Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: TAMATHA PAUL, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister of Housing: Is he concerned by the Salvation Army’s findings that more people are becoming homeless for the first time alongside an entrenched pattern of repeat homelessness; and if so, what will he do to address this?

The short answer is yes. I think that anyone in the House, or any New Zealander, would be concerned about homelessness in this country, which is a systemic issue that’s been getting worse for around the last decade. From 2018 to 2023, for example, severe housing deprivation increased by 13 percent, the number of people in temporary accommodation increased by over 70 percent, and the number of people sleeping rough increased by 37 percent. We need to make sure that our response to this is based on high-quality data and evidence. The finding that the member refers to is, I’m advised, based on a teams’ table talk discussion and a one-on-one kōrero with a selection of managers of service providers, and, although useful, it is not a substitute for statistical data. In relation to the second part of the question, we are addressing housing need and homelessness from every angle, fixing our planning system and infrastructure system, delivering new social homes—over 8,000 since November 2023—funding additional social and affordable housing places—over 5,000 over the life of this Government, so far—providing additional Housing First places and additional support for rough sleepers, and completely reorienting the housing investment system so that we build the right houses in the right places for the right people.

Tamatha Paul: Does he accept that 18 of 19 front-line providers told the Salvation Army that homelessness has increased over the last six months?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That is what the report says—yes.

Tamatha Paul: How does he defend the Government reducing funding for homelessness responses by $75 million over the last two years, while front-line organisations report that homelessness continues to rise?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I would reject the member’s figures there. Actually, the Government has put a considerable amount into a variety of programmes, including Housing First, which I’ve referenced in the primary answer, which is starting to pay real dividends and have real results. We’ve also, in relation to what I’ve already said, invested considerably in a range of different providers, across the social housing spectrum, that work.

Tamatha Paul: So why are there over 300 fewer transitional housing places than when he took office, despite transitional housing operators operating at over 90 percent capacity?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m not 100 percent sure that the member’s figures are correct in terms of transitional housing. Transitional housing continues to be a useful mechanism for helping people who are in housing vulnerability. I think it would also be fair to say, though, that it is not something that we’d want to see long term, in the same way that we don’t want to see emergency housing used as a long-term programme in order to house people who need support. Ultimately, what we’re about is making sure that people can get into social and affordable homes. With transitional housing, the clue is in the name: it’s meant to be transitional. It is there, we will fund it, we will make sure that the places that are available are utilised as much as possible, and we will fund the wraparound support that is often required for people in transitional housing, but we shouldn’t pretend that it is a panacea for our homelessness challenge—it is not. It is actually, in many cases, a symptom of the underlying system problem.

Tamatha Paul: How does reducing the number of new social housing units, then, from an average of 3,500 a year over the last three years to just a quarter as many over the following three years, help to address rising homelessness?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m really proud of the fact that for the first time, probably, in 20 years, we have a funded four-year-and-beyond pipeline of social housing places. One of the things the sector often says is that rather than big oscillations in funding, what they would actually like to see is a steady pipeline so that they can plan for the future. We have delivered that with additional funding in Budget 2024 and 2025 and Budget 2026, and we’ve come in behind the Community Housing Funding Agency and, essentially, put a liquidity facility in place so that they can lower the borrowing costs of community housing providers. I’m advised by officials that that is making sure that we can deliver even more houses with the same amount of money because of the ballast the Crown has put behind that agency. So we now have a four-year funded pipeline, and crucially, we’re also investing in the right sort of houses—for example, many more 1- and 2-bedroom houses, 50 percent of people on the housing register need a 1- or 2-bedroom house; that wasn’t what we were building, it is now what we are building—and crucially, also building in the right places. For example, we know that there’s housing deprivation in the Far North, we know that there’s housing deprivation in Tairāwhiti; that is where the new housing investment system is prioritising because that’s where the housing need is—as opposed to the free-for-all of the past.

Tamatha Paul: Is he concerned by reports from service providers that leaving correction facilities, hospitals, mental health services or other care increases the risk of immediate homelessness; and if so, will he consider a duty to assist on Government agencies to prevent people leaving their care and immediately becoming homeless?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I’m very concerned about it. I think it’s a disgrace the way we treat people leaving mental health facilities in this country, and the way in which we treat people leaving prison. The most expensive form of housing the Government provides is people in acute mental health need and in prison. Every person we can keep from bouncing back into an acute mental health facility or bouncing back into prison will save the Government a truckload of money, let alone the amplification of human—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Move on orders—throw them in jail!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —this is a serious issue—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is serious.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —this is a serious issue—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, it is—[Interruption] Woah, hang on! Just let the Minister answer. Interruptions or interjections should be rare and reasonable.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s a serious issue from a serious member who deserves a serious answer. The amplification of human potential, if we get this right, is something that worries me—or the lack of amplification of human potential. We have work to do on that. There is no doubt about that. I am deeply troubled by the of number of prisoners who leave prison without a fixed abode, who don’t have a house to go to. I’m deeply troubled by reports that I’ve heard firsthand from providers in the acute mental health space. That is exactly why we are changing this system. I don’t pretend for a moment that we’ve got that right, but we need to fix it. Because everyone who leaves a mental health facility or leaves prison, deserves to go into a warm, dry home. And we are going to fix the system so that happens.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Asked by: Hon CARMEL SEPULONI, Answered by: Hon DAVID SEYMOUR

