1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader — Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement, “I am a woman that stands for women in this Parliament”; if so, how many women, if any, will receive increased pay because of her Government’s pay equity changes?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes, I do stand by my statement that I am a woman and I stand for women in this Parliament. To the second part of the member’s question, I’m afraid I cannot answer it, because the outcomes of pay equity bargaining will depend on the merits of the case and negotiations between the bargaining parties.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why are 180,000 workers — mostly women — being forced to carry the cost of this Government’s poor Budget decisions?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: That’s just not true. They’re not being asked to carry any cost. We are simply ensuring that the pay equity system does what it says it does, which is to stamp out genuine cases of sex-based discrimination.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why is the Minister pushing Pasifika women further backwards on pay equity when, over a lifetime, Pasifika women earn almost half a million dollars less than a Pākehā man?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: That’s just not true. The pay equity system remains. People can still take a claim for pay equity. Whether or not a claim is found to have merit is not my responsibility as a Minister, and I don’t collectively bargain on behalf of the Government.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can the Minister justify erasing pay equity gains for women when wāhine Māori are still paid 15 percent less than men?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I may start repeating myself, so I apologise if that’s the case, but the pay equity system remains, and people can take a pay equity claim no matter what race they may be.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with Dame Judy McGregor, who says that the Minister’s — [Interruption]
SPEAKER: The member will start the question again. People who might have a comment would do well to refrain from making it.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with Dame Judy McGregor, who says that the Minister’s pay equity changes “are the most egregious recent example of disregard for the human rights of women in Aotearoa.”; if not, why not?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is Tony McCombs correct to say the only winners from the Government’s pay equity changes “are landlords, lobbyists, and those clinging to power with cold fingers and colder hearts. This coalition Government reeks of privilege and the rot of self-interest.”; if not, why not?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can she claim she stands — [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just hold on. You may not like a question, but it’s addressed to the Minister and to no one else in the House, and we’re silent while questions are asked.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can she claim she stands for women when, under this Government, more women are unemployed, 33 pay equity claims have been cancelled, and teachers and nurses are having to strike to get a pay increase that fairly keeps up with the cost of living?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Of course I stand up for women. And I would suspect that every woman in this House wants women across New Zealand to do well and succeed and be there to support themselves and their families and their wider community. I would be surprised if anybody disagreed with that. Maybe that member does. I can’t speak for her. However, I do acknowledge that there are people across our economy who are struggling and doing it really tough — from the private sector and the public sector. My job as a Minister is to ensure that we have a flexible labour market that allows for more and better job opportunities for women and for men.
2. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori — Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: What advice, if any, has he received from officials on the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision that the “beds of navigable rivers form part of the common marine and coastal area as defined in MACA, and recognition orders may extend to them”?
Stuart Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The questioner is wearing a T-shirt with a political slogan on it, which is against Speakers’ rulings, and I believe it may even have a party logo, which, again, you have ruled is not allowed in the House.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Speaking to the point of order, it is not a political slogan —
SPEAKER: Don’t start addressing me until I’ve finished. Now you can.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to assist the House, it is not a political slogan and it is not a Māori Party slogan. Thank you — just to inform the House.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): As the Minister for Māori Development, none. But I have received a range of positive advice around the Government’s efforts to support Māori housing through partnering to build affordable homes in iconic and majestic places like Te Kao with Te Aupōuri, or Hopuhopu with Waikato-Tainui, and, of course, Te Kūiti with Ngāti Maniapoto.
Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with the Supreme Court that Acts of Parliament have not sufficiently or clearly extinguished Māori customary rights or title to navigable riverbeds?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I have not read or heard any advice to that effect, and, as the Minister for Māori Development, I am not responsible for receiving in the first instance the advice in relation to that matter.
Tākuta Ferris: Has he been consulted by the Minister of Justice — there he is — on any potential changes to the marine and coastal area (MACA) bill that would extinguish or limit Māori customary rights to riverbeds in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kāre anō au kia kōrero ki te Minita mō ngā Take Ture. Heoi anō kāre e tukua ērā momo kōrero ki tērā Minita. Nei e hāngai ana te mema ki ngā tikanga me ngā ritenga o tēnei Whare ka mōhio hoki a ia ko te tangata tōtika ki te whakautu i tana pātai ngāwari nei kei reira, kei te Minita mō ngā mahi whakataunga kerēme Tiriti.
