Sitting date: 25 March 2025

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our actions to go for growth. Wasn't it absolutely great news last week to see Stats New Zealand confirm that the economy grew by 0.7 percent to finish 2024, with the first increase to GDP per capita in two years. We know that growth matters, on this side of the House, and more growth means more jobs, higher wages, more opportunities for all New Zealanders to beat the cost of living and to get ahead. That's why just in the last two weeks we've been at it hard, fighting hard for trade in India; making sure we're taking action to scrap and replace the Resource Management Act; and hosting investors worth trillions of dollars here in New Zealand so that we can build the roads, energy, and homes Kiwis need to thrive. There's always more to do, but it's very exciting to say that growth is back, and I'm sure that member, in a bipartisan way, would fully support and endorse those comments.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the statement made by Christopher Luxon in September 2023 with regard to the school lunches programme: "We're very supportive of it. I just want to make sure that I'm sure it can be improved, I'm sure it can be optimised, I'm sure it can be enhanced."; if so, is he confident that the school lunches programme has been "improved", "optimised", and "enhanced" under his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. The free lunch programme is there so that hungry kids going to school can actually focus and get something to eat so they can learn. There's been some practical issues, which the Associate Minister of Education's working his way through very well, and again I just say I think it's fantastic that savings have been generated, and those savings can be generated back into health and education to help support our kids.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government select Libelle and Compass to deliver the school lunches programme, given Libelle had lost nearly 60 percent of the schools it had been serving under the old programme due to quality concerns and Compass had lost 23 of the 53 schools that it was serving?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There was a standard procurement process. But if the member wants to direct more specific questions, feel free to direct it to the Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why did the Government—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just a minute. If questions are serious enough to be answered, they should be listened to, by and large, quite seriously.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government ignore official advice that Compass had failed to meet the nutritional standards required in more than half of the assessments of its meals under the previous programme and had prolonged issues with undersized meals and inconsistent portioning, while Libelle had been the subject of 163 complaints about food quality, food safety, and food suitability?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think the member would understand that I don't have that detail in front of me around a procurement process, but I would encourage him to put his question on notice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question—supplementary question. You've had three.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: I can count.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, can you?

SPEAKER: Yeah. Surprising.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I'm glad to hear that. Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether he was aware that those three supplementary questions were all written before the primary question from Chris Hipkins, which meant that, no matter what the Prime Minister said, he wasn't paying attention?

SPEAKER: I don't think that the Prime Minister has any responsibility for anyone else's concentration span.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Good to see he's awake, though. Does he agree with the statement of Christopher Luxon in August 2023, with regard to the school lunches, that a Government led by him would "make sure we get better delivery and better execution"; if so, why did they award the exclusive contract to deliver school lunches to Libelle and Compass, who had amongst the highest rates of uneaten lunches and food waste in the previous programme, almost double the average?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I'd just say to the member, I'm not party to the details of a procurement process. If he wants to put his detailed questions on notice, feel free to do so. But this is a programme that has been able to generate savings that can be redirected back into health and education. Yup, there are some practical issues; the Minister's working his way through them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why didn't David Seymour bother to tell the Minister of Education that the major provider of school lunches, Libelle, was going into liquidation, given he'd found out five days before it happened, yet the Minister was left to find out about that through the media after it happened?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I'm very comfortable with the delegations and accountabilities that we have between our Ministers. The Associate Minister and I talk all the time. We've talked about the school lunches. We've talked about many other things as well. I'm comfortable with it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the statement of Christopher Luxon in September 2023: "I'd work harder on education to make sure we give people healthier choices in the school lunch programme."; if so, why is the nutritional value of school lunches now being provided consistently lower than under the previous school lunches programme that his Government scrapped?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree that we are working harder on education because I remember who was the Minister of Education when kids stopped going to school, when half our Year 8s are not at the standard they need to be at on reading, and 80 percent of our kids going into high school are not where they need to be at on mathematics. Who was the Minister for 5½ years?

