Oral Questions to Ministers

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

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

Yes, and, in particular, our Government’s commitment not to introduce a capital gains tax because that would put a wrecking ball through the economy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that only employing 54 extra nurses over the last two years has contributed to a deepening crisis in our public health system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m actually very proud of the fact that we have added 2,100 extra nurses to the healthcare system in New Zealand—and we have 900 more extra doctors, as well, since we started in Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, why did the number of nurses employed by Health New Zealand drop by 120 over the year compared to the year before, or will he now concede that his Government has had a hiring freeze in place?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, there has been no hiring freeze. I can reassure the member: we have added 2,100 extra nurses from when we started in Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If there is no hiring freeze, why were there 120 fewer nurses in our hospitals last year than the year before?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re recruiting for 2,300 from memory. But I just want to reassure the member: the good news is that we inherited a terrible state in the healthcare system, and we’ve actually added 2,100 more nurses; we’ve expanded 120 places for nurse prescribers, 120 places for nurse practitioners, and we’ve also hired 900 extra doctors—that’s a good thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of the 13 Health New Zealand districts that have fewer nurses now than two years ago does he think had too many nurses to start with?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member that we’ve got 2,100 extra nurses in the healthcare system. That’s a good thing. I’ll tell the member, I know you might be interested in some numbers, but let me give him some because we are very focused on improving the outcomes in the healthcare system, as you would well appreciate. Here we go. Improved childhood immunisations: when that member took over, it was 92 percent and when he left, it was 67.5 percent; we’re improving that to 74.2 percent. When we look at shorter stays in emergency departments, it was 89 percent when he took Government, and it was 67.5 percent when he left.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why are hundreds of New Zealand-trained graduate nurses waiting without jobs now while our hospitals run short in terms of their nursing rosters?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, we’re hiring a huge number of nurses. We’ve got 2,300 full-time nursing roles being recruited for. We’ve already got 2,100 additional nurses in the system. I think the member should just accept that’s a good thing for our healthcare system. It’s in all of our interests to improve the outcomes, and isn’t it fantastic this Government’s added 2,100 extra nurses and 900 extra doctors in two and a bit years.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Health New Zealand been holding more than 1,300 nursing roles vacant for over two years now, and if so, isn’t that just more evidence that New Zealand cannot afford three more years of a National Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll tell you what, in answer to the second leg of the question, I mean, what they cannot afford is, actually, worse cancer treatment times, child immunisations that are worse, wait times in emergency departments that are worse, and first specialist assessments and elective treatments being worse. That’s what happened under a Labour Government, and New Zealanders don’t want to go back to Labour running the healthcare system—God help us.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

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, and I just want to reassure the member that we won’t be introducing a capital gains tax, an inheritance tax, or a land tax.

SPEAKER: Just wait until the whole House is quiet so that you can ask your question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Why did the Prime Minister, just two weeks ago, so confidently declare in response to our questions that no one had their main benefit suspended and that he was “very supportive” of the mandatory reviews, now that we know that those mandatory reviews actually did wrongfully suspend benefits for seriously injured, sick, and disabled New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, those statements were correct at the time with the facts that we had at that time, but, subsequently, what’s important is that the issue has been resolved. It’s important that it gets fixed, and that’s what we do in this Government: we fix the problems that we encounter.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister asked his Minister for Social Development and Employment when she found out that main benefits were being wrongly suspended on top of winter energy payments, and if so, when did the Minister for Social Development and Employment first become aware and when did she tell the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I haven’t, because I really want the focus on fixing the problem, which is what we do in this Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How many New Zealanders who are seriously injured, sick, or disabled have had their benefit wrongly suspended, and how many of those have now received back payment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: If the member puts the question on notice, I’ll make sure she gets a full answer. But what’s important here is actually how you respond to challenges and actually fix problems and get solutions for people, and that’s what we’ve done here. I appreciate it’s not an ideal situation, but it’s a very rapid response from the Ministry of Social Development. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, just a moment. The question has been asked, and the questioner should hear the answer, not the interruption from the other side of the House. Has the Prime Minister finished?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How can the Prime Minister and his Minister for Social Development and Employment so confidently declare that everyone who has had their benefit unfairly and wrongly suspended has been paid back if he and his Minister can’t even say how many people had their benefit wrongly suspended in the first place?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said to the member, at the time and with the information we had, that was the correct answer, but what’s much more important is that I want my Ministers focused on fixing things. We can discuss the process as much as you like. Put the questions on notice, and we’ll get you some proper answers for that. But with respect to actually fixing the problem so that people actually get the money in their bank account and things get sorted and fixed, that’s what we focus on on this side of the Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister now changed his view from being “very supportive” of automated decision making, which has led to countless seriously injured, sick, or disabled New Zealanders having their benefits wrongly suspended, and, if so, what is he actually going to do about it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the last leg of the question: we’re fixing it.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 3

