Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement “We’re going through a very difficult recovery.”, and, if so, on what basis does he consider an economy that’s shrinking to be in recovery?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are going through a difficult recovery. As I’ve said, it’s two speed at the moment. In our provincial industries, in the South Island, and our rural communities, they are experiencing growth but certainly in our cities it’s been very difficult.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders believe him that we are in a recovery when earlier this year he said that New Zealand was in a recovery, right at the very time the New Zealand economy was shrinking by almost 1 percent?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, you know, we had a good level of growth in quarter 4 last year. We had very good growth happening in quarter 1 this year. We had international tariffs and uncertainty around tariffs that hit us on the second day of April. That impacted on our quarter 2 result. We’re growing, now, and expected to grow stronger from this point onwards.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How much smaller is the New Zealand economy today than it was when he became Prime Minister?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the former Prime Minister needs to understand this: he created the problem. You cannot increase spending by 84 percent, drive up inflation, drive up interest rates, put the economy into recession, and raise unemployment. That is the consequence of your failed economic management. I’d just say for the 66 billion dollar man, who increased debt threefold, that we now write out a $10 billion interest bill each and every year, thanks to your mismanagement. We’re sorting it out.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think what the Prime Minister might be struggling to understand is what the question was, which is a very straightforward question: how much smaller is the New Zealand economy today than it was when he became the Prime Minister?
SPEAKER: He certainly addressed that question; you can’t say he did it any other way. The other thing is: I’d just make the point that while there is always more leniency for interjection when there is the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, that was just getting a little bit excessive on that occasion.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that horticulture is “crying out for young people”; if so, is orchardist Paul Paynter wrong when he says, “We’re not crying out for staff at the moment [and] … we don’t have a lot of seasonal jobs.”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, unlike the member, I get out of Wellington most weeks and I actually get out and see the real economy and I see real businesses. The number of people that I talk to that say, “Look, there are real opportunities for people out there.” Yeah, it’s difficult, unemployment has ticked up a bit, but it’s the same as what it has been over a 30-year average, it’s significantly below what it has been over the last 15 years, and — unlike that member — we’re just not happy to actually be the party of people who don’t work. We are the party of workers, and we want people to come off welfare and get connected to work; it’s that simple.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he’s been out and about, why hasn’t he been talking to the businesses who say that hiring staff is not their primary constraint for growth — given that only 4 percent are saying that — whilst 63 percent of businesses, according to the NZ Institute of Economic Research, are saying their real problem is not enough customers?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because the economy has been in a recession caused by your reckless spending, caused by your Government running up inflation, and your Government running up interest rates. You put the country into the biggest recession in 35 years, you created the longest COVID hangover of any in the Western world, you actually made sure that you tripled the debt, for goodness’ sake, and we now have a $10 billion interest bill. We’re cleaning up the Labour Government’s mess; it’s that simple.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the dire state of the economy is all someone else’s fault, why is it that the New Zealand economy shrunk by nearly 1 percent [Interruption] —
SPEAKER: Sorry. Please, start again.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the dire current state of the New Zealand economy is all someone else’s fault, why is it that the New Zealand economy shrunk by almost 1 percent at a time when other economies around the world that have been hit harder by Donald Trump’s tariffs — many of whom had a higher rate of inflation at the peak of the global pandemic — have been growing faster than New Zealand?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In quarter 4 last year, this economy was growing. In quarter 1 this year economic growth was increasing. In quarter 2, our economy — as a small economy, a trading economy — got smashed around by uncertainty associated with tariffs. It’s now growing again in quarter 3; the growth in quarter 4 will step up. The recovery is coming. As I’ve said, it’s been two speed at the moment; we’ve got to make sure that we get growth coming through our cities, and that will come.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I ask the Prime Minister: does he remember, with respect to the policies that he inherited, that the then former Prime Minister had had a huge sort of Guy Fawkes burn-up one night, and got rid of all those policies — how much more quickly could we have recovered if he had done that much earlier in his career?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member that I think there must be a lot of —
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could clarify for the House what the current Prime Minister’s responsibility for that matter is.
SPEAKER: Well, I took it as the fundamental part of the question being how much more progress might this current Government have made if they weren’t dealing with policies from a previous Government. That is a legitimate question. The bits —
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I agree with the member that there must be tremendous regret from the Labour Government that had an absolute majority in the last three years and did very little with it, delivered nothing, increasing debt, spending, and borrowing.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee has just released its latest decision on the official cash rate (OCR). The committee has decided to reduce the OCR by 50 basis points. This is the 8th OCR reduction since August last year. At that time, the OCR was 5.5 percent. It is now at 2.5 percent.
