Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: SCOTT WILLIS, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister for Energy: Has he seen reports that the big four electricity gentailers are projected to make $1.86 billion in operating profits for the six months to December, and, if so, does he think it’s fair that households will likely pay more on their power bills on average to fund a liquefied natural gas import terminal?

Regarding the first part of the question, yes. Regarding the second part, official advice shows that access to liquefied natural gas (LNG) will reduce power bills for households by an average of $50 per year.

Scott Willis: Would a liquefied natural gas import terminal be commercially viable without Government intervention?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government is focused on fixing the dry-year problem, and the advice that has been received is that this is the best solution to do that. By putting in place the solution this Government has, the advice is very clear that it will reduce power bills for consumers.

Scott Willis: Does the Minister accept that funding LNG import infrastructure through a levy on electricity users is, effectively, a subsidy for LNG-fired generation, and, if so, how is this consistent with Aotearoa’s binding commitments under our free-trade agreements to take steps towards eliminating fossil fuel subsidies?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re focused on addressing the dry-year problem to make sure we have affordable, reliable power for New Zealand households and businesses and that we don’t shut down industries in regional New Zealand. Ironically, if we followed that member’s plan, we would be substituting gas for coal.

Scott Willis: Why is it that the Government is willing to be interventionist in the fossil fuel industry, such as through billions of dollars for LNG infrastructure or the $200 million for gas exploration, but is not willing to intervene on the lowest-cost solutions that would provide for the cheapest electricity like demand response, energy efficiency, distributed energy, or pumped storage?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we are focused on fixing the dry-year problem, and that is critically important so that we can secure the future of thousands of jobs of regional New Zealanders and so that we can lower power bills for consumers, but the answer is that we need this, plus we need solar, plus we need wind, plus we need hydro, plus we need geothermal, plus we need other forms of energy generation and distribution as well. That’s what we’re focused on doing.

Scott Willis: Does he think that an LNG import terminal may have appeared to be the timeliest proposal, simply because the Government is running an accelerated procurement process that will see infrastructure fast-tracked with bespoke legislation?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are focused on solving this problem quickly because, on this side of the House, we understand the urgency of this problem. We saw the impact of the last Government’s policies where power prices hit $800 a megawatt hour, and their solution was a lake in the middle of the mountains, which wouldn’t have delivered a single a bit of power until 2037. That’s not good enough. We’re focused on solving this problem today.

Scott Willis: What is the Minister’s response to Paul Fuge, from Powerswitch, who advocates on behalf of consumers, who said of the LNG proposal, “This speaks to the power of the oil and gas lobby, which has managed to sell a donkey as a racehorse.”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are focused on making sure we have lower power bills for consumers. We’re on the side of consumers here. We’re on the side of industry to make sure we have affordable, reliable power, which saves jobs of regional New Zealanders. If we followed the advice of members opposite, we’d be waiting till 2037 until we had a lake in the middle of the mountains, which would then eventually, potentially, start generating some power. We are focused on fixing this problem today.

Workplace Relations and Safety

Question No. 2

Asked by: LAURA McCLURE, Answered by: Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN

to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What will the changes in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill mean for businesses and workers?

Yesterday, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill passed its third reading. Once the law comes into effect, businesses will no longer have to be fearful about being tripped up on small procedural steps when trying to move a problematic employee on or when taking a chance on a new worker because they’re afraid of what will happen if it doesn’t work out. This bill is about removing fear from hiring. Workers who are wanting to move up the career ladder will be considered for more challenging positions, and they will also benefit from the income threshold for personal grievances policy. When employers are scared to take a chance on an employee in a high-impact role, there are fewer chances given. We’re backing businesses to have the confidence to hire.

Laura McClure: What reports has she seen on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Business New Zealand said that this bill moves us in the right direction towards a more confident workforce, stronger businesses, and a more resilient economy. Retail New Zealand said that the reforms will be particularly positive for small and under-resourced retailers, who often shoulder disproportionately severe consequences when navigating complex employment procedures. The New Zealand Herald described these reforms as the biggest labour market regulation change in decades, and I couldn’t agree more. At the start of this coalition Government’s term, we inherited significant economic challenges, and that requires bold solutions.

Laura McClure: What impact does she expect the Employment Relations Amendment Bill will have on employment and wages?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I know there are many Kiwis who are concerned at the moment about what is on the job horizon for them. They may be searching for a job or wondering whether their incomes will grow in the jobs that they have. This bill will back business to hire with more confidence. When employers can hire and grow, more people get opportunities. That means more jobs and higher-paying jobs.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the Government’s position that higher wages come from investment and innovation, or could wages be risen simply by passing a law saying they should be higher?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: That’s clearly quite rhetorical, but this Government definitely has—[Interruption] Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Just answer it anyway.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Very good. This Government believes that it is the businesses out there, not politicians in here, that help grow our economy. That’s people who get up every day who create new jobs for others. That’s people getting money from their own back pocket and investing it in their company or getting people who believe in their dream to invest in their own companies so that they can hire more people and grow. That’s how this economy gets ahead, not from Labour Party politicians believing that they can just sign new laws and raise wages.

