1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in particular our record investment into health services and infrastructure. This Government is investing an extra $7 billion in healthcare so that Kiwis can get better access to elective surgeries, GP appointments, and other critical services that they rely on. We’ve increased prescription repeats to 12 months, which means that people don’t need to go to the doctor with the frequency that they need to, reducing costs for households. We’ve also expanded access to urgent and advanced hours at GP clinics, as well as making cancer drugs freely available to New Zealanders. I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing to give better access to higher quality healthcare in New Zealand.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement “This is a Government that’s incredibly proud of its housing record.” given that homelessness is rising, rough sleeping is increasing, new State house builds have ground to a halt, consents to build new houses are down, and his Government’s cutting support to first-home buyers?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. I’m incredibly proud of our record on housing, when I think about the abject failure of the previous Government. If you think about the four components of housing and the outcomes that are achieved, house prices are stable, rents for the first time are actually stable rather than having increased $180 per week. Importantly, the social housing wait-list is down from 27,000 to 19,000 people, and we have moved from over 5,000 households in motels and emergency accommodation down to 400, and that means 2,100 kids out of motels and into proper homes. I’m proud of that record. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, that is the last barrage of the day. There are a number of people who participated in that — not that anything they said was at all audibly understandable, but certainly a loud voice. It’s not acceptable.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is he proud of the fact that taking people off the social housing register has coincided with a 58 percent rise in homelessness in Auckland and a 40 percent rise in homelessness in Wellington?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because either way you look at it, on all four dimensions of housing, this Government has done something about it in 18 months and improved outcomes. House prices are stable, rents are stable, the social housing wait-list is down, and we’ve got people out of emergency accommodation and into proper homes. The member should be thankful to the Government for fixing his mess. Just “Thank you.” would be enough.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Christchurch —
Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, from this hitherto unknown perch, we can’t hear a thing the Prime Minister is saying. You really need to enforce your ruling to have some order and a better sense of decorum from that side of the House — very hard to hear down here.
SPEAKER: That’s right. Well, thank you for that, Mr Jones. I had made it very clear to the House that there was not to be that level of barrage. In this case, there was a significant amount of support noise coming from the Prime Minister’s own side, which also should be contained.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Christchurch Methodist Mission that most of the people the mission helps have been turned away from emergency housing without even being given a reason?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say to that member the record of his Government was abysmal on all aspects of housing — talked a big game; did not deliver. We —
SPEAKER: No, hang on, hang on — wait on. You can’t start an answer to a question by referring to a previous Government. You can answer for yourself, but if there is a fact about the previous Government relating to the current Government decisions, then that comes into order, but not at the start.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have moved people in emergency housing from 5,000 households sitting in motels for years, raising families in damp motel rooms — we’ve taken them out of there and we’ve put 2,100 kids, prioritised them on the social housing wait-list, and got them into good houses. Importantly, our services remain available to help anyone who wants any help with accommodation supplements.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that homelessness in New Zealand is increasing?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I accept is that we have taken people out of emergency housing and motel life — which was the plan of the previous Government; just to consign people off to motels. We have got the social housing wait-list down, which is fantastic, that we’ve got families in State houses finally, and we’ve got rents stable and we’ve got housing costs stable. Importantly, interest rates are down, and that means if you’ve got a home, you’ve actually got $300 a fortnight back in your pocket, because we’re managing the economy well on this side of the House.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Before I call your point of order, I have to say this is the third warning, and it will be the last. I don’t have too much of a concern how many people end up leaving the Chamber for a period of time. We are going to stop that sort of onslaught of — well, not even intelligible banter.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, the question I asked the Prime Minister was very simple: does he accept that homelessness in New Zealand is increasing? He hasn’t even come close to addressing the question.