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that last week the healthy school lunch programme delivered 99.8 percent on-time delivery, and surplus meals of 5.7 percent compared with 9 percent surplus last year; and is he then surprised to hear feedback from a teacher just last night: "The meals are varied, wholesome, and, in my opinion and that of the majority of my class, far more filling than last year. They are a meal!"?

SPEAKER: That was more an advertorial than a question, but OK.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Can I just thank the Minister for his hard work in working through the issues so well.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon's statement in July 2023: "I'm not interested in how much money is being spent; I'm interested in the results that are being achieved."; if so, is his spending less achieving better outcomes so far?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we're impressed about is that we're getting more value for money. The money that's being saved is going into education and health for our kids and the issues that are being worked through are being worked through.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Government's approach to the healthy school lunch programme has been agile and adaptive, changing its approach whenever things start to go wrong, which is a lot better than Chris Hipkins' approach to this line of questioning?

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, that's—none of that question actually complies with the requirements of Standing Orders, but the Prime Minister may make a brief response.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I appreciate that there is a lot of effort going in to improve and work through the issues with the new providers, and I commend the Minister and encourage him to keep going. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: When we're all ready—when we're all quiet.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to crack down on criminal activity and to restore law and order. Kiwis are sick of the large discounts and the short sentences regularly handed down, even in instances of serious offending. The good news is that, this week, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill will return to the House for its third reading. That bill will cap discounts and bring in tougher consequences for serious and repeat offending. It doesn't stop there, though, for convicted criminals, because the last few weeks have, sadly, shown the longer you spend in prison, the more likely it is you'll get visited by a Green MP of a convicted criminal.

SPEAKER: No, sorry, that last part of that question, the answer is not acceptable. So we'll have no more of that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Do the companies that the Prime Minister is asking to build our schools, roads, and hospitals want to make a profit?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, they may well do, and I would hope they would want to see a return. But what I'm excited about is that there is massive interest from investors who want to build public infrastructure in New Zealand, and the benefits to New Zealanders economically, socially, and environmentally are profound. If we can pull forward infrastructure development, get more roads built, more wind farms built, more energy delivered, that's only good for New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When our country has to pay for the profit of shareholders on top of the cost of building public infrastructure like our schools and hospitals, does that equation ultimately cost New Zealanders more or less?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a strange line of questioning, and it just speaks to the degrowth agenda of the Green Party—the degrowth agenda of the Green Party. Not only do they want to abandon prisons but they now don't want to grow the economy. To that member: we want investment in this country. It is capital thin. We need to get public infrastructure built. Iwi want to get on and actually get projects built, and private companies in our growth sectors need support too.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the profit that the private companies make through his Government's intended public-private partnerships stay in Aotearoa New Zealand or go offshore?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, our focus is on attracting investment to New Zealand so we can get public infrastructure built. The member seems to be confused about how economics works. We want New Zealanders to get ahead. We need them with more money in their pockets. We want them to have higher standards of living. One of the ways we do that is we attract investment to New Zealand as well as use domestic pools of capital as well.

Hon Chris Bishop: Is it Government policy that profit is a good thing or a bad thing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Profit is a good thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept that his plans for public-private partnerships will ultimately, then, cost New Zealanders more and send that profit offshore?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. We are looking at the right funding and financing tools and mechanisms to support the right infrastructure. We need to get a lot more infrastructure built in this country. The member may disagree with us, but we are going to grow New Zealand because it's good for New Zealanders. And part of that is getting infrastructure built faster, quicker, and if we can do that in partnership with private capital, we will. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon David Seymour—are you all right?

Hon David Seymour: I'm sure he's fine, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just a minute—wait on. Questions are heard in silence. I thought there was an issue down here.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports that profit is not a cost that you just add on and charge the customer but a surplus that remains if you do a very good job of using your resources more efficiently, and could, failing to understand that, be a reason why someone's one-time business of a little hole-in-the-wall cafe on Mount Eden Road only lasted a few weeks?