Nancy Lu: What role does the OCR play in the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OCR plays a very important role in the economy. It is the key tool the Reserve Bank uses to influence economic activity in both good times and tough times to meet its target for low, stable inflation. The level of the OCR and expectations about its future track affect the interest rates paid by households and businesses. Those interest rates, in turn, affect economic activity — households have disposable income to spend and businesses can borrow to invest. Today’s announcement represents stimulus that will help push along the economic recovery.
Nancy Lu: By how much have mortgage rates fallen?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Since the Reserve Bank started loosening in August last year, floating mortgage rates have fallen in line with the OCR. Everyone’s circumstances are different, of course, but let me give one example. Assuming today’s reduction is passed on in full, a family with a 25-year $500,000 mortgage would have minimum repayments of $400 less a fortnight than they were in the middle of last year. Fixed rates have also fallen, and it’s important to remember that many fixed-term mortgage holders are yet to roll off higher rates and refix lower, so past OCR reductions as well as today’s reduction will continue to flow through to households over the remainder of this year and beyond.
Nancy Lu: How is the Government supporting the Reserve Bank?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as the Treasury’s recent report made clear, macroeconomic stabilisation stimulating and de-stimulating the economy should almost always be left to monetary policy run by the independent Reserve Bank. However, through its spending decisions, the Government of the day can help that task or it can hinder it. I could give numerous examples of a previous Government hindering that task through excessive spending, keeping inflation higher for longer and preventing reductions in interest rates. This Government is helping. We have introduced discipline to Government spending and we remain focused on responsible economic management that supports recovery, delivers the public services New Zealanders expect, and drives reforms for growth.
3. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader — Green) 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?]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that his cuts to jobseeker will impact over 2,000 18- and 19-year-olds who may be disabled, sick, or experiencing severe mental ill health, and, if so, how does he justify this?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our policy is designed for 18- and 19-year-olds that are on jobseeker benefit. When you go on a jobseeker benefit, you’re deemed able and capable of working.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister guarantee, then, a job for every job seeker in this country?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That will also be up to the individual, the parents, and the Government’s economic conditions to create those jobs. But, again, we are sending a message very clearly to young people in New Zealand, unapologetically: we want you connected to work, we want you connected to training, we want you connected to education.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Why are there 10,000 more unemployed young people and 36,000 fewer jobs in this country since he took office, if not because of his Government’s billions of dollars of cuts to investment?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There are five immutable laws of economics. The first is about spending; that drives into creating inflation. When you have high inflation because spending went up 84 percent, you end up with 12 to 13 interest rate rises. That then, because of high interest rates and high inflation, means that, actually, businesses get squeezed because the economy’s in a recession, and, as a result, people, unfortunately, lose their jobs. That’s why if you care about low and middle income, working New Zealanders, like this Government does, you actually make sure you run the economy well and you’re a fiscal conservative.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister understand, then, the basic maths that if there are four job seekers to every job that is available in this country, all of his cuts to jobseeker support couldn’t hope to possibly punish people into ghost jobs but will only deepen poverty and homelessness?
Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders are very clear that a question needn’t contain irony or any more imputations that are required to make the question intelligible. That’s not actually a question designed to get information for the public; it’s an attempt at theatre and making a speech.
SPEAKER: Let me be very clear. Attempts at theatre are a regular occurrence in this House, but I would say that putting in an expression like that is outside of the Standing Orders, and I encourage the member to rephrase it some other way and start the question again.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister understand that if there are four job seekers for every job that is currently available in this country, all of his cuts to jobseeker support could not possibly punish people into jobs but actually will deepen poverty, suffering, and homelessness?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: On this side of the Government, we care about young people. We’re not prepared to actually just have them languishing and consigned to welfare, like a Labour-Greens Government. In the last administration, with 3.2 to 3.5 percent unemployment, the Labour-Greens Government drove a 50 percent increase and put 60,000 more people on jobseeker benefit. That is utterly shameful and unacceptable. We care about those young people and we want them connected to work, training, and employment. We don’t just say we’ll leave you on welfare and that’s good for you.
