https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2506/S00257/oral-questions-questions-to-ministers-sitting-date-24-june-2025.htm
|
| ||
Oral Questions — Questions To Ministers | Sitting Date: 24 June 2025 |
||
1. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by the Government's track record in upholding its Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): In the context of the obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, yes; particularly the Government's and the sagacious Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Paul Goldsmith's support of recent celebrations of Matariki mā Puanga—or as we call it, Puanga mā Matariki—with a national ceremony hosted by my whanaunga iwi of Ngāti Rangi at Tirorangi Marae in Ruapehu, and various hautapu throughout the country.
Tākuta Ferris: Does he stand by the exclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Regulatory Standards Bill, which sets the constitutional standard by which all laws should comply?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Regulatory Standards Bill was a matter that was chaperoned through the coalition agreement between ACT and National. That matter is just closing now in select committee and I look forward to a summary of the robust and strident submissions therein.
Tākuta Ferris: Was he consulted on the Regulatory Standards Bill before it was introduced; and if so, did he advocate for the inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori in the bill's principles?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: That matter is the subject of advice that has been reached to my office. But as the member will understand, kōrero in Cabinet remain confidential.
Tākuta Ferris: What advice, if any, has he received about the potential impacts of the Regulatory Standards Bill on the ability of the Crown to uphold its Tiriti commitments outside of Treaty settlements?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Various advisers have been proffered in relation to the ability of the Government to uphold Treaty responsibilities, both within settlement arrangements and outside of settlement arrangements, and those matters can be sought by the member.
Tākuta Ferris: Can he assure that the Regulatory Standards Bill will not undermine the Government's ability to implement Treaty clauses and needs-based, Māori-specific provisions in health, education, and environmental legislation?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: As the member is aware, this Government, through various coalition arrangements, is very committed to upholding Treaty settlements. And as the member is aware, and I've said before in this House, I am absolutely determined, as the Minister for Māori Development, to ensure that the disproportionate statistics that continue to malign Māori iwi, whānau, and other communities are attacked and the inequalities of opportunity and the unequal citizenship implications are addressed.
Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister agree that if successive Governments over the last 185 years had followed the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill, many of the grievances Māori hold today would never have arisen?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I certainly can acknowledge that there are a lot of disproportionate impacts as a result of Government actions over the years, and I am assuring this House that I will work my best and as effectively as I can to address those inequalities and unequal citizenship.
Tākuta Ferris: Will the Minister support amendments to the Regulatory Standards Bill to include Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori as foundational principles of good regulation; if not, why not?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: The 130,000 submitters to this bill, and I'm sure many members of this House, will look forward to the summary of those robust and strident submissions that have been made to the select committee and will take up various matters with the architects of this bill.
Tākuta Ferris: How does he reconcile his opposition to the Treaty principles bill with his support for the Regulatory Standards Bill, which will achieve the same intent of the Treaty principles bill, only through different means?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: The member has drawn some conclusions that I don't necessarily share with him. And if the member had some time between attending to his various responsibilities up and down the motu, including Te Waipounamu, he will see that there are differences in terms of the coalition arrangements in relation to those bills.
2. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does the Government condemn the United States' strikes on Iran; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): New Zealand is not going to rush to judgment on the lawfulness of various military actions occurring on the other side of the world arising in such a seriously complex situation and without the full picture. Responding on these things can't just be a matter of instinct but of facts. We have consistently called on all parties to comply with international law. New Zealand has consistently opposed Iran's nuclear programme, along with many other countries. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and in that context, we note the United States' decision to undertake targeted attacks aimed at degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities and the US statement made to the UN Security Council that it was acting in collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter. That'll be based, in time, on emerging evidence, which we have not got before us right here, right now.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, that the United States' attack is a "dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge—and a direct threat to international peace and security", and, if so, why won't the Government condemn the illegal attack?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, as someone who knows the Secretary-General very well and has had a number of meetings with him, I do think that his own statement will have, in time, to pass judgment on the legal context. We have consistently called on all parties to the conflict in Gaza to comply with international law. Allegations of breaches of international law are for international courts to determine. That's what the Secretary-General will also have to live with, as we do. We are not going to comment further on matters before the court.
Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Government stay out of the AUKUS security pact and build a foreign policy independent of nations fanning the flames of war?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Although this is so far distant from the original debate, I'd welcome the chance to answer, because in August 2021, the then Prime Minister and the Labour Government, supported by the Greens, entered the discussions on AUKUS Pillar 2—not a mutter, not a murmur from anybody over here—all the way until the 2023 election. Then, all of a sudden, what we inherited innocently—not invited yet, of course, and still not invited yet, of course—is something of grave alarm! Do I see here something starting with "H" now?
Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response to the many Iranians who have made it clear that we cannot liberate their people from an oppressive regime by blowing up their towns and bombing their country?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest respect, I've heard it from a number of people in Iran and not living in Iran, including the royal family from Iran, who have a different view entirely from that member, but that's because perhaps they know a bit more what's going on on the ground.
Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Government rule out joining any United States - led war on Iran or any American war lacking a UN mandate?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest respect, that question just shades into an insult. After all the seriousness that we and Foreign Affairs, working 24/7, have given to this issue over many months and many years, that question is simply a disgraceful insult.
Hon Marama Davidson: Is the Government concerned that our international reputation as a fair and honest dealer in global affairs may be undermined by the Government's failure to meaningfully challenge and oppose the United States' efforts to undermine international law and global security?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Actually, it's quite amazing to hear that question and look back in the last few hours at those people internationally who have supported—and, dare I say it, in this country, from all sides—the New Zealand Government's balanced, fair, reasonable, logical position.
3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government's actions which focus on cutting wasteful spending, which is making a real difference to the cost of living for New Zealanders. Inflation, which was 5.6 percent when we took office, is now 2.5 percent. The official cash rate has fallen from 5.5 percent to 3.25 percent, and Kiwis see that in falling mortgage rates. Rents are also coming down. According to TradeMe, tenants are paying $20 less a week on new rentals than they were last April. New Zealanders are much better off under a Government that manages its own finances as carefully as New Zealanders have had to manage theirs under the previous Government's fiscal profligacy.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how are New Zealanders better off when the price of butter has increased by 50 percent and the price of cheese has increased by 30 percent, showing that the cost of living continues to go up under his Government?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Dairy products have increased in price because the global dairy price has improved—something that is good for New Zealand's farmers. What would be bad for New Zealand's farmers is if we had a different Government that put an avalanche of regulation on to those farmers that produce for New Zealand and the New Zealand economy, pushing up those prices even higher. New Zealanders are better off because inflation overall has gone down, even though some prices may vary—and sometimes that benefits sectors of the economy that that side of the House seems to hate.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why are international prices and international factors now the cause of the cost of living crisis when two years ago, they weren't?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It has always been the case that both local and domestic factors influence inflation. What has changed in the last 18 months is we now have a Government that is not borrowing $115 billion and leaving us with nothing but inflation and high interest rates to show for it. We have a Government that is fiscally cautious, managing its accounts in the way that families and firms and farmers had to manage theirs when those guys were in power, hosing it around like there's no tomorrow.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does a 50 percent increase in the price of butter and a 20 percent increase in the cost of bread make it harder or easier for families struggling with the cost of living to "make a Marmite sandwich" when their kid's school lunch doesn't show up, explodes, or is inedible?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I think it's interesting that the member wants to talk about the Healthy School Lunch programme. We're now seeing 67 percent approval from the students—actually, they're loving it. Most parents will tell you that if you get more than two times out of three—your kids loving the lunch you send them—then that's winning. We're doing it for half the price that the previous Government was doing it. That's a very good example of how this Government is doing things better, faster, and smarter, and, yes, we are achieving over 99 percent on-time delivery. Now, to come back to those other prices, what we are seeing is inflation overall of 5.6 percent when this Government came in that is at 2.5 percent now. Overall, the out-of-control prices that those people—
SPEAKER: Good—yep.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —left the New Zealand households with—
SPEAKER: Bring it in a bit.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —are under control. They can cherry pick all they like, but you won't butter up—
SPEAKER: Yeah, OK.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —the New Zealand public after your last failures.
SPEAKER: Answers to questions are not an opportunity to make a grand speech, but points made are points made.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does adding nearly $25,000 to the projected cost of a medical student's degree help them with the cost of living and help to address critical doctor shortages?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, you will have seen today that the Government has committed to a 13.89 percent increase in GP funding, so if your focus is on the patients—who are the people who are actually supposed to benefit from the healthcare system—then this Government is putting the taxpayer's money where its mouth is so we can get the healthcare that New Zealanders deserve, after neglect. And just remember: this is the guy who managed to increase—
SPEAKER: No, no.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —the health budget—
SPEAKER: No—don't.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister now could address the question that I asked.
SPEAKER: Well, I think he started out by doing exactly that, and I just pulled him up when he was starting to stray into material that wasn't quite appropriate for the answer.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Are increasing council rates bills, higher power bills, higher car registration fees, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for childcare—all of which the Government has directly contributed to—signs that the Government has fixed the cost of living crisis?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I look at the 12 percent increase in council rates in Wellington, a city that has just built a $2.3 million toilet, and that tells me that this Government is on absolutely the right track when it restricts the range of goals that councils should have. And I also notice that there's some new candidates on the ballot this year that people may just want to have a look at if they'd like to act a bit more locally.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How will taking $13 billion—
SPEAKER: Sorry—wait, wait. Your own team were talking while you're trying to ask questions.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Fair enough. How will—
SPEAKER: Well, not really, I think it's most unfair.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How will taking $13 billion from the pay packets of low-income working women help them with their cost of living?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, if that was true, then it wouldn't, but it's absolutely untrue. Unfortunately, we have an Opposition that lives in a post-fact environment.
Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Acting Prime Minister believe that households are better or worse off as a consequence of the Government's decision to reduce taxes, including those households with children who, on average, receive $78 a fortnight extra in their pay packets?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is absolutely the case that one of the largest costs that most households face is taxation—and they don't mind if they're getting something for it. But, for example, when you have someone who increases the health budget by two-thirds and ends up with the same number of ICU beds at the end of the pandemic as when he started, you see how easily people's money can be wasted, and that's why they're keen to see tax cuts so they get a little back.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he or the Minister of Finance or the IRD located one single family that's receiving the $250 a fortnight the National Party and the Government promised them?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The fact is it's not our job to go hunting for people. I would recommend that that member goes and hunts for one person in the Labour Party who believes that he's going to last till the election.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much, sir. Can you please review the answers to those questions and consider whether it is appropriate for an Acting Prime Minister to use question time to essentially campaign for their political party in local elections.
SPEAKER: I'll certainly do that, but I'll also review the question that was asked, and the review of that question is likely to conclude that the answer was somewhat inevitable. But I will certainly have a look at it.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order, Mr Speaker. In the same breath, I want you to review the tape and check the Leader of the Opposition wasn't—
SPEAKER: I just said that—I just said that.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —inadvertently campaigning for the ACT Party.
SPEAKER: That's not going to go terribly well for the Government's balance of the day, with that sort of commentary.
4. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Last week, Stats NZ released GDP figures for the first three months of the year. These showed the New Zealand economy expanding 0.8 percent over the quarter, following growth of 0.5 percent in the last three months of 2024. Stats NZ also reports economic growth per person. Per capita growth was 0.5 percent in the first quarter of the year. This is the highest per capita growth since September 2022 and the second consecutive quarter of per capita growth after eight quarters of negative or no growth. These economic results are welcome news for New Zealand workers, families, and businesses.
Dan Bidois: How do these latest GDP results compare to forecasts?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The latest result was higher than almost anyone had forecast. In particular, growth of 0.8 percent in the March quarter is exactly twice the 0.4 percent growth rate forecast by both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank only a short time ago, and it was the second quarter in a row where growth outstripped what forecasters had predicted. It confirms that the economic recovery was not just under way but was gaining momentum late last year and at the start of this year.
Dan Bidois: What is the expectation for growth in the second quarter of this year?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We are almost at the end of the second quarter of this year. At the start of the quarter, in early April, new tariff announcements created uncertainty and dented confidence in economies around the world. Now, at the end of the quarter, there are bombs dropping and missiles flying in the Middle East. New Zealand is not immune to these global events. We have seen evidence of a knock to domestic business confidence and investment intention, and these global events mean it will be very challenging to sustain the previous level of growth into the June quarter. The Reserve Bank, for example, is forecasting positive but subdued growth in the June and September quarters before picking up again strongly at the end of the year. If members opposite think New Zealanders are silly enough to think that global events don't have an impact on our New Zealand economy, then they are grossly underestimating the people we represent.
SPEAKER: The final part of that answer was probably not adding anything to the actual content of the answer.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that the Government remains committed to very careful management of its own finances, because when the Government takes less, there is more for people to spend, more for businesses to invest, and a virtual circle of growth carries on in New Zealand?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I can confirm that. I can also confirm that we were the first Government since 2010 to deliver tax relief to New Zealand households, benefiting more than a million households. Members opposite opposed that tax relief and would have those New Zealanders worse off.
Dan Bidois: What conclusion does she draw from the strong GDP results in the December 2024 and March 2025 quarters?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealanders should be confident that the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and they should be heartened by the fact that growth has been outperforming what experts said was possible. The economy is in much better shape now than it has been over the last few years, with lower inflation, lower interest rates, and a return to per capita growth. Yes, global events can and do rock the economy—sometimes quite sharply—but I genuinely believe that New Zealand businesses and exporters are well placed to meet these headwinds, and they have a Government that backs them to do just that.
5. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: How does the Government's $200 million fund for the fossil fuel sector impact the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability?
Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment): It has no impact upon the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS). nor on the Government's ability to honour our commitments under this world-first trade agreement which will reduce tariff rates for environmental goods that we sell, including New Zealand wool and wood. ACCTS does not prevent the Government from reopening oil and gas exploration permits, nor entering into commercial arrangements to ensure energy security and affordable prices for New Zealand households. Natural gas will play a vital role in energy stability as a low-emission alternative to the coal that was imported by that member's party in the last Government. Until viable, cost-effective, renewable options are in place, we intend to honour our climate change and environmental obligations under this trade agreement.
Chlöe Swarbrick: On what basis can he claim that there will be no impact when today it has been reported that independent legal advice shows quite clearly that the $200 million for the fossil fuel industry in his Government's Budget is a subsidy and therefore a breach of the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, this is not a subsidy, and I refer the member to the definition of fossil fuel subsidies in the ACCTS agreement. Article 4.3 of the agreement shows a number of flexibilities to enable New Zealand to address risks to energy security and affordability. Any options the Government pursues around gas exploration and development will take into account New Zealand's international obligations, and the Government intends to do this within the commitments we've made within this agreement.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document. The document is independent legal advice, commissioned by the Green Party, showing that the $200 million set aside for the Budget is a fossil fuel subsidy. It is not currently publicly available in full.
SPEAKER: But it's an in-house document.
Chlöe Swarbrick: No, it was legal advice that has been commissioned, provided to the media, but I have not yet seen it published in full on any media website. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a minute. Sorry—to be clear, this is a Green Party - commissioned document that's been made available to the media.
Chlöe Swarbrick: And the media have not published it in its full totality.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Hon Members: Yes.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Funny that—so much for transparency. Mr Speaker, he pātai tāpiri.
Hon Members: Aw! [Interruption]
SPEAKER: The House will contain itself and listen silently while a question is asked.
Chlöe Swarbrick: What does he think that this Government's fossil fuel fund says about the value of Aotearoa New Zealand's signature on any international agreement when the Government chooses to breach them six months in, after six years of negotiation?
Hon TODD McCLAY: What it says about this Government is we will meet our international obligations. When we enter into them, we take them seriously. But we're also going to work hard to stop the importation of coal, directed by the previous Government, and find alternatives as we transition to cost-affordable energy for all New Zealanders. It does feel like the Green Party have used taxpayer money to commission a report to get on TV, from a lawyer that probably is not involved in this agreement.
SPEAKER: That's not for you to comment on.
Hon TODD McCLAY: We take our obligations seriously and will meet those commitments in the agreement when it enters into force. But we've also worked to get the cost down for every New Zealand household when it comes to electricity and energy.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Government, then, take it's $200 million taxpayer-funded subsidy for the fossil fuels sector off the table and invest that money in things that will actually improve New Zealanders' lives, not the least given this news that the subsidy probably breeches the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well—
SPEAKER: Just a minute. In so much as there are aspects of that question that may be in order, the Minister may attempt to answer. But the question, by and large, doesn't comply.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I refute strongly the suggestion from the so-called independent legal advice that the Green Party paid for that this is a subsidy. It is not a subsidy. We will meet our obligations under that agreement. New Zealand will ratify the agreement on 1 July of this year. It will enter into force some time over the next one to two years. But I would also suggest that, actually, saying that the Government's commitment to work with New Zealanders to get their costs of energy down is a subsidy is absolutely wrong and, in the case of this agreement, a fallacy.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Minister, then, publicly release the advice and the information that he is making statements upon about this not being a breach of the ACCTS, given that he has so far refused to in parliamentary written questions from our offices?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the questions that have come from that member's office are actually around fishing and wouldn't be sustainable in themselves. It's really, really clear that this is not a subsidy.
Chlöe Swarbrick: No, I said the Green Party offices. I can very—
SPEAKER: No, hang on. No, sorry. That's not how it works.
Hon TODD McCLAY: The answer is it's not a subsidy.
Hon Chris Bishop: Is it correct that Budget 2025 appropriates $200 million in contingency for the Crown to take commercial stakes of around 10 to 15 percent in new gasfield developments and commercial exploration in which the Crown takes a stake and therefore receives upside profits cannot be a subsidy?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, that is exactly correct and that is within the bounds of the ACCTS agreement. I'm surprised that's not in the legal advice the Green Party has commissioned with taxpayer funding. If it isn't, and if I was the Green Party, I'd ask for the taxpayers' money back.
SPEAKER: Look, these little swipes at the end of questions are going to stop.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does it remain the Government's position to support the global phase-out of fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies given our current membership of at least four groups advocating to end these subsidies on the international stage?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I'm not the Minister responsible for that, but what I can very clearly say to that member is it's the Government's policy to ensure energy security for New Zealanders and that we can bring the cost down. Merely turning the lights off—as did that previous Government that that member was a member of—and importing as much coal as they can is not good for the climate and it's not good for New Zealanders. No wonder energy prices are so high for Kiwi households.
6. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Immigration: What update can she provide on the Active Investor Plus visa?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): Since the Active Investor Plus visa opened on 1 April, we've received 189 applications. These investors have indicated they'll be investing a minimum of over a billion dollars into our businesses and economy, of which $845 million is from new applications. That is all in less than three months. It's a staggering lift from the 116 applications received over more than 2½ years under the previous settings. Attracting investment for our economy means businesses can expand higher and grow, which creates more opportunity for New Zealanders. And this message from our Government is clear: New Zealand is open for business, for investment, and we are serious about unlocking our economic potential.
Cameron Brewer: Where are applications being received from?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: We're seeing significant global interest in these new investment settings. Forty-five percent of the new applications are from the United States, with China and Hong Kong following. Applications have also been received from Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Great Britian, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Vietnam. These investments will help grow businesses, create jobs, and provide new skills for young people.
Cameron Brewer: What Kiwi businesses are benefiting from the Active Investor Plus visa?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I recently visited Hot Lime Labs, a clean tech business in the mighty Lower Hutt; a New Zealand business that uses world-leading technology to produce clean and sustainable carbon dioxide for greenhouses from waste wood, using world-leading, patented technology. Hot Lime Labs are an accredited business available for direct investment from the Active Investor Plus. They've already received investment from a managed fund and they're targeting the European market and looking to grow to an over $100 million business, headquartered here in New Zealand, which means hundreds of jobs for Kiwis.
Cameron Brewer: What feedback has she received about the Active Investor Plus visa?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I've spoken with a range of people who are very positive about these changes. One said to me that opportunities for New Zealand businesses to seek investment have never looked so good since before the 2008 global financial crisis. Queen City Law managing director Marcus Beveridge described the scheme as, "A ray of sunshine" and that he wouldn't be surprised if we don't exceed $10 billion a year coming in through this programme. He said, "… we're expecting quite an explosion of applications over the next couple of months." Attracting foreign investment means boosting the economy, creating jobs, and building a prosperous future for New Zealand.
7. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that "A number of Budget 2025 initiatives deliver targeted cost of living support"; if so, what were those Budget 2025 initiatives?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, and the most important thing this Budget—and the previous Budget—does for the cost of living is help keep inflation under control through strong fiscal discipline; what a change that is from previous years. In terms of specific Budget initiatives, these included enabling New Zealanders to get 12-month prescriptions for medicines, rather than paying to get a new prescription written every three months; increasing eligibility for rates rebates, for up to 66,000 older New Zealanders; raising the family income threshold for Working for Families, so that low to middle income recipients get additional financial support; continuation of our Government's commitment not to lift petrol taxes this term, a proposal made by the previous Government, and a continuation of our commitment not to reintroduce the Auckland regional fuel tax introduced by the last Government; ongoing support for the Commerce Commission to exercise its functions under the Grocery Industry Competition Act. Mr Speaker, I could go on, but you didn't ask for a speech.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does $7 a week starting next year for Working for Families recipients help Kiwi families struggling now?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Quite simply this was not a change that was in law; this is a change we introduced in this Budget. It has been the longstanding practice of successive Governments that tax changes, like this, happen on 1 April in the tax year.
Hon Marama Davidson: How does a decrease, on average, of $43 per fortnight for 61,000 families, who are now no longer applicable for Best Start in the first year of their baby's life, help with the cost of living when food prices have increased by 4 percent, and electricity prices are up 8.7 percent?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We took a leaf out of the last Government's book, which in one of its rare circumstances decided to target the second and third year of the Best Start payment at those families who actually needed it most, and we have simply continued that targeting into the first year.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Acting Prime Minister that it is not the Government's job to find a family that received the full $250 cost of living support that she promised in last year's Budget?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We delivered on our promise. The policy commitments that informed that case study were delivered in full. I find it very difficult to take that question seriously when that member opposed every tax relief measure in our last Budget, meaning she actively wanted New Zealand voters to be worse off.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she believe that international factors, such as a global pandemic and a global conflict, can impact inflation and economic settings?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, which is why it is so important that Governments control what is in their control. So, for example, Governments who in the midst of global challenges decide to double, triple, and quadruple down on their operating allowances and send cost of living payments to dead people and French backpackers are making inflation worse, not better. Our Government will not repeat the wasteful spending record of the last Labour administration.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that a number of measures in Budget 2025 delivered targeted support for the cost of living when $7 per week from 2026 barely buys a block of butter, 61,000 families with a newborn lose up to $43 a fortnight, and she still can't point to one family that received the full $250 she promised them in her previous Budget?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The facts are very simple. Let me read out simply the facts, which are around inflation rates. In September 2022, prices were rising 7.2 percent; in June 2022, 7.3 percent; in December 2022, 7.2 percent; March 2023, 6.7 percent; in September 2024, they'd come down to 2.2 percent. They were 2.2 percent in December 2024, and 2.5 percent in March 2025. My point is a simple one that the member has not yet grasped: if prices are rising out control and inflation is out of control, every New Zealand family is worse off. That's your record, own it. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Someone's going out early.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, Dr Weenink, just wait for a minute. Far too many conversations going on around the House. OK.
8. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has the Government made about supporting general practices?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Primary care is at the heart of the health system, delivering care to around 55,000 people every day. That's why, this morning, the Government announced the largest ever funding boost for general practice in our country's history. GPs will receive up to 13.89 percent funding uplift, bringing the total Government funding increase to $175 million for this financial year. That's more than double the highest annual increase there has been since capitation was first rolled out. This is about putting patients first. We expect this investment to deliver results including shorter wait times, easier access to care, and better health outcomes for patients.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What will this record funding boost mean for New Zealanders?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are backing general practice to deliver real results. We know that when people see their doctor or nurse earlier, they stay healthier and stay out of hospital. That's why our record funding boost will enable general practices to see more patients, reduce wait times, and provide faster care to those who need it most. We're also supporting GPs with an additional $5 million to deliver minor planned care procedures in the community, such as skin excisions and infusions, minor gynaecological procedures, and oncology infusions, so that New Zealanders can access care closer to home, without unnecessary delay.
Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister need some pseudoephedrine, perchance?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: I'm currently taking it.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will this record funding boost support childhood immunisations?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Lifting childhood immunisation rates is a top priority for this Government. We want to see 95 percent of enrolled children fully immunised, and GPs will play a critical role in achieving this target. That's why our record funding boost includes performance payments for general practices that lift their childhood immunisation rates by up to 10 percentage points or to 95 percent of their enrolled population, with partial payments for partial achievement. We're a Government that is serious about results, and improving child immunisations remains a top priority for this Government.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What else is the Government doing to support the primary care workforce?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: As part of Budget 2025, we're making significant investments to grow and support our primary care workforce, including funding 100 clinical placements for overseas trained doctors in primary care, 100 additional medical training places at our universities over the term of this Government, and up to 50 graduate doctor training places in primary care. We've also invested in nursing, with our recruitment centres for up to 400 graduate nurses each year, accelerating tertiary education for up to 120 primary care nurses, and are funding up to 120 training places for nurse practitioners. We will continue to invest in our front-line workforce so New Zealanders can get the care they need when and where they need it.
9. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding the Three Strikes law?
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): On 17 June 2025, the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Act 2024 became law. It reinstates firm, escalating consequences for offenders who commit any of 42 serious violent or sexual offences. A first strike triggers a formal warning, a second means no parole, and a third imposes the maximum sentence without parole. These consequences will apply unless the outcome would be manifestly unjust. Do the crime, and they'll do the time.
Todd Stephenson: Does the Minister's announcement confirm that strike warnings issued under the previous regime will be counted towards the reinstated law?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. Offenders who received valid strike warnings under the 2010 three-strikes regime and whose offences meet the new thresholds will have those strikes recognised and upheld. The message from this Government to offenders is clear: they will be facing the consequences of their actions. They will be held accountable. If they have a problem with that, don't commit the crime in the first place.
Todd Stephenson: How will this policy reduce the likelihood of innocent New Zealanders becoming victims of repeat offenders?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Bluntly, by removing repeat violent and sexual offenders out of circulation rapidly and longer, thus reducing their ability to offend. This Government is committed to protecting victims, not criminals. If a repeat serious violent or sexual offender must serve a longer sentence to ensure public safety, then so be it.
Todd Stephenson: Is the regime already addressing the kind of offending it was designed to deter?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes, the law is already being applied to repeat violent offenders, with cases reported in the media just days after it came into force. The last Government repealed three strikes to cut prison numbers, even if it meant letting dangerous offenders walk free. We've made it clear that, if they commit serious crimes again and again, they will go to prison and stay there. The soft-on-crime experiment failed. We're backing victims, not cuddling up to offenders.
10. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is it his goal to provide "greater certainty for the private health sector"; if so, why?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Yes—and I quote—"in order to make the best use of all capacity that is available in the health system." I agree with the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, who made that statement in 2020.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he direct officials to involve health charities like St John Ambulance or Hospice, in writing long-term contracts for themselves, or will he only give that advantage to private hospitals?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: No, we want longer-term agreements across the health system, because, ultimately, that allows for greater planning and greater enablement of delivery of services for outcomes for patients. And that is the outcome that I want across the health sector.