SPEAKER: No, no, no. No, just a minute. These little digs across the House are not acceptable, particularly from Government Ministers having a go at the Opposition. It's also a trend that I think—

Hon Marama Davidson: Can't even run school lunches.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Marama Davidson: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That would be a good thing to be. I'm not saying it's a trend, but there has been a little bit of a move towards personal reflections, which are completely unacceptable under our Standing Orders, so they are to stop.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Who can borrow money cheaper: the private companies that the Prime Minister wants to build our public infrastructure, or the Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as I've said to that member, we're going to find the right funding and financing mechanism that supports the right project. But I make no apologies for wanting to partner with private capital—international or domestic—to get things built for New Zealanders. You may disagree with us ideologically on that point, as a degrowth party, but we want growth in New Zealand, and that's what we're going to do.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. 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, Statistics New Zealand released the latest GDP figures. These showed the New Zealand economy expanding 0.7 percent in the December quarter of 2024, led by a pick-up in tourism-related spending. Growth of 0.7 percent in the quarter was stronger than economists were predicting. For example, both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank were forecasting quarterly growth of 0.3 percent. In terms of per capita growth, GDP per person rose 0.4 percent in the December quarter—the first such increase in more than two years.

Dan Bidois: What is the significance of the GDP result?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The significance is that it marks a turning point. It marks the end of a protracted and painful downturn in the New Zealand economy, and the beginning of an upturn, with per capita GDP having fallen around 5 percent since the third quarter of 2022. From 2021 to 2023, of course, members, uncontrolled Government spending helped push annual inflation to more than 7 percent. Interest rates were hiked to bring inflation down, and there was little to no growth in the economy over the past two years. Inflation is now back within target, interest rates have come down, and last week's result is the confirmation that growth has returned.

Dan Bidois: What do more recent economic indicators show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Of course, the GDP results are backward looking: they tell us what happened in 2024. More recent information indicates what is happening this year and identifies positive signs, challenges, and risks. On the positive side, goods exports are doing well and tourism is stronger than expected. The most recent BNZ—BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) indicates that the manufacturing sector is continuing to expand. BNZ economist Doug Steel said that the improvement in the PMI this year is "one of several indicators that suggests the broader economy is turning for the better."

Dan Bidois: What are some of the risks to the economic outlook?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As members know, one of the biggest risks is from the global environment. The OECD has just reduced its forecast for global growth. In its latest economic update, the OECD warns that rising uncertainty around tariffs will lead businesses around the world to defer investment and that higher prices will reduce consumer spending. That could impact the New Zealand economy. Forecasters expect the economy to continue picking up over 2025, but the journey could be a little bumpy.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. In particular, I tend to make the same statement to one audience as I do to another, unlike that member, who took so many positions on public-private partnerships last week that she ended up having to apologise for the confusion she'd caused.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis, who said in October 2023 that the Government "will never hit surplus and debt will blow out even further than it is today" when she has shifted surplus out, will not deliver in the forecast period, and debt is growing under her watch?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I stand by all my statements, and I welcome this turn of fiscal prudence from the Labour Party, in which suddenly, for the first time, that member, instead of encouraging me to get out the money hose, is saying that she cares about debt and surplus. Stick to those guns, Barbara.

SPEAKER: Look, the Minister of Finance knows that referring to someone by their first name is not appropriate in this House—their full name, if at all.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis, as reported by the media in July 2022, that "the government could not keep blaming external events", and, if so, why is she now concerned about international headwinds?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Absolutely, because under the last Government, what we had was a spending approach which was so excessive compared to other countries around the world that now numerous studies have shown that our inflation went higher and stayed higher for longer and that our interest rates needed to soar higher to control that, and that was not a result of global factors. It wasn't global factors that made every former Minister sitting opposite me spend like a drunken sailor on bureaucrats, go-nowhere projects, and wasted initiatives. It was your Government that chose to do it, it drove up inflation, and it caused real pain for New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: OK, I'm just going to say this once before anything else comes. The Standing Orders make it very clear that the Government cannot use its own questions or answer questions that are an attack on the Opposition. They can refer to matters that affect their portfolio, but not be an out and out attack that might be more in the nature of a public meeting somewhere. So we've just got to calm things down a little bit.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: She's got to stop with the patsies, then.