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, I mean, how could you not, really. We’ve seen a new Arms Act, after 43 years of degradation, passed last night; the Holidays Act, something that people had struggled with for a decade, replaced by the Employment Leave Act, also just passed last night; we’ve just set a 10-year record for term 2 school attendance; the Resource Management Act, the biggest handbrake on this country, is being taken off and replaced by a law based on property rights. This week, we’ve also seen the infrastructure funding and financing legislation passed, so when people build under that new resource management law, they’ll be able to fund the pipes and the roads and the pumping the stations.

Hon Shane Jones: More! More!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We’re kicking goals—oh and there was also the first exploration consent for oil and gas after the disastrous decision to try and scare that industry out of the country. We’re just kicking goals with both feet here. We’re very proud to stand by all of our statements and actions.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he consider the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s characterisation of China and 1.4 billion Chinese people as liars, to be consistent with the Cabinet Manual’s standards of ministerial conduct?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I don’t believe he’s made that characterisation as Minister of Foreign Affairs, and therefore, he’s not answerable to it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he accept that telling a fellow member of Parliament to “go back to your own country” is racist?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’m responsible for the conduct of my Ministers. However, those comments were made by a party leader in a general debate, and it is true that some members of this House are both a party leader and a Minister. It’s a position that I have some sympathy for, but probably not one that that member’s going to have to worry about again.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What consequences, if any, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs face for his characterisation of China and 1.4 billion Chinese people as “liars”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I agree with one thing the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said recently: that our Parliament is sovereign and that we have free speech within this Parliament. That may not be the case in China, but it’s certainly the case here. That member can use her free speech in this Parliament to mischaracterise what another member has said, but the consequence that she will face will be on November 7.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he consider that a Prime Minister who promised he would travel commercially and has since made 16 international trips on air force aircraft has kept his word?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: You see, the thing is that the Government has a defence force and the defence force has aircraft. If you have aircraft, then you need to practise flying—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Sorry to interrupt the acting Prime Minister. Only one person needs to answer from the Government, not 40-odd.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah, don’t worry, guys—I’ve got this. You see, if the defence force is going to have aircraft, they need to fly them; they need to practise flying them and maintaining them. If they’re going to be doing that, then they might sometimes also be able to get synergy by transporting the Prime Minister of the country. Now, of course, if you believe that the defence force shouldn’t have aircraft, that’s another story. If you think that the defence force should have aircraft but they should never leave the ground, that’s another story. But if you think that the Government should have aircraft and they should fly, then maybe they could sometimes transport the Prime Minister of the country, as well, and that would be a win-win.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his office’s statement that his defence force flights impose no additional cost on the taxpayer; if so, is he telling New Zealanders that those aircraft would have flown those same routes, on those same dates, carrying no passengers, had he not been on board?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister; I do stand by his statement. Let me just lean a little bit on physics. You see, the cost of an airplane flying through the air doesn’t really depend on the route, because the air, the atmosphere, it’s kind of the same wherever you fly. So, you know, there’s—

Hon Chris Bishop: What!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah, no, believe me—I’m an engineer. And so, there’s really no difference in cost if it flies on one route or another. It just sort of glides through the air wherever it goes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was it worth spending over $12,000 of taxpayers’ money to save him about 45 minutes driving from Auckland to Hamilton in his Crown limo?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, yes, because the money wasn’t actually spent; it would have been spent anyhow. What I think we’re getting here is a certain tinge of envy. I think that member would have thought it was fine if it was her. Now she’s getting down in the weeds, because whenever her party releases a policy, they go down in the polls.

Hon Simeon Brown: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of previous Prime Ministers using defence force flights to fly to, say, Christchurch for long lunches?

SPEAKER: Oh, that’s—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Look, he has no responsibility for what previous Prime Ministers may or may not have done.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’ve seen reports.

SPEAKER: He’s seen reports, yes, but it would have to be a report that is totally specific to the question that was asked.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is, Mr Speaker. I’ve seen reports that Helen Clark’s limo was flying—

SPEAKER: No, sorry, hang on a minute. Just a moment.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —to the rugby. It almost took off, but not quite.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he accept that a leader who breaks his own promise on air travel, and is too weak to discipline a Minister who tells a Chinese-born New Zealander to go back to his own country, has built a Government of no standards and no accountability?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, what we’ve seen is an attempted orchestral conductorship, where she’s built up the questions and she’s tried to really rise to a cacophony, a triumph, and unfortunately, the way question time’s gone today, she just hit a bum note.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Just answer the question—did he answer the question?

SPEAKER: Given the nature of the question, he most certainly addressed it.

Justice

Question No. 3

Asked by: CAMERON LUXTON, Answered by: Hon NICOLE McKEE

to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent changes have been made to firearms laws?

