directed at small businesses; they were intended as a reference to the previous Government’s paternalistic approach to business in general. [Interruption]

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Yeah, just wait for your colleagues to catch up—all right.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was the Deputy Prime Minister correct when he said that “There are some people who call themselves businesspeople and yet always have their hand out to the government”; if so, can she identify these people or businesses to the House?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: My experience is that when the Deputy Prime Minister makes a comment, he generally has the facts to back it up. If the member wishes to ask him which businesses he was referring to, she should put a question to him.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, when mortgage stress of business owners is at least double that of salaried workers, did her Government feel the need to tell them that they have a “negative” view of the economy and compare them to children?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do not think that’s what the Government did.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Which of the Prime Minister’s comments does she not agree with: that New Zealand is “very negative, wet, whiny, inward-looking”; that New Zealand businesses are “soft”; those doing it tough are “bottom feeders”; or that our small businesses are negative, with a “parent-child mentality”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think all of those comments should be understood in the context in which they were given, and I wish to refer the member to the Prime Minister’s comments, yesterday, in which he acknowledged the challenges that many small-business owners are facing and that he got it wrong in his remarks earlier.

Hon David Seymour: Is it possible that the true and correct context for those comments was talking about the Labour Party and their leader?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question. Any further over there? Question No. 7—Katie Nimon. [Interruption] Hang on, just a minute. We’re all quiet while the question’s called.

Education

Question No. 7

Asked by: KATIE NIMON, Answered by: Hon ERICA STANFORD

to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made about strengthening teacher training?

I announced that we are backing Kiwi teachers. This week, I announced an expansion of the School Onsite Training Programme, which supports student teachers to complete their Initial Teacher Education while based at a host school, each paid a tax-free stipend of $20,660. We are growing the number of placements from 147 in 2024 to 660 next year, and 704 places annually from 2028. We’re also expanding the Teacher Bonding Scheme, which supports schools with persistent staffing challenges to attract and retain great teachers, to 235 places. Together, these changes strengthen the pipeline of classroom-ready teachers by increasing access to practice-based training and supporting schools that face recruitment and retention challenges.

Katie Nimon: How is the School Onsite Training Programme strengthening Initial Teacher Education?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the Government is strengthening Initial Teacher Education because New Zealand needs a stronger pipeline of well-prepared teachers. Findings from the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey and from the Education Review Office (ERO) highlight that most graduate teachers don’t feel confident in teaching all of their subjects, and that 28 percent of teachers find Initial Teacher Education—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Who runs ERO?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —ineffective.

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We know from ERO—

Hon Ginny Andersen: And David Ferguson.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —that practice-based training—Mr Speaker, I’m going to just acknowledge that barracking from the Opposition. The new chief executive of ERO, David Ferguson, is one of New Zealand’s most highly respected principals that we’ve ever had, potentially. He deserves her respect. If that’s how she’s going to treat teachers, then good Lord! I hope she’s never the education Minister. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just completely settle down. The balance of this question and its supplementaries will be listened to in silence, apart from the person asking the question and the one answering it. Katie Nimon, ask the question again.

Katie Nimon: The same question? Yep.

SPEAKER: No, no. Your second supplementary.

Katie Nimon: OK. How does this benefit schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The Government is strengthening Initial Teacher Education because New Zealand needs a stronger pipeline of well-prepared teachers. We know that people who are trained on-site are more prepared for the classroom. We know that we can direct these places into areas of need, not only in primary but also into secondary and into those areas where they are most needed, in rural, isolated places.

Katie Nimon: What feedback has she received on this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the response to this announcement has been really positive. The Rural Schools Leadership Association President, Andrew King, told Mike Hosking, “It’s got to be a good thing. It’s a financial incentive to help teacher aides or people on a limited authority to teach to become full-time teachers.” Another person said, “Good initiative. It also ensures support and encouragement and job security for those who are already in the early part of their careers in the field of education.” Regarding the School Onsite Training Programme, a teacher at Aotea College said, “It’s much more beneficial to train in school.” A trainee teacher also expressed support for the announcement, saying, “It’s the practical aspect that makes the programme.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is one of the most important things about the strengthening of teacher training now that when it comes to school attendance, the children are going to school, not like when we changed the Government and half weren’t going to school?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, one of the most important things for raising student achievement and engagement is the quality of the teacher—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are they going to physically remove them?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —in front of the child.

SPEAKER: Sorry, what did I say earlier?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Whakarongo mai.

