Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: Hon CARMEL SEPULONI, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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

Yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When he said he had “a laser focus on bringing down the cost of living”, does this mean Kiwis are actually paying less?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, inflation is down. The prices of things are going up slower than they were under the previous Labour Government. To give the member some numbers, it was 7.3 percent; it’s now 4.1 percent. If you strip out the effects of the Iran conflict, we’re down at 2.9 percent within the inflation band. If you look at food inflation, 12.3 percent food inflation under Labour—terrible number—now down to 2.8 percent under this Government. And, most excitingly, we’ve got rent increases of only 0.5 percent, which is the lowest in 25 years.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has he succeeded in bringing down the cost of living when in just two years the cost of white bread is up 68 percent, butter 41 percent, cheese 30 percent, mince 28 percent, and milk 26 percent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I just highlight to the member that under her Government, food inflation was at 12.3 percent—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t want to know about that; I want to know about you.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was about to tell you. To give you some sense of context, we are now at 2.8 percent—2.8 percent is lower than 12.3 percent. That’s a good thing.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has he succeeded in bringing down the cost of living when 40 percent of Kiwis are now having to borrow just to cover basic costs, according to Kiwibank?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have got more to do, but we have done a good job of getting inflation down from 7.3 percent to 4.1 percent today while we’re managing our biggest oil shock. It was a rather unique skill to have a 32-year high—7.3 percent—inflation that was outside the band for 11 whole quarters under the previous administration.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When a record number of Kiwis are making hardship withdrawals from their KiwiSaver just to make ends meet, is this a sign that the cost of living has gotten better or worse?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, inflation is within the band and is lower than it was under Labour, so, clearly, inflation is in a much better place than it was under the Labour Government. But I just say to the member, yeah, I appreciate the line of questioning this week, but if you were actually serious about helping on the cost of living, the Labour Party would support the council rates cap, one of the biggest drivers of that; the Labour Party would support oil and gas and fast track so we can lower power bills for people. You’d do fast track; you’d actually support extending prescriptions to 12 months so we can lower GP costs for people. But you’re not serious about working New Zealanders, and you’re not serious about low and middle income working people.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that inflation’s been negative only twice since records began in World War I—the first time was during the Great Depression of the early 1930s, before even Winston Peters was born, and the second time was in the aftermath of World War II, when he was attending Plunket?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The point I’ve tried to make is that negative inflation is bad for an economy; that’s well understood. It’s not understood by the Labour Party, but I get that. But I just say it’s a bit rich when you won’t support council rate caps, you don’t support Resource Management Act (RMA) reform or fast-track legislation, you don’t support oil and gas and a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility—things that are designed to lower rates for people, lower power bills for people—and you just don’t care.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When pensioners are facing 4.5 percent household inflation and are increasingly having to turn to hardship grants to get by, is this a sign that the cost of living has gotten better or worse?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, if you look at the data that came out this week, the household living-costs price indexes, you’ll see that for superannuitants, under Labour it was 7.4 percent inflation, and today they’re at 4.5 percent under this Government. So that is a better record than what your Government delivered, period.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why, when food prices are up, power prices are up, KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals are up, and more and more pensioners are applying for hardship support, has he abandoned his promise to be laser focused on the cost of living?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as I’ve tried to highlight, food inflation went up to 12.3 percent; right now it’s 2.8 percent. That is a massive improvement and a massive effort. But if you are serious about cost of living, support the council rates cap, support oil and gas and the LNG import facility, support fast track and RMA reform, support extending prescriptions, support tax relief for low and middle income working New Zealanders—not ideological; just common-sense, practical help to working middle income New Zealanders. This Government cares about it. You used to care about them; you don’t.

Finance

Question No. 2

Asked by: DAN BIDOIS, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on fuel prices?

I have seen a number of reports on fuel prices. Today, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment published the latest official fuel price data, confirming the national average price for 91 octane petrol has remained below $3 a litre for a fourth consecutive week, at $2.96. While that requires Cabinet to review the temporary fuel support measures, officials advise that the conditions are highly volatile. International fuel markets remain highly volatile and recent increases in global fuel prices are only now beginning to flow through to prices at the pump—for example, today’s provisional daily price is $3.05.