[I have not yet spoken to the Minister of Justice. However, those types of discourse are not forwarded to that Minister. Now, if the member was familiar with the practices and conventions of this House, he would be aware that the correct person to respond to his simple question is over there, the Minister for Treaty claims settlement actions.]
Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve let a couple of questions run, but I do just want to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 186/6, about opinions being sought that, in effect, are asking for a legal interpretation not being permitted under the Standing Orders. The first supplementary from Mr Ferris, in particular, asked whether or not the Minister agreed with the Supreme Court, which is, essentially, asking for a legal interpretation. I think we’re OK, but I’m just drawing your attention to it, because we don’t want to stray into territory that is dangerous.
SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure what you were drawing my attention to. It’s not unreasonable to ask whether a Minister has an opinion. That gets asked quite frequently.
Tākuta Ferris: What impact will the Government’s decision to forge on with the marine and coastal area amendment bill have on Māori-Crown relationships when these changes will lead to re-hearings, decision reversals, and millions more being spent on relitigation?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: All those matters are hypothetical at this point in time, and I implore the member opposite asking those questions to put those types of questions to the Minister responsible for the portfolios and that which lies in his bailiwick.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the Minister having difficulty answering the question because whatever the Supreme Court was deliberating on, it was not on “MACA”, but on a piece of legislation not described that way?
SPEAKER: Well, I don’t know that he’s got responsibility for what the Supreme Court was actually meaning.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you have, and you missed it.
SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, you and your Clerk have, and you’ve missed it. This question makes no sense because there is no —
SPEAKER: Look, I’m going to tell the member that I’m sick to death of his trying to rewrite the Standing Orders, trying to rewrite the procedure of the House, and trying to tell me how to do the job. If he doesn’t like it, there’s a remedy for him, and he should use it. In the meantime, the question has been accepted and the question stands. If anybody knows me in this House, they’ll know that I hate acronyms, and the sight of it today has particularly annoyed me.
Tākuta Ferris: Is it fair that whānau and hapū who rely on customary kai gathering for survival should have their unfettered access rights diminished in the midst of a cost of living crisis?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am not an arbiter of fairness, but what I will say is that in the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill, we continue to preserve customary fishing independent of the biodiversity objectives that were previously forced upon customary fishing by the previous administration.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he aware that it is the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that is responsible for the marine and coastal area Act, and the general practice is that, if someone wants to ask questions on a particular portfolio, they should ask it to the right Minister?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I welcome that observation —
SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, there’s no — sit down. [Interruption] Sit down. That’s a question that is really just inviting disorder. Asking another Minister about his competence is not something that looks good for the Government.
Tākuta Ferris: What is the Minister’s response to hapū and iwi who may find their takutai moana subject to a tourist levy or a Department of Conservation concession for development by overseas investors, such as Ngāti Hei at Cathedral Cove?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can observe that the collaboration between Te Papa Atawhai Department of Conservation and Ngāti Hei at Te Whanganui-a-Hei Mautohe Cathedral Cove has been ongoing and continuing, and all other matters in relation to the member’s question is purely speculation.
Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with the Minister of Justice that raising the threshold for Māori customary and marine title restores the original intent of the 2011 takutai moana Act, or does he agree with the author of the 2011 takutai moana Act, who has said that this Government’s amendments undermine that intent?
Hon TAMA POTAKA:
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Stuart Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: It had better be a point of order that’s quite new and not dealt with today.
Stuart Smith: I don’t think it has been dealt with. I want to refer you to Speakers’ rulings 62/3 and 20/4, and I think you could settle the matter by asking the member what is on his T-shirt. I think —
SPEAKER: I’ll tell you where we’re going: this is a time for the Government to account for itself. I’ll certainly look at those Speakers’ rulings, but not immediately.
3. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, the Reserve Bank released the latest monetary policy statement. As members will be aware, this conveyed the bank’s decision to reduce the official cash rate to 3 percent and signal a forward track that is lower than previously expected. The Reserve Bank’s announcements have had an immediate impact on retail interest rates, which have reduced, on top of significant reductions that have already occurred over the past year. These reductions have lowered the cost of borrowing for New Zealand households and businesses, delivering much-needed cost of living relief and supporting the economic recovery.
Nancy Lu: What did the Reserve Bank say about the current state of the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank highlights the fact that export-focused parts of the economy are currently doing well, supported by high dairy, meat, and horticulture prices. Activity remains subdued, however, in many industries reliant on domestic demand. The bank expects that in the past quarter, the one that ended on 30 June, the economy contracted slightly, reflecting temporary factors such as high global economic uncertainty, but it expects the economy to be growing again now, as those temporary factors pass and as the stimulus of lower interest rates transmits through the economy. It expects unemployment to peak at 5.3 percent, slightly lower than Treasury was predicting in its pre-election update in 2023.
