1. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: How will recently announced changes to the Arms Act 1983 benefit licenced firearms owners?
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): The Arms Act 1983 is an outdated and confusing piece of patchwork legislation. The policy changes which I announced on Tuesday will rectify this. They will replace unnecessary regulation and ambiguous clauses with clarity and common sense. For the first time in 40 years, licensed firearm owners can have hope of a truly workable arms regime. Licensed firearm owners go above and beyond to comply with the law, and I can’t wait to present a bill to the House this year which will make it easier for them to do so.
Cameron Luxton: How will separating the police from the Firearms Safety Authority benefit licensed firearm owners?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Removing police from the Firearms Safety Authority is critical for restoring trust and confidence between licensed firearm owners and the regulator. My reforms will remove blue shirts from the Firearms Safety Authority, remove the Commissioner of Police and police staff from all operational decision-making processes, and establish an independent licensing review committee to stop police from marking their own homework.
Cameron Luxton: How will these changes allow licensed firearm owners to understand their obligations?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Since 2019, licensed firearm owners have had to jump through unnecessary hoops just to comply with the law. No law should be so complicated that it stops people from doing the right thing. That’s why the new Act will be written in plain English and structured logically so licensed firearm owners can clearly understand what is required of them. The regulator will also be able to issue guidance documents ensuring people know exactly what steps they need to take to comply with the law.
Cameron Luxton: How will these changes help businesses which use or supply firearms?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: The new Arms Act will provide significant benefits for businesses. Firearm dealers with a good track record will be able to renew their licence every five years instead of annually. Importers will benefit from 12-month import permits. Pest controller licence durations are doubling to five years. Time-consuming licence endorsements will no longer be required for business employees. These are just some of the many benefits for businesses.
Cameron Luxton: What other changes will benefit licensed firearm owners?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: There are many more changes that will benefit licensed firearm owners. Secure storage will be able to be kept at any premise approved by the regulator, helping students and renters. Visiting hunters and competitors will benefit from a new 12-month multi-entry visitor licence. Licence extensions will help deliver more consistent processing times, and clear limits will be set on what information can be stored in the firearms registry. I’ll finish by encouraging anyone interested to visit the firearms page on the Ministry of Justice website to get further info.
2. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said, when asked whether he would implement all royal commission recommendations, “Yes, this is a Government that’s working its way through the 207 recommendations. We’ve already accepted or partially accepted 85 of those”?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): As the Prime Minister stated, we are working our way through the 207 recommendations, in the royal commission’s redress report and the final report, that are relevant to the Crown. The full breakdown, as set out in the Crown response plan, published earlier this year, is: accepted the intent, or partially accepted, 85 recommendations; I need to consider a further 99 recommendations; and declined 23 recommendations.
Kahurangi Carter: What are the specific Government policies that go against the royal commission of inquiry recommendations?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I’m not responsible for all Government decisions. I’m only responsible for those ones that are in my area. So it’s a very difficult question for me to answer.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I’d just like to seek some clarification. If the Minister is the lead coordination Minister for the Government’s response to the royal commission’s report, would she not have delegations for, at least, knowing which of the Government’s actions go against the response towards this, in the recommendations themselves?
SPEAKER: How questions are answered and by whom is the Government’s choice. The answer should be given if it can be given, consistent with the public interest. If the answer can’t be given, then the Minister doesn’t give an answer.
Kahurangi Carter: Is survivor Ihorangi Reweti-Peters correct when he said, “If this Government truly cared about survivors, they would have listened to survivors and the royal commission recommendations, and implemented a new, independent, single redress system.”?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve said on many occasions that the thing that was most important to this Government and to survivors was to give certainty and surety around the Government’s response to redress. We knew that implementing an independent redress entity would take years and multiple millions and millions and millions of dollars. We wanted to prioritise certainty and surety to survivors now, which is exactly what we’ve done. And we have said that all the current steps we are taking, you would have to have taken in order to get to an independent agency anyway, which is something that can be reconsidered when we do the review in 2027.
