Sitting date: 14 Oct 2025
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the actions of all his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Was the Prime Minister or Cabinet Office made aware of any potential conflict of interest with the Minister for the Environment attempting to influence a consent process from which a National MP's company could benefit, and does he consider this an appropriate action for his Minister to take?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I've been completely comfortable with the engagement between the Minister for the Environment and the MP involved.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think that paragraph 2.68 of the Cabinet Manual has been upheld, where "Public perception is a very important factor. If a conflict arises in relation to the interests of family, whānau, or close associates, Ministers should take appropriate action"; and if so, what appropriate action did the Minister take to avoid public perception of a conflict of interest?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, I'm completely comfortable that the Minister is compliant with the Cabinet Manual, and particularly 2.68.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it's fair to the other farmers and water users in this catchment that his Minister is risking the ecological health of the catchment by pressuring councils to grant consents for particular individuals?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, it's entirely appropriate for the Minister to have—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, I invite you to study carefully the content of that question.

SPEAKER: Yes, I was about to intervene on that. The member can word the question in a different way, but do not put an allegation in a question.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it's fair to the other farmers and water users in this catchment that his Minister may be risking the ecological health of the catchment by pressuring councils to grant consents for particular individuals?

SPEAKER: No, you can't assert that either. You can ask a question that doesn't have inferences in it, or allegations.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it's fair to the other farmers and water users in this catchment the way that his Minister has been using her power to privilege—

SPEAKER: No, you can't say that, sorry; that's the end of the supplementaries on that question, so I'll go to the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, I want a supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Oh, yeah. OK.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of the Prime Minister, going from the questioner's original draft of the primary question, would he have confidence if any Minister couldn't spell "Ministers" properly?

SPEAKER: OK, point made.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, "Economic growth is going to influence every decision I take this year."; if so, why did he shrink the economy by almost 1 percent in the last quarter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because we had a very poor inheritance from the previous Government, which was Government spending that went up 84 percent, a lot of it very wasteful. That drove up inflation over 7 percent. That drove up interest rates—there were 12 interest rate rises under the member's previous Government—and that put the country into recession and raised unemployment. That's what this Government is working incredibly hard to do. We've got spending under control. We've got inflation down. We've got interest rates down. Growth is coming; jobs are coming.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which thing is he most proud of: a shrinking economy, rising unemployment, more kids living in poverty, more homelessness, or record numbers of New Zealanders giving up and leaving the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, on the last point, I'd just say to the member: it's rather ironic that he talks about the number of New Zealanders leaving New Zealand, which is at a high, and it is a function of the economic conditions that he left with his previous Government. He's also a leader that actually says, "We're not going to do oil and gas", and what do a lot of New Zealanders do when they go to Australia? They go work in the oil and gas sector. He's the member that says, "We're not going to do mining", but, actually, what do they do when they go to Australia? They go work in mining. He's the member that says he won't support fast-track, because that's about getting construction jobs out to New Zealanders, but he won't support that either. I'd just say to the member: if you're serious about it, rather than the crocodile tears why don't you back it up with some proper action and get in behind backing oil and gas?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: On the topic of construction, does he agree with Christopher Luxon, "At the most basic level, the problem is not enough money being spent on new and existing infrastructure."; if so, why did he slash nearly $3 billion in infrastructure investment in his first year as Prime Minister?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. In light of your earlier comments, I just wonder if the preamble to that question was acceptable and within the Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think it was. Carry on.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I'd say to the member is that he has a problem with equity and debt—with understanding that—as we saw with the Chorus statement this week, but he also has a major problem understanding that, in construction, interest rates are the critical piece that enables developers to actually borrow money to go off and get things built. When you actually crash the car, and you crash the economy like he did last time he was in charge—and will do again with more spending, more borrowing, more taxes—you've got to fix interest rates—