SPEAKER: Remember that it’s actually a Government question, so you can’t answer quite the way you just did at the end there.

Finance

Question No. 3

Asked by: NANCY LU, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she seen about the economy?

Recent data released is consistent with a turnaround in the economy. The Household Labour Force Survey, for example, showed employment growth of 0.5 percent in the December quarter of last year, following five previous quarters of flat or falling employment. That means 15,000 more people with jobs. In addition, the number of hours worked rose 1 percent in the quarter, and more people were out there actively looking for jobs.

Nancy Lu: What are monthly data releases indicating?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Monthly economic data has largely been positive. For example, the Performance of Manufacturing Index for January indicated a healthy level of expansion in the manufacturing sector. The services sector is also in expansion, according to the Performance of Services Index. The BNZ, which runs these indexes with Business New Zealand, said that “The big question to end 2025 was whether the economy may be turning. Data since then has given us confidence that recent positive momentum can be sustained. The economy is growing.”

Nancy Lu: What are forecasters predicting for December quarter GDP?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, economic forecasters are all predicting growth in the December quarter of last year. There are a range of estimates from around 0.5 percent to 1 percent growth. I note that the Reserve Bank’s forecasts, which have just been released at 2 p.m. in the Monetary Policy Statement, are for growth of 0.5 percent in the December quarter. The official number will be out in a month’s time. I do note that there has been a pattern of significant volatility in quarter-to-quarter GDP data. Looking forward, all economic forecasters are showing growth continuing through 2026.

Nancy Lu: Are there any risks to this outlook?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Forecasters work with what they know, but unanticipated events happen frequently. So, yes, there are risks to the outlook both on the upside and the downside. A recovery is evidently under way, with low interest rates providing stimulus to the economy, and members opposite will surely see this as positive news for New Zealand families and businesses. At some point, as the economy strengthens, the Reserve Bank will start the process of normalising monetary policy—easing off the accelerator a little as less stimulus is required to support growth. When to do that is entirely a matter for the Reserve Bank, which will be guided by its mandate and by the data.

Hon David Seymour: How important is careful spending of taxpayer money by the Government when it comes to making sure that there’s no more inflationary pressure on the Reserve Bank that could otherwise put up people’s mortgages?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Critically important. It is the case that the Government can make a choice to either manage its own spending in such a way that it does not add fuel to the inflation fire, or, conversely, can choose to spend at a level that adds more pressure to inflation, leading the official cash rate to be higher than it would otherwise be. It has been the advice of Treasury that Government fiscal decisions under the last Government did add fuel to the inflationary fire, and that decisions by this Government have eased pressure on inflation, and therefore supported interest rates to be lower than would otherwise have been the case.

Prime Minister

Question No. 4

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

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

Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the cost of living crisis better or worse for New Zealand families now than when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, inflation, as I’ve said to the member before, has gone from a record high under his level at 7.3 percent down to 3.1 percent. That’s a much better outcome, and that’s happening because you’ve got a Government that understands the economy and is actually managing spending so that inflation’s come down, the interest rates have come down, the economy is growing, and people stay in work.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is the average family’s shopping for groceries cheaper or more expensive now than it was when he became the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Food inflation, as the member knows, is running at about 4.6 percent; total inflation’s running at 3.1 percent. Under that member and his economic management plan, food inflation was running at 12.5 percent and inflation was running at 7.3 percent. I put our record of economic management against his record of economic management and debacle every single day of the week.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask the Prime Minister for a dissertation on the previous Government’s track record—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s important context.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —untrue though it was—I did ask him whether the average family’s grocery shop—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —is cheaper or more expensive than when he became Prime Minister. He has been Prime Minister for the entirety of that time. He hasn’t addressed that.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he made an effort to address it by talking about the difference in inflation, but the Prime Minister may want to—

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: —hang on—make another comment.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, I addressed the question. Our food inflation is running at 4.6 percent. That compares to 12.5 percent two years ago, when you were Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is the Prime Minister confirming that it’s more expensive for a family to go to the supermarket now than it was when he became the Prime Minister?

Hon David Seymour: What do you want, deflation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, are you expecting prices to—are you expecting deflation? Is that what you’re arguing for?

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister name a period in New Zealand history when we’ve had deflation—where prices have gone down for a sustained period—and don’t economists recommend that that’s not very good either?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would say I cannot think of a period in New Zealand’s history of deflation, as the member seems to be wanting to advocate for. What I can say is this is a Government that has worked really hard to make sure we don’t have wasteful spending, we don’t spend $66 billion and triple the debt and run up interest bills around the world; we actually get inflation back in the band of 1 to 3 percent, and that’s what this Government’s done.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister put in picture form that if inflation has halved, it’s very likely that, comparatively, so have costs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s right. I think when you actually think about low and middle income working New Zealanders, they want to be in a low inflationary environment, and that’s what this country had been doing for a long period of time until we got the economic vandalism of the last mob, who didn’t understand the economy at all.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is the Prime Minister agreeing with Winston Peters that the fact that inflation is increasing less fast than it used to means that prices are actually going down, which is not mathematically correct?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is not what he said, but for the member opposite—[Interruption] No, that’s not what he said. For the member opposite to argue for deflation, for the member opposite to say why don’t we take the midpoint of the band up to 2.5 percent; happy to have more costs labelled on working New Zealanders; happy to borrow more, tax more, spend more—that is economic madness. You ran this country into a hole economically. You’ve got no economic credibility. Look at that front bench. I wouldn’t employ any of them in a lower middle management job.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough. That’s quite enough—[Interruption] Mr Jackson, calm it. Could I just remind the—[Interruption] Sorry, Ms Woods?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, no, no, nothing.