Kahurangi Carter: Should survivors expect to see a further announcement about redress, since the Prime Minister, yesterday, said yes to implementing all Government-centred recommendations of the royal commission, and, if not, should survivors understand that the responsible Minister and Prime Minister — apologies, could I please start that again, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: I think it’d be advisable.
Kahurangi Carter: Thank you. How can survivors trust the Minister to oversee meaningful response to the royal commission when she is not introducing a new redress system despite the Prime Minister stating in his apology to survivors last year, “But I want to assure you it is our intention to have a new single redress system operating next year.”?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, in answer to all of those parts of the question, if the member goes to the Crown response website, she will see three documents that have been published on that website. One of them is around our Government response. But what I would say to those survivors is that the most important thing for me right now is that they get the exact details of what is available. And what is really unhelpful for those survivors is when they hear things that are not true, because it upsets them and it makes them think they’re not eligible for redress. For example, when they hear things like, “But the fatal flaw in the redress system is that if you have committed a crime or have been convicted of a crime, you’re not eligible. How crazy is that?” Now, that was deliberately misinforming —
SPEAKER: Yeah — short answer.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: — survivors, causing a huge amount of pain. It is not true, and it was said online by Tamatha Paul.
Kahurangi Carter: Is survivor Karl Tauri from the New Zealand Collective of Abused in State Care Charitable Trust justified in saying “Why would you want to go back to the place … you were perpetrated [for redress]? It should never happen.”; and if not, why not?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve already answered this question today and on multiple occasions when we said this Government have ensured that we are looking for consistency and certainty and surety now, rather than a process of an independent system that would take years and millions of dollars. It’s not to say it’s out of the question, but at the moment we are on a track that would probably take us there anyway; we would have to take these steps. The most important thing for survivors right now is to know what the current redress system delivers them and what it delivers them quickly.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister accept the findings of a Horizon Research poll commissioned by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission showing clearly that nearly three-quarters of New Zealanders want the Government to fully implement the abuse in care inquiry recommendations; and if not, why not?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I said I have not seen that poll. So I can’t comment on it.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Given that only 22 percent of New Zealanders believe the Government is doing enough, what immediate actions will the Minister take to rebuild trust and honour the inquiry’s recommendations?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Over the last 18 months, we have taken more actions to redress and support survivors of abuse in care than any other Government: $750 million in this year’s Budget by this Government to make sure that we are topping up payments. We are raising the payments from just over $19,000 to an average of $30,000. We’ve paid out over $1,100 top-ups to people who have come forward. We are on track to deliver redress to more people than we have said we would in this financial year. We have provided certainty and surety at a rate that no other Government has.
3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader — Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly our decision and policy to pass a regulatory standards bill. For the first time, people will be able to truly and visibly see the costs of laws and regulations placed upon them and will be able to place pressure back on politicians not to make overzealous regulations, such as the earthquake laws that cost billions of dollars, only to be repealed by a more sensible Government later.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his Minister of Internal Affairs’ direction to Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), in December 2024, to cut millions of dollars from their budget at a time when firefighters say they don’t have the staff or equipment they need?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I do. I note that the costs of the fire service comes from levies added to people’s insurance bills, and our Minister of Internal Affairs is doing a very good job of working on years of neglect, and poor asset management and procurement in order that firefighters can be properly equipped and that people who pay insurance premiums on their home can have some relief from relentless rises in cost of living pressures.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his Minister of Internal Affairs’ decision to restrict Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s funding, leading FENZ to state that their funding is “less reliable” and that they must now plan “for the possibility that our funding will continue to go down”?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: You see, every Government restricts the funding. We actually — like previous Governments — have to decide how much of a levy can be put on people’s insurance premiums to pay the fire service. So she has not made a decision to restrict it. A restriction has always been there, and if the people on that side of the House had been a bit more restricted in their spending, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess now.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he guarantee that Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s proposal to cut up to $70 million of spending a year — 10 percent of their annual budget — will have no impact on the safety of New Zealanders; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I most certainly do, and here’s how — and it might enlighten members on the other side. Throwing money at a problem is not the same as solving it. It is possible to solve problems by working smarter, putting in place more competent people, and making better use of resources. This is what households and businesses have had to do, year after year, while a previous Government threw money at every problem, but didn’t actually manage to solve them. So, yes, we absolutely can, and, as a great New Zealander once said, “If you don’t have a lot of money, you have to think.” — the member should try it.