SPEAKER: Now, I'm going to stop the Prime Minister there. When you're giving an answer like that, you can speak about the actions of a Government that you inherit, not the individual who you're speaking to.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why did he cut $3 billion of public investment in infrastructure in his first year as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm actually very proud that we've accelerated $7 billion worth of infrastructure investment that's actually starting before Christmas. That's helping. But what we're doing is actually getting spending under control. We've brought inflation down from a record high and pathetic 7.5 percent, from his economic management last time, to 2.7 percent. That's lowered interest rates. Interest rates are down eight times under this Government; they were up 12 times under his.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, "We're determined to get the building and construction sector firing on all cylinders."; if so, is 20,000 job losses in the construction sector the type of firing he was referring to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Isn't it funny, the great gaslighter forgets about something called interest rates, which he doesn't take responsibility for creating. How on earth do you increase spending by 84 percent, drive up inflation over 7.5 percent, have 12 interest rate rises, and then ask some questions about how the construction industry works? Get back and understand some economics.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why does he think billions of dollars of public money is better spent on tax cuts for landlords and tobacco companies instead of the infrastructure that he has cut spending on?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I'm proud of the fact that, actually, we lowered tax for low- and middle-income working New Zealanders—something the Labour-Greens opposed but that actually put more money into working New Zealanders. That's a good thing.

Hon David Seymour: Is it possible to "Spend money on tax cuts", or is a tax cut when people just keep more of the money that belongs to them in the first place? How does it work?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it works because you have an economic philosophy that you're going to spend more, you're going to borrow more, you're going to tax more, and it doesn't matter whether it's Labour, the Greens, or Te Pāti Māori, that's what that uni-party is going to do. They're going to continue with the track and the mess that put us in this position.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Acting Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government's financial position?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): Last week Treasury released the Government financial statements for 2024-25. These are actual numbers, not forecasts or projections. They're the first year-end statements to fully reflect decisions made by the current Government, and they show progress in getting the country's books back in order. As a share of GDP, core Crown expenses fell from 33.1 percent in 2023-24 to 32.5 in 2024-25. Our intention is to bring spending down even more as a proportion of the economy, and that intention is reflected in the Budget forecasts.

David MacLeod: What do the financial statements say about the operating balance?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government's headline operating balance, known as OBEGALx, remains steady at a deficit of 2.1 percent of GDP. In dollar terms, the deficit came in $900 million better than was forecast at the time of the Budget. That is progress, but there is still a lot of work to do. The operating balance has been in deficit for the last six years. The Government's intention is to return to surplus, and the Budget forecasts show this happening at the end of the forecast period, in 2028-29.

David MacLeod: What do the financial statements say about Government debt?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Net core Crown debt remains steady at 41.8 percent of GDP. Over the previous five years, debt as a percentage of GDP rose every year. The Government's intention over the forecast period is to bend the debt curve down. Instead of going up, we want it going down. More specifically, our intention is to put net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward trajectory towards 40 percent, and that is what the Budget forecasts show.

David MacLeod: What is the next major release on the Government's financial position?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Treasury will present its latest forecasts in the half-year update on 16 December. At the same time, I will present the Budget Policy Statement. This is a chance for the Government to respond to the forecast, including any changes to its fiscal strategy. The Budget Policy Statement lays out the goals and objectives that will guide the Government's decisions in the Budget. I want to say now that members should not expect any surprises. The Government's objectives have consistently been to deliver better public services, improve long-term productivity, and get the books back in order. That will continue.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Is the record 73,900 New Zealand citizens leaving the country a sign that her economic plan is a success; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): It's a sign that New Zealand citizens have decided to live somewhere else for a while. This is not a phenomenon that is unknown to New Zealand Governments and, indeed, the New Zealand economy. Some people leave for a relatively short time, others leave for a longer time, and many come back home. Often their decision is based on opportunities available overseas. It is a reality that Australia is a wealthier country than New Zealand and can pay higher wages, including, I might say, in industries such as mining and oil and gas. Members will draw their own conclusions about parties' attitudes towards those.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are a record number of New Zealanders leaving because the cost of utilities are up 19.3 percent from a year earlier, including rates, water charges, and energy bills? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Let's just see if we can get the answer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is undoubtedly true that the Government and the country have challenges around energy security and energy affordability. I would encourage that member and her party to reflect on the retrograde decision they have made to not support the repeal of the oil and gas ban. In the feedback coming through in her sojourn round the boardrooms of Auckland, she will know that some of the feedback coming from the business community and the energy sector has been to plead with the Opposition to support the Government's move on energy security. She should start listening to the voices of reason in the business community that want bipartisanship on energy policy, because the best thing we could do for this country's energy security is firm up the gas supply to make sure we keep the lights on.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: So will energy prices—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on—hang on. OK.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she commit to bringing down energy prices as a result—and a direct result—of her energy strategy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As the member well knows, no. The Government's intention—[Interruption] Well, if the Opposition wants to campaign on bringing down energy prices, good luck. The Government's intention is to put downward pressure on energy prices, which will come from a combination of Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, planning reform, sorting out the dysfunctionality of the energy market through the Electricity Authority, and the hard work being led by the Minister of Energy, and it will come from long-term stability when it comes to gas supply, which is why I repeat, again, that the Opposition should get on board with rational economic policy and realise that New Zealand's energy security is underpinned by thermal electricity powered by gas. Stability around that will be the single best thing that the Opposition could do to energy policy.