Chlöe Swarbrick: How many jobs did his $3 billion tax cut for landlords create?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that is — I’ll tell you what the landlord cut did create: rents have gone down $5 a week, instead of up $180 a week. In even more good news on housing, if you want to talk about housing and landlords, we’ve got 6,000 people — [Interruption]
SPEAKER: That’s the last outburst for the day. People who want to sit in their seats and barrack through question time can do it in front of the TV screens in their offices.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister made statements in support of the America and Arab – led peace process, and how many letters has he received in support of that from members of the Opposition or their leaders?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I actually think we should be very proud of the efforts of President Trump and the Arab nations that actually are creating a pathway to peace, to stop the killing, and to create the ceasefire, but I have received zero letters that I am aware of.
4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour — Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Is her economic plan the reason the economy is smaller now than it was when she took office; if not, why not?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): No. The economy is where it is now because harmful and painful inflation in 2021, in 2022, in 2023 — fuelled by reckless Government spending — had to be brought down over time with high interest rates. As I said in my previous question, interest rates affect economic activity. New Zealand experienced a deep protracted downturn. We are coming out of that downturn, but the recovery has been difficult and not helped by international events. The member might want to look at the actions of the previous Government.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: If she is taking credit for the latest interest rate cut, will she also take responsibility that this cut is because of a stagnating economy caused by her Government’s inaction?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’ve taken no such credit.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is her economic plan to talk about growth, hope interest rates come down, and house prices grow?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. Our approach, as a Government, is to address the underlying foundations for growth which includes low and stable inflation to create a lower interest rate environment; having responsibly managed books; driving reforms across the areas that have held New Zealand’s economy back for too long, including low rates of educational achievement, byzantine consenting processes, excessive regulatory burdens, and a dire approach to overseas investment. These are the reforms our Government is driving. I would like to play the same game that the member played with me yesterday and quote someone from the Mood of the Boardroom who said, “I find it difficult to reconcile responsibility for the policies of the last Government with critiques of the current Government’s attempts at managing the consequences of those policies”.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Well, then, does she agree with another business leader from Mood of the Boardroom, who said — [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Wait, wait. The member’s own side is making noises. Please just wait for silence in the House.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with another business leader from the Mood of the Boardroom, who said, “The Government is ineffective. There is no compelling leadership and strategic plan evident that will turn New Zealand around.”?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Now, I prefer the view of the leader who said, “I … like Chris Hipkin’s but am frustrated by his lack of leadership.”
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree, then, with another business leader from the Mood of the Boardroom, who said, “saying ‘growth, growth, growth’ doesn’t actually help. Growth just isn’t evident, and the benefits seem to be for top-end only.”?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, I disagree with that assessment, because the Government is doing far more than simply talking about growth. It has often been a reflection I have had that if some of the reforms that we are making had been made six years ago, how much better off our economy would be now. If only fast-track legislation had been in place such that we didn’t still have major infrastructure projects in this country being held back by red tape. If only we had moved earlier to invite in more foreign investment. If only we had moved earlier to ensure our children were learning to read, write, and do maths; to ensure that our welfare system encourages people into work. These reforms are necessary and overdue.
5. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National — Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on the Government’s health targets?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Good news: the latest quarterly results for April to June show clear improvements after years of decline. We’re starting to make progress, wait times are starting to fall, and more patients are being treated faster. In our emergency departments, 73.9 percent of patients were admitted, treated, or discharged within six hours during that quarter, up from 71.2 percent during the same period last year, despite increased attendances. For faster cancer treatment, 86.3 percent of patients started their treatment within 31 days following diagnosis, up from 83.5 percent at the same time last year. Our focus is on performance and on putting patients first. Whilst there is still a long way to go, we are absolutely committed to ensuring all New Zealanders can access timely, quality healthcare when they need it.
Dr Hamish Campbell: What do the results show about improvements in childhood immunisation rates?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, 82 percent of children are now fully immunised by age two, up from 76.5 percent last year, representing the largest annual gain across all health targets. This is a significant achievement and milestone, and it is a huge thanks to our GPs and outreach providers and vaccinators up and down the country, who have done a tremendous job after years of decline, but there is still more work to do. The current measles cases serve as a timely reminder to get immunised, and I encourage more families to ensure that our children receive the healthy start to life that they deserve.
Dr Hamish Campbell: What progress has been made to improve elective wait times?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re making progress against our electives target to ensure New Zealanders are able to have their hip, knee, and cataract operations and other elective surgeries done in a timely manner. The elective targets saw the biggest quarterly improvement across all health targets, with the proportion of patients waiting less than four months increasing by 6.6 percent compared to last quarter, with every single district across the country seeing improvements. After years of ballooning wait-lists, the trend is starting to shift. Since January, the total wait-list has been reducing, with the total number of people waiting over four months also falling by around 24 percent. This is thanks to our Government’s Elective Boost, which has delivered more than 16,000 additional procedures, including hips, knees, and cataracts, between February and June by partnering with the private hospital sector.