SPEAKER: The acting Prime Minister will withdraw and apologise for the last comment.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why, in the same week that a massive fire broke out in Tongariro National Park, has Fire and Emergency New Zealand been forced to cut specialist wildfire roles?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: They have not been forced to cut specialist wildfire roles; they have been asked to manage within a budget. They are an autonomous Crown entity, and if you think for a moment that they have made that choice because there was a wildfire — which is the implication of the member’s question — well, that’s just crazy.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What impact will the loss of 140 jobs, including key fire prevention staff, have on firefighters’ ability to respond to emergencies quickly and safely?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it won’t have an impact if the resources available to the fire service are well managed, which is precisely the Government’s objective.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he guarantee that there will be no pause on the hiring of more professional firefighters?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I said in my answer to an earlier question, decisions such as whether to hire in a Crown entity are not actually made by the Minister. So you would be asking me, as the Prime Minister, or on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs — or whoever you think it is — to actually break the law by interfering in a Crown entity. This Government does not break the law — that’s what other people do.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will he back our firefighters by giving them the additional staff and equipment they need to do their jobs safely, rather than making massive cuts to Fire and Emergency New Zealand that, effectively, put us all at risk?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, we back the firefighters every day. We listen, we treat them with respect, we visit the stations, and we do things like having an asset management plan. In 2017, when the Fire Service was merged, there was no asset management plan, and so it was very difficult to know if the assets were reliable to keep firefighters safe. Now, for the further six years, I don’t know what was happening, but for some reason their asset management plan was not put in place. Then, in 2023, I don’t know what happened, but there seemed to be some sort of change, and since we’ve had Minister van Velden in charge of Internal Affairs, an asset management plan has been put in place. I don’t know if there’s a coincidence or a string of them here, but I do know that that member is not the right person to be asking these questions; in fact —
4. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) to the Minister of Education: E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?
[Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?]
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: E mōhio ana ia ki ētahi atu whenua e whakaako ana i tētahi o ngā reo whaimana, āpā anō ka tonoa e ngā mātua. Mēnā, āe, kei whea?
[Does she know of any other countries which teach an official language, only if being requested by parents; if yes, where?]
SPEAKER: Could I ask the interpreter to start that interpretation again so that we’re certain we know what was said. [Interpreter repeats interpretation]
Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to that question, the member is referring to one of the points we’re making in section 127 where we’re asking school boards to ensure that teaching and learning is available in te reo Māori for parents who ask for it. That is a clause that has been in the Education Act since, I think, about 1989 — for a very, very long time. It’s important to make sure that there is demand for the thing that you are providing, otherwise, schools would, essentially, be opening rūmaki classes for nobody. It is an important part of the Act, to make sure that there is a demand for the thing that you are providing, and there is plenty of demand.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does she stand by her statement “The Treaty is the Crown’s responsibility, not schools”; if so, how is removing Te Tiriti obligations without consultation with hapū, iwi, and Māori education experts acting responsibly as a Treaty partner?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I do stand by the statements that I made that the core obligation of the Crown is to uphold the Treaty and not to be delegated to a school board. That is the case for many Crown entities. Core Crown is defined by Ministers and departments. Crown entities don’t necessarily have Treaty duties, and the boards of trustees are the furthest away you can get, almost, completely, from the Crown in terms of their independence.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Who does she think is more committed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi: her coalition Government or the coalition made up of 88 iwi, over 95,000 teachers, principals, schools, and kura opposing her repeal of section 127 subsection(2)(e) of the Education and Training Act?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the person who is committed to the Treaty is the Minister of Education. And the reason that I can say that is the core tenet of upholding the Treaty is ensuring that Māori children achieve at school. And they haven’t been for so long. Here we are, having a debate about the Treaty of Waitangi and a school board’s responsibility, when we should be talking about Māori achievement, because that’s what this Government has been doing. We are raising Māori achievement, unlike the last lot.