Asked by: Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME, Answered by: Hon LOUISE UPSTON

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many beneficiaries have had their benefit payments wrongly suspended since the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act 2025 came into force?

I acknowledge that a number of beneficiaries have had their benefit payments affected since the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act 2025 came into force, and I apologise to those affected. Some benefits have been wrongly suspended. What we don’t know at this stage is how many. The situation is extremely unsatisfactory. The Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) focus has been on ensuring payments are resumed. I’ve directed MSD to conduct a review, to look into the issue, and at how many people have had their benefits affected. I’m expecting the outcome of the review on 10 September, and will have more to say then.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many people receiving a disability allowance have had their payments wrongly suspended since her changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I answered that in my primary question, and I said that we don’t know the number at this stage, and I will have a full review and report available on 10 September. Mr Speaker, 1.3 million New Zealanders are paid regularly by MSD. I accept that this is a significant problem, and the situation is extremely unsatisfactory. That’s why we are looking to exactly what has happened, why, and how many people are affected.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many carers receiving a supported living payment have had their payments wrongly suspended since her changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve answered the question—the primary question—which basically said we don’t have the detail of the numbers involved.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can it be simultaneously be true that the Government doesn’t know how many people were affected, but it does know they were all paid back?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are two separate issues here. It probably helps if I identify two of them. One was a policy error, that led to people not getting the winter energy payment. I was notified of that on the Thursday night, and by Saturday morning, all of those payments had been repaid. The second is delays around processing, which is not a policy issue; it is an operational issue, that MSD have apologised for. They have been working at pace to identify those who have had their payments stopped, and repaid them, but I want to be confident that there is a full review of this, and that the issues have been resolved, which is why I’m waiting until 10 September to ensure that I provide accurate information to the House.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she concede that it was her rushed law changes that meant seniors and veterans missed out on their winter energy payments, and that other vulnerable people also didn’t receive the support they need?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. I have just gone through the two issues. The first is an issue of policy, which was a mistake. That was nothing to do with the legislative process, because it was the error and omission in the policy—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Policy, law, implementation.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, I do know how laws are made in this House. That member might not, but I do. The second is an operational issue, which is processing delays, and, as I’ve said, I’m committed to getting to the bottom of this, and that’s why I’ve asked for a review, which will have more details on 10 September.

Hon Marama Davidson: When did she first find out that processing delays resulted in main benefits being wrongfully suspended, and when did she disclose that information to the public?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That information was provided to the public with an apology by MSD on 17 August.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I know that Ministers are required to correct information as soon as possible. The apology from MSD was not in relationship to main benefits but in relationship to the winter energy payments that were cut, so I find it baffling as to why the Minister would make such a claim when she knows it’s not factually correct.

SPEAKER: Well, I thought that was the question. Does the Minister want to make any comment on that?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order, the question was on main benefits being suspended. The commentary from MSD was on supplementary assistance—

SPEAKER: Ask the question again.

Hon Marama Davidson: When did she first find out that processing delays resulted in main benefits being wrongfully suspended, and when did she disclose that information to the public?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On 17 August, MSD apologised and made a statement. [Interruption] No, the member is incorrect. What he is referring to was a question in the Estimates debate where I was asked about policy and policy having any impacts on benefits being not paid, and I said no, it was not the policy that was the mistake; it was the operating delays, and that is why I’m getting MSD to do a review into what has happened and why.

Finance

Question No. 4

NANCY LU: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks: What recent reports has she seen—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hold on, hold on. When you’re ready—Nancy Lu.