SPEAKER: Yeah, nothing would be right. I just remind the Government that use of the word “you” has to be a little bit careful. I certainly did not exact any economic vandalism on the country.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he didn’t intend to lower grocery prices when he became Prime Minister, why did both he and Nicola Willis advertise across the country that they intended to lower grocery prices for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the member—I don’t know why you bother coming to this House every day to ask me questions on the economy. Look, you are the guy that took the keys to the car, you crashed it in an almighty ditch, you’ve stuffed the economy, and we’re fixing it up—that’s the reality of it. You come here and argue for deflation; I don’t know what you’re thinking. I don’t know what the new policy is. You want to borrow more, tax more, and spend more, and you want to hurt working New Zealanders—people you used to care about, but you don’t care about them. You didn’t back income tax relief for low and middle income working New Zealanders—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was pretty simple to the Prime Minister, about why he told New Zealanders, and why Nicola Willis told New Zealanders—there’s a video of you unpacking the groceries in a kitchen, promising to make it cheaper, and the Government hasn’t done that. The Prime Minister hasn’t addressed—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —that issue. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’re going to—

Hon Chris Bishop: Go and watch the video—500,000 people have seen it.

SPEAKER: Mr Bishop, we’re going to hear the point of order again, in silence.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, we’ve got one going on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: My point of order was pretty simple. The Prime Minister was asked why he promised New Zealanders he was going to make it cheaper to go to the supermarket when he doesn’t intend to deliver that.

SPEAKER: That was the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yeah.

SPEAKER: Well, he then gave an answer that was highly political to a highly political question. [Interruption] Are there any other comments from anyone in the House? Supplementary, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is unemployment higher or lower today than it was when he became the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the member understands that when a previous Government increases spending by 84 percent and it runs up inflation to 7.3 percent and has 12 to 13 interest rate rises, it slows down an economy; people lose their jobs. That’s the reality of it, and that’s why if you care about low and middle income working people, as all of the parties in this Government do, you actually run the economy well, because the people that get hurt are working New Zealanders. You don’t care about them, because you trashed the economy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Nicola Willis incorrect in the headline of August 2025, when she said that her “New supermarket plan would cut grocery prices”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, Nicola Willis has done a good job of making sure fast-track provisions are available for supermarkets who want to enter New Zealand. But isn’t it odd: for a man who purportedly cares about working New Zealanders, he hurts the economy—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s repeatedly claimed that the Government had no plans to cut grocery prices. I’ve just quoted directly a headline from Nicola Willis just last year saying that they were going to cut grocery prices, and he immediately just goes to attacking the Opposition. I was asking him what his Government’s plan is: are they cutting grocery prices or not?

SPEAKER: Well, that is, I think, the point. The question asked about a plan; the Prime Minister was responding to that plan, but the House was exceptionally rowdy during that time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the—I’ll go to the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, I hope you observed that last so-called supplementary question, which one would expect would be spontaneous from the questioner, but it wasn’t. He, in an unparalleled situation in other Western democracies, is standing there in our Parliament, holding up his phone and reading a question that could possibly have been prepared by somebody else. That’s not how this democracy should operate.

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

SPEAKER: No, no—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order—

SPEAKER: No, hang on, I’ll just respond to that, because I could actually see what he was doing from here. I think it’s probably not the most desirable thing—phones are not prohibited in here; use of them for communication is. He was reading, I think, a googled headline from a period of time, and I could see it from here—but that speaks volumes for anyone that is watching it.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I proceed with caution because, obviously, some matters are matters of privilege, but it is—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. We’ll hear the point of order in silence.

Hon Nicola Willis: Some issues are matters of privilege, which can be addressed via that means. However, it is simply wrong for a member in this House to claim that a headline is a quote. The member should know the difference.

SPEAKER: That’s true, yeah—and that would be a good response in an answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker—happy to quote directly from—

SPEAKER: No, no, I don’t want you—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —the article, where—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —Nicola Willis promises to drive down grocery prices.

SPEAKER: Mr Hipkins—we’ve got a perfect demonstration for anyone watching this afternoon that it is election year, and tensions and arguments tend to heighten, but behaviour should not deteriorate. That was not a point of order. Are you seeking leave? Because if you’re seeking leave, I’ll deny it.