Dan Bidois: Why has the Government not automatically ended the temporary fuel support measures?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Officials advise that domestic fuel prices are lagging recent international market movements. Over the past fortnight, Brent crude oil prices have increased by around 21 percent, international refined petrol prices have increased by around 27 percent, and forward wholesale market indicators have also risen sharply. Officials advise that those increases typically take one to two weeks to flow through to New Zealand pump prices. Cabinet will, therefore, next week, consider both the latest domestic data and the international outlook before making a final decision on the future for temporary supports in relation to the fuel price.

Dan Bidois: What principles are guiding the Government’s decisions on the temporary fuel support measures?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government’s approach remains the same as when these measures were introduced. We cannot control global oil markets, or conflict in the Middle East, but we can soften the impact on New Zealand families in a responsible, timely, and targeted way. That is why this support was designed to be temporary, and directly linked to fuel markets stabilising, not to remain in place indefinitely. International volatility remains elevated, so Cabinet will continue to follow the evidence before making a final decision.

Dan Bidois: What is the latest advice the Government has received on developments in the Middle East?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Treasury advises that while there has been a pause in military action, the situation remains highly uncertain. Only two vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz as of last Sunday, compared with 57 on 24 June, and there are now, unfortunately, emerging signs of disruption through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in Yemen, an increasingly important alternative shipping route. These ongoing geopolitical risks continue to place upward pressure on global fuel markets, which is why the Government continues to monitor developments closely.

Finance

Question No. 3

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

to the Minister of Finance: Halo olgeta. How does the Budget’s forecast for negative real-wage growth and higher unemployment affect the cost of living for Kiwis?

The Budget forecasts show that over the forecast period, wages are expected to grow by 5.1 percent in real terms, unemployment to fall to 4.3 percent, and annual Consumers Price Index inflation to fall to 2 percent. I would, therefore, say that that is positive for the cost of living. I also note the comments by Westpac economist, Kelly Eckhold, this morning, who said, “There was a lot more of a crisis back in 2022/23 when high inflation meant living costs were rising over double the current pace and were outstripping wages growth by 2-3 percentage points. That was the crisis in my view.”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When can New Zealanders expect “rising employment”, as she promised in her Budget 2026 speech, when, according to the June Westpac McDermott Miller survey, we are experiencing the lowest employment confidence level since 2004?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As the member is aware, there are two measures. One is employment and one is unemployment. While we can experience increasing employment, unemployment is also a factor of how many people are participating in the labour force. In terms of forecasts for the future, the Treasury had forecast that unemployment would peak in the second quarter of this year, which was the three months we’ve just had, peaking in their estimate at 5.5 percent, and would then decline from there—as I said in my earlier answer—coming down to 4.3 percent over the forecast period.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How are young people meant to keep up with the cost of living when Student Job Search says it has 434,000 applications for just 53,000 positions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I want to acknowledge that that’s very challenging, and I want to commend those young people who seek employment and opportunities to grow their own income through their own efforts and their own work. That’s why we are working so hard as a Government to support growth in this economy—which is why I once again urge the member to support measures such as fast track, which has ensured development that will support thousands of jobs being created in this economy to occur over the coming period; which is why I encourage that member to support Investment Boost, which is allowing businesses to make investments to grow their firms for the future; which is why I encourage that member to support the range of initiatives this Government is progressing to grow the economy and create more employment opportunities for every Kiwi who wants to work hard; and which is why I’d urge all members of this House to oppose universal benefits funded by new taxes, which would put a wrecking ball through the economy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Alicia, a recent graduate, who said, “Students put this investment into coming to university for a better future and for better job outcomes and that kind of opportunity feels like it’s been taken away”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I agree with the sentiments that Alicia is expressing in that there are thousands of young New Zealanders who choose to go to university in order to pursue aspirations for their future of great jobs, living standards, and opportunities. That is why, as a Government, we continue to heavily subsidise tertiary education, both through the subsidies we pay to polytechs, universities, and employers. It is why we have sustained the interest-free student loan scheme. What I’d say to Alicia is, absolutely, it has been a tough period, but when we look ahead—not just in my view but in the view of the Treasury and many independent economists—we can expect many more jobs to be created in the New Zealand economy over the coming months and years, for wages to grow, and for this to be a country of more opportunity. I’d also say to Alicia, if you are listening to politicians who tell you that New Zealand is not a good place to pursue your future, then you should ask them why they are asking for your vote.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she say she is “securing our future” when unemployment is higher, inflation is increasing, growth is lower, and wages are falling behind for everyday working New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because, as I reprised in my primary answer, we are looking forward in all of the official forecasts to unemployment falling, to real wages rising, and the cost of living becoming more affordable for New Zealanders in the years ahead. But, more importantly, this Government is taking responsibility for the actions it can take control of in relation to growing this economy and making New Zealand more affordable. That’s why we are proposing rates caps; it is why we are fast tracking the generation of new electricity; it is why we are pursuing free-trade agreements; and it is why we are reducing taxes. The question, as I have outlined to this member time and time again, is not whether things could be better; it’s what are your plans for making them better? A hidden bill and more taxes will not deliver a better future for New Zealanders.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. I was respectfully waiting for intervention there, but, since it didn’t happen, I feel the need to raise a point of order. It is totally inappropriate—and you’ve said so yourself on numerous occasions—for Ministers to be posing questions. It is their job to be accountable to the House by answering questions, not asking them.