I am pleased to report that yesterday the Arms Bill passed its third reading in the House. This makes a significant milestone for New Zealanders, particularly licensed firearm owners. For the first time in 43 years, New Zealand will have a modern Arms Act that supports public safety, while ensuring that regulation is proportionate to risk and straightforward for licensed firearm owners to comply with. It’s been a long road, and I’m proud to have delivered these much-needed reforms for licensed firearm owners and for New Zealand.

Cameron Luxton: What notable changes will benefit licensed firearm owners?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Licensed firearm owners will benefit from a wide range of improvements to the Arms Act. The most significant is the removal of sworn police from the new arms regulator, Firearms Safety and Education New Zealand. This will allow police to focus on law enforcement, while enabling the independent regulator to focus on delivering efficient, customer-focused licensing and regulatory services. Licence holders will also benefit from the establishment of an independent Firearms Licensing Review Committee, longer business licence durations, greater flexibility around approved secure storage locations, multi-entry visitor licences, and better regulatory settings for specialist users. These are just some of the many changes that will benefit licensed firearm owners.

Cameron Luxton: What are the next steps for the Arms Bill?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Next week, the Arms Bill will receive Royal assent and become the Arms Act 2026. While many licensed firearm owners may see this as the end of the reform process, there’s actually still important work ahead. The next step is the careful development and implementation of the supporting regulations to ensure that the Act operates as Parliament has intended. While most of the regulations will come into force on 23 September 2026, others will be implemented over the 12 to 18 months following Royal assent. The considered development of these regulations is critical to ensure straightforward compliance for licensed firearm owners.

SPEAKER: Can I just advise all Ministers that answers should be fairly succinct and not at all lengthy.

Cameron Luxton: Minister, how did input from the community shape this bill?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: From the outset, I wanted the community to be involved in the development of the new firearms law. Previous reform in 2019 saw rushed consultation, and by contrast, the Arms Act 2026 has been shaped by an initial public consultation process, a full six-month select committee process, and further targeted consultation on regulations. I just want to take a moment to thank everyone who has been involved in this process, from the community, to the select committee, to Parliament.

Transport

Question No. 4

Asked by: PAULO GARCIA, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister of Transport: What progress is being made on public transport?

This morning, I spoke to the Public Transport Association Australia and New Zealand, where I talked about critical public transport in our liveable, vibrant cities. On the weekend, the Government will open our newest railway stations—or Mr Peters, the Minister for Rail, will open the stations at Drury and Paerātā. They will be open to customers on Sunday, putting South Auckland and Franklin’s fast-growing communities on the rapid transit map, just in time for the City Rail Link, which is soon to open. The opening of the two stations is also supported by an upgraded local bus network in Paerātā Rise, Ramarama, Drury, Waiuku, Glenbrook, and Pukekohe to connect to Drury and Franklin train stations. This morning, I also reflected that fare subsidies do not really lift patronage over the long term. What we need are reliable services through capital investment.

SPEAKER: That’s a nice introduction to a concise answer, it would appear.

Paulo Garcia: What other recent progress has been made on public transport infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, last Friday, I turned the sod on the final stage of the Eastern Busway alongside hard-working local MP the Hon Simeon Brown. It’s the final stage of a long-running process.

Hon Simeon Brown: Didn’t need a regional fuel tax for it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: When it fully opens, it will connect Botany, Pakuranga, and Panmure to the city centre. Some said the abolition of the Auckland regional fuel tax would result in the cancellation of the Eastern Busway, but the truth has been the opposite.

Paulo Garcia: How is the Government driving a focus on transit-oriented development around public transport?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government is committed to enhancing transit-oriented development to align land use, housing, and transport infrastructure. Following the completion of the City Rail Link, Auckland’s new Plan Change 120 will result in greater intensification around those key City Rail Link stations and the central business district and of course the rapid transit network. We’ve reached an equilibrium where density is prioritised around where the infrastructure already is so we can really take advantage of these big, transformational investments in Auckland’s future. It’s great to see that, I think, the vast majority of people accept that where we build rapid transit and good high-quality public transport, we should also align our housing plans around that.

Children

Question No. 5

Asked by: Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME, Answered by: Hon KAREN CHHOUR

to the Minister for Children: Is she confident that no harm is being caused to young people in the miliary-style academies and youth justice facilities?