RMA Reform

Question No. 5

Asked by: Hon MELISSA LEE, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What recent announcements has he made about Eden Park?

I was thrilled this week to announce that the Government is making significant changes to local planning rules that have been holding Eden Park back from its full potential. Last year, we launched an investigation into whether those rules were unnecessarily limiting Eden Park’s ability to host major events. There was public consultation, and we found that the rules were restrictive, out of step with modern stadium use, and were constraining economic activity. The changes we are making will allow Eden Park, New Zealand’s largest stadium, to host more major events that bring significant benefits to the local and national economy.

Hon Melissa Lee: What do the new settings mean for Eden Park?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Under the new settings, Eden Park will be able to host up to 12 large concerts and 20 medium-sized concerts per year as permitted activities, without needing resource consent. That’s up from 12 currently, which, interestingly, were not permitted to be from more than six different artists or acts. The changes also enable a wider range of events, including exhibitions, displays, markets, fairs, and cultural and community events. Concerts can take place on any day, must finish by 11 p.m., and can run for eight hours. That’s a significant increase on the current maximum of five hours on a weekday and six hours on a Saturday. Night-time sports games will be permitted on any day, including Sundays, provided noise standards are met.

Hon Melissa Lee: When can New Zealanders expect to see the benefits of these changes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The good people of Auckland don’t have too long to wait. The changes will be in place in April 2026—just a couple of months away. We know that this will deliver tangible benefits. Over the last three years, 14 Auckland shows, including Coldplay—not a great band—and Pearl Jam—a very good band—generated $33.7 million for the local economy, with nearly half a million attendees. There’ll be so many concerts; it’ll be over to many people to pick who they like. These common-sense changes will enable Eden Park to operate like a modern, world-class stadium.

Hon Melissa Lee: What feedback has he seen on these changes?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Any from Don McGlashan?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: If Don McGlashan could sell out Eden Park, I’ll be the first one in the mosh pit.

Hon David Seymour: I don’t think there’ll be a mosh pit, mate.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, probably not for Don McGlashan. There’s been a significant amount of support for these actions. Unsurprisingly, Eden Park Chief Executive Nick Sautner said, “It’s a historic day…[for] our city and our country.” I also want to quote local Kingsland pub owner Steve Gillett, who said, “It’s going to be a huge difference for local businesses”, and I know that the local business associations are very supportive of this. The good deputy mayor of Auckland, Desley Simpson: “a real boost for jobs, hospitality, [and] local businesses … help secure [Eden Park’s] future as a truly world-class venue.”

Health

Question No. 6

Asked by: TĀKUTA FERRIS, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister of Health: Does the Minister agree with the former Minister of Health’s statement that “I want to see IMPBs with the ability to have commissioning authority. I will empower local health decisions and Māori health providers with more autonomy than they have had for some years”; if so, why does the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill remove statutory functions from Iwi Māori Partnership Boards?

I agree with the Hon Dr Shane Reti, who was very clear that Iwi Māori Partnership Boards (IMPBs) should be providing advice on the health needs of Māori across the country and that they should not be involved in the procurement of healthcare services. That’s why we’re strengthening the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee and clarifying the role of Iwi Māori Partnership Boards. Local IMPBs will continue to engage with local Māori communities about their health needs, aspirations, and health outcomes, and provide that advice to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. That advice will then support decisions made by the Minister and Health New Zealand’s board. This is about putting patients back at the centre and ensuring the voices of Māori communities are clearly heard where they can make the most difference.

Tākuta Ferris: Given the removal of statutory functions from Iwi Māori Partnership Boards under this bill, how do decisions such as dismantling Te Aka Whai Ora align with the Government’s promise to give Māori more autonomy and commissioning authority over their health outcomes?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Government’s been very clear that we believe in having one health system, and we have a clear focus on our health targets. Ultimately, that is what will drive better performance and better outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori, and I would just point out to the member that when the previous Government removed the health targets, vaccination rates for Māori two-year-olds went from 89.3 percent down to 64.8 percent. Our focus is actually on improving immunisation rates, and we’re pleased to have seen improvements on all of our health targets.

Tākuta Ferris: How does the Minister justify this bill in light of statements from Te Kāhui Hauora o Te Tauihu and other Iwi Māori Partnership Boards that this is “another assault on Te Tiriti o Waitangi” and “further proof that the Government is not listening and is not interested in equitable outcomes for all”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I say to that member: our Government is focused on improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, and the outcome of the previous Government’s removal of the health targets had an incredibly poor result on Māori. As I just said, the vaccination rate for two-year-olds, for Māori, went from 89.3 percent down to 64.8 percent. Whilst the last Government was focused on restructuring the health system in the middle of a pandemic, we are focused on improving results for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How many times, if at all, did the Minister personally meet with Iwi Māori Partnership Boards before introducing the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, which removes these statutory functions?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’ve engaged with the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. I’ve had meetings with Iwi Māori Partnership Boards, and I’m happy to answer that question in writing.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Minister let us know what this Government has been doing, and is doing, to improve the two-year-old Māori immunisation rate?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This Government has reintroduced our health targets, which is refocusing the health system on delivery. We’ve seen an improvement in the outcome of that target for Māori children. It’s now up to 68 percent. It still has further to go. We’ve also invested in the Immunising our Tamariki programme, which is putting vaccines in the arms of Māori children up and down our country, working with hauora Māori providers to deliver services in communities across the country to make sure we’re actually getting the outcomes that we need.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister accept that moving iwi from statutory partners to advisers of a Minister-appointed advisory committee weakens the Crown-Māori partnership under Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Sorry, I didn’t hear the answer.