SPEAKER: That was an exceptionally long answer. I'm sure they'll be more concise from this point on.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are a record number of New Zealanders leaving because the service sector has been contracting for every month since she took office?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member just makes a point that, I think, has been well canvassed already, which is that the Government inherited a perilous economic situation. We are putting in place the long-term structural reforms to sort out this economy: planning reform, infrastructure funding and financing, cutting red tape, sorting out the energy sector, boosting—as the Prime Minister said—our trade and services exports including by signing record free-trade deals. The member can just look at the numbers from the United Arab Emirates free-trade deal for an example of the outward-facing economy this Government is building.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are a record number of Kiwis leaving because, as Christopher Luxon has said, "If you want a job, go where the jobs are."?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it's very interesting. A number of New Zealanders started to leave in October 2020—I wonder what was going on then. Here is the graph. Here is the net departures, which started in 2020, and you can see this massive decline in the number of people leaving New Zealand during the months of 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Last time I looked, this Government wasn't in charge then. Actually, the number of people leaving, on net, has flattened out. Do we have more work to do? Of course we do, but the facts are this: under that last Government's epic mismanagement of the economy, people fled New Zealand. We are turning it around, and she should get on board with that.

Question No. 5—Education

5. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Education: What recent data has she seen on literacy achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): This year, our education reform got under way. We mandated structured literacy and introduced a phonics check after 20 and 40 weeks at school to test how well our youngest readers were learning to sound out words. The latest report shows an incredible improvement in the number of students who are reaching 20 weeks at school at expected levels of phonics, up from 36 percent in term 1 to 58 percent in term 3. Our students' reading ability has declined over many decades, but with a focus on teaching the basics brilliantly, an hour a day of reading, and implementing an evidence-based structured literacy approach, we are building the strong foundations required to turn that around.

Catherine Wedd: What does the report show for children who need extra support?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Very simple: it shows that structured literacy reduces the number of students requiring extra support. In term 1, 52 percent of students required extra support, compared to 33 percent by term 3. This is a significant drop from over a half to a third of children needing support at their 20-week check. Our reforms are data driven and evidence informed, and these early results show what can be achieved when a Government focuses on raising achievement and backs teachers with the resources to implement change.

Catherine Wedd: What does the report say about Māori and low-decile achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Even more excellent news: in every decile for every ethnicity, results have significantly improved. For our tamariki Māori, I'm especially proud that 25 percent were at expectations in term 1 at their 20-week check, and this has risen to 43 percent in term 3 after two short terms. Sixty-eight percent needed extra support in term 1, falling to 47 percent needing support in term 3. This Government is focused on raising achievement and closing the equity gap, and these results for tamariki Māori are the first time we've seen such improvements to reading data in many, many years.

Catherine Wedd: Why have these results been so positive?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We mandated structured literacy; we introduced a new English curriculum backing structured literacy; we trained over 33,000 teachers in structured literacy; we provided cash to schools for more structured literacy resources; and we provided 349 structured literacy intervention teachers to over 1,240 schools to support students who need help. But while we set the policy and we resourced it, we didn't teach a single child to read; our incredible teachers did that. These results are so positive because teachers across New Zealand worked hard to implement reform at pace, and these incredible results are a testament to their hard work, their dedication, and their passion for their students. This data represents thousands of children who are on track for success, and I'm proud to be part of a team that made this happen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister, are you saying that if one can phonetically pronounce "honesty" and "integrity", then one would be better able to actually write those words properly, and, better still, possibly practice them?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Phonemic awareness and phonics and structured literacy is about sounding out words. It's about taking the letters in "honesty" and "integrity", sounding them out letter by letter, so that our littlest learners can pronounce those words with confidence and ease.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Did the Prime Minister give agricultural polluters a free ride instead of requiring them to do their fair share of emissions reductions, given that this means that households and businesses—[Interruption]. Mr Speaker, do some people have to shush, or all of us, while we're being asked questions?