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

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

I’ve seen a report from the international ratings agency S&P Global Ratings affirming New Zealand’s AA+ sovereign credit rating with a stable outlook. AA+ is a high rating; only 18 economies in the world are rated AA+ or AAA. S&P notes that the Government is pursuing a policy agenda focused on fiscal consolidation and economic revitalisation. Over the next few years, it expects the New Zealand economy to grow in strength and expects the Government’s deficit to reduce. I know many people are still doing it tough, but S&P’s report is further evidence that Kiwis can look forward to a growing economy and a better set of Government books.

Nancy Lu: Are there other signs that the economy is recovering?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The latest ANZ Business Outlook survey came out yesterday, showing that business confidence in firms’ own outlook for the future remains at high levels. Perhaps most importantly, a growing proportion of firms also reported that their own real business activity has increased markedly over the past year. ANZ’s conclusion from the survey is that “there is widespread optimism that the worst is past and that the economy is getting back on track. Risks are easy to point out, certainly, but we share that optimism. The lift in past activities suggests the bounce-back is already underway.”

Nancy Lu: What could put the economy recovery at risk?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Higher taxes would hurt business and hurt the economy. I’m thinking here, for example, of a capital gains tax on commercial and industrial property. Factories, sheds, warehouses, garages, office buildings, labs, shops, and other buildings are an intrinsic part of productive businesses that employ people and pay wages. A capital gains tax would impose a new tax on them. Scrapping Investment Boost would also increase tax on New Zealand businesses to the tune of $6.6 billion. Worse, it would be an increase in tax for businesses who are doing exactly what the country needs them to be doing, which is investing in growth, in the machinery, tools, equipment, and other productive assets that raise wages for New Zealand workers.

Nancy Lu: What information has she seen on the take up of Investment Boost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said previously, we’ll get the first proper idea of that next year, when all businesses have filed their 2026 tax returns. However, I have recently seen preliminary information on the minority of firms, primarily small and medium businesses that have already filed tax returns. Of those business that reported some additions to fixed assets, 49 percent—that is around 33,000 firms—reported that they had claimed Investment Boost deductions. The total value of assets on which Investment Boost had been claimed is $2 billion, and the average value of assets on which Investment Boost has been claimed is $61,000.

Nancy Lu: What is the significance of that $61,000 figure?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said, for those small to medium businesses who have already filed their tax returns, the average value of assets on which Investment Boost has been claimed so far is $61,000. Let’s compare that to another scheme—say, an accelerated depreciation scheme that only applied to assets worth less than $10,000. In that case, a small business claiming on that average value of $61,000 would get precisely nothing. They would be paying more tax than they are now. Compared to the status quo, they would be discouraged from making that investment. That’s what I mean by the risks of imposing more taxes on business.

Economic Growth

Question No. 5

Asked by: Hon GINNY ANDERSEN, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister for Economic Growth: Is it still the Government’s plan to “grow the economy, to create more jobs, and to provide more opportunities for New Zealanders to have higher incomes”?

Mr Speaker, yes, and the latest evidence shows the recovery is strengthening. The latest ANZ Business Confidence report says that the economic bounce back is already under way, with reported business activity up more than six points in August, and employment intentions at their highest since February. Westpac’s latest report says that growth appears to have resumed this quarter, and S&P says, “New Zealand’s growth outlook is improving”. There is, of course, always more work to do, but this Government is fixing the basics and building a stronger economy that creates more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders—all done without taxing more.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can her Government claim to be lifting incomes, when 42 percent of Kiwis received a pay rise less than four percent and so many New Zealanders just can’t afford another three years of National?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’d acknowledge that people’s circumstances vary significantly. There will be workers who haven’t experienced pay increases, just as there will be others who have received generous pay increases or promotions or changes in work circumstances. Equally, people face different cost pressures according to their lifestyles and demands. As I said in the answer to the primary question, there is no doubt that economic conditions have been tough for many New Zealanders over the last little while. When I look at Treasury’s forecasts, I’m given confidence by the fact that 220,000 new jobs will be created over the forecast period, and that real wages are forecast to grow faster than inflation, meaning more New Zealanders will have the opportunity to get ahead.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with the Kiwibank economist who said that “The cost of things has increased twice as much as the wages that the average Kiwi is getting.”; and if so, does she understand why New Zealanders just can’t afford three more years of National?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agree with the statistical track that is very clear, that history—you can debate all sorts of things, but what you can’t debate is that inflation hit 7.3 percent under the last Government, was out of the target band for more than 30 months, and that during that period, prices rose dramatically faster than wages, which set many New Zealanders very far back. That’s why our Government has been on a mission to control spending, keep inflation in band, and drive real productive growth. I note that alternative approaches are possible, and for the book on how to spend more, borrow more, and tax more, just ask Willie Jackson.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Employment Hero’s general manager that falling wages represent “real-term losses for workers,”; and if so, where are the higher incomes her Government promised, given that New Zealanders just can’t afford three more years of National?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I absolutely agree that the goal of increasing productive growth in an economy is to see New Zealanders’ wages rise faster. That’s why this Government delivered the Investment Boost tax policy in last year’s Budget, because Treasury and IRD advised us that it was the single—