We know from the latest Safety of Children in Care report that there was a 14 percent decrease in the number of findings of harm in residences—the first time ever there has been a decrease. I am confident that because I made improving safety in residences a priority, we are doing everything we can, and probably more than ever before, to prevent harm in youth justice residences. We introduced standard operating practices, which I was amazed to learn did not exist in residences before. We’ve also enhanced our recruitment practices, improved and increased the training staff receive, and strengthened leadership at residences. I’m also confident from visiting these facilities and speaking to staff that they are more likely to speak up when they see incidences of harm happening, because they know that action will be taken, and people will be held to account, which they tell me did not always happen before.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did two young people voluntarily leave the in-residence component of the latest military-style academy?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think I’ve made it very clear in the past that I won’t be speaking about individual members on the military-style academy programme.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she stand by introducing military-style academies when the Children’s Commissioner stated that the evidence is clear that military-style approaches “frequently cause further harm for mokopuna who have already experienced lives of trauma”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes, I do stand by introducing the military-style academy pilot. We kept doing the same thing over and over again and expected different results. This Government actually cares about outcomes for young people and cares about giving them opportunities to better themselves.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she aware of recent staff-encouraged violence towards a young person at Korowai Manaaki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m not sure what incident she’s referring to.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can she confirm that, recently, Korowai Manaaki staff got young people to line up in two rows, and then a young person who was leaving the unit was required to walk through two lines and be punched and hit by other young people?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m not going to speak to an incident that may be before the courts or any other issue like that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she continue to have—quote—“every confidence that those young people are now safe and that it’s not happening to them anymore”—unquote—in relation to harm in youth justice facilities?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think it’s important to note what I said in the first part of my answer to the first question. We have done a lot of work within youth justice to bring it up to a standard where we can reduce harm to the best that we can. We’ve made huge improvements with safety in residences; it’s one of my key priority areas. We’ve put a focus on recruiting the best people. No longer do we hire off the Student Job Search website saying, “no experience necessary”, and chuck them on the floor. We now have a six-week training induction and a ready-for-work assessment. We’ve introduced 81 standard operating procedures to ensure clarity and consistency regarding residential operations. We’ve introduced face-to-face training on 20 critical risk areas, and we’ve also implemented improved radio telephones to support safe management of residences. We can’t prevent all harm, but we can actually make changes to make real change for those young people. That has never been done before.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. When that last questioner was asking her question, she had a “quotes unquotes” part of it without any recitation of who the authority was. Now, that’s just a waste of everybody’s time. Could you ask her next time to follow the rules and tell us who she’s quoting?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Speaking to the point of order. I was speaking about the Minister’s own quote.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, why didn’t you say so?

SPEAKER: I think the words “when she said” probably cover that. Do you have another question, Willow-Jean Prime?

Health

Question No. 6

Asked by: Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to improve outcomes for New Zealanders living with cancer?

Every New Zealander knows someone whose life has been impacted by cancer, which is why this Government is taking action across the entire cancer pathway. We’ve delivered a record $604 million uplift of Pharmac, funding 66 new medicines, including 33 cancer treatments. We’re investing $210 million to expand cancer treatment services and infusion capacity, $65 million to improve access to critical diagnostic procedures, and significant funding to upgrade cancer treatment machines. There is further work under way across expanding the age of breast screening to 74; and also lowering the age of bowel screening to align with Australia, with the first steps under way to lower that to 56. Our focus is simple: early detection, faster diagnosis, quicker treatment, and better outcomes for New Zealanders facing cancer.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What recent announcement has the Government made regarding cancer treatment infrastructure?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, just this week, I announced that a new state-of-the-art linear accelerator, or LINAC, is now treating patients at Wellington Regional Hospital. The new machine provides more precise, highly targeted radiation treatment while helping ensure patients can access world-class cancer care closer to home. It is part of our wider programme of investment, which includes new LINACs in Auckland and Dunedin, the first ever of radiation therapy services in Northland and Taranaki, and the new Hawke’s Bay Cancer Centre currently under construction. We’ve also allocated funding in this year’s Budget to plan future LINACs in Christchurch, South Auckland, and Nelson. This Government is ensuring patients have access to modern facilities and the latest treatment technology.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How is the Government increasing access to cancer treatment services in New Zealand?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Cancer treatment is challenging enough without having to spend hours travelling to receive it. That is why the Government is investing to expand cancer treatment services across the country, including 14 new infusion centres and upgrades to 14 existing sites. Just recently, I announced a new community-based cancer infusion service in Henderson, meaning West Aucklanders can receive treatment closer to home instead of travelling into central Auckland. Alongside the new service at Waitakere Hospital, this means more patients can spend less time on the road and more time with the families they love. It’s all part of our plan to deliver additional cancer infusion centres so that more New Zealanders can access treatment closer to home.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What steps is the Government taking to improve cancer screening and early detection?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Early detection saves lives, which is why the Government is investing heavily in cancer screening programmes, expanding breast screening to women aged 70 to 74, ensuring thousands more women can access regular screening and detect cancer earlier. We’ve also taken the first step to align our bowel screening age with Australia, with Budget ’26 funding the lowering of the screening age to 56, helping identify bowel cancer sooner and giving more New Zealanders the best possible chance of successful treatment and recovery. These investments reflect our commitment to improving cancer outcomes by ensuring people can access screening, diagnoses, and treatment as early as possible.

Resources

Question No. 7

Asked by: ANDY FOSTER, Answered by: Hon SHANE JONES

to the Minister for Resources: What announcement has he made regarding oil and gas exploration?

It is a rejoiceful day, in contrast to that bleak occasion when, previously, a unilateral decision was made without any consultation to Winston Peters and the oil and gas ban was announced unilaterally by Megan Woods and the then Prime Minister. A 12-year petroleum permit has been allocated—[Interruption] We don’t want to hear marinated slop from over there.