SPEAKER: Well, he can repeat it, but just the answer.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No.

Finance

Question No. 7

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

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

Yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is a youth unemployment rate of 16.5 percent a sign of a growing economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When she says there are 15,000 more jobs, is that a net increase or loss given there are 32,000 fewer jobs than when she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member is confused in the difference between unemployment and employment. Unemployment is looking at the ratio of those who are actively seeking work and those who are able to find it; employment measures how many people are in work. The 15,000 figure corresponds to employment, which is to say that there are 15,000 more people in jobs in the latest quarter for which we have data than there was in the quarter before.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she be trusted on growing the economy when unemployment continues to rise and the Reserve Bank here today now forecasts unemployment to stay higher for longer?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because the actions that our Government has taken have supported the economy to be stronger than would otherwise have been the case, and the counterfactual is real: it is a Government that would have kept taxes higher, meaning that 1.2 million New Zealanders would be $60 worse off a fortnight; it is a Government that would not have done any of the savings or consolidations that we have done, which would have meant fiscal policy would have supported inflation to be higher and interest rates to be higher; it is a Government that would have opposed fast-track legislation that is supporting the creation of thousands—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The current Minister of Finance has no responsibility for actions that an alternative Government may or may not have taken had she not been elected to the office of the Minister of Finance. This isn’t about what the previous Government did; it’s about her assertions of what a re-elected Labour Government would have done. She (a) doesn’t know that, and (b) has no responsibility for it even if she did have a view on it. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Please, don’t interrupt a point of order when it’s being taken. I think the point is that the question itself was one that invited that sort of answer, by asking how a Minister could be trusted. I think that’s right on the edge of what’s reasonable. I think the answer in that event was reasonable. We’ll go to the next supplementary.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she claim that “inflation is looking largely under control” when inflation increased for the last five quarters and the Reserve Bank has now forecast for it to increase faster?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because context is everything. It is the case that we have come from a period where inflation was out of the target band for three years, reaching a high of more than 7 percent. It is also the case that the Reserve Bank in their monetary policy statement today says that they think it is highly likely that inflation will be back in band in the next quarter.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she take responsibility for any increase in interest rates given she always has taken credit for bringing them down?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I outlined in my answer to the primary question earlier, it is the case that the Government takes responsibility for whether or not our fiscal policy decisions support or hinder the Reserve Bank and its job of fighting inflation. Our first legislative action as a new Government was to make it crystal clear that the Reserve Bank’s mandate is to fight inflation and we’ve consistently been their mate, ensuring that rather than pouring fuel on the inflation fire we’ve had sensible fiscal policy, which was not the case under the previous Government.

Immigration

Question No. 8

Asked by: PAULO GARCIA, Answered by: Hon ERICA STANFORD

to the Minister of Immigration: What update can she provide on the Active Investor Plus visa?

Less than a year after it was refreshed, the Active Investor Plus (AIP) visa has been an incredible success, with a pipeline of $3.39 billion in investment and growing. Already, $1.05 billion has been invested, with a further $2.34 billion expected to flow in the next six months. Investments are supporting growth across key sectors including tech, healthcare, aged care, horticulture, and digital media. The over 570 applications from around the world show there is strong confidence in our direction. I’m proud that we have delivered a visa that is attracting incredible investors who want to contribute their capital, skills, knowledge, and expertise to support New Zealand businesses.

Paulo Garcia: Why was it important to refresh the visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Unfortunately, the investor visa introduced last term was overly complex and too restrictive in some places while being too permissive in others. It also didn’t reflect the realities of either investors or the investment ecosystem. This resulted in just 116 applications and around $70 million in investment in New Zealand over 2½ years. This meant that the New Zealand investment sector and businesses were missing out on access to valuable capital. It needed to be completely refreshed, and I’m proud of the work that we’ve done with the experts in the immigration and investment sectors to redesign the visa. After only 10 months, we’ve received 573 applications valued at $3.4 billion. This is a game-changer.

Paulo Garcia: What feedback has she received on the new visa settings?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’ve received great feedback on the new settings. For example, last week MA Financial director Enda Stankard said that the $40 million investment in Queenstown’s largest hospitality group—which Active Investor Plus played a key role in—“was one of the first examples of a serious investment being made and deployed into a New Zealand business.” Immigration adviser David Cooper heralded the changes as a turning point for New Zealand’s economy. These policy changes recognise the immense value that these individuals bring and puts New Zealand back on the global investment map.