SPEAKER: Sorry, can I just ask the Minister to hold off for a minute. There’s only one person that answers for the Government, not a chorus.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Although it’s always nice to have one.

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon? Well, it’d be all right if they were in tune; I’m not sure they were.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Which is why we advanced the Investment Boost tax policy, because, in the view of our independent officials, that policy would see real wages grow faster than would otherwise be the case without that policy. Why? Because it would encourage productive investment that would raise productivity and allow firms to pay their workers more. This Government has a track record of delivering policies that will actually increase wages, rather than just leaning back on the old trope—that Willie Jackson wants to go back to—of spending more and taxing more.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why should struggling Kiwis endure three more years of working harder and falling further behind when a change of Government means that “Better starts now?”

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because a change of Government would mean more borrowing, more spending, and more taxing, and sticking with this lot means no new taxes.

SPEAKER: That’s enough. I hope that’s the end of the advertorial session in today’s Parliament.

Housing

Question No. 6

Asked by: Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL, Answered by: Hon CHRIS BISHOP

to the Minister of Housing: Is the Government considering removing interest deductibility on residential property?

Unlike others, no.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What evidence has he seen on the relationship between removal of interest deductibility for residential property and rent prices?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On 1 October 2021, the ban on interest deductibility for residential property started being phased in. Between October 2021 and March 2024, median rents for new tenancies went up by $80 per week or over $4,000 per year. In March 2024, the coalition Government announced the reversal on the ban on interest deductibility, and since then, rent increases have fallen to a 25-year low.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Is banning interest deductibility on residential property likely to put upward pressure on rent prices?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, and it is of an enduring mystery to me and others that there are people in support of it when it harms the very people that everyone in this House should be trying to help.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What reports has he seen on interest deductibility for residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’ve seen many reports, and I’m still making my way through IRD’s 2021 and 2023 regulatory impact statements, which, unlike some other people, I actually bother to read. To remind the House, the 2021 regulatory impact statement states, in relation to removing interest deductibility, “[IRD] has advised against any of these options to deny or limit interest deductions … additional taxes on rental housing are unlikely to be an effective way of boosting overall housing affordability.” Removing interest deductibility would “put upward pressure on rents and may reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer-term.” Overall, they said, removing interest deductibility would have “negative impacts on rents and housing supply”, “high compliance and administration costs for an estimated 250,000 taxpayers”, and “[would erode] the coherence of the tax system.” This is stupid policy.

Hon David Seymour: Why did the Government move to restore mortgage interest deductibility as rapidly as the 2025 tax year, and was it because of the ACT-National coalition agreement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The answer to that is—well, in relation to the first part of the question, we moved quickly because it is good policy, as I’ve just outlined for the House the reasons why. In relation to the second part of the question, the answer is yes.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s good to clear that up.

Climate Change

Question No. 7

Asked by: Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister of Climate Change: What is the Government’s position on the Paris Agreement?