Rima Nakhle: Supplementary. Supplementary.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: This is my second supp. Will his agencies rewrite primary care rules to benefit community, iwi, or owner-operated general practice, or is that special treatment reserved for corporate giants like Tend?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: The focus of Health New Zealand is on timely, quality access to healthcare for all New Zealanders. We have five health targets that we're focused on, and we want to see them delivering against those targets.
Rima Nakhle: Supplementary. Supplementary.
SPEAKER: We go three here.
Rima Nakhle: OK, yes, thank you, sir.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he bring back free prescriptions so owner-operated pharmacies are sustainable, instead of letting Chemist Warehouse drive them out of business?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we believe in competition and we believe in private enterprise, and, actually, a significant part of our health system is delivered by private enterprises across the country, including general practitioners, who are one of the greatest public-private partnerships this country has, and we'll back them.
Rima Nakhle: What certainty does his announcement of a record funding boost for general practice provide for one of the largest public-private partnerships in our health system?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, what a great question. Local GP services are private businesses, and our Government is focused on ensuring they can continue to deliver timely quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. The funding agreement reached yesterday with the sector is another significant step forward and will support GPs to continue providing care for the 55,000 Kiwis who visit a family doctor each and every single day.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Going from Ayesha Verrall's question about policies to suit the Chemist Warehouse, which party was it that put the charge on in terms of pharmaceutical prescriptions in the first place when they were told by their colleagues in New Zealand First not to do it and now it's being defended by that very Minister over there—has she got no memory?
SPEAKER: That's a very skilful political statement made inside a question. Dr Ayesha Verrall.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he invest in proper staffing of cancer services, or will he, instead, continue to allow health funds to subsidise insurance companies for medicines they're already obliged to cover?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, look, I'm very happy to talk about cancer medicines and the absolute hole in the Pharmac budget that that Government left behind and we had to fix. I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance, and the Associate Minister of Health the Hon David Seymour, for the work they've done to deliver more cancer medicines for more New Zealanders. That is making a real difference.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he build a proper-sized hospital for the people of Nelson, instead of building a smaller hospital that creates greater opportunities for private providers?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: I'm very happy to talk about Nelson Hospital and the fact that the rescoping started when she was the Minister—when she was the Minister. We are actually going to get on and deliver it, unlike the fake promise made in 2020 by the former Government, where they said spades would be in the ground by 2023—not a spade even got near Nelson.
Hon Nicola Willis: In terms of delivery of health services by private providers, can the Minister confirm that it has been the longstanding practice of ACC to procure a number of its surgeries and treatments from private healthcare providers?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the great ACC scheme, which I thought that party was proud of, absolutely procures services through the private sector, and I just want to remind the House of a Cabinet paper that the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins took as Minister of Health in 2020 where he said he wanted to see longer-term private sector arrangements to deliver elective care.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, having regard to—
SPEAKER: Mr Peters, just a moment. The House will give you the courtesy of a bit of silence.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to Ayesha Verrall's questions, could the Minister tell me as to whether Pharmac has got any prescriptions for medicines for the early onset of political amnesia?
SPEAKER: We'll move on to—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a minute.
Hon Chris Bishop: Here comes the cavalry.
SPEAKER: Well, another comment like that while we've got a point of order on the floor will be an early afternoon.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Mr Speaker, in the past—just making an observation and wanting to know what your ruling is on this—when questions are asked, we've been told they have to start with question words. I think they're called interrogative pronouns. We've had a lot of questions asked that do not start with those words. Are you saying that that's OK now?
SPEAKER: Well, I'll look at the Hansard, but I do think that some of the questions that you have asked this afternoon have started—and I have listened—with "Can" and "Is" or "Could". Now, those are all question words.
11. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What reports has he seen regarding the sustainability of New Zealand's fisheries?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): It's my privilege to report to the House that the Food and Agriculture Organization, an international organisation housed within the broad spectrum of those things that occupy the UN, has given high praise to the sustainability of the New Zealand fishing resource: nigh on 85 percent pass their threshold, reflective of great stewardship, especially over the last 15 months.
Andy Foster: What measures are being taken to support the good news in this report?
Hon SHANE JONES: It's important that members of the public bear in mind that we have already taken measures to sustain the future of the crayfish resource in the Hauraki Gulf. We are introducing a host of protective measures in the Hauraki Gulf and the Tīkapa Moana, with a small concession to enable legacy fishermen to continue plying their trade in and around Kawau Island. But, more importantly, we are contemplating a set of closures or restrictions on the east coast of Tai Tokerau to protect the kōura, or the crayfish, industry.
Andy Foster: What other reports has the Minister received regarding the sustainable growth of fisheries?