Nancy Lu: What did the Reserve Bank say about the outlook for the economy in the future?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Looking ahead, the Reserve Bank expects economic growth to pick up strongly in the last quarter of 2025 and persist across 2026 and 2027. Growth is supported by the stimulus from lower interest rates, continuing to transmit to higher domestic demand and as the effects of global economic uncertainty wane. As the economy picks up, the unemployment rate is forecast to fall steadily. This isn’t me expecting higher growth and lower unemployment; this is the independent Reserve Bank.
Nancy Lu: What did the Reserve Bank say about the inflation outlook?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Reserve Bank expects inflation to be at the top of the 1 to 3 percent target band in the current quarter, but thereafter to fall quickly towards the 2 percent midpoint. The bank also had a point about inflation that is worth quoting. It said: “Declining Government spending as a share of the economy is expected to reduce inflationary pressure in the medium term.” That is a key part of the Government’s fiscal strategy. Our sensible economic management is actively supporting inflation and interest rates to be lower than they otherwise would be, meaning fewer cost pressures for New Zealanders.
4. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Will she rule out any changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 that would weaken working people’s right to strike; if not, why not?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I can confirm that I do not currently have any planned work in this area. However, I cannot rule in or out future changes in any policy area, because Government decisions are made at Cabinet.
Hon Jan Tinetti: Will she rule out any changes to working people’s right to strike?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I don’t wish to repeat myself, like I had to in a previous question. I made myself quite clear in the primary answer.
Hon Jan Tinetti: Has she sought or received advice on imposing additional requirements on working people before they can access strike action?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I don’t believe I have.
Hon Jan Tinetti: Will the Government introduce barriers such as mandatory mediation periods prior to people being legally able to strike?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Like I said, I have not personally requested or asked for any advice in this area, but I would highly suspect that if the questioner keeps going down this line, like her colleague did yesterday, you might be starting to give the Government a lot of thoughts.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, sir. The question was whether the Government is planning to make the changes outlined in the question. The response was that the Minister has not personally sought advice. That actually doesn’t address the question. Whether there is work under way by the Government that is related to that portfolio isn’t addressed by the Minister confirming whether she’s sought advice.
SPEAKER: The Minister might like to expand on whether that advice has been sought by her office, as a Minister.
SPEAKER: No, don’t — look, sorry. Do you want to come and sit in the Chair or something — because you’ve got so much to say, it’s unbelievable. Just let the person answer the question.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I haven’t asked for, nor have my officials given me, advice in this area. I was responsible for the partial strikes legislation that was taken through this House only a few months ago, which I understand has been implemented and is working well. However, that is not another area that I’m doing future work on at this stage.
Hon Jan Tinetti: Will the Government introduce limitations on when strikes can start, such as only allowing strikes during the school holidays?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Like I mentioned to the member before, the member may wish to stop giving other colleagues of mine some ideas.
Question No. 5 — Housing
5. TAMATHA PAUL (Green — Wellington Central) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce that the housing crisis is “state neglect on an industrial scale”; if so, is he doing enough to end that neglect?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Yes, I do. The Government has a comprehensive plan to fix the fundamentals of our housing and urban land markets through Going for Housing Growth. It involves freeing up land, fixing infrastructure funding and financing, and creating incentives for growth. In the long term, ultimately, that is the way to fix New Zealand’s housing crisis.
Tamatha Paul: Why have zero of the 1,500 new community housing places announced in Budget 2024 been allocated to Wellington City, especially when rough sleeping is up 24 percent from last year?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Some of those places have been allocated to Wellington City. I don’t have the exact numbers with me, but some of them have been allocated to Wellington and there will be continued allocations out of that 1,500 in the weeks and months ahead.
Tamatha Paul: Can he guarantee that the number of community housing places allocated to Wellington City will be sufficient to address the 328 homeless people in Wellington City, 141 rough sleepers in Wellington City, and the 775 people on the public housing wait-list?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government’s got an active programme of work in Wellington and other cities around addressing all of these issues. As the member knows — I think from her own time at a local council level — all of these problems are connected together. Ultimately, what we’re trying to build, as a Government, is a housing system in which there is downward pressure on rents; there is support provided for those who need it, particularly those who are rough sleeping and in difficult circumstances; and our overriding mantra when it comes to social housing is trying to make sure that the right houses are built in the right place for the right people and the right support is provided to those people. That’s not the status quo at the moment — I fully acknowledge that. That’s why we’re working so hard to change the system so that we better calibrate Government support around the need that is evident in particular regions and around particular cohorts of people.