The position of the Government is the same as it has always been: New Zealand is a signatory to the Paris Agreement and is committed to it.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Does he agree with Winston Peters, who said at the end of last week: “We will pull out of the failing Paris Agreement”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Political parties are responsible for their own comments; I am responsible for the Government’s position. That position is that we are in the Paris Agreement.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who said that staying in the Paris Agreement is “a non-negotiable” in coalition talks, or David Seymour, who said this week that “you can’t decide what you negotiate on.”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, similar to my response for the last question, I stand by the Prime Minister’s statement, and I am not responsible for other political parties’ statements in regards to their own policies. But, as a Government, our Government position is clear, and it is that we are in the Paris Agreement.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Well, then, who is correct: the Prime Minister, who said that leaving the Paris Agreement would make New Zealand poor and other countries would kick our products off shelves, or Winston Peters, who said that the Paris Agreement “is senselessly hamstringing our economy.”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: New Zealand remains in the Paris Agreement and is committed to our targets. We know that these targets are extremely difficult to achieve, and many other countries are also in similar positions, but the Government’s position is clear: we are in the Paris Agreement.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Can New Zealand afford another three years of a National-led coalition when they can’t even agree about our commitment to combating climate change?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What this side of the House cannot afford is a transition to the other side with a Government that will introduce nine new taxes, which will ruin this economy and ruin our country. On this side of the House, we are committed to fiscal discipline and supporting New Zealand to thrive.

Revenue

Question No. 8

Asked by: RYAN HAMILTON, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister of Revenue: What reports has he received on the level of overdue student loan debt?

I’ve received Inland Revenue’s latest student loan quarterly report, which shows that as of 31 March 2026, overdue student loan repayments totalled $2.7 billion. That is a huge amount of money owed to New Zealand taxpayers, and there is a real cost when that is not repaid. Every dollar that goes unpaid is money that cannot be spent on education, healthcare, or other public services.

Ryan Hamilton: How much of the overdue student loan debt is owed by borrowers who have left New Zealand?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Overseas-based borrowers account for 93 percent of all overdue student loan debt, and that is despite overseas borrowers making up only 18 percent of all student loan borrowers. Kiwis who stay here overwhelmingly meet their obligations. The problem is concentrated among people who have left New Zealand and who fail to pay back what they owe.

Ryan Hamilton: What do reports show about the age of overdue student loan debt?

Hon SIMON WATTS: More than $1.9 billion of overseas borrower debt is more than five years old, and around 24,000 people have debts of more than 15 years of age. This is not a case of people missing the occasional payment. A significant amount of this debt has been outstanding for years, and that is why recovering overdue debt from overseas borrowers is so important.

Ryan Hamilton: What action is the Government taking to recover overdue student loan debt from overseas borrowers?

Hon SIMON WATTS: This Government has significantly increased funding for Inland Revenue’s compliance and collection work, including $29 million through Budget 2024 and a further $35 million through Budget 2025. Inland Revenue is using broader mechanisms to collect overseas debt and student loan debt, including overseas collection agencies and legal enforcement to pursue borrowers who do not meet their obligations. That action is working, with more than $243 million collected from overseas borrowers in 2024-25, and, in the last year, we saw an increase in collections of over 20 percent. We know that there is more to do, and we have a plan to achieve it.

Prime Minister

Question No. 9

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

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

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

Yes—particularly our intention never to implement an inheritance tax.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement made at Waitangi this year that “iwi and hapū have a significant contribution to make to the protection of our natural environment. … It is why our reforms to resource management law contain strict provisions to uphold Treaty settlements and always will.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Who benefits from last-minute amendments to the new resource management legislation which allow another six years of degradation to the Waikato River, and why is he prioritising one industry over Treaty settlement commitments?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of the question.

Hon Marama Davidson: What role has his Government given industry polluters in influencing whether Treaty settlements are overridden?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We don’t give them any role. We uphold our obligations under law.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Plan Change 1, which gives effect to Te Ture Whaimana, which is the settlement referred to in the previous question, will be the basis for the new natural environment plan developed by Waikato Regional Council in the coming years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can, and that’s why we actually need to make sure that it’s aligned with the new Resource Management Act laws that are becoming law now.

Hon Marama Davidson: Did any members of Cabinet recuse themselves from discussions on amendments to the Planning Bill or the Natural Environment Bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can assure the member that we manage any potential or real conflicts appropriately.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Tell us about those donations.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10—Arena Williams—

Tākuta Ferris: Supplementary. Sorry, supplementary.