SPEAKER: By the same token, the question—I beg your pardon? By the same token, questions that invite political comparison—for example, asking a member, effectively, if they agree with themselves—is virtually like saying, "I've got you here.", and then it's going to get some sort of answer along the lines of the one we've just had. It's very difficult to walk the balance between the two.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis that "we have"—

SPEAKER: Now, there we go!

Hon Barbara Edmonds: The Minister of Finance. Does she agree with the Minister of Finance that "we have huge amounts of Government debt", or does she agree with her statement at the international investment summit that "We have relatively low levels of government debt compared to other countries,"?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes—yes—another set of wise statements by Nicola Willis, because, on the one hand, the previous Government added more than $100 billion to debt with just about nothing to show from it, which I believe was pretty reckless, and on the other hand, because of the great work by Sir Bill English and other prudent National Party finance Ministers, our debt had started in a low position, and so it ended up in a lower position than some other countries. But if that lot had stayed in, I can guarantee you this: the debt would have got out of control.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she tell the international investment summit that "we need more capital investment" while cutting back Government investment into schools, hospitals, and housing?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member should be very cautious before she makes statements in this House that cannot be backed up by the facts, and I would sincerely ask her to go back, look at the words she used in that question, and see if she can find factual verification for them, because this is a Government that in its first Budget invested more money in school buildings, invested more money in transport infrastructure, invested more money in housing, such that we have added more than 4,000 public homes since we came to office, such that we have added more classrooms, we have built more schools, and we have more than $6 billion worth of roads under construction. So get your facts right. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. It's your own colleagues that are holding things up. Just a minute; just a little bit of time here. All right.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is that she says one thing about the Government's books to international investors but is more than comfortable to say the complete opposite to the New Zealand public?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This is like patsy hour. I've given the member the answer, and I'll give it you again, which is this. On the one hand, we have had years of prudent fiscal management, including by Sir Bill English, who managed to get debt down to extremely low levels. We then had the spendthrift days of the Labour Government, who brought that debt up to 40 percent of GDP, and because we started from a good base because of the prudent work of previous National Governments, it meant that, relatively, our debt is still quite low compared to some countries in the OECD. But I would caution the member this: New Zealand is a country that is prone to significant economic shocks, be they climatic events, be they seismic events, be they trade-related events. So it has been the longstanding position of both Labour- and National-led Governments that it makes sense to keep our debt at low levels. If the member wishes to depart from that longstanding consensus, I would suggest to her that most New Zealanders would not agree.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters, just a minute. A question like that will get a response like that, which makes it very difficult to apply in the strictest sense the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the finance Minister as to how she's been able to deal with the much-vaunted promise of economic recovery by mid-2024 of growing GDP, higher wages, higher incomes, higher housing, and the actual facts that she had to deal with she found out the truth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point. I think it is highly regrettable that the previous Government made promises that it had put in place strong economic foundations that would lead to recovery and job creation. The facts are clear. Actually, what they left was record inflation, soaring interest rates, and a crushing effect on the economy, which has led to a very high cost of living for New Zealanders, destroyed jobs, and taken this economy backwards, and we on this side of the House are fixing it.

Question No. 5—RMA Reform

5. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What recent announcements has he made regarding the replacement of the Resource Management Act 1991?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yesterday, the Government announced that we have agreed on the shape of the Government's replacement legislation to a far more liberal planning system with less red tape premised on the enjoyment of property rights. In our first year, we repealed the previous reforms of the last Government and made a series of targeted amendments. We also passed the Fast-track Approvals Act and now we are getting on with the job of replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA) completely. We set 10 principles for the new system. We've received a report from the Expert Advisory Group; I want to thank the chair, Janette Campbell, for the reports, an excellent high-quality piece of work that Cabinet has now endorsed, and we'll be getting on with developing the legislation.

Tom Rutherford: What are the key features of this new, more enabling planning system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Cabinet has agreed to two new Acts, a narrower scope, property rights at the core, simplified national direction, clear environmental limits, more standardisation, streamlined council plans including spatial planning, and stronger environmental compliance enforcement and monitoring. Standardised zoning will be a key feature of the new system, and it might surprise members of the House to learn that across the country there are currently 1,175 different kinds of zones. In the entirety of Japan there are 13. It's our view that elected representatives should spend more time focusing on and talking to their communities about where density should and should not occur, and less time focusing on the enormous number of technical details that go into regulating that density. Standardised zones make up just one part of the new system but does give a sense of the ambition that we are aiming to achieve.