SPEAKER: I was listening very intently, because I have made it clear in the last few days that using question time to attack the Opposition is not the purpose of question time. But, in this case, if you check the Hansard, I’m sure you’ll find that what the Minister said is “the question is”, and I don’t think that was directed in any particular way. In terms of an answer, that’s not unreasonable.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Perhaps that would be true if the Minister weren’t pointing to a member and saying “you”. Look, the point is, sir, we’re not actually complaining about political responses to questions from this side. Political questions get political responses, we know that, but Ministers should not be posing questions to the Opposition. That’s been made very clear, and there was an example of it just then.

SPEAKER: Well, the example you’ve just pointed out would, in fact, have been addressed to me as the Speaker, and I should not be brought into it—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Either way, sir—

SPEAKER: Look, let me just finish what I’m saying before you keep on running to your own judgments on these things. The point is that over the course of this Parliament, we’ve allowed the use of the word “you” to mean a general reflection on a population. I don’t think that answer was out of order, but I will look at it, as I do most days, going through the Hansard record to see if there was a transgression.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 4

Asked by: RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH, Answered by: Hon LOUISE UPSTON

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many 18- and 19-year-olds, if any, are receiving jobseeker support (health condition, injury, or disability), and what percentage of them have psychological or psychiatric conditions?

Those on jobseeker support (health condition, injury, or disability) are temporarily unable to work full time. These young people will have better future outcomes if they remain close to the labour market or are studying. Around a third of jobseeker health condition and disability (HCD) clients are already working, are actively seeking work, or want more hours. The number of young people aged 18 to 19 on jobseeker HCD is 2,733 as at the end of June this year. Of those, 69 percent are young people with a psychological or psychiatric condition. Our Government expects that if an 18- or 19-year-old job seeker on HCD is unable to work at the moment, then they are in further education or training or preparing for work in the future.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she expect that stripping people of their income support would likely improve or worsen someone’s mental health?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, we’ve been very clear about our expectations that we want to see 18- or 19-year-olds in education, training, or preparing for work and that in the first instance, support should come from their families.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that people who are on jobseeker health condition, injury, or disability are, by definition, unable to work full time or have had to stop working full time because of that very same health condition, injury, or disability, and, if so, why is she making the assumption that they would be able to easily transition into study or employment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, the point of this is that 18- or 19-year-olds in some of the circumstances that the member suggests—we believe, on this side of the House, they should be the responsibility of their parents. If somebody is experiencing challenging health conditions, I would totally expect that their families are there to support them.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What would she say to the cancer patients who are receiving jobseeker health and disability who are at risk of losing their benefits due to her reforms?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, it doesn’t change the fundamental point. We believe that we don’t want 18- or 19-year-olds trapped on welfare, we don’t want them stuck on a benefit for another 20 years of their life; we want them to be supported by their family in the first instances and preferably in education, training, or in work.

Ricardo Menéndez March: So is a cancer patient or someone with a psychiatric or psychological condition deemed to be trapped in welfare—according to her—if they simply need support to get better or access treatment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The policy that the member is referring to is specifically for 18- and 19-year-olds. Absolutely, if somebody is going through cancer treatment, that is an incredibly challenging time, but, actually, we do believe during that period of time, their parents, their families should be there to support them. I’d be really worried if they weren’t. We do have a parental assistance gap test for that very reason, but 18- and 19-year-olds should be supported by their family and when they are well enough, when they have capacity, they should be in training, education, or work.