Tākuta Ferris: What action is the Minister taking in response to the more than 180 New Zealand schools who have signed an open letter to continue to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi in education delivery and, also, in response to the iwi chairs’ petition to protect Te Tiriti in education?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: In response to the second part of the question, I am actively seeking a meeting with iwi chairs to discuss the responsibility that the Crown has for the Treaty, our obligations, and how we’re delivering on those.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that those 180 schools remain free to teach as much te reo Māori, tikanga Māori, and as much about te ao Māori as they like; nothing has been taken away from them, but they are obliged to respect the choices of others to run their schools their way?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I can confirm that is the case. There will be those schools who wish to do that, and I look forward to seeing the results. But it is the rights of other schools to have different opinions. I have recently been written to by a principal who says, “Thank you for your courage in streamlining responsibility for Treaty obligations at a national level and for refocusing schools and the Teaching Council on core outcomes for learners. Your clarity and commitment to equitable achievements gives strong direction in a challenging time. Be strong and don’t bow down.”
Tākuta Ferris: Supplementary question.
SPEAKER: I think the independents may have used their whole allocation today?
Tākuta Ferris: No, we’ve got one more.
SPEAKER: No, I don’t think so. I think your bench mate took two, and there was only one allocated your way.
Hon Tama Potaka: Do you think a Government is committed to the Treaty, to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, when they let attendance at schools slide to below 35 percent?
SPEAKER: Hold on. Wait on. That’s a question of the nature that we’re not having more of in the House.
CAMERON BREWER (National — Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks —
SPEAKER: Just hold on. Just wait for the House to give you the respect of their silence while they listen.
5. CAMERON BREWER (National — Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on Government support for families?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In July, I announced an expansion of FamilyBoost to further assist families with the costs of early childhood education. Households can now claim larger rebates on the fees they pay, and more households are eligible. FamilyBoost is paid quarterly, so after 30 September, households were able to go to IRD’s website and claim these larger amounts. I’ve seen a recent report showing that the average payment relating to the September quarter currently equates to just under $100 a fortnight, significantly higher than the average payment of $57 a fortnight for the quarter before. An average payment of $100 a fortnight is welcome support for New Zealanders with young families.
Cameron Brewer: How many more households are now receiving FamilyBoost?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As a result of the changes I announced in July, thousands of families who couldn’t previously claim FamilyBoost became eligible. That’s borne out in the figures. The latest report shows that the number of households receiving FamilyBoost has so far risen to more than 78,000. That is 10,000 more than at the end of the last quarter. We know many families are doing it tough. These changes will help more of them deal with the cost of early childhood education, particularly families where both parents are working.
Cameron Brewer: What difference have these FamilyBoost changes made to households?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, that does depend on a household’s particular circumstance: the income it brings in, how much they pay in early childhood education fees. But what I can tell the member is that the number of families receiving FamilyBoost payments of $150 a fortnight or more has increased markedly. In the September quarter, 11,584 households have so far got a payment equating to $150 a fortnight or more
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many got $250? How many?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I encourage all households who think —
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: If any?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: — they could be eligible to go on Inland Revenue’s website and register for FamilyBoost. Mr Speaker, in reply to the interjection —
SPEAKER: No, no, you’re not replying that.
Cameron Brewer: What feedback has she received on FamilyBoost?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I get regular positive feedback on FamilyBoost, through emails and in person. A typical email is the following, which I received last month. It says, “I just wanted to say a huge thankyou for the FamilyBoost payments. We’ve found the whole process incredibly easy and impressively fast. It’s been such a positive experience.”
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: “As an ordinary, young, working family with a mortgage, this support truly makes a difference. It’s a real help in today’s climate and we are so grateful for it. Thank you again for making things a little easier for families like ours.” And members of the Opposition cackle at the impact this is having on a real family.
6. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour — Dunedin) to the Acting Minister for Food Safety: Is he committed to his responsibility under the food safety portfolio to “provide safe and suitable food in New Zealand and for export”?