Tom Rutherford: What are the key benefits New Zealanders can expect to see from this new planning system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there's been some preliminary economic analysis done by Castalia which estimates a 45 percent saving in process costs compared to the RMA. There will be further economic work done as policy is developed and as bills plural are prepared, and that is before we consider the wider economic benefits. The broader point is this: we need to change the culture of "no" that permeates decision making in this country. Whether it's aquaculture off the coast of the South, or a new green six-star building replacing a heritage gravel pit next to a train station in our biggest city, the RMA has obstructed growth instead of enabling it. Our aim is to change that.

Tom Rutherford: What response has he seen—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Away you go.

TOM RUTHERFORD: What response has he seen to this announcement so far?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It's been quite overwhelming in terms of support. The Employers and Manufacturers Association said they strongly support the direction of travel: "The proposed changes will allow for more efficient development". The Planning Institute welcomed the announcement: "Spatial planning…is a no-brainer. This will be a game changer for proactive planning". Business New Zealand also welcomed it. Following announcements yesterday, today I have written to the relevant spokespeople from the Opposition, from Labour and the Greens, inviting their involvement in the in the process to replace the RMA. Our core policy intentions remain obvious, but we do want to try and work—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You said yesterday you weren't going to listen.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Judith Collins wrote to David Parker in 2021. We're still waiting for a reply, so we have reached out in good faith and I'm looking forward to meeting with the relevant spokespeople and providing a briefing from the chair of the expert group.

Simon Court: How is the Government going to protect property owners from busybodies seeking to impose restrictions on their enjoyment of their private property rights?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that is a very good question. The ability for people all over the country to object to quite minor developments is one of the real battlegrounds in the RMA right now. For example, I saw people in I think it was Waipukurau objecting to the building of a McDonald's in Wānaka. Why the people of Waipukurau get to have a say on what gets built in Wanaka is beyond me. The entry points for people into the system are too easy. Participation should be targeted at the plan making process. Of course, only those materially affected by an activity will be able to participate in consent processes, and there'll be more limits around the notification process. We don't need every Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to have a say in how people use private property.

SPEAKER: Hold on.

Simon Court: Minister, how is the Government—

SPEAKER: Hold on. Just wait on. I'll call you. Simon Court.

SIMON COURT: Thank you. How is the Government going to ensure people can get on with building, developing, and farming without having to get consents for everything?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There will be fewer consents required as the system is more permissive. The new Acts will also not control as many effects and there will be a higher threshold for those it does control, focused on the economic concept of externalities. There will be more standardisation of plans. Spatial plans and national policy direction will make it clearer where environmental constraints are and where they aren't. Where councils want to impose regulatory controls on private property that have a regulatory impact akin to a taking there will be compensation required, because the free ability of councils to impose regulatory restrictions that devalue land on private property has led to regulatory overreach by councils doing exactly that. On this side of the House, we believe in private property as the foundation stone for a market economy that grows over time. That's what the RMA changes will do.