Housing

Question No. 5

Asked by: Dr CARLOS CHEUNG, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister of Housing: What recent improvements has the Government made to infrastructure funding and financing?

Yesterday, the House passed the Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) Amendment Bill unanimously, and I want to thank the House for the support. Together, we have given developers, councils, and infrastructure providers a better tool to fund the infrastructure New Zealand needs to grow. I want to give particular thanks to the Under-Secretary for Infrastructure, Simon Court, for his work on this. For decades, housing growth has been beleaguered by red tape, land-use restrictions, an inefficient planning system, and infrastructure being used as a veto or a reason to say no to new housing. The IFF Act, passed yesterday, helps unclog this deeply troubling system.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How does the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Act enables a special-purpose vehicle to raise finance off councils’ balance sheets for infrastructure that supports housing and urban development, including three waters, transport, flood protection, and some community amenities. The infrastructure is then paid for by charging a levy on the people who benefit from it. Instead of relying on council borrowing, the Act allows infrastructure to be financed by private investors and repaid over time through levies on the properties that directly benefit from the infrastructure. The Act was originally inspired by the successful Milldale development north of Auckland, and now we are replicating it in other parts of the country.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why did the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act need to be updated?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The IFF Act was originally passed in 2020. I think it would be fair to say that it has not been utilised to the extent people thought. In fact, only just a couple of months ago, it was used for a new greenfield housing development—Te Awa Lakes in Hamilton. The original vision was to liberalise development of economically viable projects by letting high-growth, high-demand areas build vital housing and enabling infrastructure without hitting council debt limits. The Act was not delivering as much as we wanted it to. It was complex and cumbersome with bureaucratic hurdles, so we have changed the Act yesterday in order to make it more streamlined and easier to use.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What changes did the Government make to the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, and how will this benefit New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Act has now been simplified in terms of approval processes, the removal of unnecessary barriers, and we’ve also expanded the types of infrastructure that can be funded and provided greater certainty so that more infrastructure projects can get under way. It is now the case that transport projects delivered by the New Zealand Transport Agency and KiwiRail, as well as water service infrastructure, can be funded and financed using IFF Act levies. This is a good step forward and, I think, will make a substantial contribution to future infrastructure needs of these critical projects around the country.

RMA Reform

Question No. 6

Asked by: Hon WILLIE JACKSON, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he believe tangata whenua should be involved in decision-making processes; if not, why not?

Yes, Māori participation is a crucial part of the new planning system. This is recognised in the bill’s clauses and the system goals, which specifically include providing for Māori interests through participation in the development of national instruments, regional spatial plans, and environment and land - use plans. The intent is that these interests will be provided for higher up in the system through involvement in national instruments and plan making. This will benefit everyone, including iwi, by providing more certainty about how these interests should be considered. It is also true that iwi Māori should not be involved in every individual consent merely as of right. That is the kind of red tape we are trying to get away from in the new system. The new planning system will enhance the ability for Māori to develop their own land. They will benefit from a new enabling planning system like everybody else. It is unconscionable that barriers that many iwi face, who were wanting to develop things on their own whenua, get in the way and we are proud to be tearing those barriers down.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Hon Nick Smith wrong, who introduced Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements into the Resource Management Act, who said, “It will enable councils to work out practical ways for iwi to participate in the process and help the system to work better by getting early involvement.”, and if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, those arrangements were a creature of their time and they reflected the environment at the time. Of course, we are changing the underlying planning legislation, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to import something that reflects the law of the day to a system that is different. Instead, we’ve provided for iwi participation agreements which are more narrowly scoped and tightly constrained, but I think they will provide many of the things that the member talked about in the latter part of his primary question.

Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister: does he agree with former Treaty negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson who said, and I quote, “All the fantastic work that was done by Doug Graham and Jim Bolger is now being undone by this Government.”; if not, why?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve agreed with some of what Chris Finlayson said recently—maybe that member would too—but I don’t agree with the characterisation of those remarks. I mean, for starters, his reference to Doug Graham and Jim Bolger was a reference to the totemic settlement of long grievances against the Crown, and the Government has agreed that those Treaty settlements—the ones that those particular senior figures were involved in—are protected into the new planning system, so let’s focus on the facts not the rhetoric.