Tamatha Paul: Does he accept that cancelling 100 new homes in Rongotai, freezing progress on 300 new homes in Wellington Central, and allocating zero of the new community housing places to Wellington City means that Wellington City is seeing hundreds fewer new public houses under this Government?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, I don’t accept that. And there’s some factual inaccuracies in what the member just said.
Tamatha Paul: How much does homelessness need to increase for the Minister to accept that he needs to reverse their changes on emergency housing criteria?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m open to sensible changes around emergency housing, but I do just want to warn the member and others that it would be intolerable for this Government — and I think for the country — to go back to a situation we had previously in which emergency housing was a free-for-all, and, in a five-year period, as a country, as a Government, we spent $1.4 billion housing families, including young children, in dark, damp motels. We are not prepared to get ourselves back to that situation. That’s why we introduced the Priority One policy, which has so far seen over 2,000 kids move out of those motels and into warm, dry homes. The member, I think, should also reflect on our wider planning system. The member may have seen the example of the New Plymouth man who was in a motel for over three years with a disability, with a young son. Finally, that man has been able to move out of a motel into a Kāinga Ora house — fantastic for him and for his whānau, but it took 18 months to get resource consent and building consent to retrofit the house. That is why all of the housing changes the Government is making, including with the building consent system, are so important. It is ridiculous that we live in a country in which it takes 18 months to get consent to put a ramp in a house so that someone with a disability can move out of a motel into a social house.
Tamatha Paul: Will he accept the invitation from local service providers and businesses to walk the streets of Newtown and get an understanding of why the local community are desperate for wrap-around support services, accelerated affordable housing solutions, and a focused Government response to growing homelessness, or is their preference to simply kick people to the streets, to tents, and to sleep in their cars?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: My preference is actually to go and meet with front-line service providers, as I’ve done alongside Minister Potaka in the last few weeks, including the Wise Group, the Auckland City Mission, Downtown Community Ministry in Wellington that I know the member has a passing familiarity with. My preference is to actually go and meet with those providers and ask them, as I have done, what would work on the ground to try and improve the situation for rough sleepers. We are working on that. No one in this House wants to live in a country in which people sleep rough. No one wants to live in a country in which people who need housing support don’t get it. That’s why the Government is working so hard to change the system: so that we can create a situation where the right houses are built in the right place for the right people. That’s not what we have right now. That’s why we’re changing the system.
6. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National — Waikato) to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcement has she made about investment in defence?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Today, I announced the first major investment decisions to be made as part of the Government’s Defence Capability Plan (DCP). I was delighted to announce that the MH-60R Seahawk is the preferred option to replace the existing maritime helicopters, and that the Airbus A321XLR aircraft will replace the ageing 757 fleet. These represent once-in-a-generation investments in our national security to ensure our economic prosperity. It will ensure New Zealand has a critical combat capable, interoperable, and dependable fleet. We need a force that is ready and equipped to do whatever is asked of it today, tomorrow, and beyond; and to ensure we can deploy, deter, defend, and respond to protect New Zealand, New Zealanders, our way of life, and our economy.
Tim van de Molen: What capabilities will the new helicopters provide?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: [Holds up a model helicopter] Well, Mr Speaker — [Interruption] I could always wear it, if you wanted. The MH-60R Seahawk — [Interruption] Yes, it’s very nice. Just behave, everyone — [Interruption] I’ll pop that down.
SPEAKER: Just before the Minister puts that away, it’s a particularly handsome looking desk model. Just send it my way, please.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, thank you very much. The MH-60R Seahawk is a great aircraft for what New Zealand needs. The five new Seahawks will replace the ageing Seasprite fleet — and when I say ageing, I mean four of these were around in the 1960s. I’m reliably assured that one of the airframes was actually used in the Korean War. The new air maritime helicopters are versatile at combat and deterrent capability to our naval fleet. It’s the helicopter used by Australia, the United States, and seven other countries. These five Seahawks will increase the offensive and defensive capability and surveillance range of New Zealand’s frigates, and ensure we’re interoperable with our ally Australia, and our partner defence forces.