SPEAKER: He did start by saying, “What I do accept”, which sort of indicates he wasn’t going to accept what you’d said. But, without losing one of your allocation, ask a question.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that homelessness in New Zealand is increasing?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I accept is that we’ve got more people into housing, and I think that’s a really good thing. When I think about those people and families who have moved out of motel accommodation into proper homes, we know that 80 percent of those who have come out of emergency housing have actually found houses. The other 20 percent are available to access any of our accommodation support and services, as they wish and as they need to. But isn’t it fantastic: kids are out of motel rooms, the housing wait-list is down, rents are stable, and house prices are stable as well. That’s a good thing. And interest rates are coming down.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister how the Government is handling an inherited 100,000 homes target but a 99 percent failure rate?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re actually fixing it, as the member well knows. He’s a critical part of this Government. We are actually making sure we manage things well, we get value for money, we make sure the assets are well managed, and we make sure the State houses, when they get turned over, get turned over faster. We’re doing all the right things to make sure we get people into homes. We don’t just talk about it with bumper stickers; we get things done on this side of the House.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are women and children fleeing domestic violence no longer eligible for emergency accommodation, on the basis that his Government has decided they contributed to their own homelessness, because they had a home and they left it?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, that’s that member being a little — you know, that’s a mischaracterisation through that question. That is not happening. Those services are available, and that support is available.
Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that between the period 2017 and 2023 the social housing wait-list, an objective measure of those in housing need, roughly quadrupled —
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.
Hon Nicola Willis: — and how does that compare to what has happened to the social housing waiting list since he became Prime Minister?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I want to thank the member for their question, because, under the previous administration, the number of people on the wait-list went from 6,500 to 27,000, a fourfold increase, and under our Government, in the space of 18 months, we’ve moved that from 27,000 down to 19,000. I think that’s something that all members of this House who really care about getting people into houses, who actually say they care, would be very pleased with — that result.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many of that reduction in the wait-list is because people were housed, and how many of it was simply because they were taken off the wait-list?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, for the benefit of the member, there are four components to housing: if you can’t buy a house, you rent one; if you can’t rent one, you actually go on a social housing wait-list; and if you can’t get one of those, you go into emergency housing. All four aspects are linked together, and that’s what this Government is doing exceptionally well — is dealing with all four components. As a result, we have more flexibility in the homeownership market, we have more flexibility in the rental market, we have more spaces being turned over and available through State housing and community housing providers, and we also have got people out of motels, because we prioritised families with kids from 1 April last year and we put them on to the social housing wait-list, which is fantastic.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a very simple question. The Prime Minister was boasting about the reduction in the number of people on the social house waiting list. I asked him how many of those were housed, and how many of them were simply removed from the waiting list. It was a very straight question.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The answer is thousands.
Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, of the people on the social housing wait-list, 60 percent of them need a one-bedroom home, while only 12 percent of Kāinga Ora stock are one-bedroom houses, and the Government has changed the funding settings to make sure that Kāinga Ora is now building what the social housing register needs.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and I want to thank the Minister for his great work alongside Tama Potaka in making sure that we can actually get people into housing. I think this is something that all members of this House should be proud that we’re making progress on. We’re making progress on it. We had six years of a debacle — failed policy — from the previous administration. We’re fixing it.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister come to Auckland Central to meet and to talk to the people, including the children, that his Government policies have made homeless?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I appreciate the member for their invitation. I get lots of invitations all the time. If and when I can, I will consider that in the context of my diary.
Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that lower interest rates can assist New Zealanders to find their mortgages more affordable and assist people on to the housing ladder, and, if so, does he agree with the reported view of the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins that Government policy does not influence interest rates?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think all people would understand both fiscal —
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, the last part of the Minister’s question was completely wrong, but second of all, how on earth is either the person asking the question or the person answering the question responsible for what I think?
SPEAKER: That is quite right and I was actually contemplating that as you were about to take your point of order. So we’ll move on to a question from the Hon Shane Jones.
Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm for the House that State housing is a lot safer now, given the robust approach taken to gang members and other miscreants who abuse the privilege of having a State house?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I am absolutely proud of our unruly tenant policy which has been applied: we’ve had 63 people who have been ejected from State house tenancies — it was two under the previous Government in their last year — and we have about 1,400 people on first notices. The deal’s pretty simple: if a taxpayer’s going to pay for your State house, you’ve got a basic responsibility to actually look after the house and look after your neighbours. That’s why I’m proud of that policy, I’m proud of the obligations we have under welfare, and the message to parents to get your kids to school.
2. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National — East Coast) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, the OECD released its latest economic outlook publication. This notes that the global outlook is becoming increasingly challenging, with substantial increases in barriers to trade, tighter financial conditions, weaker business and consumer confidence, and heightened policy uncertainty all having adverse effects on growth prospects. It says that the key policy priorities for OECD countries are to ensure a lasting decline in trade tensions, policy uncertainty, and inflation; to establish a credible fiscal path to debt sustainability; and to implement ambitious reforms to strengthen growth prospects and improve competitiveness.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What does the OECD say about fiscal policy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OECD, in its latest report, says that restoring fiscal discipline is key for countries to avoid fiscal sustainability problems and build buffers for future shocks. It says that “Given high debt levels and … spending pressures, countries should ensure that public debt is … on a sustainable path” It goes on to say that “Clear and credible medium-term fiscal plans are needed to show how countries intend to address pressures on public finances.” and specifically recommends countries undertake periodic spending reviews and target their policies. Members should note that these are all features of Budget 2025.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What does the OECD say about policies for investment?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OECD’s report says that “Sluggish investment has lowered growth, productivity, and living standards.” It says that “Weak growth in the capital stock has been an important factor behind the slowdown in potential output per capita growth in many countries”. In its policy prescription, the OECD recommends minimising regulatory barriers to foreign direct investment. It also recommends adopting tax policies that promote stronger business investment, including expanding capital allowances — that is, allowing greater deductions for capital expenditure. Members should note, again, that this was a feature of Budget 2025 with the introduction of Investment Boost.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What does the OECD say specifically about New Zealand?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The New Zealand chapter of the report says that Budget 2025 “continues the programme of reducing expenditure as a share of GDP” and recommends the Government fully pursues this programme. It notes that the Government “took an important step to address the economy’s low capital intensity by introducing … ‘Investment Boost’, which allows firms to immediately deduct 20% of the value of a new asset from their taxable income on top of normal depreciation.” The Government’s fiscal strategy and the policies in the Budget to target assistance, review spending, restore fiscal discipline, and ensure public debt is on a sustainable path are good, sensible economic policies as recommended by external experts such as those in the OECD.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the OECD say that we should load the economy up with another $88 billion of costs?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. I think the OECD recognises that for New Zealanders enduring a cost of living crisis, stealing $88 billion of their money through additional taxes would be very harmful indeed.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our nearly $7 billion investment in infrastructure, which will go towards upgrading and building new hospitals, mental health facilities, classrooms, rail, and roads across the country. And our infrastructure investments will make it easier for Kiwis to get on with their daily lives, create the jobs and opportunities, and ultimately contribute to a growing and productive economy.
Rawiri Waititi: Does he support his Deputy Prime Minister’s claim that 99.5 percent of the submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill were fake and driven by bots, and, if so, can he provide evidence for this?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the Minister has clarified his comments and said he also meant that that was about form submissions. But what I’d say is the purpose of this legislation is to make sure we make better quality rules and regulation so that it’s not a drag on productivity, so that we can grow the economy faster.
Rawiri Waititi: Does he support his Deputy Prime Minister’s statement regarding the Crown’s failure to consult with Māori on the Regulatory Standards Bill that “meaningful consultation effectively requires you to be racist”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say is that there has been good pre-consultation from the Ministry for Regulation around this bill over the summer period and there’s a four-week select committee process. I’d just say to all people who want to contribute to that bill to make it better legislation: feel free to contribute through the select committee process.
Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the Ministry of Justice that “the omission of the Treaty” from the Regulatory Standards Bill “does not recognise the constitutional significance of the Treaty … nor the Crown’s duty to acknowledge the rights and interests of Māori in the development of [policy]”, or does he agree with the man who wrote the bill that there is “absolutely no reason” to consider the Treaty when making law?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said before, I just would encourage Māori, non-Māori, anybody who wants to strengthen this bill to contribute through the select committee process.
Rawiri Waititi: Does he accept the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that excluding Te Tiriti from the Regulatory Standards Bill and its principles risks erasing pre-existing Māori rights in the same way the Treaty principles did?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member: we’ve had a pre-consultation period, we’ve had a first reading, we’ve got a select committee process before a bill comes back to this House. It’s important in that select committee process, given the devil will be in the detail of the implementation of this bill, that people have their say and make a contribution through the select committee process.
Rawiri Waititi: Can he explain why he said he was “comfortable” with a senior Cabinet Minister’s publicly calling a performance celebrating te ao Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi “a load of crap”, as Chris Bishop did during the Aotearoa Music Awards?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the Minister has said that he probably, in hindsight, should have kept his opinions to himself. But, as that member will know, there are lots of different tastes in music. As I’ve said publicly, I quite like country music, but a lot of people give me grief for that too and use similar language that Chris Bishop has used.