Dr Hamish Campbell: What progress has been made in reducing wait times for first specialist assessments?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good progress is being made. The proportion of patients being seen within four months has lifted 3.8 percent in just one quarter, with Health New Zealand delivering 104 percent of planned first specialist assessments —
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: You missed the bit about how it’s worse under your Government.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: — in the June quarter. The Opposition member wants talk about the wait-lists; I would just remind her that the number of people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment (FSA), under her watch, increased by over 6,000 percent while they were in Government. We are turning around a big wait-list, and we have a huge amount of work to do. Thanks to the hard-working doctors, surgeons, and specialists at Health New Zealand, they delivered a 104 percent of planned FSAs in the June quarter, meaning more patients were seen than planned.
Hon Peeni Henare: It’s still getting worse.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Some regions have seen — well, actually, they’re completely wrong; it is improving. That’s what the target says. That’s why we released them, and you can’t manage what you don’t measure, which is why we’ve got targets. Some regions have seen significant increases, with Whanganui up 18 percentage points, Bay of Plenty up 10.1 percent, and South Canterbury up 4.6 percent. It is good to see wait-lists for these critical assessments starting to reduce, but we acknowledge there is still a long way to go.
6. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori — Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he agree with the former Minister who introduced the Marine and Coastal Area Act that his proposed amendments “do not restore the original intention of Parliament. They undermine them”; if not, why not?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): No, I don’t, but I do agree with Mr Finlayson’s statement at the time when the bill did go in, in 2011, where he talked about a very high threshold for customary marine titles being granted. That, in essence, is what we are seeking to establish with this legislation. What we’re trying to achieve is that balance between the natural expectations of all New Zealanders to have an interest in what occurs in the marine and coastal space and the opportunity for Māori to claim customary marine title. There was always a very high threshold involved in that, and that is what we are seeking to restore.
Tākuta Ferris: How many customary marine titles have been granted under this Act that will now be subject to challenge on the passing of his amendment bill?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There are several cases that have been heard that will have to be re-heard in light of this legislation if it passes. That’s not something we have undertaken lightly. It’s a significant thing to overturn Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, but we have done it because we believe it’s important to restore that balance, recognising the interests of all New Zealanders in what happens in the coastal area and recognising that customary marine title grants valuable rights, including the right to have a say over resource contents in that space. That’s why we had a high threshold.
Tākuta Ferris: If his goal is to guarantee the rights of all New Zealanders, when will his Government be introducing legislation to address the 13,000 privately owned parcels of land that actually prevent people from accessing the foreshore and seabed?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, anybody in a boat can access the foreshore and seabed, from any particular angle.
Tākuta Ferris: Does he consider that his decision to arbitrarily limit Māori rights to only 5 percent of the coastline is an example of a fair and durable framework, as was intended in this Act when it was first passed?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: When I was asked for a figure, I proffered one. I point to the fact that the previous Minister the member quoted at the start offered a 10 percent figure at one point. Both of us immediately made the point that, of course, ultimately it is up to the courts to decide where that lands through the process or through decisions made through the Government. It’s not an easy thing we’re trying to achieve. What we’re trying to achieve, as I said, is that balance between the expectations of all New Zealanders to have a say in what goes on in their coastal and marine environments and also to provide an opportunity to apply for customary marine titles. We think we’ve got that balance right, but it requires this legislation to be entered into the House.
Tākuta Ferris: Does he stand by his statement that this bill will “give effect to a commitment in the National – New Zealand First coalition agreement to amend section 58 of the Act to make clear Parliament’s original intent”?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, indeed.
7. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does teachers, principals, support staff, and Ministry of Education specialist staff all going on strike show that she is “growing and strengthening the education workforce”; if so, how?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Growing and strengthening the education workforce is exactly what this Government is doing, and, as I’ve already told the member on numerous occasions, the schooling teacher workforce grew by 2.5 percent in 2024, delivering 864 new teachers — the largest year-on-year increase since records began in 2009. On provisional figures for 2025, there’s been a 30 percent increase in domestic students enrolling in initial teacher education for the first time. We’ve strengthened the workforce by training 30,000 teachers in structured literacy, 20,000 in structured approaches to maths, and we’re delivering high-quality resources, professional learning and development, and, through Budget 2025, three-quarters of a billion dollars into learning support so that every single school has access to a learning support coordinator, along with 349 literacy intervention teachers for over 1,240 schools — exactly what the sector was asking for. No wonder more people than ever are flocking to the teaching profession.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why were teachers offered a pay rise of less than inflation when Crown board members are getting up to an 80 percent increase?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the member might like to go and chat with the unions, because the offer on the table at the moment is a fair and reasonable offer that meets the unions’ calls for meeting inflation. The 4.7 percent that is on the table at the moment is a fair and reasonable offer that we hope the New Zealand Educational Institute and Post Primary Teachers’ Association members will take seriously.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does the Minister for the Public Service’s comments that people are striking just to have a long weekend increase or decrease the likelihood of strike action?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m not responsible for those comments.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask her if she was responsible for them; I said, “Will they increase or decrease the likelihood of strike action?”