Tim van de Molen: What capabilities will the new planes provide?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We’re replacing the 32-year-old Boeing 757 fleet with two new Airbus A321XLR aircrafts. These extra long-range aircraft will be capable of returning safely from Antarctica if they are unable to land due to conditions on the ice. This is not a capability that we’ve ever had before, because we have had to know, when our people fly down to Antarctica to drop people in or rescue them or anything else, that there is a point of no return; there is nowhere for them to go if they can’t land on the ice. This is going to fix that. They will be able to also fly as far as Singapore without needing to stop and refuel. It’s a decision that reflects the need for New Zealand to have a reliable aircraft for our personnel, to deliver military equipment and humanitarian aid, support the evacuation of civilians, and transport Government trade and diplomat delegations quickly over long distances, often at short notice. Just remember that we are responsible in New Zealand for the fourth largest search and rescue area in the world and one of the largest exclusive economic zones in the world. So we have to make sure our people actually have the equipment they need to do their job.
Tim van de Molen: How do these investment decisions contribute to the Government’s Defence Capability Plan?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: These $2.7 billion of investment decisions are part of the $12 billion in planned commitments outlined in the Defence Capability Plan I announced a few months ago. The DCP provides the foundation for doubling our defence spending in the next eight years. Two yearly reviews that are planned will allow us to adapt —
Celia Wade-Brown: No money for pay equity.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: — as the security environment continues to change. These decisions show how quickly the Government —
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: — is responding to a sharply deteriorating security environment. The men and women of our Defence Force step up time and time again and do an outstanding job. I heard something from over that side. Let me just tell you: when you’re out at sea or you’re lost in a boat or your kid’s in a kayak, who do you call? You call our Defence Force. So stop bagging —
Tākuta Ferris: Coastguard.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: — our defence — what a foolish thing to say. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: That’s enough.
7. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour — Palmerston North) to the Minister of Local Government: Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his refusal to answer questions about water affordability yesterday; if so, why?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government): I do not accept the premise of that question. I back Local Water Done Well to deliver and I’ll answer questions on that any day of the week.
Tangi Utikere: How can he justify celebrating the passage of his water reform laws this week, when councils’ own plans now show Christchurch families facing increases of $900, Hamilton families $1,700, and Selwyn $1,800 — all directly under his model?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, we have given councils the tools to get water on a financially sustainable footing. What that looks like will be different between different councils. The Government’s approved changes have already seen Watercare in Auckland alone save Auckland households $900 million over four years.
Tangi Utikere: Why has the Government focused on so-called financial sustainability of water providers while refusing to include any requirement that costs remain affordable for ratepayers?
Hon SIMON WATTS: It is easy for that side of the House to hold up paper numbers from a failed co-governed mega-entities model that they were proposing. Between the four councils with approved plans, already, these changes have been made, including Watercare — they’ve affected over 2 million Kiwis, who are now getting financially sustainable Local Water Done Well. That’s 2 million more people than the failed three waters mega-entity reforms, and I’ll answer questions on three waters any day of the week.
Tangi Utikere: Why has he designed a system that leaves councils to go it alone, that will create more than 40 water entities in a country of 5 million people, and, in doing so, has limited scale, efficiency, and borrowing power, which, as his own advice says, will drive up bills for households?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I reject the premise of that question. This Government promised Local Water Done Well, and we are delivering it. If Labour wants to stand up here and say they’re going to bring back three waters, then good luck. See you at the ballot box.
SPEAKER: No — just a minute. With all due respect to the passion exhibited in his answer, using an answer to challenge an Opposition party is outside of Standing Orders. Don’t continue with that line.
Tangi Utikere: When he said he was “out of time” yesterday, was he actually referring to his tenure as local government Minister, given the significant extra costs his water reforms will pile on to households?
SPEAKER: Well, sadly, that is a question that you can answer, because it’s about —
Hon SIMON WATTS: Oh, please. Well, with respect, Mr Speaker, that side of the House has no basis to talk about water reform. Their failed co-governed mega-entities model was a failure, and I will stand by Local Water Done Well every day of this week, because we are delivering financially sustainable water to Kiwi households, and I am proving that through the delivery we’re doing.
Question No. 8 — Local Government
8. RIMA NAKHLE (National — Takanini) to the Minister of Local Government: Mālō, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements has he made about the progress of Local Water Done Well legislation?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government): This Government campaigned on restoring community ownership of water assets, and Local Water Done Well received its third and final reading this week. After years of back and forth on water reform, local ownership and sustainability for water services is now here, and councils are getting on with delivering their plans.
Rima Nakhle: What water delivery plans has he seen?