SPEAKER: I was trying very carefully to listen to your question, but there was far too much talk going on in the House at that time. Please ask the question again.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you. Did the Prime Minister give agricultural polluters a free ride instead of requiring them to do their fair share of emissions reductions, given that this means that households and businesses will have to shoulder more of the emissions reduction, increasing the cost of living for everyday New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. Our farmers are the world's most productive, best, and most carbon-efficient farmers in the world. We're proud of them.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister understand that weakening methane targets actually harms farmers' livelihoods and increases their long-term cost of living as farmers are at the front line of climate-driven extreme weather events that threaten global food production and raise insurance premiums?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I tell you, this Government is not going to shut down Kiwi farms and send that production to less carbon-efficient places, less productive places, and make global greenhouse gas emissions worse.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he claim that his targets are based on anything other than corporate interests—

Mark Cameron: Rubbish!

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: —when world-leading—

SPEAKER: No, sorry. Stop. You might find that a useful comment for yourself, but not for the House. The member will start her question again and there will be silence while it's asked.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he claim that his targets are based on anything other than corporate interests when world-leading climate scientists have described his weakening of methane targets as "a great way of shooting yourself in the foot" and "New Zealand is setting a dangerous precedent that other governments must not follow"?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question, but I just say to the member, as part of a Labour-Greens Government who wanted to shut down New Zealand farms and send production overseas, why don't you come on board and actually support that policy too? It's going to be very interesting to see what the Labour Party says about that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is the Prime Minister governing New Zealand in the interests of corporate lobbyists or in the interests of everyday New Zealanders, and, if the latter, can he explain why corporate agriculture lobby groups had early access to information enabling—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that member's been around here long enough to understand that you're allowed to ask one question at a time, not two. She's been around here far too long not to have learnt that, surely, and she should have been stopped.

SPEAKER: Well, look, the rules are that while the question might have several legs in it, the person answering that question only has to address one.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And in answer to the first leg, no.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is his Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations pushing a bill through this House today that the Waitangi Tribunal has described as a "gross breach" of Te Tiriti, which would, "significantly endanger the Māori-Crown relationship"?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: All we're doing—we disagree with that. We're actually just putting it back to what Parliament originally intended.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he comfortable with the fact that some are describing his Government's changes to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act as "the biggest raupatu … that Te Ao Māori have faced" due to these changes making it significantly harder for iwi, hapu and whānau to have their customary rights to the takutai moana recognised?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think if a member is going to quote something, she's got to quote a source. It's not legitimate, surely, to just say, "some people have described it as". I mean, it literally could be anyone. There needs to be some, at least, sourcing for the quote that she's quoted from.

SPEAKER: I think that that's for primary questions. The supplementary questions are not quite so rigorously enforced, but it certainly doesn't do the question any credit by just expressing it in such general terms. If there is someone to be quoted, then quote them.

Mark Cameron: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, we're still on over here.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I will repeat that question in light of the conversation, Mr Speaker. Is he comfortable with the fact that Māori leaders are describing his Government's changes to the marine and coastal area Act as "the biggest raupatu … that Te Ao Māori have faced" due to these changes making it significantly harder for iwi, hapu, and whānau to have their customary rights to takutai moana recognised?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think we've traversed this many times before. The Court of Appeal lowered the threshold. We had a high threshold under the legislation. We're just returning it to what Parliament intended.