Paulo Garcia: What difference is the visa making for New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Over $1 billion invested in New Zealand already, with another $2 billion expected in the next six months, provides incredible opportunities for both new and established businesses looking to grow and to employ more Kiwis. The huge success of this visa has already created more higher-paying jobs for New Zealanders. For example, Supa Energy has received AIP investment from Motion Capital and is a climate change - focused venture capital fund. The investment will help community energy projects installing micro roof solar for schools, businesses, and community groups. With this investment, they’ve created more high-paying jobs in New Zealand. The $2 billion of investment in the pipeline will do so much more of exactly this.

Energy

Question No. 9

Asked by: Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS, Answered by: Hon SIMEON BROWN

to the Minister for Energy: What is the estimated life cycle cost of the LNG terminal compared to the projected levy revenue over the 15- and 20-year life cycles described in his Cabinet paper?

The life-cycle cost of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal is subject to commercial negotiations. However, I can say that the levy will be designed to cover both the capital and operating cost of the terminal. Independent advice shows that the cost of the levy will be significantly outweighed by the reduction in cost to consumers, who will be better off by $50 per year.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What are the specific significant caveats provided by respondents through the procurement process that led him to caution Cabinet that costs should be considered indicative only?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There is a procurement process that the LNG terminal is subject to, and as we go through that process, ultimately, that will determine the final terms and conditions. In regards to the independent advice, as I said in my primary answer, the independent advice shows that the cost of the levy will be significantly outweighed by the reduction in cost to consumers by approximately $50 per year.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is there potential for the gas tax to be even higher for households if the fiscal risk to the Crown, identified in his Cabinet paper, of delayed levy recovery or cost escalation occurs?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the independent advice shows that the cost of the levy will be significantly outweighed by the reduction in cost to consumers, who will be better off by $50 per year. We are going through a procurement process at the moment, which, I think, is due to be completed later this year, but, ultimately, we are doing this to address the dry-year risk and to lower prices for consumers. I encourage the Opposition to get on board.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question pertaining to the Cabinet paper and a fiscal risk that was identified in the Cabinet paper. The fact that there could be, through either delayed levies or cost escalations—it was asking the Minister if there was a risk to consumers of higher taxes. He didn’t address that. He talked about the scheme generally, but, given it’s specifically drawn from the Cabinet paper, I think the Minister needs to at least address that.

SPEAKER: I think he had already addressed that in the previous answer. The Minister may want to make it clearer.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I’ve said in previous answers, this is subject to commercial negotiations. We’re going through a process.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is the Government’s back-up plan to (a) to raise the levy or (b) to fund from general taxation if the unknown commercial revenue, referenced in this Cabinet paper, does not eventuate?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our focus here is on solving the dry-year risk challenge and to do that rapidly. We’re going through a procurement process at the moment, subject to commercial negotiations, but what I can tell the member is that independent advice shows that the cost of the levy will be significantly outweighed by the reduction in costs to consumers, and I encourage the member to get on board.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What are the other levy-setting mechanisms his Cabinet paper references to recover any escalation in costs with the LNG terminal?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government has agreed to go through a procurement approach. That is subject to commercial negotiations. We’ve said there’ll be a levy on the industry; that, ultimately, the detail of that will still need to be designed. But the independent advice—and this is the good news—is that it shows that the cost of the levy will be significantly outweighed by the cost to consumers, who will be better off by $50 per year.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why should a family already struggling with their power bill have any confidence they won’t be forced to bail out an LNG white elephant through higher taxes just so the Minister can look like he’s doing something?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, what I’ll say is we’re actually focused on solving the energy challenges this country has, whereas her policy when she was in Government was to build a lake on top of the mountains, which wouldn’t deliver a single bit of energy until 2037 and put at risk thousands of jobs, and had power prices hitting $800 a megawatt hour. We’re not prepared, on this side of the House, to do that. This policy will reduce power prices for consumers, and I encourage the Opposition to get on board.

Tourism and Hospitality

Question No. 10

Asked by: CARL BATES, Answered by: Hon LOUISE UPSTON

to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made about supporting major events in New Zealand?

Last week, I announced a suite of events, covering all the way from the Bay of Islands to Tekapō, as part of our Government’s $70 million major events and tourism package. The events cover sports, food, culture, and innovation, running from May to December this year, providing something for everyone and driving economic activity and confidence throughout the country. Tourism and major events are a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth. More world-class events means more customers, more visitors, more jobs, and, of course, a growing economy.

Carl Bates: What events are being funded by Events Boost?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This second tranche includes over 15 events, from the thrill of the solo trans-Tasman yacht racing in Ōpua to the world-class culinary experiences in Wellington, dazzling Matariki celebrations in Rotorua, the Deaf International Basketball Federation 3x3 World Cup in Auckland, and epic running festivals in Tekapō and the Nelson-Tasman region. These events showcase the best of New Zealand and promise unforgettable experiences for visitors and locals alike. Where there are existing events being funded, investment will support new elements and attract more participants and international visitors to New Zealand. In total, we will be supporting over 70 events, either directly or indirectly, through the major events and tourism package.