SPEAKER: —and no one else.

Tākuta Ferris: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: My apologies—Tākuta Ferris. Sorry, I didn’t see you there.

Tākuta Ferris: Can the Prime Minister confirm that during this parliamentary term alone, the Waitangi Tribunal has faced an unprecedented burden of work, with nine urgent inquiries and one priority inquiry into policies and actions of his Government, and, if so, what does this say about his Government’s ability to demonstrate being a good Treaty partner?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What it says is we’re a very busy Government getting things done.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the flow of questions, but as the Prime Minister resumed his seat from the earlier question about conflicts of interest, Chlöe Swarbrick yelled out, “Tell us about those donations.” Now, it’s tempting to ignore her, but it’s not just angry and immature behaviour; it actually brings the whole House into disrepute to have those sorts of epithets shouted around, and I think you should ask her to withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: I didn’t hear that. This afternoon has been a politically charged afternoon where various parties, in both questions and answers, have put political questions. We’re obviously going into that season. I appreciate that the member may have found that comment to be concerning. I didn’t hear it. I’m not asking for a withdrawal, because it shouldn’t be on the record.

Tākuta Ferris: Of the nine urgent inquiries, can the Prime Minister identify one where the tribunal found his Government had strengthened rather than weakened its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, if not, does he accept his Government has taken Crown-Māori relationships backwards?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely not. I mean, look at the 13 Treaty settlements that have been advanced. Look at the fact that we have improved regular attendance with Māori students from 51 to 54 percent. Look at the reduction in Māori youth offending—down 28 percent. Look at the 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime. In this Government, we’re interested in improving outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. I appreciate you’re not.

Tākuta Ferris: How does the Prime Minister explain the tribunal’s repeated intervention into his Government’s actions across Treaty principles, Māori wards, Oranga Tamariki, takutai moana, te reo Māori, the regulatory standards, citizenship, and education, and what solutions does he have to protect Te Tiriti o Waitangi in all future lawmaking?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We understand our obligations, and as I said, we’re a busy Government, so it’s not a surprise they’ll have a response to lots of things we’re doing.

Tākuta Ferris: Will the Prime Minister commit to requiring MPs to be capable of demonstrating at least an intermediate level of knowledge and understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the country’s history in line with the current body of evidence to ensure Parliament and Government decision-making is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I commit to is Ministers who actually get things done and sort this country out, and that’s what this side of the Parliament has been doing.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Question No. 10

Asked by: ARENA WILLIAMS, Answered by: Hon CAMERON BREWER

to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Is his statement that the Government is “all about more sustainable food price increases” consistent with the Minister of Finance’s promise to “reduce food prices for Kiwis”; if so, how?

Yes, what we’re saying is very straightforward. We’re getting food prices under control. Food inflation is now 1.9 percent compared to 12.3 percent three years ago.

Arena Williams: If the Minister’s goal is sustainable food price increases, how is a Māngere family of two working parents and five children with just $123 a week left for food supposed to afford enough bread, rice, and noodles to eat, let alone meat and vegetables?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Again, as I said last week, we acknowledge that, overall, Kiwis pay too much for their groceries. That is why this Government is focused on competition reform. That is why we’re focused on reducing the barriers for new entrants, increasing penalties for fair trading breaches, and supporting the Commerce Commission (ComCom) in its compliance work.

Arena Williams: If the Minister’s goal is sustainable food price increases, which meal does he expect the 38 percent of Victoria University students who are already skipping one meal a week because they cannot afford food to skip next?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Where we are having some success is that in the year to July 2026, overall food prices increased just 1.9 percent. Fruit and veges, for example, where she was wanting an example, fell 1 percent in the year to July 2026. That is a big difference to increasing 22 percent in the year to June 2023.

Arena Williams: Is the reason this Government has changed its policy from reducing food prices 15 months ago to now being “all about more sustainable increases” because it has failed to deliver on the cost of living and is now changing the definition of success?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: No, we are totally focused on getting food prices under control, and that is why we are squarely focused on competition reform, reducing barriers for new entrants, increasing penalties for fair trading breaches, and supporting the ComCom on its compliance work—and, dare I say, keeping taxes low to give consumers more money in their back pockets.