SPEAKER: Yeah, but that’s not something — she can’t be responding to some other comment like that. That’s not at all reasonable.
Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m that Minister. I’d like the member to table the evidence of that quote that she said I said, because I don’t recall I ever said that, although it may be her interpretation.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was in order because the Minister does have responsibility — oversight — of the negotiations, and the question was, essentially: how are the negotiations going in light of the behaviour of one of the other Ministers?
SPEAKER: No, it wasn’t. The question was: given a particular statement, what was the likelihood of it either increasing or decreasing strike action? The Minister cannot know that — she has no responsibility for taking strike action. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, point of order.
SPEAKER: The Hon Willow-Jean Prime — oh, sorry. We’re all over the place. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rawiri Waititi: Oh, don’t tell us you’re going to accept his?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, well, you might learn something for the first time, sunshine.
SPEAKER: No, hang on, hang on, don’t do that — no, don’t.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I’m listening to “Idiot Features” here when I’m trying to give my —
SPEAKER: Yes.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: — point of order. My point of order is that Willow-Jean Prime has been challenged as to the veracity of a comment she made in her question, and she should not be able to get away with it just like that. Can she please now show us the background support of her quote?
SPEAKER: Look, here’s how we’ll deal with this. Firstly, the question has not stood, because it’s not an appropriate question, and so there’s no question about the need for the proof or otherwise, other than if the member is standing in the House and saying something that is a misrepresentation of another member, then that member has a course of action that they can follow.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she front up and speak to the strike on 23 October?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll tell you what I will do: I will be at four around-the-country, full-day curriculum roadshows where I will be presenting to teachers, principals, and school leaders, where we will be providing information on resourcing for new curriculum and professional learning and development, and unpacking some of the strategic leadership things that teachers and principals should be doing. I’ll be spending the entire day with hundreds and hundreds of principals around the country, and that is an excellent use of my time.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she accept responsibility for the anger that teachers, principals, and support staff are feeling, or will she continue to stick her head in the sand?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: This Government has been backing teachers since the day that we took office with more professional learning and development, more resourcing, more moving of back-end resources to deliver to the front line, three-quarters of a billion dollars into learning support, and more intervention teachers in mathematics and literacy. The amount of resources that we’ve been providing to the teaching profession to make their jobs easier is unparalleled, and I’m extraordinarily proud of that.
SPEAKER: Question No. 8, Greg Fleming — just wait for a moment and the House will quietly settle itself.
GREG FLEMING (National — Maungakiekie): E te Mangai o te Whare. To the Minister of Education —
SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. I’m clearly going to have to get some additional microphones put down to the back end of the House because I’m missing far too much of a conversation across the aisles which shouldn’t be going on.
8. GREG FLEMING (National — Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made regarding school infrastructure?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Well, we’re continuing to supercharge the delivery of school infrastructure. We’re surging $413 million into improving classrooms and schools across the country. The investment package includes $58 million for maintenance work for all schools, which is a 50 percent uplift in their school maintenance grant; $255 million for improvements for small, rural, and isolated schools; $100 million over five years to fund urgent and essential infrastructure work. Our Government has turned around the delivery of school property, we’ve halved the cost of building new classrooms, and children deserve to live in safe, warm, dry classrooms and we’re delivering just that.
Greg Fleming: How many schools will benefit from this announcement?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, every school in New Zealand will benefit from the supercharge to school investment funding; in particular, 935 rural, small, isolated schools that have been crying out for increased funding and support, and we’re delivering that to them. That is for internal and external refits and increasing the number of small schools that are eligible for that. This funding allows for schools to do significant maintenance over the school holidays so students arrive in 2026 to improved classrooms — so they can focus on their learning and teaching the basics brilliantly.