Question No. 6—Economic Growth

6. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she agree with the statement of Hon Nicola Willis, "On our watch there may be fewer people wearing lanyards on Lambton Quay, but there are going to be a lot more people wearing high-vis and hard-hats"; if so, why?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): Can I first welcome the member to her new role. Yes. That statement was said in a previous capacity, during a time in which I was the Minister for the Public Service, and I am happily informed by the current Minister for the Public Service that the Government is continuing in our success in moving roles from the back office to the front line, with a significant reduction in money spent on lanyard-wearing consultants and an 8 percent reduction in policy roles, which has allowed us to invest more in front-line roles, including more than 2,000 additional front-line nurses.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why has there been a reduction of over 13,000 people working in construction, wearing high-vis and hard hats since her Government took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I thought the member might use this dubious statistic that a number of members opposite have been using in their media releases and so I would encourage the House to listen. Certainly, the construction sector has been affected by the downturn, but she is over-egging the impact of jobs, because she is using a novel data series that Stats New Zealand says only "has provisional status". What Stats New Zealand says are the most reliable job-related statistics for New Zealand come from the quarterly employment survey (QES) and over the last year—that is December 2023 to December 2024—the QES shows a slight increase in construction jobs, up by 400.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Engineering New Zealand Chief Executive, Richard Templer, who said the pipeline of infrastructure work had "all but dried up" and that it was having "a devastating impact on the profession"; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What I do agree is that when interest rates soar as high and quickly as they have in recent years, one of the most sensitive sectors is construction, who, when those interest rates are high, are less likely to borrow for more projects. That has certainly had an effect on the New Zealand economy and many people in the construction sector have felt it. However, I would also note that since coming to Government we have built more than 5,171 social houses. [Interruption] We have more than $6 billion worth of New Zealand Transport Agency projects in construction. See, the members laugh because they are so unacquainted with the facts that when I use them, they find it laughable. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Please stop. That barracking will stop like that. The Minister will pick up her answer halfway through.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I totally respect, sir, your role in maintaining order in the House. However, when we have a situation where the Prime Minister has previously claimed in this House to have built so many houses, the housing Minister has said in this House that they have funded none, and now the finance Minister is making a similar claim, what option have we got but to call that out?

SPEAKER: You do have an option, and that is to refer the matter as a matter of privilege. Misleading the House is an extreme breach of privilege and if the member thinks that it's happening and Ministers are doing that, then he should bring a privilege charge.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order. I do feel my honour has been impinged, so I would like to refer the member to the source, which is the change in public homes dashboard, which shows the net change in total public homes, December 2023 to January 2025, which shows 5,171 homes added, including 4,096 Kāinga Ora public homes and 1,075 community housing providers public homes. Those are the numbers I'm relying on. I don't know which ones he's using.

SPEAKER: I'll just make the point that that's the last time someone is going to use a point of order to attack another part of the House. That's not acceptable. [Interruption] Excuse me. Put your hands up. Who wants to go? [Interruption] Mr Bishop, do you want to go on your way? I've made the point, and I think people should just take it on board. Ginny Andersen.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why did her Government suspend—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker? I hadn't finished my answer. We had the back of—

SPEAKER: No, well, I'd finished listening to it. [Interruption] And that is disorderly. Don't do that. When the House goes quiet, ask your next question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why did her Government suspend Kāinga Ora's build programme when the construction sector themselves warned the "indecision or pause [for] Kāinga Ora is actually contributing to the recessionary effect on the construction sector."?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This is a very important point and it's one that I would encourage the member to get acquainted with the facts on, because I have seen that this is an issue that has caused a lot of consternation for members opposite. Go and look at the public housing dashboard. What that shows is in the period since December 2023, more than 5,000 public homes have been added, and that is because the Kāinga Ora build programme has continued. In addition to that, at the last Budget, our Government—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, stop. It can't carry on. Keep asking questions if you want to, but barracking across the House is not helping, nor is the intensity of the answers being given. Factual answers: good. Heavily emotional answers: not good. The Minister may continue.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In addition to that, in our first Budget, the Government made additional funding available to deliver social housing places from community housing providers, and I am advised that since December last year, more than 1,075 new community homes have been added to the public housing stock. So I welcome a debate with the member—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You'll have delivered homes that are not yet funded for—that's just wrong.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —but to say that we have stopped building public houses is factually, completely, wrong, and Mr Hipkins should stop saying it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker—point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Minister has just made a very misleading claim in the House herself, where she talked about funding that her Government had allocated for some new social housing and then said how many had been delivered. The new funding the Government's allocated doesn't come in till next year, so she's made a claim that is simply not true.