4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour — Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fa’afetai lava lau afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In context, yes.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does her statement of valuing the work of care and support workers like Rosie Thompson align with her actions of cancelling their active pay equity claim and requiring care and support workers to start their claim again?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because we have ensured that there is a workable, sustainable pay equity regime in law that will allow claims with merit to be raised and, where appropriate, settled.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can she assure working women that collective bargaining will remedy pay inequities based on gender, given some sectors such as secondary school teachers can no longer apply for a pay equity claim under the new legislation?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As per the law, where claims are able to be made under the pay equity regime which demonstrate that workers have been undervalued and underpaid as a result of sex-based discrimination, they are able to raise and progress pay equity claims.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to Connie Buchanan, a care and support worker, who says, “We don’t have a chance trying to do it ourselves and negotiating with them. We’re women, we’re Māori and Pacific women, women from our migrant communities, Indians and Filipinas. And it’s like they don’t value us.”?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would say, quite simply: we value you and we value the work of all New Zealanders.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: How do her statements of valuing the work of women care and support workers, midwives, nurses, and teachers align with her actions of cancelling 33 active claims, stripping $12.8 billion contingency for pay equity for her Budget, and making it impossible for some sectors like secondary school teachers to make a pay equity claim?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I point out that nurses have received a pay equity settlement, which we are upholding and continuing to fund. I’d also point out that the $12.8 billion figure that the member refers to is explained in Budget documents, and she might like to point that out to her leader, who today said that it’s an awfully big number that he doesn’t understand.
5. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National — Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made regarding school property as part of Budget 2025?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Budget 2025 invests in delivering classrooms and schools that our students need to flourish. This Government has invested over $460 million to deliver new schools and classrooms, creating over 8,000 additional student places. We’ve also dramatically increased the efficiency with which we deliver the school property, so we get more bang for our buck. When you remove bespoke legacy projects from the most recent quarter, I’m delighted that we have nearly halved the cost of delivering a classroom from $1.2 million down to $626,000. Standardised and repeatable designs are efficient, effective, and mean more students get what they need to succeed.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What announcements has she made for school property in Selwyn?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Population data shows that Selwyn is one of the fastest growing areas in New Zealand with a 23 percent increase in student numbers between 2020 and 2024. In response, the Selwyn growth plan is delivering a new primary school in Prebbleton, purchase of land for a new primary school in Lincoln, an additional 52 classrooms across five existing schools. As a Government we are delivering for the people of Selwyn and can I congratulate the member for her advocacy for the area.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What announcements has she made for school property in the wider Canterbury region?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, to meet growing student population in the wider Christchurch region, we’ve also committed to delivering a new primary school in Halswell, an additional 51 classrooms to existing schools. This investment will deliver 2,500 student places in the region’s school network. Our children deserve a world-leading education that starts with a warm, safe, dry classroom. Through Budget 2025, we are delivering more classrooms more efficiently at a lower cost. This is a Government of delivery and we are delivering for the people of Christchurch.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What else has she announced regarding school property?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Budget 2025 ring-fences $90 million for around 25 satellite learning support classrooms and over 300 property modifications to ensure our schools are accessible and inclusive of students with additional needs. We’re also funding 50 new classrooms for Māori medium and kura kaupapa Māori education, increasing access to Māori immersion schooling for approximately 1,100 children. Budget 2025 delivers more classrooms at a far more affordable rate. This is what delivery looks like.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer.
SPEAKER: Yeah, OK. Leave is sought to correct an answer. Is there any objection to that cause of action? There appears to be none.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: When I answered a question from the Hon Barbara Edmonds, I paraphrased a quote attributed to Chris Hipkins. Out of an abundance of caution and wishing not to have misled the House, I would like to read out the actual quote which I paraphrased, and which is different from what I paraphrased.
SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, you don’t get to do that. The correction would be simply asking that it be — well, I’m not sure how you’d do it. You’re asking for something that I haven’t struck before, and I don’t think it’s quite appropriate to use the forum of the House’s leave to correct an answer by giving an extended answer.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s not an extended answer; it’s simply to make clear the actual statement that was made, rather than my paraphrase of it.
SPEAKER: It’s not how the process works. If you’ve said something that’s wrong, apologise for saying it’s wrong, and move on.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think that the way that I paraphrased the quote should be corrected. Am I able to correct the paraphrasing of the quote?