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s enough—just stick to the answer.

Hon SHANE JONES: A 12-year petroleum permit has been allocated after the ban has been removed, a ban that has had ruinous consequences upon the region of Taranaki. There is a great acclamation today from Taranaki, because fossil fuels are back.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why did you email asking to come, then?

SPEAKER: OK, that’s—we’ll hear the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—point of order. Point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, just a minute—just give me a minute. A point of order is heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as that member decided to put the matter of chronology of events in question, why didn’t she release the document that she gave us months after she’d made the damn decision?

SPEAKER: Well, no, I think there’s a fair question there. I think that sort of intervention is not particularly helpful to the order of the House, nor do, frankly, most of us know what it’s about. Supplementary question—[Interruption]—and no one else speaking other than the questioner, Andy Foster.

Andy Foster: What are the costs faced by households and businesses across New Zealand as a result of the declining supply of oil and, more particularly, gas in New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: Natural gas represents an essential input into the industry of New Zealand. Firms are closing down. Indeed, our last fertiliser company has great difficulty as a consequence of the decline of the gas industry, driven by the unilateral decision, along with the closure of the refinery at Marsden Point, announced by Megan Woods. We cannot eradicate those facts. I am simply announcing that along with the $200 million fund, where decisions are soon to arrive, we are establishing a new flow and a level of confidence for the oil and gas industry—and a thousand years will pass before ever I send an email to Christopher Finlayson or that woman.

SPEAKER: Well, I certainly hope that in a thousand years’ time, we’re still not using email.

Andy Foster: What more can he tell us about this announcement?

SPEAKER: Oh, really?

Hon SHANE JONES: Gas is important for industrial heat. It’s important that I elaborate today that New Zealanders can have confidence that this Government has not only made a decision allocating an entitlement to boost the amount of gas coming out of Taranaki but we are going to power New Zealand. We are going to ensure that industry has greater confidence and we move on from that bleak time when Megan Woods conned New Zealand First.

SPEAKER: No, that’s not—no, you have to withdraw that last comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, we can prove that.

SPEAKER: It doesn’t matter—doesn’t matter. You can’t make accusations like that during question time in the House.

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Speaker, would you like me to table the paperwork proving that I’m correct?

SPEAKER: Look, you could table anything you like, but you can withdraw that remark just for now.

Hon SHANE JONES: I shall withdraw that remark.

SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

Education

Question No. 8

Asked by: Hon GINNY ANDERSEN, Answered by: Hon ERICA STANFORD

to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “No AI was used in the writing of the curriculum”; if so, why do internal documents from the Ministry of Education on the curriculum process note that “AI tools will be used to check and generate content”?

Yes, the Ministry of Education is responsible for the development of the Curriculum, and they have advised me that artificial intelligence (AI) was not used to write the Curriculum. I’d encourage the member to read the full briefing she’s quoting from, which clearly states that the actual writing will be undertaken by technical writers in the ministry. I’m advised by the ministry that, while they did consider very early on whether or not there was a place for AI to write parts of the Curriculum, ultimately they decided that this task was best suited to writers, and that is what they chose to do.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did she say in this House that no AI was used in writing the Curriculum, when it is obvious from looking at the content of the Curriculum that it has been used?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Because it wasn’t.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Who is correct: the Minister, who maintains that AI was not used to write the Curriculum, or music teacher Tim Carson, who described the music curriculum as “riddled with errors” and with “all the hallmarks of AI”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I agree with one of the writers who wrote, “I was contracted to the Ministry as a subject expert for the Science Curriculum rewrite. My input was through repeated cycles of editing and adjusting detail on a very large spreadsheet. You might want to do a bit more homework Ginny.”—Jon Hickford. That was a comment on one of her Facebook posts. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: One person has the floor: Ginny Andersen.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she really expect parents to accept her semantics and believe that generating content through AI is somehow different to writing it?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Generating and writing are very different things. What I expect, and know, parents believe is that their young people are doing better at school. I want to quote: “As a father of four, I can say what Labour was doing in taking our kids’ education backwards”—

SPEAKER: No, no. That’s enough. That’s fine. Got another supp’?

Hon Ginny Andersen: I was happy for her to finish.

SPEAKER: Well, your side has complained repeatedly about the Government using their own questions to attack the Opposition. I thought it would be the same when the Opposition asks a question only to find itself attacked by that question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she accept that she is now relying on the same distinction she previously used to defend Learning First’s role in the Curriculum that generating or sourcing content is somehow different from writing it, and, if so, where exactly does she draw the line?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Oh, we’re back to the conspiracy theory of who wrote the Curriculum: was it the Australians; was it the person who’s generating it through AI? For goodness’ sake, the fact of the matter is that we have delivered two Curriculum areas that have been in place in schools for 18 months: English and maths. Maths went up 6 percent at year 6, and writing went up 6 percent. We are delivering a Curriculum that is improving the lives of children. That father said, “What National has done so far already, I can see a better result for my kids.” What matters here is results. Our kids are doing better. Half of teachers say that their kids are doing better; 75 percent of parents think that their kids are doing better. It’s all in the Education Review Office report. In fact, we need to stop worrying about conspiracy theories, and worry about results, because we are delivering.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. A point of order.