Hon SIMON WATTS: At the core of Local Water Done Well is community choice, which means that councils can choose the shape of their plans as long as they meet the test set out around quality and sustainability, meaning that they can cover their costs and service their debt. I’m pleased to see that, despite the due date being 3 September, plans for Selwyn, Waimakariri, and a joint Waikato-Hamilton council-controlled organisation (CCO) have already been approved. Combined with the changes to Watercare Charter that was made last year, now over 2 million New Zealanders are already getting Local Water Done Well.
Rima Nakhle: What will Local Water Done Well mean for communities and ratepayers?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Water is a critical infrastructure, and everyone in this House would acknowledge that it has been under-invested in for too long and things have to change. Local Water Done Well strikes the right balance by keeping these assets in local hands while making the needed changes. Most importantly, it ensures water investments are made and services are professionally run, ultimately saving ratepayers money.
Rima Nakhle: What is his ideal number of water entities?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Local Water Done Well is about quality, not quantity. Whether it’s a multi-council CCO, like in the Waikato; a single-council entity, like Watercare; or an in-house model, like in Waimakariri, our priority is to ensure affordable services, and we’re getting that done.
9. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) to the Minister for Energy: How many households, if any, have been brought out of energy hardship this winter as a result of Government policies?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is not possible to give a precise number of households lifted out of energy hardship this winter, as that data is not yet available. But what I can say is that this Government is providing direct support through programmes like Warmer Kiwi Homes, which this Government has expanded to reach an additional 300,000 households, saving these families up to $340 per year. We’re also tackling the root causes of high costs by boosting competition and driving new generation with the strongest pipeline of new projects in 15 years. Households will continue to see further downward pressure on prices.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of Order. Madam Speaker, not now but perhaps later, you can check the Hansard record and see whether or not that questioner asked the question that was on the order paper or one that he just left words out of? I think you’ll find that’s what he did. All I’m trying to say is, after all this time, perhaps they can start learning how this place operates.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I will check the Hansard, Mr Peters. I was following the question, and if I missed something, then I apologise, but I will check it later. I was sure he asked the question correctly, but I promise to check.
Scott Willis: Does he accept that energy is an essential service fundamental to human wellbeing; if not, why not?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Absolutely, we do, but we also know that, at the moment, when times are tough, with rising energy prices putting pressure on Kiwi households, the Government needs to respond, and we are responding to support those in energy hardship. Things that we are doing include the Support for energy education in communities programme, the winter energy payment, Warmer Kiwi Homes, the Healthy Homes Initiatives, the Electricity Authority consumer care obligations, The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority’s tips for saving power on household bills, and funding for Consumer New Zealand’s Powerswitch. Under the last Government, 110,000 households reported that they couldn’t afford to keep their home adequately warm.
Scott Willis: Does he think it is fair for the gentailers to, yet again, be paying out hundreds of millions in dividends for this essential service while tens of thousands of households are in energy hardship, cannot afford to heat their homes, and are living in cold, damp, desperate conditions?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, on this side of the House, we are absolutely aware that we need more competition in our energy market, and we recognise that the status quo is not tolerable. As a result of that, this Government is taking actions in order to put downward pressure on Kiwi power bills. An announcement yesterday by the Electricity Authority in order to ensure that gentailers are not able to sell to themselves cheaper than the rate at which they provide to independent retailers is a good example of the mandatory action we are taking against the big players in this market to ensure Kiwi households are getting a fair price on their energy.
Scott Willis: What is his response to Kim from Upper Hutt, who is a pensioner, wheelchair user, and full-time carer for her adult son, who said, “My last power bill was quite high. It was a lot higher than I could budget for. It took my breath away, to be honest, and I am just sick of being constantly cold.”?
Hon SIMON WATTS: On this side of the House, we understand that tackling the cost of living crisis and keeping energy prices under control is a significant and major priority. The first thing that we did, on this side of the House, was to undo the damaging policies from the last Government that pushed up prices and scared off investment. The sector is now delivering market-led solutions, regulators are taking steps to ensure that the market operates fairly, and we are strongly supporting a market-led approach because it encourages more competition, delivers results, and, importantly, lowers prices for Kiwis.