Greg Fleming: What are the wider benefits of this announcement?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, more projects in the infrastructure pipeline mean more jobs for our hard-working tradies up and down the country. Schools will be able to do maintenance over the summer holidays, providing more work for our construction sector in every part of New Zealand. Tradies are going to be in schools up and down the country over the Christmas period. We are powering up the trade and construction sectors to create a steady flow of jobs for builders, plumbers, roofers, and more. This announcement is great for tradies, and what is great for tradies is great for our economy.
Greg Fleming: What feedback has she received on this announcement?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve received a range of feedback from school leaders to the boost in infrastructure investment. One particular piece said: “Thank you. Great property announcement today. Very much appreciated. Great news. Loving the minimum top-up allocation component. Well done.” That was Andrew King, co-president of the Rural Schools Leadership Association. “Thank you, this will really be helpful and make a huge difference for us.”, “Wow, what a great opportunity not to be missed.”, and “We’re spending the money on gutter cleaning, downpipes replacements for our two to three – storey blocks. We are most grateful for the funding.” Our focus remains on driving efficiencies across the school property portfolio so parents, teachers, and communities have clarity and certainty about their school’s future.
9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the estimated reduction, if any, in the number of people receiving jobseeker support because of the proposed parental income test for 18- and 19-year-olds?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This policy is about fairness and personal responsibility, and our expectation that all 18- and 19-year-olds will be in employment, education, or training. I’m advised that around 4,300 fewer 18- and 19-year-olds will be eligible for the jobseeker support as a result of the parental assistance test, which has two parts: the parental income test and the parental support gap test. Where parents have the means to support their 18- and 19-year-old, taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to do so instead. The parental income test was not included in Budget 2025, which means more 18- and 19-year-olds are eligible than would have been. We are determined to reverse the trend we inherited, which saw people under the age of 25 on jobseeker spend an average of 18 more years on benefit. This has been 49 percent longer than in 2017.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Why has she incentivised parents on the threshold of the income requirement to reduce their hours just so 18- and 19-year-olds can access jobseeker?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We haven’t. What we have done is said that parents with 18- and 19-year-olds should be supporting their children to ensure that they are in further education, training, or a job.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Why should parents who are receiving Working for Families for a younger child have to choose between receiving the help they need or giving it up so their dependent 18- or 19-year-old can access jobseeker?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On this side of the House, we believe that all parents want the best for their children and to ensure that their 18- and 19-year-olds are set up for a great life, which means they’re in employment, education, or training.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Why has she made it so that two parents who are both working 27 hours each on the minimum wage can now work 11 hours less a week and yet be financially better off?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because what we don’t want to see is the welfare dependency that we saw blow out in the six years of the previous Government; as I said, a 47 percent increase in the length of time a young person under 25 would go on to spend on welfare. It’s not good enough, which is why we are making sensible policy changes to interrupt a life for young people who should not be stuck on welfare.
Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she claim that this change will incentivise young people when her Government has increased university fees, increased youth unemployment, cut the Apprenticeship Boost, and made life even harder for working Kiwi families struggling with the cost of living crisis?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I reject the comments that member makes. The Prime Minister today — for, I don’t know, the hundredth time or the thousandth time — outlined a lesson in economics, which is why we are where we are. My concern is the welfare dependency that we inherited where we don’t accept it is good enough for a young person to spend 18 future years of their life stuck on welfare.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister explain what giant leap in comprehension it takes for people to realise that the first responsibility for a family member lies with the family and not the taxpayer?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Indeed. That’s why our side of the House wants to see young people prepared for a life of opportunity so more of them are in education, training, or in a job.
10. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent reports has he seen on school attendance, and why does he think going to school matters to students’ futures?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I’ve seen a recent report from the Education Review Office called Back to class: How are attitudes to attendance changing? The Education Review Office, and in particular Ruth Shinoda, have done a superb job surveying 15,000 students, teachers, and parents about how they view the importance of school attendance and what ensures that children are more likely to attend. This survey follows an identical survey in 2022, and most critically, it shows that in nearly every single measure for nearly every type of person, attitudes to attendance are improving. That is important to New Zealand, because when people want to attend and believe it’s important, they’re more likely to do it. I believe the most important number in New Zealand today is the number of children who go to school, because the amount of education that we pass from one generation to another more powerfully defines our future than anything else we can do on this day.
Laura McClure: Does the report show that poverty is a barrier to school attendance?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Indeed, the report does show that in some cases, poverty and the lack of things such as school uniforms, transport, or stationery are a barrier to attendance. That’s one reason why the Government has put aside 3 percent of attendance service funding as money to be put to precisely those sorts of barriers for particular students. However, encouragingly —
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The answers to parliamentary questions are supposed to be short and to the point, and this answer has multiple layers. The question was answered, in fact, in the first sentence.