Hon Ginny Andersen: That question was about where the line exists between generating content and writing it; all I got was a diatribe about fake achievements. That did not even address the question.

SPEAKER: I don’t think the response was about fake achievement; it was about achievement. Many people would say that might be where the line is drawn between the two—basically, writing and AI—that I think you were suggesting.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Well, is it possible for the Minister to address the point of the question, which was: where is the line between generating and writing content? I think that’s an important question for parents.

SPEAKER: I think it is, and I think she answered it by saying it’s in the achievement that they’re seeing. Do you have another supplementary?

Hon Ginny Andersen: I do have another supplementary. What is the worst part of her Curriculum forms: is it (a) using AI, (b) getting Australia’s Learning First to write it, (c) taking out all the Māori words, or (d) all of the above?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I know why the previous Minister, now member, is trying to cast aspersions: because of the fact that we will have, by the end of this term, rewritten every single Curriculum area up to year 13, and delivered them, which is a huge—a huge—achievement in just three years, because of the 350 teachers we’re using to write the secondary curriculum and the hundreds of teachers we’re using to help us write the primary curriculum. Now, the reason we’re getting all these deflections about “Maybe it was Australia” and “Maybe it was AI” is because, in six long years, they didn’t deliver a single Curriculum area. That’s why our kids were going backwards, and that’s why I give a damn and am going to deliver these results for our kids by the end of this term.

Immigration

Question No. 9

Asked by: CARL BATES, Answered by: Hon ERICA STANFORD

to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcement has she made on the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme?

Well, while I hurriedly look for my notes, in fact, I might have to do it just—oh no, I’ve got them. Lucky me! This week, I announced a package of changes to modernise the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme. The changes address feedback that the scheme has become too complex and, in some areas, unnecessarily burdensome. The changes include a graduated accreditation model that recognises trusted RSE employers, streamlined agreements to recruit, clearer cost recovery rules, and a graduated compliance regime, and more flexibility for workers through variation of conditions and the ability to access the migrant exploitation protection visa. RSE is a great scheme that benefits growers, workers, and our Pacific partners.

Carl Bates: Why is the scheme important for our Pacific partners?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the RSE scheme is a win-win arrangement with our Pacific partners, with approximately 17,000 workers coming each year—the majority of whom are coming from the Pacific. It provides New Zealand’s horticulture and viticulture sectors with the seasonal labour needed to meet the peak demand, while also providing Pacific workers with employment, income, and skills they can take back to their home countries. The scheme supports development in the Pacific labour markets and strengthens New Zealand’s relationships with our neighbours.

Carl Bates: How do the changes support our exporters?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, these changes support exporters by reducing those unnecessary administration burdens by making the scheme easier to use while keeping important safeguards in place. Horticulture and viticulture exports have grown from around $2.5 billion in 2007 to nearly $9 billion today, and the RSE scheme has been critical in meeting that peak demand. Streamlined agreements to recruit, longer accreditation for employers with strong compliance records, clearer cost recovery rules, and targeted compliance will give good employers more certainty and allow resources to be focused where risks are the greatest. Variation of conditions will help employers and workers respond when weather or work conditions change.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister consider that these changes address the Government’s coalition commitment to the ACT Party to lift the cap on the number of RSEs and increase the flexibility of the scheme?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That is absolutely true. We have made a number of changes not only in this announcement but back in 2024 as well to make sure that the scheme is more flexible for workers and also for employers. While we haven’t lifted the cap in this round of changes, the Government felt that it wasn’t necessary, given that we were still about 3,000 workers short of that cap, but what we have done to the sector is I have made a personal commitment that we will always look at increasing the cap, where we need to, to support the sector.

Carl Bates: What feedback has she seen on this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the feedback I’ve received is that these changes are being welcomed as a win for growers and workers. When I was making the announcement at the horticulture conference this week, the feedback was very positive. For example, Horticulture New Zealand chief executive Kate Scott said, “The Government’s decision to modernise the RSE scheme is a positive and practical step that will benefit growers, workers and Pacific communities … These practical improvements [will] provide employers with greater clarity while strengthening worker protections,”.

Agriculture

Question No. 10

Asked by: STEVE ABEL, Answered by: Hon TODD McCLAY

to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to support the efforts of Hawke’s Bay growers to acquire the McCain vegetable processing facility?

The Government has been working closely with Hawke’s Bay mayors and growers since 27 March when McCain announced the commercial decision to close their plant. This has included visits to the region and meetings in Hawke’s Bay and Wellington with affected parties. We’ve also instructed Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials who work closely with a group of growers to investigate a grower-led purchase of the site and processing capability on a commercially viable basis. On 29 May, I announced a Government contribution of $50,000 for the first stage of a feasibility study to assess what was required for a grower-led purchase of the site to be commercially viable. I’m informed that, following this, a consortium of growers made an offer to purchase the McCain site. However, following a refusal or inability to include the plant machinery in the sale, this offer has been withdrawn. Whilst this has been a commercial decision, I have asked MPI to continue to engage with local growers and the council on next steps.