SPEAKER: And there will be—obviously I can't know that, but there is a remedy for you if you choose to use it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interests of planning going forward, could the Minister tell us as to whether there's been any period in the last 40 years where the housing construction has shrunk in the way it did between 2020 and 2023?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister highlights a very important point, which is one of the most difficult periods, of course, for the construction sector—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Wait on, sorry. We're just going to go into silence for the rest of this brief answer.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A very difficult period for the construction sector was during the lockdowns, during COVID-19, and, subsequently, additional challenges for the construction sector have come from very high interest rates.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with the National Party's infrastructure spokesperson Chris Bishop, who said in 2020, "the construction sector is crying out for certainty. Jobs literally depend on the Government getting on with the job.", and, if so, why does New Zealand have the lowest number of people working in construction since June 2021?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, yes, I completely agree with the Minister for Infrastructure, which is why as a Government we've taken steps to fast track major developments, which those members have opposed. And when the hundreds of construction jobs that result from those projects come on board, I look forward to members opposing those too. It is why we have introduced new reforms to the Resource Management Act, so that construction activity can get under way faster. It's why we have an extensive programme of reform being led by the Minister for Building and Construction, to make it cheaper and faster to build homes. We are a Government on the side of construction and building and doing it faster. Fewer people like Duncan Webb saying "No" to supermarkets, and more people saying "Yes".

SPEAKER: How many times do I have to say don't bring attacks on Opposition members into it before I take some action? I'll get a ton of letters tomorrow saying I've been far too lenient, so I won't be from this point on. Is this a point of order or a question?

Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that in 2024 the Government built more school classrooms than in 2023, with better value for money, through standardised design and modular off-site builds?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I can confirm that. That was a result of the additional $1½ billion dollars that we invested in school property. The cost, I understand, has gone down from $1.2 million on average per classroom to $800,000 per classroom. Of course, what that means is we can build more classrooms with taxpayer money, which is a good result for New Zealand students and their families.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just a minute.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When she said that there would be more people wearing high-viz and hard hats under her watch, was she just referring to people in the National Party caucus?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well—

SPEAKER: No, sit down. The question's out of order.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he justify Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms that, according to Cabinet minutes, will "require changes to be made to settlement redress," without first having consulted with those iwi settlement agreements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There will, of course, be—we will honour our obligations in our settlements that we have made; there just won't be a generic open-ended Treaty clause statement.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does he say to the 65-plus iwi we spoke to this morning, who had no idea these reforms were taking place until they saw it on the news last night?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there has been targeted consultation with iwi since the end of last year.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does he plan to recognise Treaty settlements through the RMA reform, when his reform will violate every settlement that has been reached to date?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question. This is a Government that wants to get RMA reform and planning under control so we can get things built. I found it very interesting that there are a number of iwi that are actually wanting to work with fast track—for example, because they find the planning laws incredibly frustrating and constraining.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does the Government plan to do if it cannot reach agreements with iwi on potential changes to their settlements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we are going to make sure we change our planning laws, period. It is happening. We are revoking what has been in place. We're putting two new laws in place. We'll have our first reading in the House before the end of the year. This is a complex area. We've got lots of conversations to have with lots of stakeholders across the piece, over the next few months.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has written to many iwi on many occasions about RMA reform, and that the Minister has extensive meetings with the pou taiao branch of the Iwi Chairs Forum in relation to these matters on a regular basis?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can, and that's why I don't understand where the members questions are coming from.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can the Prime Minister advise the House which iwi said that they support the changes that are being proposed to the RMA?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, they haven't seen the changes. What we've announced is a high-level approach that Cabinet has taken decisions around to actually rewrite our planning laws, because we need to get things built in this country. I'm sure there are many iwi, as we've seen through the fast-track process, that actually want to be freed up so they can actually build things in partnership with others, as we've seen.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the Prime Minister guarantee to New Zealanders that these reforms won't ignite further legal action from iwi against the Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we've seen iwi, actually, through their partnership with us in the infrastructure investor summit recently. We've seen iwi submitting projects under the fast-track legislation because they want to get things built and done. We're very aligned on that; we both want to get things done.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does the Prime Minister explain to iwi that he deeply acknowledges the power of the Māori economy, but not their Treaty rights under iwi settlements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does the Prime Minister explain to iwi that he deeply acknowledges the power of the Māori economy, but does not acknowledge their rights within the iwi settlement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: is it not the fact, though, that the Māori people can be assured things are on the change, as Hone Rankin recently said, because they are sick and tired of this sort of woke leadership from certain parts of Māori politics and they're coming back home?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can just say Māori, or non-Māori, want this Government to deliver for them and improve outcomes. One of the ways we do that is we change our planning laws because it's been holding New Zealand back for a very, very long time.