SPEAKER: This answer was only something like 20, 24 seconds into its delivery. It may be —
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, he’s making up for the last time, which was four minutes.
SPEAKER: Well, the longest answer today was one minute and 16 seconds. It was the Minister of Health, but that was as a response to a whole lot of interjections that he was responding to across the House. So thank you very much for your timekeeping efforts. I deeply appreciate it, but they’re not all that accurate.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Critically, 82 percent of students from poorer families said that going to school is important for their future. That compares with 84 percent of students from wealthier families. In other words, they’re almost exactly the same. Three years ago there was a 10-point gap. Now they are almost exactly the same, and that gives me real hope for the future of New Zealand. While education may not have done well for Duncan Webb, this Government thinks it’s important.
Laura McClure: What role do parents play and how have their views changed?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It’s true that parents are a critical link in the attendance story, and what is so important in this survey is that the number of students who say that they are comfortable keeping their kids off school for a week or more remains far too high at three out of 10 parents. It has fallen in the last three years. Three years ago, it was four out of 10 parents who thought it was OK for their children to miss a week of school. The Government’s message is that that’s taking away from their future and it’s not OK.
Laura McClure: What can teachers and principals do, and how is this changing?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: One of the key findings is that the expectations set by principals and teachers are critical, and yet there has been an enormous improvement in that, too: 93 percent of teachers and school leaders report that they set clear expectations with students, and 60 percent of students say that they have increased their efforts to set clear expectations for school attendance in their school community. I want to thank the Education Review Office and all of those school leaders, parents, and students for joining us on a journey to where going to school regularly becomes the norm. It’s vital to the future of our country.
11. STEVE ABEL (Green) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: Does he agree with the SPCA that “the use of farrowing crates causes significant animal welfare problems for both sow and piglets”; if so, why has the Government introduced legislation to extend the use of farrowing crates by at least another decade?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): The changes that the Government are proposing are a significant strengthening of the animal welfare standards for pig farming. Advice I have received shows that confining sows just after farrowing is an effective tool at reducing the number of piglet-crush fatalities. An analysis of 22 scientific articles that are relevant shows that piglet mortality risk is 14 percent higher in systems that do not confine sows after farrowing. The 10-year transition time I have proposed is significant but this is a very big shift in farming systems for most of the pig industry. With the other changes I’m proposing, an independent economic analysis estimated the cost of transition at more than $675,000 for the average indoor pig farm. It’s only reasonable that those farming families have an opportunity to make this change.
Steve Abel: Why is the Minister going against independent welfare experts who say farrowing crates cause significant suffering for mother pigs and piglets; they increase the risk of stillbirth; restrict normal nesting behaviour of mother pigs; and cause boredom, sores, pain, and distress due to prolonged confinement? [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Hold on. You might have heard it. That’s not the point. No one speaks when a question’s being asked, no matter what you might think of the question. So you can ask it again.
Steve Abel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is the Minister going against independent welfare experts who say farrowing crates cause significant suffering for mother pigs and piglets, they increase the risk of stillbirth, restrict normal nesting behaviour of mother pigs, and cause boredom, sores, pain, and distress due to prolonged confinement?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: As I explained in the primary question, farrowing crates reduce piglet mortality by 14 percent. This is important. This is based on advice that comes from scientific experts in this field. It is the result of looking at a range of a number of studies. So I am completely comfortable with the changes we are making. We are reducing the time from 33 days down to seven. Most of the rest of the world is at 33 days; we are reducing down to seven.
Steve Abel: Is he aware that it is a profound behavioural need of mother pigs to build a nest 24 hours before giving birth, and if they are caged it is deeply distressing for them, they will literally paw the ground, often bloodying their snouts, trying to build a nest?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: That is why we are introducing a requirement that nesting materials must be provided prior to farrowing. So we are covering this. I have visited pig farms, where I have been there after piglets have been farrowed, and I saw absolutely no sign of any of that.
Steve Abel: How does he justify extending the use of cruel farrowing crates indefinitely when every animal welfare organisation in New Zealand, including the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee [NAWAC], and 73 percent of New Zealanders oppose the use of farrowing crates because of worse welfare outcomes for mother pigs and piglets?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Whilst NAWAC’s initial advice was that temporary crating was not acceptable, a reconsideration recognised that limited use of crating after farrowing was acceptable, although they remained concerned around how the pre-farrowing crating would inhibit nest building. But as I said, we have strengthened those requirements for the material to be available for the nest building.