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Acting Minister for Food Safety): On behalf of the Minister, yes, laser-focused.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Why is he proposing moving meat inspection services from AsureQuality, the Government’s recognised meat inspection agency, to a model self-regulated by industry?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: On behalf of the Minister, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) are consulting on a change to the meat inspection regime — consulting, essentially, on an option that has existed optionally since 2013. Seventeen percent of New Zealand’s meat exports go through this very regime that’s being consulted on, and I would note that it was a regime that was in place when the member herself was the Minister for Food Safety and was clearly comfortable with it then.
Hon Rachel Brooking: How many of the 650 official assessors employed at AsureQuality will keep their jobs?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: It’s a hypothetical question — this is a consultation — but I would say that this is a highly critical part of the red meat sector. There’s a sector here that absolutely relies on the quality of their food safety assurance, so they’re not going to be cutting corners. I would put out that there will still be Government oversight at the very start, at the antemortem, at the start, and at the end. It’s a hypothetical question; we’re still consulting, and no decisions have been made.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Is he confident that our trade reputation won’t be put at risk by meat processors doing their own inspections?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: On behalf of the Minister, absolutely. MPI are consulting extensively with our overseas trading partners. There is no way we would put in place any regime that would put our gold-standard reputation at risk — so, no.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Why has he not requested any risk assessments on a move to self-inspection given that New Zealand trades on providing good quality, safe food to the world, and one bad shipment would undermine our meat exports?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: On behalf of the Minister, I would argue that the risk assessment has been done since 2013, since this option has been available. Literally billions of dollars of meat has been exported under that regime with no noticeable difference between the current Government-only mandated plants and the ones that are running a more flexible system.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Isn’t this consultation just another case of libertarian ideology trumping jobs, safety, and New Zealand’s hard-won reputation for food safety?
SPEAKER: OK, the deal is that questions are heard in silence, so we’ll have the question again — but it might be good to start with a question word rather than a statement.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Does this consultation provide another case of libertarian ideology trumping jobs, safety, and New Zealand’s hard-won reputation for food safety?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: On behalf of the Minister, no, absolutely not. I would point out, as the Minister, that this is an MPI decision. MPI run this process; it is their decision. This process has been working exceptionally well for 17 percent of our meat exports since 2013, when the member herself was the Minister overseeing this particular regime. She could turn the mirror on herself.
7. MILES ANDERSON (National — Waitaki) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made to make it easier and more affordable for New Zealanders to access the medicines they need?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): From 1 February 2026, New Zealanders with long-term stable conditions will be able to receive prescriptions lasting up to 12 months. This common-sense change means fewer GP visits, lower costs, and greater convenience for patients. It could save patients up to $105 a year and free up thousands of GP appointments. It’s a practical reform that delivers on our commitment to make healthcare simpler, faster, and more affordable.
Miles Anderson: How will this benefit New Zealanders managing long-term conditions?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: People with conditions like asthma, diabetes, or high blood pressure will no longer have to make unnecessary trips to the doctor just to renew a routine prescription. They’ll still collect their medicines from the pharmacy as usual, but with far less hassle and cost. It’s a straightforward, patient-focused change that reduces travel, time off work, and out-of-pocket costs.
Miles Anderson: How will this support GPs and the wider health workforce?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Freeing up repeat prescription appointments will save GPs and nurses thousands of hours each year. That is time they can spend with patients who need more complex care, and we’re freeing up that time for what matters the most. It is a smart, efficient way to get better results for patients and make the most of our health workforce.
Miles Anderson: What other steps is the Government taking to improve access to medicines?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Many other steps, including through the Medicines Amendment Bill, and I acknowledge my colleague the Hon David Seymour for shepherding it through the House this week. One of the changes we have made removes outdated ownership restrictions that stopped pharmacist prescribers from owning or investing in pharmacies. This cuts red tape and allows pharmacists to play a greater role in providing care in their communities. That means easier access to prescription medicines and more flexible local models. It is another example of this Government backing innovation and delivering practical improvements for patients.