SPEAKER: The Hon Willie Jackson. Oh, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, he’s had his three. Does the Minister agree that the priority for infrastructure should be more do-ey and less hui?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In a general sense, yes.

Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister: does he respect the advice of former Prime Minister John Key, who told the Minister and his colleagues that “Māori are Treaty partners, so you have to treat them with respect.”, or is it just a load of crap, like what the Minister said about Stan Walker’s Māori performance at the Aotearoa Music Awards?

SPEAKER: Wait on, if you want that question to stand, withdraw what you’ve just said and start again.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Don’t ask me to clarify.

Hon Willie Jackson: The Minister said—I’m quoting what the Minister said. It’s on public record so—

Hon Member: It’s a direct quote.

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s a direct quote.

SPEAKER: Yes, but a number of members, quite rightly, have got upset about some use of language in the House. We’ve got to draw the line somewhere, so I’m drawing it here. I suggest that you use the word “profanity” if you want—something like that—but don’t bring that into this. Keep it seemly. He’ll get what you mean.

Hon Willie Jackson: Alright, so do it again, aye? Ok, no problem. Does the Minister respect the advice of former Prime Minister John Key, who told the Minister and his colleagues that “Māori are Treaty partners, so you have to treat them with respect.”, or is it just a load of nonsense, like what the Minister said about Stan Walker’s Māori performance at the New Zealand Music Awards?

SPEAKER: Well, in so much as those two are connected.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: To the first part of the question, yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is there are road, a railway, a building, a power station, or even a road cone that are used by Māori only, or we one country, one people, with one flag, and one name?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We are, but I’d also say that there are sites of significance to our indigenous people that I think most reasonable, fair-minded people would say the planning system should protect, and indeed the planning system has protected for well over 100 years: old pā sites, battlegrounds, sites where kaumātua and kuia are buried. I think the planning system should protect those sites of significance, and the good news is the planning system that the Government is building will do that, and it makes sure that those sites of significance are protected, but it also makes clear that at an individual resource consent level, with rare exception, you should not have to go and talk to every Tom, Dick and Harry, and the local iwi in order to get permission to do something on your land. Striking that balance has been part of the Government’s agenda. I think we’ve got the balance about right because I think most Kiwis would say the balance is wrong at the moment.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister “a traitor to National Party traditions,” as described by former National Party Treaty negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Really? That can’t stand—194 rules that out immediately.

SPEAKER: Not necessarily. The fact is he was, in this case, quoting something that someone from outside had said, by way of allegation—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With no basis—with no basis!

Hon Willie Jackson: What do you mean “no basis”? Don’t you read the news?

SPEAKER: I’m speaking—no one else. For public clarity, it would be quite reasonable for the Minister to answer that.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Yup.

Hon Shane Jones: He used the word “traitorous”. There’s no way you should let that stand.

SPEAKER: He used that insomuch as it was a quote by someone else, and I think if someone else makes that claim, the Minister should be at least able to respond to it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Currently going through the fast-track process is permission for Ngāi Tahu to develop the Hananui Aquaculture Project, which was settled with them by the previous Government and then denied the ability to actually be done under the Resource Management Act. I’m very proud that it’s this Government that has developed a fast-track regime that will allow the Hananui Aquaculture Project, which will provide jobs for hundreds of Ngāi Tahu locals and others, partly through our new planning system. I don’t consider that traitorous; I consider that progress.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware that Project iReX had a Labour policy approved budget of $1 million per ship to tell an iwi journey story, and is this the type of wasteful decision-making involvement that New Zealanders want to see in any infrastructure in the future?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How’s that linked to the primary?

SPEAKER: Hang on. I’ve just had, by way of interjection, a question from my left—I get constant questions from my left. Let me just say that any read of this Hansard will show how broadly this particular question has gone, largely encouraged by the questions from the primary question asker. That question can be answered—briefly.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I congratulate the question asker for his hard work, and may I just say, in relation to that question, my views on performative behaviour are well-known.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Minister please confirm that the national environmental standard on Papakāinga granny flat arrangements will make it easier for Māori to build housing on our own land, employ people, create jobs, and house Māori in those whare?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. For 30 years—for 30 years—Governments have had the ability to issue a national environmental standard to standardise the rules around Papakāinga housebuilding around New Zealand, and no Government has done it until this Government—that they say is anti-Māori—turned up and did it, and we did it within two years. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Question No. 7—Chlöe Swarbrick. Just wait for a minute, Ms Swarbrick, while the House gathers itself.