Carl Bates: What benefit does she expect to see as a result of this announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: When major events come to town, the economic ripple effect is huge. For example, for every dollar spent on a live performance, $3.20 is returned in benefits to the community. Events don’t just bring more visitors and economic benefits; they bring life and energy to our cities and towns, creating vibrant communities and unforgettable experiences. That’s why we’ve invested in an exciting calendar of events, bringing vibrancy to our towns and cities and giving even more reasons for visitors to choose New Zealand.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The feedback has been fantastic. WellingtonNZ CEO Mark Oldershaw has said, “The funding represents a significant and timely boost for Wellington’s events sector. It plays a pivotal role in Wellington’s wider economy, boosting jobs and spend across hospitality, accommodation, retail, and tourism while infusing the city with energy, creativity, and atmosphere.” Tourism Industry Aotearoa CE Rebecca Ingram said, “I’m delighted to see some of the events I know and love alongside new events being given a boost. That combination is what keeps our events calendar exciting and relevant. We are setting the stage for an extraordinary year.” These events will bring vibrancy to our regions and deliver lasting benefits for communities and businesses across New Zealand.

Climate Change

Question No. 11

Asked by: TEANAU TUIONO, Answered by: Hon SCOTT SIMPSON

to the Minister of Climate Change: Has he seen the Copernicus Climate Change Service’s recent finding that 2025 ranked among one of the hottest years for the Western Pacific region; if so, what actions has he taken to ensure Aotearoa is committed to ambitious climate action?

No.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he accept that reducing emissions in Aotearoa ensures that New Zealanders can live in a more stable climate and ensures that our Pacific neighbours are not faced with increasingly severe impacts on their infrastructure, biodiversity, food security, public health, and economies?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yes.

Teanau Tuiono: How does he reconcile his statement, if at all, that the Government remains committed to our domestic and international climate change commitments with the Minister for Resources’ decision to shut down the possibility of New Zealand signing up to a road map away from using fossil fuels at the annual global climate summit last year?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I’d simply advise the member that this coalition Government stands committed to its international climate commitments and its domestic commitments, as has been previously stated many times.

Teanau Tuiono: Did he raise any concerns with the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Pacific Peoples when the decision was made to cut $100 million per year from New Zealand’s annual Pacific climate aid budget?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I don’t have that information to hand, but if the member wishes to put it in writing, I’ll provide the answer for him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is he answering a question from someone who comes from Rarotonga to a country called New Zealand [Interruption]—

SPEAKER: Just hold on. Do not call out or make any other noises while a question is being asked.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. All members in this House are equal. For a member of the House to stand up and question whether someone’s entitled to ask a question because of their country of origin is pure racism and you should have stopped him at the beginning.

SPEAKER: I most certainly did not hear that in the opening of Mr Peter’s question. I will review the Hansard.

Rawiri Waititi: Come on, Mr Speaker!

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Come on; it’s all the time.

SPEAKER: Who spoke then?

Rawiri Waititi: Yeah, I did.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: All of us.

SPEAKER: What are you saying?

Rawiri Waititi: He just said that he was from Rarotonga and he’s got Māori whakapapa. That’s just titanic that we allow that type of question to happen in this House.

SPEAKER: I didn’t hear, I said, and I said I’ll review the Standing Orders and I’ll take action as a result of that. Mr Peters, if you want to continue your question without any sort of gratuitous comment against any other member in the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Now, Mr Speaker, I expect to have my question completed, then people will see the logicality of what I’m asking. I’m asking why he is answering a question to do with a country’s name, from somebody who came here from a country called Rarotonga—a Realm country of New Zealand—and decides without any consultation with the New Zealand people that he will change the country’s name.

SPEAKER: No, sorry, that’s not an acceptable question at all.

Hon Member: Baiting.

SPEAKER: And that is the—I want that to be the last time that those sort of questions are directed so personally at members of this House.

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order. Perhaps to assist the House, I would encourage the Minister to look further afield and to recognise the whakapapa of others who also have whakapapa to the Tai Tokerau as well, which would make this question incredibly valid and relevant.

SPEAKER: I’m not sure which question you’re referring to. Your own question is valid; there’s no question about that. We’ll move on to—

Teanau Tuiono: Supplementary. Do I ask that question again? Because he didn’t really answer it.

SPEAKER: Yes, you can.

Teanau Tuiono: Did he raise any concerns with the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Pacific Peoples when the decision was made to cut $100 million per year from New Zealand’s annual Pacific climate aid budget?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: With respect, Mr Speaker, I did answer that question.

Teanau Tuiono: Sorry, it got lost in the last five minutes. Why, at a time when rivers are running through homes in Banks Peninsula and the ocean is on the doorsteps of families in the Pacific, is this Government choosing to funnel billions of dollars into roads and a gas import facility that lock us into more climate-warming emissions?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The answer is very simple: because the coalition Government takes a pragmatic and sensible approach to climate change issues. I invite the member and the members of his party to adopt the more practical approach, maybe, of some of their predecessors like Rod Donald and the late Jeanette Fitzsimons.