SPEAKER: Just answer; don’t engage across the House.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: One of the most important things is the quality of the teacher in front of the child when it comes to raising achievement and engaging with children and making sure they are turning up to school. We now have the largest number of teachers in the sector that we’ve had on record since they began in 2009. We’ve got 30 percent more in training and we’re holding firm at a retention rate of 90 percent, on top of now training 705 on-site trainee teachers with the stipend. There is no better time to be a teacher because of the incredible reforms of this Government, and it looks like teachers want to get on board and be a part of it.

Prime Minister

Question No. 8

Asked by: Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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

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

Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he proud to lead a Government where one of his most senior Ministers can make comments about Chinese people that he himself called “racist and offensive” while facing no meaningful consequence and still representing New Zealand on the world stage?

SPEAKER: Just to be clear—I didn’t want to interrupt the member while she was asking a question—this answer and this series of answers and questions will also be heard in silence with no comment from anyone other than the person asking the question and the person answering the question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Throughout that question, Winston Peters was heckling the questioner. On every other instance that I can remember, when that has happened, you have personally pulled them up. In that instance, you commented to the House to say that there will be silence during the answer, but not once did you mention that that was happening. Previously, I’ve been kicked out by suggesting that you are treating Winston Peters differently to other members in the House. There was another example right then, and you didn’t do anything about it.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s your opinion. I just said that I chose not to interrupt the Hon Marama Davidson while she was asking that question, but there was certainly a number of voices coming from that end of the House. Can I just make it very clear—[Interruption] Sorry, we’re getting into pretty dangerous territory here, from my perspective. Marama Davidson, ask your question again, and no one will interfere or interrupt you, I should say.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ki te Pirīmia: is he proud to lead a Government where one of his most senior Ministers can make comments about Chinese people that he himself called “racist and offensive” while facing no meaningful consequence and still representing New Zealand on the world stage?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I had given answers in the previous round of questions, I publicly called the remarks offensive. I’ve been clear about my views on the conduct. We are 90 days out from an election. If New Zealanders feel strongly about it, they can exercise their vote on 7 November and change the shape of any Government.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept the warning from Aucklander Mengzhu Fu that comments like those of his senior Minister tell the 1.4 million New Zealanders born overseas that “you don’t deserve care, you don’t deserve justice, you don’t deserve income, you don’t deserve to live with dignity”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, I’ve been very clear in my support for all immigrant Kiwis that have come here. I’m very proud of the work that they have done and the contributions they’ve made to this country. They work incredibly hard, and they’ve made New Zealand a much better place. I’ve expressed that view many, many times.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he content with allowing these anti-migrant remarks, considering similar comments have been made by his Minister for Resources as well as to other instances this term from his own MPs for racist sentiments expressed in the House, which they subsequently were made to withdraw and apologise for?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’m not sure what Minister she’s referring to.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is he willing to rule out someone from serving in his Cabinet for making crass remarks about women but continue allowing his foreign affairs Minister to remain in Cabinet despite his ongoing disparaging remarks towards migrant communities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said, I’ve been clear about the conduct and I’ve expressed my view on that subject. Every time a colleague has used language that I disagree with, I say so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Prime Minister be interested to know that, of the hundreds and hundreds of people at the Iwi Leaders Forum last week in Queenstown, of them all, not one raised this issue at all?

Hon Willie Jackson: They’ve given up.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, Willie; you lost big time, sunshine.

SPEAKER: There is just one person asking a question—the Hon Marama Davidson.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Was that a question?

SPEAKER: No, it was attempting to give an answer, but you’ve got to wait, probably, several years before you’ll be able to do that.

Hon Marama Davidson: How does he claim that his foreign affairs Minister made those remarks as a New Zealand First leader when it was repeated by media that a spokesperson for the Minister of Foreign Affairs put statements out to reiterate that the Minister was aiming at defending New Zealand’s democracy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, he made the remarks during a general debate in this House, speaking as the New Zealand First leader. As I’ve said earlier, the conduct of the House is in the purview of the Speaker, who ruled those comments inappropriate.

Māori Development

Question No. 9

Asked by: CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL, Answered by: Hon SHANE JONES

to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement, “By 2035, I want to see the size of the measured Māori economy double”; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: Yes. We need to be judicious how we deploy the term “Māori economy”. If, for example, we are referring to Māori land, 35 percent of Māori freehold land is located in Tairāwhiti. That percentage figure that the member refers to can be achieved, but in order to do that, the Minister of Forestry no doubt is going to have to involve himself with the affairs of the local council up there, who seem hell-bent on destroying Māori land aspirations by closing down forestry.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Does he stand by his statement, “Growing the economy means backing Māori enterprise to scale, export, and compete internationally”, and, if so, why did he scrap progressive procurement and cut Māori trades training?