Question No. 8 — Social Development and Employment
8. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is there a suitable job available for every unemployed person in this country; if not, should unemployed people live in poverty?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There are job opportunities across New Zealand for people who are ready and able to work. The 160,000 people currently unemployed represents a wide range of circumstances. For example, they might be in between jobs, have recently received a redundancy payment, they might be being supported by their partner or family. This doesn’t mean they are in poverty. Our Government is focusing on work to grow the economy and create more jobs, because we know this is important.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it correct that single jobseeker beneficiaries on average have a weekly income deficit of $107; and if not, what does she say to the Zero Hunger Collective’s findings?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, there are a range of circumstances where people are unemployed. Not all of them are on the jobseeker benefit. What we want to see is those who are on the jobseeker benefit being supported to prepare for and get ready or take up job opportunities.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I asked a relatively straightforward question in relation to an organisation’s findings, and I don’t believe the Minister actually addressed the organisation’s findings or the figure that I put to her.
SPEAKER: Well, I think in her opening statement she said there are many different circumstances that people will find themselves in on the jobseeker benefit. I think that probably covers it as an address to the question.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Was the Ministry of Social Development correct when it advised her that restricting access to benefits for 18- and 19-year-olds would result in more people needing income support and greater demand for foodbanks?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, and the Ministry of Social Development was also right, as the Prime Minister was, saying that we don’t want to see young people trapped on welfare. We don’t want them to see future decades of their lives stuck on welfare. We have higher expectations of them.
Ricardo Menéndez March: So if her answer to the previous question was yes, why did she go ahead with a policy that would result in more people needing income support and greater demand for foodbanks?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because, as I’ve said multiple times in this House, we believe 18- and 19-year-olds should be starting on the path that gives them the greatest opportunities for the rest of their lives. That means being in education, being in training, or being in a job.
9. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: Which is correct, her oral answer in the House on 12 November 2025, in which she said, “a communications strategy is not the same as a paid advertising campaign, which I was not aware of”, or her answer to Written question No. 50726 that “The Public Service Commission later informed my office and asked us to inform the PMO prior of the specific advertising going live”?
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) on behalf of the Minister for the Public Service: Both statements are correct. The Minister was aware the commission would be using social media to provide facts about the strikes. She was not aware that they were paid advertising.
Camilla Belich: When she told the House that “a communications strategy is not the same as a paid advertising campaign”, was she saying she was not aware of the specific Facebook posts posted by the Public Service Commission in late October 2025 as part of its communication strategy on the planned industrial action?
Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, no, she was saying that she was not aware that they were paid advertising.
Camilla Belich: How does she reconcile the Prime Minister’s public statement on 3 November 2025 that he had not been informed in advance of the campaign with her own written answer, which states that “The Public Service Commission’s communications strategy regarding the industrial action held on 23 October 2025 was discussed with the Prime Minister and myself and our offices prior to the Commission’s advertisements being published.”?
Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, my understanding is that those answers were in response to questions about paid advertising campaigns which the Prime Minister was not aware of.
Camilla Belich: Does she accept that irrespective of whether she was aware the advertisements would be paid, she did not object, and signed off the Public Service Commission’s communications strategy prior to the 23 October industrial action?
Hon JAMES MEAGER: Can the member repeat that one again, sorry.
Camilla Belich: Does she accept that irrespective of whether she was aware the advertisements would be paid, she did not object, and signed off the Public Service Commission’s communications strategy prior to the 23 October industrial action?
Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I assume she didn’t object, but I’m of the understanding she’s not required to approve of those kinds of campaigns.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s attempt to address the question, but we have a situation here where he has stated he is answering on behalf of and then making assumptions on his behalf, and they don’t quite marry up. If the Minister answering on behalf of the Minister doesn’t know, it would be better for the House’s understanding if he just said that, rather than making assumptions on his behalf whilst answering on behalf of the Minister.
SPEAKER: Yeah, it’s not unusual in these circumstances for a Minister to say, “I don’t have that information.” But we’ll just try the question again, and we’ll try the answer again.