Hon Willie Jackson: You did well there, Bish.

SPEAKER: Who spoke then? Willie? Not very smart. Hang on—now, that didn’t come out very well. I know him very well. I’d have him on my Trivial Pursuit team any time. When the House settles—Chlöe Swarbrick.

Prime Minister

Question No. 7

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: What is his message to young people with cancer or severe mental ill-health who will have their income support cut, leaving them with less to meet the cost of housing and healthcare, as a result of his Government’s policies articulated just a moment ago by his Minister of social development?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’ve had a position, very clearly, that we want to send a message to young people that coming out of school and not having a plan around employment and training and work is very important, and that’s why for 18- to 19-year-olds who are in that situation, that is the responsibility of their parents and their family. I think the Minister answered that last question very well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does that opinion about young people hold, even for those with severe mental ill-health and cancer, for whom his Government will cut support?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I think the Minister has addressed the question that was previously asked.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with his resources Minister, then, who said about AI data centres: “they don’t actually employ a lot of people over the long term”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think having data centres is a huge opportunity for New Zealand. It’s a critical part of our infrastructure for a modern economy, it’s how we do our communications, and it’s how we do healthcare, logistics, and business services. We have some natural competitive advantages in that space. As we discussed yesterday, we think there’s a need for some sensible rules around that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly did the Prime Minister mean when he said yesterday in response to my questions that “we just need to take a step back and actually think about what sensible rules we put about the investment,” of these AI data centres, if he doesn’t actually intend to take a step back and implement those common-sense, sensible rules before any more of these AI data centres are consented?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the assertion and the assumption in the second part of that question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister please articulate clearly for this House and the people of New Zealand exactly what specific economic or job benefit there may be in the long run for New Zealanders with regard to the consenting of hyperscale AI data centres?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Great—well, let me step the member through it. As I’ve said, data centres are critical infrastructure for a modern economy. All of us are going to be reliant on data centres. As we look out over the next 10 years, there will be a fourfold increase in demand needed for data centres. We have significant natural advantages: highly renewable, cool climates, good political stability, and—here’s the part—data centre investment does work. If we can get it working for New Zealand, it can support jobs and productivity. It can increase electricity generation. It is important to our data sovereignty, it’s important for our resilience, and it’s important for our national security. So data centres, we need to embrace; we just need to make sure we’ve got some sensible rules and principles around it.

Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence

Question No. 8

Asked by: TODD STEPHENSON, Answered by: Hon KAREN CHHOUR

to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: What updates, if any, can she provide on the milestones achieved under the second Te Aorerekura Action Plan?

We launched the second Te Aorerekura Action Plan to build on progress made under the first action plan, and on agencies’ efforts to work together to break the cycle of intergenerational family violence and sexual violence. To ensure accountability and delivery, each of the seven focus areas of the second action plan set out activities and milestones that were to be achieved in a specific time frame. I’m pleased to announce that we have achieved another milestone, with our target of training 10,000 front-line workers in responding to family violence and sexual violence over the two years being reached almost six months ahead of schedule. These workers have mainly come from New Zealand Police, Oranga Tamariki, Department of Corrections, Ministry of Justice, and ACC. I want to thank all those workers who have taken part in this training.

Todd Stephenson: Why is it important that statutory workers are trained in responding to family violence and sexual violence?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Victims of violence need to know that they can get the right help, when and where they need it. It is a brave step to come forward and to tell someone what has happened, or is currently happening, to you. These people should know that whoever they are dealing with in the system has the capability, skills, and confidence necessary to respond appropriately. That is why one of the focus areas under the second action plan is strengthening our workforce. This training is not only supporting the victims of violence, but what is often not talked about are the perpetrators of violence. While this Government is doing absolutely everything to ensure these people are held accountable for the harm they cause, we must also ensure they’re supported in changing their behaviour. Unless this part is addressed, we will never truly break the cycle of violence.

Todd Stephenson: What are the next steps under the focus area for strengthening our workforce?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In May this year, the Sexual Violence Workforce Capability Frameworks were finalised and published. These frameworks set the benchmarks and standards to deliver early identification and intervention, provide safer and more effective responses for victims, and create training pathways for career development. Agencies are now turning their focus to how they will implement these frameworks across their workforces. The Centre for Family Violence and Sexual Violence Prevention has already started this work by arranging sexual violence workshops in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. The goal is to build a specialist family violence and sexual violence system that provides more safe, consistent, and effective responses for people who need support.