Arena Williams: Do sustainable increases in food prices meet the National Party’s promise prior to the election to bring down food prices, and, if so, can Kiwis afford another three years of National?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We have certainly brought down food price increases. Can I give you some empirical data. In the three years to 2023, food prices increased 21.9 percent. In the three years to 2026, food prices increased 6.8 percent. Yes, we’ve got a long way to go, but it’s a lot better than the last Labour Government.

Prime Minister

Question No. 11

Asked by: DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

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

Yes; in particular our intention not to introduce a wealth tax.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has his Government upheld the Crown’s obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi through his time as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he name the Tiriti protections his Government has strengthened?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, look at the achievements that we’ve done in this Government: 13 Treaty settlements advanced. That’s fantastic news. Think about the Nelson Tenths that we’ve sorted out after being unsorted for a long time, and progress in education, progress in justice, health, and housing.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: We’ll just go for the three here.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations should be legally enforceable against the Crown?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We expect the Crown to uphold its obligations under law, as I’ve said before.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he accept that the current system, where the Crown is not accountable to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, has led to the entrenchment of poverty and poor health outcomes for our people?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I disagree completely. I think, as I said, I’d go through some of the achievements we have delivered for Māori across New Zealand. Go look at the improvement in regular attendance. Go look at the investment in Māori education. Go look at the reduction in youth offending and the reduction in Māori victims of violent crime. That stuff matters. It really does matter to people who are going through pain and suffering as a result of that. Look at the health outcomes in terms of young Māori being immunised. Look at the housing programmes we are delivering. Look at the economy that is being enhanced by virtue of things like fast track, which is creating the Hananui aquaculture project that Ngāi Tahu desperately wants to be able to get up and running so that they can create jobs and opportunity for their people. That’s all very positive stuff, because we focus on outcomes, not histrionics.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the reasons the rangatira signed Te Tiriti was to ensure law and order for themselves and their hapū and whānau, and if so, has the Government delivered—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, wait up, Mr Seymour. No one speaks while a question is being asked.

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s a terrible question.

SPEAKER: It might be a terrible question, Mr Jackson, but remove yourself from the House if you don’t want to listen to it. Quietly, we’ll now hear the Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Is Willie Jackson going to leave first?

SPEAKER: No, no. Don’t ruin a situation that we’ve just managed to settle down.

Hon David Seymour: Does he agree that one of the reasons the rangatira signed Te Tiriti was because they wanted to secure law and order for themselves, their hapū, and whānau, and if so, has the Government’s reducing violent crime by 25 percent been a very good example of it upholding its obligations under the Treaty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I fully agree. I think every New Zealander wants to feel safe in their home, in their business, in their community. I’m proud of the 46,000—

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be interesting for that person who just asked that question to provide the evidence as to what backs that question—[Interruption]—because it’s misinformation and it’s telling fibs. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, everyone else just needs to be quiet. You can certainly ask that question of the Prime Minister, but not the member asking the question, and unfortunately it falls into the category of a debatable point. Now, we’ll hear David Seymour’s question.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. It’s getting wildly out of control here. Do not speak while someone is taking a point of order.

Hon Willie Jackson: Sir, the problem with the question is that he’s telling a lie. He’s misrepresenting. It’s not in the Treaty, sir. It’s not in the Treaty.

SPEAKER: You can’t make that comment at all, so you will withdraw and apologise or leave the House—one of the two. It’s your choice.

Hon Willie Jackson: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Tell the truth.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. I’d be happy to provide some of the historical context that Rawiri Waititi requested.

SPEAKER: That’s fine. OK, that’s good. Do that all off-air.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute—just hold on. Are you taking a point of order?

Hon Nicola Willis: Yes. I think it was questioning your ruling for Ginny Andersen to yell out “Tell the truth” immediately after you ruled that Willie Jackson withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Yes, well, I didn’t take it that way at all.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. It is incumbent on this House—

SPEAKER: Hang on. What is this? A point of order?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: A point of order.