Camilla Belich: Does she accept that irrespective of whether she was aware that the advertisements would be paid, she did not object, and signed off the Public Service Commission’s communications strategy prior to the 23 October industrial action?
Hon JAMES MEAGER: Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I think that question was differently worded to the one prior to it, but —
SPEAKER: I don’t think so. Certainly — look, I got it.
Hon JAMES MEAGER: OK. Well, I don’t have that information to hand, I’m sorry.
Camilla Belich: What were the Department of Internal Affairs’ objections to the Public Service Commission’s advertising?
Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I’m personally not aware of what the specific objections were. What I am aware of is that a staff member from the Department of Internal Affairs raised a query as to whether or not the social media advertising was in line with social media guidelines, which they subsequently found that they were.
Camilla Belich: Has she or her office since verified whether the Prime Minister and/or his office were, in fact, informed prior to the advertising campaign going live, and, if not, why not?
Hon JAMES MEAGER: On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I don’t have that information. But if the member would like to put it in writing, I’m sure that the Minister will answer it.
10. TOM RUTHERFORD (National — Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: What steps is the Government taking to support science and innovation to grow the economy and improve the health of New Zealanders?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology): The Government is committed to supporting research that delivers impact where it matters most. That is why we have, for example, recently announced $75 million to boost New Zealand’s resilience to infectious diseases and pandemic preparedness through the Infectious Diseases Research Platform. We’re currently seeing an outbreak of measles in New Zealand, which has reinforced the need for robust infectious disease research and response systems.
Tom Rutherford: How is the Government empowering our world-class scientists, universities, and research organisations to turn ideas into market-ready solutions?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Today, I announced new rules for managing intellectual property that will ensure our brightest minds are incentivised and supported to turn ideas into impact. Currently, each university and research organisation manages intellectual property differently, and institutions often claim ownership of discoveries made by their researchers. This can limit inventors’ ability to commercialise their work and drive growth. Under our new policy, university researchers will have the first right to commercialise their inventions, either independently or alongside the universities for support. This approach will foster and drive more innovation so Kiwi-made discoveries reach New Zealanders and the world faster, improving lives, creating jobs, and driving economic growth.
Tom Rutherford: What recent announcements has the Government made to explore new areas of scientific discovery?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Government has refocused the Marsden Fund so that it fosters breakthrough discoveries with the potential to deliver lasting benefits for our economy, health, and environment. With this in mind, last week, more than $80 million was announced for 107 different Marsden Fund research projects. These projects include improved cancer treatments and cleaner energy solutions for industry, which will support established research leaders as well as the next generation of emerging scientists.
Tom Rutherford: How does the science and innovation sector feature in the Government’s plan to deliver greater economic growth?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Innovation, technology, and science is important to the Government’s Going for Growth agenda. As well as the initiatives I have just discussed, we are also investing $42 million for a new biodiscovery platform, $70 million for artificial intelligence, $71 million for new materials and magnets, $40 million for Endeavour Smart Ideas, and $183 million for Endeavour research projects. These will all create new opportunities within our science sector and support high-value jobs for New Zealanders.
11. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour — Christchurch East) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: How many full-time research jobs have been lost or left unfilled in the last two years as a result of funding cuts or restructuring in the science system?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology): I am advised that there have been 114 science jobs associated with the disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation. I am further advised that there has been a net reduction of 224 science staff within the Crown research institute / public research organisations from July 2024 to September 2025. However, these are not the result of the current reforms of the science system, but, rather, operational decisions. It is important to note that our science organisations make changes to staffing levels for a variety of reasons as they adjust to changes in emerging priorities and fluctuations in market conditions, including success in contestable funding and commercial revenues.
Reuben Davidson: Has he asked how many of the 200 Kiwis a day leaving the country to find work overseas are scientists?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I value all of the scientists who are currently in the system and who currently may be making a choice to go offshore. I would encourage them to contribute or be a part of the funding I have just announced, but, furthermore, I am encouraged by the biannual StatsNZ R & D survey, which shows that the broader New Zealand science sector has actually grown from 28,200 roles in 2022 to 30,600 roles in 2024, adding around 2,400 full-time roles.