Todd Stephenson: Are these frameworks only available to statutory workers in Government agencies?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No. I think it is important to note that any organisation can apply both the family violence and sexual violence frameworks and improve their workforce capability using these tools. This includes specialist organisations who have a primary focus in the family violence and sexual violence space, and more generalist workforces whose work involves supporting potential victims or perpetrators of violence. The workforce frameworks can help organisations to design, evaluate, and review their internal systems and practices to deliver effective and trauma-informed services and inform career planning and professional development.

Justice

Question No. 9

Asked by: CAMILLA BELICH, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statements and actions in relation to the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill?

Yes, in the context in which they were made—particularly my statement that our Government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order and building a future where everyone feels safe to visit, work, and live in our central cities, and also my statement that this is about reclaiming our town squares and streets for the enjoyment of people who live there, who work there, and who visit there.

Camilla Belich: Why, then, has he ignored the Police Association, the organisation representing police officers, who said “Repeated move-on orders could divert frontline officers from core policing functions such as prevention, response, and investigations.”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I didn’t ignore those comments; I disagreed with those comments. I have every confidence in the ability of police to make priorities about how they go about their business.

Camilla Belich: Does he agree with Retail New Zealand, the body whose members account for nearly 70 percent of all retail turnover in New Zealand, who submitted that “Introducing these new clauses will not solve the underlying problems and risks fracturing support networks and making their vital work significantly more difficult”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I agree with the first part, that it won’t solve the underlying problems, and this was never intended to be our solution to the deeper issues that those people in our town centres have to deal with. If this was the only Government response to homelessness, for example, or for addictions and mental health issues that are represented in our cities, then the member would be right to criticise us—but, of course, it isn’t. This is just giving the police one extra tool to deal with antisocial behaviour and intimidation in our central business districts, and we’re doing that because we believe it’s important to reclaim those streets for the enjoyment of people who live there, who work there, and who visit there.

Camilla Belich: Will he listen to the Karangahape Road Business Association, who stated, “Move-on orders will damage social cohesion, and they represent a missed opportunity to take real steps to help our city”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I will listen to them, and I have listened to them. I’ve also listened to Ian Wright, for example, an Auckland retailer, who said, “it’s very much about holding people to account, drawing a line in the sand and saying we’ve actually got a right to be here too, the people, our visitors, … we want … to [feel] safe and secure and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.”

Camilla Belich: Why is he progressing with the inclusion of the rough sleeping and begging aspects of the move-on orders bill when almost every submitter to the Justice Committee opposed them?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because we want to give the police extra tools to deal with a longstanding and widespread problem. Yes, a number of the submitters opposed, but I would like to say that the silent majority of people in our towns who don’t want to get their head blown off by standing up and actually saying that we need to change these things do support it, and they want to see our streets and our town squares be a safer place to be—including one Mr W Brown from Auckland, who wrote an article on the topic that was quite discursive, I have to admit, but it did conclude, however, “It is good that the Government is moving on the moving-on problem through the select committee”, and I agree with him on that matter.

Justice

Question No. 10

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I noticed, earlier today, that this question No. 10 was forfeited by Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, and so I move that the Labour Party be granted this question to ask about the appointment of Volker Türk at the United Nations recently, of which they’ve made such a song and dance over the last 24 hours.

SPEAKER: The member will know, of course, that it’s not possible for one member to seek leave on behalf of another.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why don’t they move for it, then?

SPEAKER: I appreciate your concern for the Labour Party and their processes, but we’re going on to Rima Nakhle.

Asked by: RIMA NAKHLE, Answered by: Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH

to the Minister of Justice: What measures has the Government taken to restore real consequences for crime?