Steve Abel: How was his Government able to find $60 million to bail out a cement factory but not the mere $200,000 that was sought—as opposed to only $50,000—to support scoping the viability of the McCain vegetable processing facility as a growers-owned cooperative?

Hon TODD McCLAY: These are two very different issues. One is a cost upon a business in New Zealand as a result of climate change obligations. The second, though, is about a commercial decision for a plant that the owner’s had, to the best of their ability, decided was not viable. We have supported growers upon the ground. We’ve been active with them and working very closely with them. It was an initial contribution of funding to start the work on a feasibility study, but I say again: following that, this grower-led group made an offer on the plant, the conditions of which were, unfortunately, not able to be met, and therefore they’ve withdrawn that and the sale is not able to go ahead.

Steve Abel: Is he concerned that the reason the growers withdrew their offer was because it is apparent that McCain seems to have asset-stripped the facility by selling the machinery—that might be anti-competitive behaviour—to stop it being sold as a viable processing facility?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I’d encourage the member to go and say that outside of this House, without protection, to the media, because I’m not sure what he said is correct, and therefore I would actually caution him not to do that, because I think he would find himself in a lot of trouble. In effect, the owner of that facility decided it was not viable. They made decisions over the plant for themselves. An offer was made to purchase in good faith. Unfortunately, some of the conditions, I understand, around that offer were not able to be met, and therefore the offer was withdrawn.

Steve Abel: What actions is he taking to address the chain of people affected by the closure who have expressed devastation and grief, including growers, workers, contractors, truckers, seed suppliers, and harvest crews?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The horticulture sector this year will be responsible for around $7 billion worth of exports; Hawke’s Bay is a very important part of that, across the board. They produce significantly, not only for the New Zealand market but also for exports. Of course, it is a very challenging time for those who are directly affected, but in as far as the growers are concerned, there will be a number of opportunities, should they choose, around land-use change. There are many other things that are grown there in Hawke’s Bay. It is the reason I’ve asked the Ministry for Primary Industries to continue to engage with local growers and the council on what next steps may be needed.

Steve Abel: Is he content with the loss of the production of the world’s finest peas in Hawke’s Bay and the fact that frozen peas at the supermarket will now not be New Zealand grown but imported?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I’m sure that many of the products that come from Hawke’s Bay are “world’s best”. In fact, the people there that grow can be very proud of their contribution to New Zealand. However, the owners of that plant made a decision for themselves that it was not commercially viable. We supported growers to see what would be possible for them to make a purchase. They have decided against that. However, I would also say that, equally, we are a trading nation; we produce enough food to feed 40 million people around the world. This year, New Zealand’s exports from the primary sector will hit $64 billion for the first time. The thing about trade is that we get to sell more than we import, but we are also a country that, through trade agreements, must import.

Steve Abel: Does he recognise that New Zealanders do not want us as a country to lose our ability to feed ourselves with our own locally grown produce, and, if so, can he explain to New Zealanders what his Government is going to do to ensure we retain domestic food production capability and resilience?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yes, I do, but, again, we produce enough food to feed 40 million people around the world. I don’t think we will run out of food in New Zealand. One of the things we’re doing, as a Government, is we’re focusing on how we can get the cost of energy down with the reintroduction of oil and gas exploration and liquefied natural gas importation—something that his party doesn’t support. We are replacing the Resource Management Act to get costs down and to make it easier for growers to produce high-quality food—something that his party has voted against. In trade, we did a free-trade agreement with India that will open up opportunities for those same growers to export—his party voted against that. We have announced—

Steve Abel: What are you going to do?

Hon TODD McCLAY: These are all things that we are doing, by the way. They’re also things that that member is voting against. These things will support the primary sector. I’ll tell you the one thing that, actually, when I’ve been to Hawke’s Bay, they’ve told me we should not be doing: we shouldn’t ban nitrogen fertiliser, and we shouldn’t add a wealth tax on top of a capital gains tax on top of a climate change tax. That would harm our farmers; it wouldn’t help them.

Tertiary Education

Question No. 11

Asked by: SHANAN HALBERT, Answered by: Hon CHRIS PENK

to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does she stand by her statement that “This Government wants all New Zealanders to realise their potential and contribute to our country’s success”; if so, how will increased cost of living pressures help students realise their potential?

To the first part of the question, yes, I stand by my statement in expressing a desire on behalf of the Government that all New Zealanders be able to realise their full potential and contribute to New Zealand. In terms of the second part of the question, it’s true that, in the last six years, cost of living pressures have challenged many New Zealanders, including students. Two of the major costs that typically face students are accommodation and food. I note that recent rent inflation figures are the lowest in 25 years; and in terms of food inflation, the most recent data indicates an increase of 2.8 percent, which one can favourably compare with a rate of inflation of 12.5 percent of a few years ago.