Hon Shane Jones: Recently, the report issued by the Ministry for Primary Industries Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries reflected good news in that part of our fisheries sector, where 13 percent—double-digit growth—was recorded in respect of marine farming. This is built on the fact that there is greater certainty and investment, traceable back to the extension of all the farming permits for the marine industry right through to 2050, something I look forward one day to emulating in terrestrial matters.
Andy Foster: What is the likely impact of the proposed fisheries reform on the sustainability of New Zealand's fisheries?
Hon SHANE JONES: As a key hallmark of the work that our Government is undertaking to boost sustainability and drive jobs, soon we will be bringing back options in the form of proposed legislation to deliver the reforms for the fishing industry, the quota management system, and a host of other improvements, the most profound since 1986. This is built on the understanding that this industry can create more jobs, generate export earnings, but most importantly will not fall prey to green ideologies designed to intimidate investment.
12. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many people are employed now, and how does that compare to when the Government took office
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment): on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The unemployment has been rising since 2021. In December 2023, 2,936,000 people were employed in New Zealand and in March 2025 this figure sat at 2,914,000 people, in line with Treasury forecasts. Unemployment is always one of the last things to come right after a recession, and, unfortunately, we have inherited a low growth economy where unemployment was always forecast to increase above 5 percent. That is why our Government is so relentlessly focused on growth and getting people into work. When businesses have the confidence to invest and grow, it's good for jobs, it's good for growth, and it's good for the incomes of New Zealand families.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Why are there 30,000 fewer people in work since her Government took office?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, that's a very easy question to answer because of the mess that member's Government left us with an economic recession.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Why are there zero new employment initiatives in Budget 2025 to assist or support people into work?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This Government's focus is on growth in the economy. For that member's understanding, things like Investment Boost encourage businesses to create jobs, because this Government knows that businesses are the entities that create jobs. This Government is relentlessly focused on keeping inflation down, on keeping interest rates down, and going for growth.
Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the rates of unemployment in the economy now are tracking almost exactly, if not a bit better, to forecasts provided by the last Government prior to the election, despite the many challenges left to this administration, and would the Minister join me in providing the member opposite a briefing on how to read Budget documents?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, I can confirm that the unemployment rates are tracking as Treasury has forecast.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Why is it that Budget 2024 forecast 204,000 job seekers in 2025, but just one year later, under her watch, that has increased by an additional 13,000?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It was always forecast that the unemployment rate would be over 5 percent. It is sitting at 5.1 percent. This is in line with Treasury forecasts and Treasury are currently forecasting that jobseeker benefit numbers will peak at 217,000 in December 2025.
SPEAKER: Could I just remind that member before we go too much further, Speakers' Ruling 181/3 makes it very clear that supplementary questions, or questions, cannot be used by a Government to attack another party in the House.
Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that job seeker numbers do not always track with unemployment numbers, and that, in fact, under the last Government, job seeker numbers increased even while unemployment was decreased?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. It's quite extraordinary when you give a very clear direction to the House that senior Government Ministers just immediately ignore that. There is no responsibility of this Minister on what the previous Government did.
SPEAKER: No, but the member was talking about the stats and talking about sometimes the disparity between one stat and another. In this case, I took it as being somewhat complimentary of what was happening under a previous Government.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: I'm not sure that's what she meant, sir.
SPEAKER: Well, you need to see things the way I do.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, it is true that the job seeker numbers do not always track exactly with the unemployment figures. As I've said previously, the unemployment figures are difficult to shift in a recession and they are always the last stats to improve in a recession.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she accept that her Government's cancellation of State houses being built, schools being upgraded, and hospitals being rebuilt has contributed to over 15,000 job losses in the construction sector?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I can confirm that high inflation rates, that high interest rates, that businesses having to watch every cent that they spend because of the incompetent management of the economy by the previous Government is the main factor in why—
SPEAKER: That's enough.
Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order.
SPEAKER: When the House is ready.
Hon Nicola Willis: Look, I hesitate to lengthen the debate at the end of question time, but we do have an emerging practice in supplementary questions from the Opposition in which they allege facts which are not factual. This Government is continuing to build more State houses, to build more classrooms, to deliver hospitals. For the member to claim in his supplementary question that that is not the case has the potential to mislead the House.
SPEAKER: Well, if that is the case, the member has a remedy to pursue.
Hon Erica Stanford: Can the member tell this House, or confirm with this House, that, in fact, last year this Government built more classrooms than in the previous year, which has meant that the construction industry has had more work in the classroom industry?
SPEAKER: Hang on. Sorry, sit down. I'm absolutely sick of that. We're calling it quits.
Hon Ginny Andersen: I've got one more quick supplementary; can I have one?
SPEAKER: No, we're all over.
Home Page | Parliament | Previous Story | Next Story
Copyright (c) Scoop Media