Mark Cameron: Does the Prime Minister think that farmers are corporate lobbyists?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I think farmers should be deeply valued and not treated like villains as they were under a Labour-Greens Government.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister understand that Māori exercise kaitiakitanga and protection for the benefit of all of us here in Aotearoa—for example, when they veto applications for private companies to mine in our precious moana, and that by removing recognition of customary rights in the takutai moana, his Government has taken this away?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The member may disagree, but I'm just saying to the member, our position's very clear. As a Government, we're just returning what was a lowered threshold under the courts—we're returning it back to what Parliament intended.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Why has the number of people unable to afford a doctor's visit increased under this Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): As the member will be aware, this follows a 30 percent increase in GP fees between 2017 and 2023. Our Government has delivered the biggest ever funding boost for GPs—$175 million this year alone—and capped fee increases at 3 percent, keeping costs stable and predictable. Today, 90 percent of adults without a community services card pay $70 or less to see their general practitioner. Access remains the number one barrier for patients; that is why we are focused on affordability and accessibility. We're extending prescriptions to 12 months, we're saving patients up to $105 a year in GP fees, strengthening the primary care workforce, we have launched a 24/7 online GP care service for times when patients can't see their regular doctor, and we continue targeted support through subsidised GP visits for the community services card holders and the Very Low Cost Access scheme. All of this is about putting patients first and making sure that every Kiwi can see a doctor when they need to.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What good is capping fees when under-funded practices start charging for double consultations, leading to the pensioner who wrote to me saying, "I pay $91 for a 15-minute visit, and you're only allowed to talk about one thing. If you want to talk about two things, you need to pay for another $91. I cannot afford to pay this."?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said, 90 percent of adults without a community services card are paying $70 or less to see their general practitioner. As I also said, the increase in the number of people saying they're unable to afford a doctor's visit increased because, under the previous Government, GP fees increased by 30 percent between 2017 and 2023. We're doing things to fix it, focusing on affordability and accessibility, including the extension of prescriptions to 12 months, and, as of yet, I have not heard what the Labour Party position is. Do they support it?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was a heart patient correct when they wrote to me, "On several occasions, I have avoided visiting the GP because I cannot afford the fees. Instead, I end up going to the emergency room and waiting for hours to be seen.", or is this patient's experience what the Minister meant when he said concern about fees was "misinformation put about by the Labour Party"?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, the increase in GP fees of 30 percent occurred under the previous Government. We are focused on affordability and accessibility, including extending prescriptions to 12 months, where safe, which will save patients up to $105 per year in GP fees starting from early next year. I'm yet to hear whether or not the Labour Party supports that policy.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was the family of six correct when they wrote, "First appointment at our new GP cost $660, $110 each.", and will he write this off as "misinformation" or admit that first-visit fees are a genuine barrier to enrolment?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, 90 percent of adults without a community services card pay $70 or less to see a general practitioner. Under her watch, general practitioner fees increased by 30 percent. We are focused on accessibility and affordability, and one of the ways that we can do that is by allowing GPs to extend prescriptions up to 12 months, which will save people with long-term conditions up to $105 on GP fees each year. Also, it'll mean that our GPs are able to see more patients. I'm yet to hear whether or not the Labour Party supports that practical policy to reduce costs on patients.

SPEAKER: Good. That's enough time.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was the full-time worker who wrote to me, "I make good money, but with the cost of living, I cannot afford to see my doctor. A hundred dollars is so extreme for a 15-minute consultation.", or are his circumstances "misinformation" too?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, 90 percent of adults without a community service card pay $70 or less to see their GP, and under her watch, the Labour Party let GP fees increase by 30 percent over their six years in office. As I say, you can't trust Labour when it comes to GP fees.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I noticed the questioner quoted from two pieces of correspondence she received, though she never offered to table them. How do we know they exist in the first place? Perhaps she could be asked to table them now?

SPEAKER: Well, that is a request that you obviously have made by way of point of order. The point is that it goes to the heart of what I said before: all members should be considered honourable members and taken at their word. Now, if there is something to be tabled, then the member is entitled to table it.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his decision to exclude Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Regulatory Standards Bill, given that this bill defines the constitutional test for every future law?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, not every bill needs a reference to the Treaty in it. As we've said, we want a narrow focus to make sure that, actually, any reference to the Treaty—its application is very clear for everybody involved. But I can reassure the member that Treaty settlements will not be impacted by this bill.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he support amendments to include Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori as foundational principles of a good regulation, to ensure Māori interests are upheld in lawmaking; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I've said before, we don't want general, open-ended references to the Treaty that don't give clarity to participants as to how to enact that legislation, so we'll continue to work through that. But I just reassure the member, again: Treaty settlements are not impacted.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does he reconcile opposing the Treaty principles bill while supporting the Regulatory Standards Bill, which, effectively, achieves the same intent by other means?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As the tribunal accepts, there are no Treaty settlements going to be affected by this bill. But, again, I'd just say to the member, it's interesting that I've never had a question from that member about what we are doing to improve literacy with young Māori students. I've never had a question about what we're doing to make sure that—

SPEAKER: No—that's all right. That's all right.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —Māori are not victims of crime.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just a moment—I think Debbie Ngarewa-Packer had the floor.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That has absolutely no relevance to the question at hand.