Shanan Halbert: Does she accept that 434,000 applications for 53,000 positions on Student Job Search shows that there are not enough opportunities for students to find employment under this Government?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I’m aware of the statistics in terms of job opportunities and challenges for all New Zealanders, including, again, students. I would point out that this Government has been focused on creating job opportunities by making it easier for businesses to be productive and profitable, for example, by sensible level of regulation and removing red and green tape where possible. I also note specific job creation moves initiated by this Government, for example, in construction, where significant Fast-track Approvals Act consents have been one measure that this Government has undertaken that will ultimately provide a more fertile ground for employment opportunities for students.

Shanan Halbert: How can tertiary students succeed in their studies when a recent student survey at Victoria University found that 38 percent of students recently skipped a meal due to cost of living pressures?

Hon CHRIS PENK: No one is denying that cost of living pressures have been challenging for many New Zealanders over the last six years. In relation to the Wellington region specifically, though, I note that one of the key cost components of most student lives—being accommodation—that, actually, within the Wellington region, the rent costs have reduced across the board within the region against a number of different measures or different data sets measuring that. In relative terms, they have had an easier ride in the last few years in relation to rent, but beyond that, in terms of cost of living pressures, the Government’s undertaken a number of measures to alleviate that pressure.

Shanan Halbert: Why has she allowed tertiary tuition fees to increase by 19 percent since 2024 when students are already struggling with the cost of living?

Hon CHRIS PENK: It’s important to place costs on students—and indeed, again, all New Zealanders—in the context of support provided by the taxpayer through Government. These include student allowances for those who are eligible; loan living costs, as well as more general student loan availability; accommodation benefits and training incentive allowance; and for those eligible, childcare, health, and disability costs for urgent or unexpected costs, along with Working for Families tax credits to assist families with dependent children under 18.

Shanan Halbert: Is 70 percent of survey respondents at Victoria University saying they are considering leaving the country after graduation a sign that, under this Government, young New Zealanders can only hope to realise their potential if they go overseas?

Hon CHRIS PENK: No, and I note the departures of New Zealanders overseas, including to Australia, has slowed in recent times, and certainly compared with the time before this Government came into power. I also note that New Zealanders are increasingly returning to these shores as they see greater opportunities on this side of the Tasman.

Shanan Halbert: If she was really helping students achieve their potential, would she have had something to say to the Victoria University students rallying to secure their future outside of these walls today?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I say to those students and, indeed, other students, and, indeed, all New Zealanders around the country, that we’re working hard as a Government to provide great opportunities, and we would welcome the support from across the House for job creating opportunities such as those enabled under the Fast-track Approvals Act and many other measures.

Youth

Question No. 12

Asked by: Dr VANESSA WEENINK, Answered by: Hon JAMES MEAGER

to the Minister for Youth: What recent announcements has he made about supporting young people?

Over recent months, I have announced a number of initiatives to support young people across New Zealand; these include new investments through the Youth Development Partnership and Innovation Fund supporting more than one thousand young people. These partnerships will support young people to re-engage in education and strengthen their pathways to employment. Critically, these investments are being matched by community and philanthropic funding partners, doubling the amount of financial support being brought into the youth sector at no additional taxpayer cost. Can I quickly take the opportunity to welcome students from the Strengthening Democracy Project at Parliament here today. I hope their visit has been enlightening.

Katie Nimon: What recent announcements has he made to support young people in Wairoa?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I thank the hard-working member for her question. I recently announced a new funding partnership in Wairoa, with the Wairoa Young Achievers Trust receiving $100,000 from taxpayers, matched by a further $100,000 from community funding partners including the New Zealand Police, Eastern & Central Community Trust, and First Light Community Foundation. This investment will support more than 80 young people to re-engage in education, improve their attendance, and strengthen their pathways into employment.

Rima Nakhle: What recent support has he announced for young people in Waikato and Auckland?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: In Auckland, Mana 2022 Incorporated and Action Education Incorporated will receive $600,000 from taxpayers, matched by funding from Aotearoa Lifecourse Fund and Foundation North, creating a $1.2 million investment that will support more than 300 young people to re-engage in education and successfully transition into the workforce. In the Waikato, the Government is investing $436,000, matched by the Hauraki Māori Trust Board, Lotteries, and the Len Reynolds Trust, creating a total investment of $872,000. The trusts will run programmes to strengthen education, leadership, and employment pathways, support successful transition to high school, develop employability skills, and create education and work opportunities for more than 400 young people.

SPEAKER: Dr Hamish Campbell—guess where?

Dr Hamish Campbell: How will the recent investment in Christchurch support young people?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that Te Ora Hou Ōtautahi received $750,000 in funding to re-engage young people in education in Christchurch. That is being matched by the Rātā Foundation and the Wayne Francis Charitable Trust, for a total of $1.5 million of total investment over three years. Youth workers at Te Ora Hou Ōtautahi will support more than 300 young people to transition from intermediate to secondary school. Through this community-led support, we expect to see an increase in school attendance and improved academic performance. These are Government priorities as we continue to fix the basics and build the future of New Zealand’s education and workforce systems.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.