SPEAKER: OK. Well, don’t start by telling me what you think I should be doing. Ask a question or put a point of order according to the Standing Orders.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I think it is important—to the Speaker—that you ensure that Ministers are telling facts, especially facts that are known to every academic researcher, in every settlement in the tribunal, and we know why Te Tiriti was gifted to Aotearoa—

SPEAKER: Yes, good. [Interruption] Thank you. [Interruption] Sit down. It is not a point of order. It is, once again, a debating point, and if we’re going to continue down this line, people will be able to continue it outside the House.

Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Excuse me, why is your co-leader standing, and has he called?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes, twice.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. After all that disruption, I still haven’t been able to get an answer to my question from the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: We’re coming back to a point where the question can be answered—hopefully, briefly.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m very proud of the progress on restoring law and order for both Māori and non-Māori, because 46,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime is a good thing; a 22 percent reduction in serious youth offending is a good thing; an 85 percent reduction in ram raids is a good thing; and a100 percent increase in police out on the beat is a good thing. New Zealanders feel safer under this coalition Government, period.

Rawiri Waititi: Has the Prime Minister read the Matike Mai Aotearoa report, and what specific recommendations, if any, is his Government prepared to progress?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Rawiri Waititi: With absolute pleasure. Has the Prime Minister read the Matike Mai Aotearoa report, and what specific recommendations, if any, is his Government prepared to progress?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t believe I have read that report.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister proud of the Government significantly reducing the number of Māori students who leave school without a qualification after that very number rose, shamefully, under the previous Government, and, if so, has he seen any recent television interviews where someone, who perhaps should have known that, didn’t?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m proud of the record. I mean, we’ve seen that. We’ve seen higher proportions of Māori leaving with qualifications under this Government and under the previous centre-right Government as well, and that’s a good thing. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Waititi, we’ll just wait while people finish their—[Interruption] Really, if I was to take any action, it would be to send the whole lot of the House out of the place, but that really wouldn’t be much help to anyone. Rawiri Waititi—and no one else.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he accept that the Crown has an obligation to consider constitutional arrangements that give practical effect to both kāwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The way we do that is we deliver better outcomes for Māori. As I’ve said, we have lower Māori youth offending, fewer Māori victims of violent crime, and more tamariki Māori immunised at 24 months. We have a number of social housing projects and providers activating social housing. We get things done. We don’t just talk about it and do performative histrionics, on this side of the House.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he consider that the present constitutional arrangements adequately protect tino rangatiratanga?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: How?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because this is a Government that actually gets things done for Māori rather than just doing performative rubbish like we see from that side.

Local Government

Question No. 12

Asked by: RIMA NAKHLE, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister of Local Government: What difference will the Government’s rates cap make for New Zealand ratepayers?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. There is just generally too much conversation going on, particularly on the side of the House to my right.

For too long, ratepayers have been hit with steep and unexpected rate increases, including median increases of 14 percent and 9 percent over the past two years. Our rates cap will put a brake on these excessive increases by requiring councils to keep annual rates increases within a target range of 2 to 4 percent. That means more affordable and predictable rates for households and businesses, greater discipline over council spending, and a stronger focus on delivering the basics ratepayers expect.

Rima Nakhle: What will the rates cap mean for household rates bills over time?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Higher costs everywhere else.

SPEAKER: We’ll just have the Minister answering.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Rates are a significant household cost and repeated large increases compound quickly over time. By putting a clear limit on annual increases, the rates cap will help prevent household rates bills from continuing to rise at the pace New Zealanders have experienced in recent years. This will mean a meaningful difference to family budgets over time and much greater certainty about what households can expect to pay.

Rima Nakhle: How will the rates cap change the way councils make spending decisions?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the days of double-digit rate increases are coming to an end. Councils will need to make tougher choices, they will need to prioritise their spending, and focus first on the services communities expect them to get right: roads, rubbish, parks, pools, and essential infrastructure. Ratepayers are expected to live within their means, and it is only reasonable to expect councils to do the same.

Rima Nakhle: What does he expect councils to do now to prepare for the rates cap?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Councils should be acting now to get their costs under control and prepare for the new regime. Under the new law, from mid-2027, councils will be required to have regard to the target range when preparing their long-term plans. I expect councils to have a clear pathway to operating within it before the cap becomes mandatory. Councils know rates capping is coming; they should not wait to start making the responsible decisions ratepayers expect.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.