SPEAKER: And I just made that point.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that the success of policies such as structured literacy and charter schools make the case that it is possible to uplift young Māori educational outcomes without making any reference to the Treaty whatsoever?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with the Public Health Communication Centre that this bill risks obstructing future tobacco, alcohol, or sugar regulations, worsening existing health inequities for Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What assurances, if any, can he give that the Regulatory Standards Bill won't undermine the Government's ability to implement Treaty clauses and needs-based, Māori-specific provisions in health, education, and environmental legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is designed to improve the quality of regulation, which will actually lead to better benefits and outcomes for all New Zealanders, Māori or non-Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is he proceeding with the Regulatory Standards Bill without a public mandate, when 99 percent of the 159,000 submitters opposed it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want to make sure we have better quality regulation and reduce the compliance burden.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing: How many pregnant women have been refused access to emergency housing since December 2023, broken down by region, if any?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): I'm advised that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development does not record the pregnancy status of applicants for emergency housing. But in my humble opinion, respectfully, I think it is potentially reckless and insensitive that the member would consider it appropriate for officialdom to ask women seeking emergency housing support, often in difficult circumstances, if they are hapū or not.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The House will just calm itself, thank you.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is he aware of the recent case of a pregnant woman in Masterton who was denied emergency housing, as reported in the media; if so, why did he not mention that?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I've only recently, as of today, become aware of that. But if the member wishes to take some time to put together an authority to act and send it to me, maybe I could look at it further, with his support.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, sir. In the primary question, which was on notice, I asked the Minister how many pregnant women had been refused access. In the supplementary, he conceded to the House that he was aware of one instance that was reported in the media. How can those two answers wash?

SPEAKER: Well, he also added the word "today", so I took it that he learnt of it when you raised it in the question. I don't think that that's unreasonable.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he now concede that front-line providers are correct when they say that the Minister's claim that everyone in genuine need can access emergency housing is "not true", when there are now reports of pregnant women being denied access to emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I've mentioned several times in this House, in most major towns and cities in New Zealand, there continues to be emergency housing available as a last resort for those in genuine need of a short-term stay in temporary accommodation. There are a number of people who may be declined emergency housing, but many—in fact, over half of them—are actually given some form of support.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How can he continue to deny the link between his tightening of the emergency housing entry criteria and the unprecedented increase in homelessness, when even pregnant women are now being denied access?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I think we've heard through question and answer in this session that there is a degree of conjecture that continues to creep in the member's questions. We, on this side of the House, are genuinely concerned by those who may be rough sleeping, and that's why Minister Bishop and myself have taken direct action over the last six weeks to announce an additional 300 funded places for Housing First and additional support for transitional housing, and have also given some direction around both redirections and also the exercise of discretion by Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora—the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is it the case, like when MSD issued grants for homeless people to buy tents, or when women and children fleeing domestic violence were denied emergency housing, that the Minister knew there was an issue, but only acted when this was made public?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In relation to the second example that the member has given, I have asked the member to provide an appropriate authority to act, and also to credentialise the allegation that he made. As at this point in time, I've yet to receive an authority to act or have credentialised information from that member. But we are genuinely concerned about those people who are sleeping rough in cars, in tents, or on the street, and that's why we have taken action rather than talk about it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation in response to that allegation made by the Minister just now.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The Minister asked me for a contact. I provided that contact, and that contact advises me that the Minister has not been in touch.

SPEAKER: Is there another supplementary?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: No.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Suze Redmayne.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare—

SPEAKER: Sorry, there is no response to that. Right—

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The ministry has been in touch.