Scott Willis: Does he agree with Consumer New Zealand Powerswitch manager Paul Fuge, who said that “Providers of essential services must not place commercial interests above consumer safety and wellbeing. Electricity retailers, by choosing to operate in this space, accept a duty of care. If they are unwilling or unable to meet that responsibility, they should not be permitted to serve the market.”; if not, why not?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Our approach as a Government is to ensure that we get on and actually deliver real changes: more competition in the energy market, more energy generation, security of supply so that prices come down for Kiwi households and reliability improves. That is the focus of this side of the House. That is the action that we are undertaking, and that is the priority. Why? Because on this side of the House, we are focused on dealing with tangible actions that deal with the cost of living crisis that we inherited coming into Government. We are working every single day, damn hard, to make changes that will improve this country, because the mess that we inherited from the last bunch is not the legacy we will leave. [Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, we’ve got a question coming.
Scott Willis: Does he stand by his statement that “small, surgical interventions will make a big difference and drive real results for Kiwi households and businesses.”, in relation to the energy system; if so, why does he not think that major structural transformation of the energy sector is required to address the cost of living crisis?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, this Government’s vision is for a dynamic, competitive energy market that delivers affordable and reliable power to Kiwis. The Government has already taken actions to ensure that our energy system is secure and affordable. We are currently considering a report on the broader energy market, and we will have more to say on that in due course.
10. INGRID LEARY (Labour — Taieri) to the Minister for Mental Health: Why are mental health providers only receiving a 3 percent increase in funding when internally delivered mental health budgets are increased by considerably more?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve been advised that the Minister’s primary answer might be longer than normal.
Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): While there has been an uplift in funding for mental health providers, Health New Zealand – delivered services will not automatically receive the remainder of the ring-fence uplift once mental health NGOs have received their 3 percent. Cost pressure funding for Health New Zealand is to cover both price uplifts and demographic growth. While price uplifts are aligned with inflationary pressures at 3 percent, demographic growth and anticipated increased demand for services is also to be covered by this funding. There’s a range of other cost pressures and new initiatives that also need to be funded from the envelope, many of which are still in train or under negotiation.
Ingrid Leary: Was the decision to increase funding for community mental health providers by only a third of what Health New Zealand is getting based on modelling or data, or were they just picking a number out of the air?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, what they were modelling on was, in fact, one of the biggest barriers to timely mental health and addiction support in New Zealand, which is that there’s too many workforce vacancies. That’s why that is one of my top priorities. That’s why, coming to office, we’ve grown the front-line Health New Zealand – funded mental health workforce by almost 10 percent. That’s what that uplift is paying for.
Ingrid Leary: How can he justify the budget disparity, given that at the same time, his Government has cut pay equity claims covering many of the lowest-paid community mental health workers?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: I can justify that uplift because part of that uplift is going towards Government priorities. For the first time in a long time, we’ve funded more forensic mental health inpatient beds under that uplift, with an extra $5.88 million under Budget 2025-26.
Ingrid Leary: How does pitting one part of the sector against the other lead to better health outcomes for those in need?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, what I can commit to is that I’ve already tasked Health New Zealand, who work with NGOs. They are led by a sector body group called Platform. They are going to review the cost pressure model for 2026-27, but, on top of that, I’ve sent a very clear instruction to move to phasing away for singular contracts to give those community providers more tenure and sustainability in their contracts, going forward.
Ingrid Leary: Why is the Minister restricting the community mental health sector funding when it will cause even more workforce burnout and worsen mental health outcomes for those in need of support?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, in tight times, I’m very proud to stand on our record. In two Budgets now, we have significantly increased the mental health and addiction ring-fenced funding, from $2.4 billion — it went up to $2.6 billion after the last Budget — up to $2.8 billion. But what I will point out is that one of the reasons there is an uplift in Health New Zealand services is we’ve got more people at the front line working, compared to when that Opposition party was last in office.
11. JOSEPH MOONEY (National — Southland) to the Minister for Land Information: What is the Government doing to make it easier to deliver critical infrastructure projects?
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Soon, Parliament is set to pass amendments to the Public Works Act to cut delays and reduce costs on large infrastructure projects. We’ll be able to cut costs while being more generous to individual landowners. We know that, as a country, we need to do better in the delivery of these projects as there is an urgent need to address our infrastructure deficit and to deliver critical projects at pace. This Government is taking decisive action so we can build the infrastructure that Kiwis desperately need.
Joseph Mooney: What specific changes are included in the bill?
Hon CHRIS PENK: The new accelerated land acquisition process includes changes that make it faster and fairer and more certain for landowners, including in relation to fast-track approval consented projects. These include incentive payments of 15 percent of the value of the land, capped at $150,000, available to landowners who agree early; recognition payments being for all landowners whose land is acquired under the accelerated process to receive a 5 percent recognition payment additional to the value of their property, capped at $92,000; and a replacement objections process so that submissions will be considered by the relevant decision maker rather than being mired in the Environment Court processes, speeding up resolution by months or even years.