Reuben Davidson: Does he agree with the winner of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize, who last month said that, if the funding doesn’t change, “scientists will pack their bags and move to other countries.”, and, if not, why not?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I agree with the winner of that award and congratulate him on the good work that he was doing, and I can reassure him that during this period of the Government’s restructuring of the science sector reforms, the funding for the science portfolio has not changed.
Reuben Davidson: Will he, instead of cutting jobs, ring-fence or expand support for early-career researchers, to encourage our youngest and brightest to stay in New Zealand?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Early-career researchers are well looked after through a number of funding mechanisms, including Marsden, including the Health Research Council, and including the Endeavour Fund, and we’ll continue to ensure that pipeline of emerging researchers through to later careers.
Reuben Davidson: What is he more proud of: the $10 million invested in the Deep Heat geothermal project or the $11 million he has spent to make scientists redundant at Callaghan Innovation?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: If the member is proposing that they should receive no redundancy, he should discuss that with the Public Service Association, and I’m very proud of the $10 million for Deep Heat supercritical geothermal energy in the Taupō Volcanic Zone.
Reuben Davidson: Is the winner of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize right to accuse the current Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, of being “an idiot for running a Government who budgeted more for AI than for the Marsden Fund” and to characterise his Government’s science funding as “batshit” for budgeting 327 times more funding for a single road than for basic science?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I thank the Prime Minister for his support of the science portfolio and would suggest that some accurate numbers actually be done. Marsden was $70 million or more in one year; AI is $70 million over seven years.
12. RIMA NAKHLE (National — Takanini) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcement has he made regarding the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?
Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): One of the Government’s top priorities is to improve access to mental health support so all Kiwis can have the help when and where they need it. This morning, I announced that five grassroots community organisations have received second-round funding from the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund. By partnering with organisations such as Barnardos, Netsafe, Plunket, the Graeme Dingle Foundation, and Ki Tua o Matariki, we will deliver more support for young people and expand maternal mental health services. When someone takes a brave step of reaching out, whether it’s your child, a friend or a family member, this Government’s committed to ensuring the right support is there.
Rima Nakhle: How will the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund deliver more youth mental health services?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Good question. This Government is not just focused on ensuring the right support is in place for mental health issues but we focus strongly on preventing Kiwis from getting to that point. The innovation fund will increase services available for children. Barnardos will strengthen the 0800 What’s Up helpline, provide free immediate support to more children, and reduce waiting times. Netsafe will create a digital harm and mental health response network, strengthen its helpline, and train up to 1,000 workers to respond to youth distress linked to online harm. And we’ll also support the Graeme Dingle Foundation to expand their Project K programme, helping young people across the Waikato, Western Bay of Plenty, and Christchurch. No matter where you live, this Government is committed to ensuring that faster support is there.
SPEAKER: Hmm! Faster answers would be good too.
Rima Nakhle: What new maternal mental health services will be supported through the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: The Government’s focus is to strengthen prevention and early intervention. We know the first thousand days of a child’s life lay the foundations for good mental health. The innovation fund will support young mothers, through Ki Tua o Matariki, to run peer support groups for expectant mothers aged 15 to 25 in Auckland. The innovation fund will support Plunket to launch a new online maternal mental health service in the Waikato, providing personalised care plans for parents of children aged zero to five. The Government is committed to ensuring we have the right support in place for mothers and young families.
Rima Nakhle: What are the objectives of the mental health innovation fund, and which organisations have already received funding through this initiative?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our mental health plan is focused on delivering results, faster access to support, more front-line workers, and a better crisis response. The innovation fund delivers increased access to mental health support, scalable solutions, and increases the workforce. The matched funding for innovative projects improves mental health outcomes. Quite frankly, it gets the money out of the door in Wellington to hard-working NGOs and community providers. The first round of recipients included Mates in Construction, the Mental Health Foundation, Youthline, Wellington City Mission, Rotorua Community Youth Centre Trust, Sir John Kirwan Foundation, Women’s Refuge, and Just a Thought. Behind every one of these new services are thousands of Kiwis, now getting the timely support they need.