SPEAKER: No response. Question No. 10—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As a response to that point of order, the Minister had claimed in response to a question that the contact he requested was not provided. He's subsequently said that it was provided and the ministry followed it up. Now, this cannot be allowed to occur—where the Minister makes a claim against another member that something didn't happen and when it was pointed out that he did, he responded that, actually, that is the case.

SPEAKER: I'll look into that straight away after question time.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: Why has the Government announced new science-based methane targets to support farmers' contribution to meeting New Zealand's obligations under the 2050 Paris Agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): It's important that we provide certainty to our farmers, processors, and exporters that is fair, pragmatic, and backed by science. This is why the Government has set the methane target at a range of 14 to 24 percent below 2017 levels by 2050. We've accepted a range of advice to agree a practical target that protects food production while substantially reducing New Zealand's farm emissions. We've delivered a practical, fair pathway that recognises New Zealand's agricultural efficiency, protects jobs and production, upholds our climate commitments, and is consistent with our trade agreements.

Suze Redmayne: How has the Government landed on this range for the new methane targets?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Across Government we've worked to get the balance right. We have taken a range of advice, including an independent expert science-based review, as reported in December last year. The new targets have New Zealand on track to meet its climate obligations by 2050. I want to be clear, though: there are no winners here, but, for the first time, there are also no losers. This is a practical approach to meet our international obligations, and it ensures we continue to produce the highest-quality, safest food anywhere in the world. We do not have to close down farms and send production overseas, there will be no tax on agricultural methane emissions, and our access to imported markets around the world remains available to New Zealand's farmers, growers, and exporters.

Suze Redmayne: How is the Government supporting the primary sector to meet the new methane targets?

Hon TODD McCLAY: New technologies will deliver emissions reductions to meet international and market expectations while enabling the sector to grow. To back the new target, the Government is already investing more than $400 million with industry to speed up the development and roll-out of methane-cutting tools. Three methane-cutting tools are available now, with up to 11 rolling out by 2030—one of which will be available as early as next year. It will be up to each farmer, processor, and company to decide how best to meet these commitments using the tools and innovations that they see fit for their business.

Suze Redmayne: What feedback has he received on the Government's announcement?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Whilst the targets are extremely challenging, farmers have welcomed them and confirmed that they will meet these challenges head-on. Our primary sector earns nearly $60 billion in export revenue each year for New Zealand. It provides more than one in 10 Kiwi jobs. You can't solve climate change by shutting down the world's best farmers and sending that production overseas. The Government is focused on domestic action to reduce emissions, all while growing the economy. This Government backs our farmers, and when our farmers do well, all of New Zealand does well because of their significant contribution to the economy.

Question No. 11—Education

11. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that "This Government has been backing teachers since the day that we took office"; if so, why are teachers, principals, and support staff all striking together?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): To the first part of the question, yes—as I have repeatedly told the member in question time. This Government has been backing teachers since the day we took office: backing them with a knowledge-rich curriculum, professional learning and development, and resources so that more Kiwi kids succeed at school. The evidence shows this is working, with the phonics data announced yesterday. In answer to the second part of the question, not all teachers and principals are striking.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why won't she front up to the strike action on 23 October?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I haven't said that I wouldn't, and I haven't pre-released my diary up until that day. So the member can't presuppose what may or may not happen on that day.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she stand by her statement "I am not aware of any of those conversations or any of the details that may or may not have been talked about" in relation to the strikes; if so, does she think it's acceptable for the Minister of Education to not be across the detail?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I'm not sure that there's any detail for me to be across in terms of this question that was asked. Specifically, the previous Minister is asking a question about something I was asked in a media scrum on Monday. It was specifically in relation to other things we might be doing in terms of legislation. The answer to that question was that I am not involved in any of those conversations if they are being had.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she engaged with Sir Brian Roche, who is leading the negotiation, at any point since negotiations have started, in order to get across any details?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I meet with Sir Brian Roche all the time.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many teachers, principals, and support staff going on strike will it take before the Government finally takes them seriously?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, that member should know, because she has a very short memory. In 2023, there was a terrible strike action—tens of thousands of primary and area school and secondary principals and teachers participated in the historic walkout, followed by a further three days after that, and then rolling strikes for a whole term. So if she wants to know how long it takes, she should ask herself that.