SPEAKER: Well, you can, as long as you don’t go into other debate.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, that is not my intention. It is simply to correct the paraphrasing.
SPEAKER: OK. We’ll try it.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What Mr Hipkins actually said that I should have paraphrased correctly is that he asked that “National should … release to the New Zealand public how they arrived at that figure because it is a very big number.”
SPEAKER: Well, that’s good.
6. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to pay equity in the education sector?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What advice, if any, did she seek from the Ministry of Education on the impact of the changes to the pay equity regime on the education workforce?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve answered this in a previous question time where I told the member that I received some advice in May around the effect that this would have on the teaching workforce.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was —
SPEAKER: No, wait on — let’s do everything right. Point of order, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question was what advice did she ask for, not what had the ministry given her. What advice did she seek from the ministry, was my question.
SPEAKER: Well, OK. Look, can the Minister expand on that, please.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Without putting the question on notice, I don’t have it in front of me, so all I can say is that I know that I received some information in May regarding the impact on teachers of the pay equity decision.
SPEAKER: It’s not unreasonable.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why didn’t she advocate on behalf of secondary school teachers when she became aware that they would not be able to make a pay equity claim under the new rules?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, we have Cabinet meetings, and, as the member well knows, we don’t discuss what happened in Cabinet meetings.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: When was she first made aware of proposed changes to the Ministry of Education’s pay equity team?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I haven’t been made aware of any changes to their pay equity team.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the second question asked by the questioner, has the Minister already provided that question with the information under the Official Information Act?
SPEAKER: That’s a question. Supplementary question.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Sorry, if I understand correctly, I think the answer is that the member is free to make a request under the Official Information Act for anything that I’ve received.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she claim to be committed to pay equity when she is getting rid of the Ministry of Education’s pay equity team, didn’t even think to ask about the impact of the pay equity changes on the education workforce, and stood by and did nothing as secondary school teachers lost their right to make a pay equity claim?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that is not a question — it’s not in order.
SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that advice. The member might like to try and bring her question more into a form that’s accepted. Rather than making statements in the way of a question, simply ask a question.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she claim to be committed to pay equity when the Ministry of Education’s pay equity team is being changed, she did not seek advice from the ministry —
SPEAKER: No, no, no, you can’t say that. You cannot say that. So get the question in order.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she claim to be committed to pay equity when the ministry is getting rid of the pay equity team and there was no advocacy for secondary school teachers —
SPEAKER: Sorry, you’ve had three goes; we’re getting close to cutting the question off.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she claim to be committed to pay equity when there are changes to the pay equity team and secondary school teachers cannot make a pay equity claim?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, in answer to the first part of the question around the pay equity team — as I’ve already told the member in other questions, and again today — I’m not aware of any changes and it would be entirely operational and not a matter for the Minister but a matter for the Secretary of Education.
Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Several weeks ago, you directed our attention to a particular Standing Order and it led to a new ruling. That questioner is consistently violating Standing Order 390 and getting away with it scot-free.
SPEAKER: Well, yes, thank you very much for that observation. What I would say is that it’s Speakers’ rulings 196/1-3 that would be worth the member looking at to understand why today was something of a little bit of a difficulty for her. But I do appreciate the Hon Shane Jones’ deep knowledge of Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, and his willingness to share that with me.
7. TOM RUTHERFORD (National — Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Justice: What recent reports has he seen about tools to reduce retail crime?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): This morning, the Privacy Commission released its report into — [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, the other side of the House, let him give some answer before you start paraphrasing what you think he should say.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning, the Privacy Commission released its report into the Foodstuffs North Island facial recognition technology trial. The report found that not only was the trial compliant with the Privacy Act but was also effective in reducing harmful behaviour and serious violent incidents in stores. We welcome the report and its acknowledgement of the need to use new technology to support our retailers.
Tom Rutherford: Why do we need new tools to deal with retail crime?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Between 2019 and 2023, retail crime increased by 85 percent, including a 91 percent increase in the victimisations relating to theft. The men and women working in retail need to feel safe in their workplace, and New Zealanders want to see law and order in our communities. We’re making good progress on that, such as seeing ram raids drop by more than 60 percent in 2024, but we need to go further. This Government is on the side of the retailers and their customers, not on the side of the criminals.