Funny you should ask. The Government has taken a number of measures to restore real consequences for crime by committing to fixing the basics, and ensuring that victims’ interests are at the centre of our justice system. We’ve banned gang insignia and given the Police more power to disrupt gangs, who peddle misery in our streets; we’ve reformed the sentencing regime to send clearer consequences; and we’ve progressed major reform of the Crimes Act so that criminals face stronger consequences for their actions.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government reforming the Crimes Act?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, our Government is committed to fixing the basics, as we’ve said, and ensuring victims’ interests are at the centre of the justice system. A vital part of that is making sure criminals face real consequences for crimes, such as coward punches, attacking first responders, retail crime, and human trafficking. Specific offences are created for those who offend against our first responders, those Kiwis who run towards danger to help those who are most at need, and for the matter of coward punches, which can cause lifelong harm to others and to their families.

Rima Nakhle: How will the Crimes Amendment Bill strengthen consequences for retail crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the bill gives effect to the Government’s expansion of the citizen’s arrest powers so that business owners and all New Zealanders have an additional and optional tool to protect themselves and their livelihoods. It fixes an anomaly which allows people to do certain things after 9 p.m., but not before 9 p.m. Secondly, it creates a new infringement offence to allow Police to issue an instant fine for shoplifting, fulfilling a coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First to ensure real consequences for lower-level crime.

Rima Nakhle: How will the Crimes Amendment Bill strengthen consequences for trafficking and people smuggling?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m pleased that we have widespread support across the House for this element of the bill. People smuggling and trafficking is a heinous crime. In the previous 15 years, only two convictions have occurred, but there have been 50 victims identified—probably many more. The Crimes Act will increase penalties for offences dealing with slaves and will modernise our trafficking offences for both international and domestic trafficking to be more consistent with international standards. I’d like to thank my colleague Greg Fleming for his advocacy on this issue to stop criminals using loopholes to evade real consequences for their actions.

Health

Question No. 11

Asked by: Hon PHIL TWYFORD, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister of Health: Is Health NZ’s internal communication correct that the new 30-bed medical ward at Waitākere Hospital will result in an increase of only 11 new beds on opening?

I’m advised Health New Zealand’s communication is accurate. It reflects the business case approved by the previous Government in 2021, which always intended the ward to open in a phased way to allow for planning and growth over time. The good news is this building will allow for an additional 11 staffed medical beds on opening, and further beds coming online as Health New Zealand’s regional planning determines. Recruitment is under way. The good news is West Auckland gets a new ward by the end of the year.

Hon Phil Twyford: Will he commit to opening the other 19 beds now, given that Waitākere Hospital is in crisis, with patients left for long periods in corridors because of a lack of beds?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I would just point to the member to the Health New Zealand shorter wait times for our emergency department target data, which shows that there was a significant reduction in performance at Waitākere Hospital under the Labour Government, and that 96.3 percent of patients were being seen within six hours under National. That fell to 63.9 percent under Labour. That has improved to 84 percent in the most recent published data. Yes, there’s more work to do, and those beds will open over time.

Hon Phil Twyford: What is stopping all the promised 30 beds being opened now, other than the Government’s unwillingness to hire the necessary nurses and other staff?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I would point the member to my primary response, which said that the business case approved by the previous Government, which he was a Minister in—it was always intended the ward to open in a phased way, to allow for planning and growth over time. I would also point out to the member that, since September 2023, there is an additional 355 nursing staff working at the Waitematā district.

Hon Phil Twyford: Can he not understand why West Aucklanders are furious about the promised 30-bed ward only delivering 11 new beds when the emergency department at Waitākere is overwhelmed because there aren’t enough beds to move people to?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, they should talk to the former Minister who—

SPEAKER: No—no. Start again. No, sorry. You’re the Minister, you answer as the Minister, not with a direction to talk to someone from a previous Government.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in the primary response, the business case approved by the previous Government in 2021 always intended this ward to open in a phased way, to allow for planning and growth over time. That planning is under way. The good news is there’ll be a new ward in place at the end of this year.

Hon Phil Twyford: How does his plan address the concerns of Waitākere Hospital employees who messaged me yesterday to say, “Simeon Brown should have visited the hospital today. Patients in corridors all over the place.” And another: “We’ve had over 30 medical-ward patients in the emergency department each morning for the past three days as there are no medical beds for them to go to.”

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the good news is that there is a new ward opening later this year. There will be additional beds. I was also privileged to be at the hospital earlier this year to open the new cancer infusion centre, which has been delivered by this Government, which means patients in West Auckland don’t need to travel to Auckland Hospital for their chemotherapy, thanks to funding under this Government.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds for those who have to go to other business. Do so quietly before I call on some honourable member to move a motion of miscellaneous business.