Hon SHANE JONES: I have to correct that member. At the last Budget, money was actually transferred away from the third-year fees entitlement dedicated towards foundation skills that relate to preparing people for apprenticeship-orientated businesses. However, I do acknowledge that, in the Tairāwhiti, there is 9.6 percent unemployment. That will only be arrested when economic development is permitted, and given the mortal danger that forestry is in as a consequence of a lack of advocacy from that member and an unwillingness to tame the council up there, who seems hell-bent on—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What about procurement?

Shanan Halbert: You cut Māori trades training.

Hon SHANE JONES: Look, I’m not listening to the arse end of a vacuum cleaner.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Try answering a question without trying to bully a female member.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough for today—more than enough.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Really?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Is he failing the Māori economy when larger Māori enterprises’ purchasing is down $122 million and sales are down $109 million for the last five quarters straight?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, the Māori economy is involved with the primary sector economy that is currently enjoying historically high earnings in terms of our commodity sales overseas. There’s about 640,000 hectares of freehold Māori land. Much of that is dedicated to producing the very commodities, the very exports, that are enjoying historically high returns, a large percentage of which goes back to the owners of those assets.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: How can he realistically expect to hit his target of doubling the Māori economy when filled jobs in Māori authorities have fallen 9 percent in a single year and Māori unemployment is running at roughly double the national rate?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, I would direct the member’s attention to Ngāti Kōata, who were very successful in securing a fast-track application for a major housing development. I would also direct the member’s attention to our willingness to ensure that climate change burdens and fairytale politics do not obstruct the growth of Māori assets in an area where they’re being hobbled by excessive climate theories and ideology promoted by her side of the House.

Building and Construction

Question No. 10

Asked by: RIMA NAKHLE, Answered by: Hon CHRIS PENK

to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent data has he seen about building activity?

Yesterday, Statistics New Zealand advised that there were more than 40,000 new consents for homes in the year ended June. This represents strong growth—19 percent, in fact—in the 12-month period prior. This is a significant turnaround for a sector that has faced challenging conditions over recent years, following a decline in building activity that began in the year 2022. Of course, more consents mean more building activity, more jobs, and more opportunities for young New Zealanders.

Rima Nakhle: Has he seen other data showing an increase in building activity?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Yes, there’s also been recent data from Seek, showing a 35 percent increase in demand for construction jobs compared with a year ago, making construction the fastest-growing industry. This data is encouraging to see and further evidence that our Government is committed to fixing the basics and building the future.

Prime Minister

Question No. 11

Asked by: CHLÖE SWARBRICK, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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: Was the official advice about AI data centre impacts that he referred to in his RNZ 27 July interview information that he had received from Minister Nicola Willis?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does it then concern him that, under an Official Information Act request from the Green Party, his office failed to produce any such reference to that advice that he cited?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Minister has got some preliminary advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). She just shared that with me the night before I made those remarks in the morning.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Datagrid AI centre raise electricity prices; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said to the member last week, we’ve got about three data centres, I think, expected to come on stream in the next year. The advice we’ve had is that it won’t put an upward pressure on electricity prices, but that’s why we’re taking further advice from MBIE and, also, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, thinking about the industry and looking at what the settings are in Australia, to make sure that we have some sensible rules around the expansion of data centres in New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has his Government commissioned any cost-benefit analysis on the consenting of AI data centres before sensible common-sense regulations are developed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as I said to the member, we’re taking advice on it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How many hyper-scaled AI data centres does he understand might be consented before we receive the official cost-benefit analysis and understanding of impact on our energy grid and electricity prices?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member before, I think we have around about 60 data centres in New Zealand today. There are three that are expected to come on stream—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Do you know the difference between an AI data centre and a data centre?

SPEAKER: No, no. You’ve asked the question—just wait for the answer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: He’s not answering.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s not—you can raise it in a different way, but don’t do it across the floor of the House. We’ll move on—question No. 12.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are you joking? Everyone else is allowed to heckle, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me, everyone is making far too much noise in here, and then turning around and expecting me to interpret what a whole 123 people are saying—it’s ridiculous.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Respectfully, the problem is your double standards.

Question time interrupted.