Tom Rutherford: What feedback has he seen from retailers on the Privacy Commission report?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Foodstuffs North Island have welcomed the report, stating, “Our people continue to be assaulted, threatened, and verbally abused, and we’re committed to doing all we can to create safer retail environments.” Our Government supports the findings of the report and the use of facial recognition technology, but we still need to go further. I’ll be tasking the ministerial advisory group on retail crime to consider the report and see what else we can do in the area. We want to give the retailers the tools that they need to keep their customers and their workers safe.
Tom Rutherford: What other tools is the Government considering to reduce retail crime?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government is serious about reducing retail crime. The ministerial advisory group on retail crimes made recommendations to strengthen and clarify the rules in relation to the citizen’s arrest, with more recommendations to strengthen trespass legislation. We’ve tightened up the sentencing laws to make sure offenders face consequences for crimes, and we’re committed to exploring further measures to support retailers and victims.
8. 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, and particularly our Budget 2025 investment into improving our justice system and keeping New Zealanders safe, because this Government understands that we can’t have a prosperous, functional society unless criminals face real consequences for wreaking havoc on communities. That’s why we’ve invested $472 million in corrections and $246 million into our court system to clear the backlog of cases. We’re cracking down on gangs, we’re tackling youth offending and retail crime, and we’re getting more officers out there on the beat.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister rule out his Government pursuing a “no additional warming” approach to agricultural climate-changing gases, as 26 world-renowned scientists implored in an open letter to him just this week?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the last part of the question, I’d just say to the people that kindly wrote the letter to me that they should write it to 194 other countries before they send me a letter, and then I might read it. I just want that member to understand that New Zealand’s farmers are the very best in the world. They are the No. 1 most carbon-efficient in the world. If you want to lower global greenhouse gas emissions, you would do more farming in New Zealand and less in other countries, and I think our farmers deserve tremendous praise because they are the bedrock of this economy. They’re doing an exceptionally good job of hauling us out of recession, and we ain’t going to shut down farming and send production overseas. We’re backing our farmers. They’re the best in the world. They’re the most carbon-efficient, and if they’d sent it to 194 other leaders before they’d sent it to me, then I might read it.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that adopting a “no additional warming” approach for agricultural gases would mean either requiring every other sector of the economy to carry a far higher burden to reduce emissions, or reducing our climate ambition and, therefore, breaching international trade and climate agreements?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say to the member — and I want everybody in this country to understand this — New Zealand farmers are the best in the world and they are the most carbon-efficient. So if you shut down farming in New Zealand and you move it to any other country on earth — any of the 194 other countries — global greenhouse gas emissions get worse. We have outstanding farmers. We have outstanding science and technology and innovation coming our way. We can be more productive. We can actually deliver our lower domestic and global emissions by embracing technology and actually increasing production.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, we can debate till we’re blue in the face about the efficiency of our farmers, but that was not my question. My question was about our climate targets, and this is a really important distinction because the efficiency of our farmers is one entirely separate thing from the targets.
SPEAKER: That’s right, and that really probably answers your own question because you raised it as an either/or, and I think that the Prime Minister, therefore, can easily bring in some other aspects that might sit outside the tight confines of the answer you were expecting.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Sorry, my first question was explicitly about whether he would heed the call from international —
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No — I said no.
Chlöe Swarbrick: — renowned climate scientists. OK, he’s said no. To my next supplementary, will the —
Rt Hon Winston Peters: He didn’t say no.
Chlöe Swarbrick: He just did, just now. OK. Will he commit to following the recommendation —
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Quickly — spit it out.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve made the point many times that we’re not to be heckled while asking a primary or supplementary question.
SPEAKER: Yes, but you need to understand that you stood up to take a point of order, and then decided to move straight into a question. So you should have waited until I had some opportunity to respond to you. But questions are to be heard in silence.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime Minister commit, then, to following the recommendation of the independent, expert Climate Change Commission that — and I quote — there is “no evidence to support weakening the [2050] target, and enough to consider strengthening [it].”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member — and I think it’s well understood — we have had advice from the climate commission and we’ve had advice independently from our own independent work on methane targets. We’ll have more to say about that shortly, but I want to be very clear: we have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world. You know, if you wanted to lower global greenhouse gas emissions, you would produce more in New Zealand and less in less carbon-efficient countries — it’s that simple. We ain’t shutting down farming in New Zealand. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Questions will be heard in silence. If people don’t observe that, then they don’t need to be here.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister sought any assurances from his climate or finance Ministers that we are still on track to meet our next emissions budget, given that a third of it relies on carbon-capture technology that the industry says is economically unfeasible, and another third on waste minimisation that his recent Budget cut funding to?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, we remain on track. We are back on track.
9. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that the previous pay parity regime for early childhood education was “putting enormous funding pressure on the centres”; if so, does he view increasing pay for ECE teachers to be a funding pressure?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education: On behalf of the Associate Minister, in response to the first part of the question: yes, in the context that they were made. In response to the second part of the question: increasing costs are often considered to be funding pressures.
Hon Jan Tinetti: How will ensuring new teachers to the sector will be paid less help early childhood education centres attract new teachers?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: ECE providers are free to pay new teachers on a higher starting salary if they choose to. Almost every other sector operates in this exact way, paying job applicants based on how they value their skills, qualifications, and experience. Speaking for the Associate Minister, I am confident that if new teachers have valuable skills and experience, they will be recognised accordingly.
Hon Jan Tinetti: How does a 0.5 percent cost adjustment for early childhood education subsidies, far below inflation, help relieve cost pressures for ECE centres?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: On behalf of the Associate Minister, the Government allocated the ECE sector an uplift of $51 million over four years. We are in extremely challenging fiscal circumstances, and New Zealanders are having to make difficult choices at the moment. What I would say also is that on top of this, there has been a number of things done by myself — as the Associate Minister, speaking on behalf of him — to reduce the regulatory burden on centres to help reduce their cost, as well as the initiative that the member has been asking about.
Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he agree with Early Childhood New Zealand – Te Rito Maioha, who said that “experience and education no longer matter, that quality early childhood education can be sacrificed in the name of Government cost-cutting.”
Hon ERICA STANFORD: On behalf of the Associate Minister, I completely disagree. As I’ve already mentioned, centres are free to pay new teachers to the sector as per what they are worth. One thing that I have said publicly is that those centres will pay based on the quality and the experience of the person who is applying for the job. It doesn’t necessarily mean, just because someone has a doctorate in philosophy, that they should be paid at the top of the scale, because they may not actually have the skills and experience that they need to be paid at that level of the pay scale. Just because they have some higher qualification in something that’s completely irrelevant to ECE.
Hon Jan Tinetti: Are these changes just “a way of keeping the cost of ECE centre funding down for the Government, while also not affecting service providers’ bottom lines”, as pointed out by the Office of Early Childhood Education?
Hon Erica Stanford: Speaking on behalf of the Associate Minister: no, and I would like to point out that the previous Government were the ones that abandoned pay parity for the ECE sector in their final dying days of our previous Government, by making sure that when the Kindergarten Teachers’ Collective Agreement, the kindergarten teachers went up, that ECE wouldn’t also go up. So if that member wants to have a go at us about pay parity, she should look to her own Government.
10. CARL BATES (National — Whanganui) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcement has she made about regional events funding?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): This Government is driving economic growth in the regions by investing $2.6 million in over 150 regional events. I’m thrilled with the variety of exciting events on offer, encouraging more New Zealanders to enjoy and explore our beautiful country beyond the main centres. Events are excellent drawcards to get more visitors into our regions, particularly in quieter parts of the year, for the tourism and hospitality sector. This funding comes from the $5 million Regional Events Promotion Fund. Over the two rounds, the fund has invested in 284 regional events.
Carl Bates: How does this support regional tourism in the Whanganui region?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This funding boost will support a wide range of events across Whanganui. The member will be particularly interested in the funding to the Whanganui Vintage Weekend, the Whanganui Suzuki Series, and the Cooks Classic athletic event. It’s great to continue to support this event and encourage many more visitors to that region. It will boost Whanganui’s local economy to create and support employment across the region.
Catherine Wedd: How does this support regional tourism in Hawke’s Bay?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I thank the member for her question. As part of the Regional Events Promotion Fund, I was pleased to see that the Hawke’s Bay will have a number of events supported through this round of funding. These events include the Hawke’s Bay Wine and Food Festival, Art Deco in Napier, Horse of the Year, and the Outfield Music, Food and Arts Festival. These events are hugely beneficial to the Hawke’s Bay economy and are a great drawcard for New Zealanders to head to the bay. This Government is committed to backing the regions and, of course, boosting economic growth.