Steve Abel: Why was targeted consultation only undertaken with the pork industry across 2024 and 2025, while animal welfare organisations were blindsided on Friday with his plans to cancel the phase out of farrowing crates, and does he regard protecting animal welfare as his primary responsibility, or enacting the wishes of the pork industry?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I will make zero apologies for talking to the people that regulations in this House will affect the most. These are going to be massive changes for your average pig-farming operation. They needed to be consulted. We needed to ensure that we had a system that was practical and affordable for them, otherwise we would not have a pig-farming industry in New Zealand.
12. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour — Manurewa) to the Minister for Infrastructure: Does he stand by his statement, “we make it too hard to deliver and maintain the infrastructure New Zealand needs”; if so, how is that consistent with a $2.6 billion drop in planned spending on capital commitments by the Government for the 11 months to May 2025?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: Yes, and, to the second part, the member misunderstands the statement of commitments in the latest Crown accounts. Let me explain: the statement of commitments does not indicate a drop in planned spending, it records, instead, at a particular point in time, where contracts have been signed that would involve the Crown spending money but the money hasn’t yet been paid or even owed. It doesn’t include forecast infrastructure spending where there is not yet a contract. For example, the figure she is referring to does not include many major upcoming projects that are being funded by this Government, including the Northland Expressway, main works for the new Dunedin Hospital, Christchurch Men’s Prison, and the Nelson Hospital redevelopment. In fact, this Government is investing more in infrastructure than was planned when we came in. Over the next four years, we have budgeted to invest a record $61.8 billion in public infrastructure, and this number is only set to grow with new capital earmarked for allocation and is a huge step up from the $50.6 billion the previous Government invested between 2019 and 2023.
Arena Williams: Isn’t the point that the damage is done, with 20,000 jobs gone after he decided to stop and pause infrastructure builds?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I will reiterate the answer I just gave to the previous question, which is that investment in infrastructure has increased under this Government. I invite the member to look at the Budget allocations and see that we have chosen to allocate more funding to infrastructure than was previously the case. The member seems to be labouring under the same misunderstanding her colleague Ginny Andersen had yesterday, in the last round of “Who’s got talent?”, in which she said that all changes in the construction sector are due to what public investment is happening in infrastructure. The private sector builds a significant amount of New Zealand’s infrastructure, and when private sector projects like Auckland port and major housing developments can’t even get a consent, that holds it back, which is why fast track is so important, and which is why today’s 50-basis-point Official Cash Rate reduction is also pretty important.
Arena Williams: Does he know that, to build his infrastructure pipeline, he will need the 761 private sector construction employers who have shut their doors and laid off their people in the last year, and how does he plan to stop the liquidations of two construction firms every day on his watch?
SPEAKER: Concise answer.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, it is the case that, as the economy recovers, we expect that more jobs will be created in the construction sector.
Arena Williams: If the economy is recovering, then why are 200 New Zealanders leaving every day, including thousands of builders, heading to Australia instead of staying here to build in New Zealand?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as has previously been traversed in this House, it is the case throughout New Zealand’s history that, as economies recover, fewer New Zealanders leave, and we expect that to be the case.
Arena Williams: How will he get those builders back on the tools here at home when our economy is shrinking, everyday costs continue to rise, and wages remain flat?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member has failed to engage with the basic premise I set to her in the answer to the primary question, which is that this Government is investing a record amount in public infrastructure. In fact, we built more classrooms in the last year than the last Government did. We built more social housing in our last 23 months than that Government did in its last three years. I will not stand here and have that fact barracked — [Interruption]
SPEAKER: That’s enough.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is a fact that I will repeat again: we have built more social homes in the past 23 months than the last Government did in its last three years. Between now and Christmas, more than $7 billion worth of infrastructure projects will commence, including upgrades to Auckland City Hospital, Middlemore Hospital, Hawke’s Bay Hospital, the construction of a new acute mental health unit at Hutt Valley Hospital; over $5 billion worth of roading projects — the Ōtaki to north of Levin highway, Melling interchange, Waihoehoe Road, the Ōmanawa bridge; and more than $800 million in school property projects, which we’re building better and faster than ever before. This is a Government that believes in public infrastructure and is getting it built.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct answers to question No. 7.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you. In question No. 7, in the third supplementary, I mentioned that I will be spending the entire day presenting to hundreds of principals. I should have said I will be spending the week presenting to principals. I mentioned that all schools will be receiving a learning support coordinator, and to be clear, I should have said all schools with years 0 to 8 students.