Joseph Mooney: What projects will be eligible for the streamlined pathway?
Hon CHRIS PENK: The pathway is available to public projects in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act consented thereunder as well as roads of national significance in the Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024. These will all be eligible for the pathway. They include projects such as the Northland Corridor improvement programme, which includes the alternative to the Brynderwyn Hills, Transpower’s Cook Strait HVDC cable replacement, a second Ashburton Bridge, and, close to my own heart as the member for Kaipara ki Mahurangi, the express Northern Busway.
Joseph Mooney: Is the Government planning more changes to the Public Works Act?
Hon CHRIS PENK: We are. Further reforms will ensure that the Crown and councils can deliver for New Zealanders across a broader range of projects by modernising the law, streamlining the processes, improving landowner engagement, and introducing new tools to support disaster recovery — all while protecting and respecting private property rights. Legislation with wider amendments will be introduced to Parliament later this year, with the public being able to provide feedback through the select committee process, and I encourage them to do so.
12. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour — Christchurch East) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: Does he stand by his statement that we are “reforming our science sector to better support a growing economy and provide higher paying jobs for New Zealanders”?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries) on behalf of the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: Yes, the reforms the member refers to will be unlocking the full potential of our research to contribute towards economic growth and development.
Reuben Davidson: How many science jobs have been lost because of the Crown research institute restructure?
Hon SHANE JONES: No jobs have been lost; people are being reassigned and invited to apply for fresh jobs.
Reuben Davidson: Does he regret releasing an AI framework with spelling mistakes and apparent AI hallucinations but no workforce strategy to protect New Zealand jobs?
Hon SHANE JONES: Given that we are talking about scientists, they can improve their performance.
Reuben Davidson: Can he confirm that he has been unable to get the required support from his coalition partners to get the Gene Technology Bill over the line?
Hon SHANE JONES: The reference to the Gene Technology Bill is work in progress.
Reuben Davidson: How can he expect New Zealanders to have confidence in him when, at every corner, jobs are lost, even more are put at risk, and he has no plan to protect them?
Hon SHANE JONES: In actual fact, as part of these reforms, $60 million has been dedicated to supercritical geothermal energy, which will completely rewrite the costs and the sustainability of energy sources, and considerable amounts of effort will be put into the minerals sector, including the long-term future of coal.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much. In light of that last answer, I think it’s really important that the House is clear as to whether Minister Jones is answering as the Acting Minister or on behalf of the Minister.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister Jones, could you please clarify? I took it as “on behalf of”. Am I correct?
Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking to the point of order, the moment has passed.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. There is a convention in this House that we take members at their word, and if they are answering a question without indicating they’re doing it “on behalf of”, there is an assumption that they are doing so in an acting capacity. It became clear to me, especially with that last answer, that perhaps the Minister wasn’t, and if he was answering on behalf of, for the purpose of clarity in the Hansard, he should make that clear.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it’s a fair question, a fair point of order, and I would like the Minister to clarify what capacity he is speaking in, please.
Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking to the point of order, perhaps the Speaker could elicit from the Opposition member what he is talking about.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m very clear on the question that the Opposition member is asking. He’s asking for the Minister to clarify whether he’s speaking as the Acting Minister or on behalf of the Minister.
Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking to the point of order, I’ve given four or five answers. Which particular portion of an answer to the various questions is the Opposition member seeking clarification on?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I think the member has a very clear position in the House today: he’s either answering on behalf of or as Acting Minister, and he would have been answering those questions in that capacity. It would be very helpful if Minister Jones could clarify that position, please.
Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously I’m doing it on behalf of the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The Hon David Seymour has a supplementary question.
Hon David Seymour: As the Minister listened to that line of questioning, was he moved to wonder if artificial intelligence might be better than nothing?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not sure —
Hon SHANE JONES: I’ll gladly answer it, though — [Interruption] I’ll gladly answer it, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I can’t hear; there’s a lot of noise going on over here. As long as it doesn’t relate to attacks on a member of the House, the Minister is able to answer that question. He has chosen not to. Thank you. That concludes oral questions. I’m going to give the traditional 30 seconds for those people who are leaving the House to leave quietly.
OK, that is sufficient time for the conversations. I’d ask that everyone now be quiet as I call on Government order of the day No. 1. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill.