Maureen Pugh: How does this support regional tourism across the West Coast?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The West Coast’s iconic and unique events have received support from this funding round. The funding will help promote the True West Adventure Race, the fantastic Hokitika Wildfoods Festival, and the Greymouth Motorcycle Street Race. These events are a great initiative to get visitors from New Zealand travelling to the West Coast, spending in its local towns, helping local businesses, and supporting local jobs year-round. New Zealand is open for business and we encourage all Kiwis to explore and enjoy our own backyard.
11. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Will the 13,200 low-income households who will have their housing assistance reduced due to the Government’s changes to the calculation of housing subsidies be better or worse off as a result?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There has been no change to the accommodation supplement or public housing subsidy payments. The recent changes to boarders and income-related rent are based on common sense and fairness when accessing the appropriate accommodation support. Most people who receive housing subsidies will not be impacted by these changes. The system must be fair to taxpayers as well as those who are receiving housing assistance. The recent changes ensure that all housing income is taken into account when calculating housing assistance.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned that her ministry warned her that the changes to the eligibility in the accommodation supplement will risk “increased hardship”, “further cost pressures for vulnerable households” and “increasing need for other hardship assistance”?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, because Budget 2024 was all about reducing the cost of living crisis, and what we do know is that those households who have the lowest incomes are the most harshly affected by the cost of living crisis, which is why we needed to make changes to this regime, to ensure that we alleviated pressure for low-income households.
Ricardo Menéndez March: How does leaving 13,200 low-income households worse off as a result of the changes to the accommodation supplement eligibility by up to hundreds of dollars a week help with the cost of living?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because, as I said, Budget 2024 was about addressing the cost of living pressures. Job number one was to reduce Government spending, and this initiative addressed an area that most New Zealanders would have expected wasn’t happening. If you were a boarder paying board in a household, you could get the accommodation supplement. In the same household, if you were collecting board from multiple people, you would also get the accommodation supplement. That is double-dipping. That is exactly the kind of Government spending that we need to reduce.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that, for someone living in poverty, losing $100 a week as a result of these changes could mean they can’t put food on the table?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m not sure if I can say it any more plainly, but where we have accommodation assistance, it must take into account all housing income. That is fair and equitable to taxpayers as well as making common sense to those who are receiving housing assistance.
Ricardo Menéndez March: How is it fair to leave thousands of people potentially in hardship, as identified by her own ministry?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because, as I said, the changes that have been made as a result of Budget 2024 reduced a couple of anomalies. Most New Zealanders would expect that housing assistance would be calculated based on all housing income. It wasn’t; we’ve changed it. It’s fairer, as it should be.
12. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour — Te Atatū) to the Minister of Immigration: How many people were informed in error following Immigration New Zealand’s online ballot in May that they had won the right to apply for a parent residence visa?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): Immigration New Zealand’s parent resident visa expressions of interest online tool allows people to see if their expression of interest was successful in the ballot. The tool should show an exact match of the customer’s ballot number once they’ve inputted it. However, when the tool was recently rebuilt for the new website, an ICT error meant that in some instances it also showed ballot numbers that were close but not an exact match. I’m advised that it’s not possible to track how many people this happened to. However, Immigration New Zealand has only been contacted by three people.
Hon Phil Twyford: Why won’t she, as Minister, personally apologise to Alison Renwick and any others who were wrongly told that they had won the right to sponsor for a parent residence visa?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I understand that immigration officials have already spoken to the lady that the member mentions and have apologised. If they have details for other people, they will be doing the same.
Hon Phil Twyford: Will applicants who were wrongly told that they had won the right to sponsor for a parent residence visa be granted a fee waiver the next time they want to go into the ballot?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Because we have no idea of how many people this has affected, it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to do that.
Hon Phil Twyford: How much revenue has been generated for the Government over the last year by the $450 fee that people pay to go into the ballot only for three months?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t have that information to hand so I can’t answer it. But if the member wants to put it in writing, then we’ll be able to answer it.
Hon Phil Twyford: Will she admit that many thousands of Kiwi families are frustrated and desperately waiting for the parent boost visa that she promised and 19 months later is still nowhere to be seen?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, as I had indicated in January this year via social media video that went quite well, I indicated that we had started work on the visa. And we will be announcing the visa imminently with a date that people will be able to apply for it, which will be months earlier than we had originally intended.