Infrastructure

Question No. 12

Asked by: Hon KIERAN McANULTY, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister for Infrastructure: Does he stand by his statements following the release of the Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Plan?

In context, yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he stand by his statement that “Where we can build durable consensus, we should.”, and, if so, will he support Labour’s call to require all Government infrastructure projects to go through independent assurance by the Infrastructure Commission’s Infrastructure Priorities Programme?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As a general proposition, I am in favour of greater assurance. The Infrastructure Commission is not equipped to do all infrastructure projects that go through the Crown books right now. They’re a small agency and they would not have the capacity or financial resource to do every project, but it is also true that we have already started a process around strengthening assurance capability inside the Government between Treasury and the Infrastructure Commission, and I’m happy to talk to the member around some changes that we may wish to make there, because I think it’s in everyone’s interest that we get better value for money from what we spend.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is the Minister aware that during scrutiny week last year, the Infrastructure Commission indicated they did have the capacity, and, in particular, they felt that the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) infrastructure projects should go through that process?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I don’t have those comments that they made off-hand, but the investor management system, run by Treasury across that, basically collates every investment the Government’s making, which is billions of dollars every quarter. It is definitely true to say the Infrastructure Commission does not have the capacity to do that right now. That’s not to say that in the future they couldn’t, with extra resources. As I say, we’re giving some consideration to how we might get a better arrangement between the commission and Treasury, and I’m really happy to talk to the member offline around that. When it comes to the transport agency, as a Crown entity with its own balance sheet and with its own funding stream through fuel taxes and road-user charges, historically the arrangement has been that they make their own investment decisions in the same way that Kāinga Ora, for example, makes its investment decisions as a Crown entity as well. Is it possible that there are better ways around that? Possibly, and we’ll give that some consideration.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he therefore disagree with the NZTA-commissioned Kanofski review, which states, “NZTA does not have a rigorous independent investor assurance process.”, and, if so, why wouldn’t he therefore take up the Infrastructure Commission’s offer to do that work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think, as a general proposition, it is true that NZTA could have been better in the past and could be better in the future around value for money of transport investments. It is true to say, as a country, we spend a lot of money on infrastructure, but as the commission points out, we are in the bottom in the OECD for efficiency of spend and we all need to do better.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he therefore agree with the National Infrastructure Plan’s recommendation to “align investment expectations with available revenue”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As a general proposition, yes, we’ll be responding to the plan as a Government, as required by statute, in June, but it is true to say, in transport, that available demand for transport spending far exceeds revenue. That is true under this Government, and, actually, it was true under the previous Government in which Crown loans, borrowing, and capital injections have been put into the National Land Transport Fund at a level at which fuel tax revenue is now about 50 percent of transport spending. Of course, that crowds out capital that could be used for other things, which I think is the commission’s point, and that is something that the country will have to grapple with.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is spending $228 million on Auckland light rail without a single metre or piece of track to show for it an example of good infrastructure spending?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government’s views on previous light rail projects are well-known. I would just say that one of the ways in which we get into issues like light rail is that promises are made that far exceed capacity to cost or pay. The point the Infrastructure Commission has—

Hon Member: $56 billion?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: $56 billion? Oh, that was the cost, I think, of your twin tunnel plan at the last election, across the harbour—so, you know. The point the commission has made—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Everyone, it’s not a cross-House conversation.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s a serious issue. The point the commission has made is that everything has to be paid for, and as a country, we have to prioritise.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he at least, therefore, accept that having NZTA projects independently assessed by the Infrastructure Commission could help give the sector the certainty and assurance that they’ve been asking for and help prevent the situation where promises were made to the tune of $56 billion, and yet there is no clear plan on how to pay for it?

Hon Shane Jones: You mean like rail to the airport?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Should I start the question again?

SPEAKER: No, you’ve finished it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There’s a range of important transport projects under way right now. We’re required to, as a Government, respond to the National Infrastructure Plan in June. We’ll be doing that, and we’ll be engaging with the Opposition as part of that. I think the commission’s plan is a wake-up call for many people across the Parliament and, frankly, the country that we’ve got to lift our game collectively when it comes to infrastructure.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister agree that the rail sector, which has spent 61c in every infrastructure dollar on maintenance and renewals in recent years and is now forecast to spend 75c, is the stand-out example of good asset management thanks to a no-nonsense approach?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The rail sector has done a better job than others when it comes to maintaining its assets. It is also true to say that there is significant catch-up renewal work required in both Wellington and Auckland to maintain what we have in terms of the metropolitan rail network in both those centres. That is another demand on the Crown books that successive Governments have had to deal with and will continue to deal with. It’s also the case that the metropolitan rail networks in Auckland and Wellington play a significant role in public transport in both cities, and we’re looking forward to City Rail Link opening in the second half of the year—the exact date is TBC—and we’re looking forward to that opening.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No. I think you’ve used up all the available supplementaries.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes, but you have discretion, so I thought I’d try.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I do, but we’re over time.