SPEAKER: And we'll now move to—[Interruption] that's enough; thank you—Question No. 12, Jenny Marcroft, when the House is silent.

Question No. 12—Foreign Affairs

12. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What reports, if any, has he seen on recent developments in the Middle East?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): New Zealanders watch with cautious optimism the events of the last 24 hours in Gaza, with the ceasefire holding and the release of hostages and detainees. It has been a moment of immense relief and celebration for the 20 hostages who were released after so long in captivity, their families, and, indeed, the people of Israel. We must also remember all of those hundreds of hostages who died in the two years since Hamas brutally took them captive. Everyone who cares about peace should be welcoming this much delayed ceasefire, which has come after so much suffering. We note that while Hamas has released 20 hostages, Israel has released around 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. New Zealand commends the leadership of the United States, Donald Trump, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, Indonesia, and other countries in bringing this deal together, and we view the events of the last 24 hours as providing momentum for peace and constituting a significant first step towards ending this devastating conflict—and not making stupid statements, like the people on my right.

Jenny Marcroft: How do these developments relate to the New Zealand Government's approach to the Middle East?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It has been 2½ weeks exactly since we outlined New Zealand's approach on the Middle East question to the United Nations General Assembly. Subsequent events have reinforced a number of arguments that we made at that time in New York, including the first: that those countries with influence over the situation should step up and exercise leadership, and second: that the international community's focus should be on achieving a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and the flow of humanitarian assistance in order to alleviate the calamitous situation impacting on Palestinians and Israelis alike. We are gratified that this is precisely what has happened. Yesterday's historic achievement is a critical first step towards implementing the wider peace plan and securing a lasting peace. Already we have seen a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and the surging into Gaza of humanitarian assistance. We urge both Israel and Hamas to abide by the ceasefire and to continue to engage in good faith to secure agreement on the outstanding issues.

Jenny Marcroft: How do these developments impact on New Zealand's approach to recognition of a Palestinian State?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We continue to hold the position that recognition of a Palestinian State is a matter of when, not if. We will recognise a Palestinian State when the conditions are right. A ceasefire and hostage release were, indeed, two initial steps in the right direction to creating those conditions, but further steps remain. What we need now to focus on is the achievement of a durable and sustainable peace, the disarmament and dissolution of Hamas, and the rapid development of Palestinian institutions capable of forming a legitimate and credible Government in both the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians will not be able to develop these institutions alone, and New Zealand stands ready to play its part alongside other members of the international community.

Jenny Marcroft: How have recent developments in the Middle East been received here in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the silence over the past week from some of the so-called pro-Palestinian protesters around this country has been absolutely deafening. For two years, they have ranted and raved and fumed and fulminated about the situation in Gaza. They have demanded that we do more, give more, say more, and virtue signal more, and then, over the past week, as a peace deal has been struck—as a peace deal has been struck—

Ricardo Menéndez March: But you did nothing tangible.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Adios, amigos. As a ceasefire has taken hold—

Ricardo Menéndez March: You're taking credit for others.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Adios to war and welcome to peace. Then, over the past week, as a peace deal has been struck, as a ceasefire has taken hold, and as hostages have been released, from them not a mutter, not a murmur, not a syllable, not a sound. We have seen not a press release, not a tweet, not a parliamentary question, and the question is: why this deafening silence? Because you're all about performative politics.

Simon Court: What message does he have for the Israeli and the Jewish communities in New Zealand now that the hostages have been released?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, that they recognise that it was the US President and others from Muslim countries who brought this about and that anti-Americanism or any other sentiment is of no value when you're concerned about peace, and particularly if you're some arrogant twit that arrived here five minutes ago and doesn't give a concern about this country's initiative and its peace over the years. My message is this: we can understand why the past 24 hours have provided a moment of great emotion, relief, and indeed celebration. Some 20 of the hostages held cruelly by Hamas for the past two years have finally been reunited with their loved ones, as have over 2,000 prisoners, in terms of Palestine. Anybody who saw the footage of these families being reunited should welcome and applaud that. At the same time as we have said that, we should also not forget all those hostages who lost their lives over the past two years in the custody of Hamas.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Members will leave the House for other business quietly and without conversation on the way. "Without conversation on the way" means "Don't talk to anyone; just leave."

© Scoop Media