Question No. 8—Internal Affairs

8. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Five years ago today, New Zealand was placed into COVID-19 alert level 4, or "lockdown"—a decision made by the Government at the time that had significant impacts on families, businesses, health, and education. Last year, I announced there would be a second phase of the independent inquiry into COVID-19 to cover outstanding matters of public concern, including the use of vaccines and lockdowns. The inquiry is now open for submissions from the public. Today, on the anniversary of the first lockdown, I reminded all New Zealanders that they have the opportunity to tell the inquiry how the Government's response to COVID-19 impacted them, their family, and their business.

Todd Stephenson: How can members of the public submit to the inquiry?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: It is easy for any New Zealanders to make a written submission about their own personal experiences living through the COVID-19 period. This could include how they were impacted as an individual or their family or their business. Submissions can be made through the online portal at covid19inquiry.nz—submissions close at midnight, 27 April.

Todd Stephenson: What issues are in scope of the inquiry?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: ACT's coalition agreement included a commitment to expand the terms of reference for the inquiry after public feedback. The Government then expanded the scope of phase 2 to include the use of vaccine mandates and safety, public health tools, extended lockdowns in Auckland and Northland, and the impact on health and education. The full terms of reference are available on the inquiry's website, and I would ask any member of the public to please read the terms of reference before they make their submission.

Question No. 9—Infrastructure

9. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent action has he taken on infrastructure growth?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Earlier this month, the Prime Minister and I hosted the New Zealand Infrastructure Investment Summit in Auckland, which was attended by over 100 world-leading investors and construction companies. It was great to have New Zealand firms and iwi leaders there, too. We talked about our infrastructure vision and pipeline, how we're making it easier to do business here, and other investment opportunities in our growth sectors and the Māori economy. It's a real demonstration of our plan for economic growth and was a huge win for New Zealand.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What announcements did the Government make at the investment summit?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It was great to announce investable and developable opportunities in public infrastructure, including Christchurch Men's Prison and the Northland road of national significance, the Northland Expressway. We also announced exciting market soundings for tolling concessions on our roads and the second harbour crossing in Auckland, so we can get expert feedback on how to maximise the efficiency and public benefit of these nation-shaping projects. Of course, we also showcased our long-term infrastructure pipeline, to try and give the private sector confidence to stay here and invest in people, plant, and equipment.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What tangible outcomes have come out of the summit so far?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There have been many outcomes. To give just a couple of examples: Plenary, which manages more than $100 billion in assets worldwide, is opening an office here in New Zealand. They've committed to bidding for public-private partnerships (PPPs) over the next five years, partnering with local suppliers to ensure local businesses benefit. And it was great to see the Italian tunnel company Ghella, which was preparing to leave New Zealand after completing the 16.2-kilometre Central Interceptor. But after the positivity of the summit, they have decided to keep their workers, expertise, and tens of millions of dollars of plant, equipment, and associated services here. It was also great to see the Italian company Webuild. Their executive vice-president said, "The Italians are coming back." Fantastic news. They helped build the Tongariro hydro scheme in the 1960s, and the Italians are coming back.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What feedback has he heard about the investment summit?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It's just an enormous dose of positivity. Civil Contractors' Alan Pollard said, "This holistic, united approach renews our confidence in the pipeline. It is what we need right now." There was also the chairman and CEO of Spanish investor Acciona, José Manuel Entrecanale, who said the Government was to be congratulated for bringing investors together at the summit and indicated interest in bidding on the Northland Expressway and the second harbour crossing. And, of course, global investment group CDPQ, which has had an interesting history in New Zealand, was also encouraged by the messages. The Sydney-based managing director, Jean-Étienne Leroux, said, "We are looking for predictability and stability. I have been covering this region for more than 10 years and we are now very happy to feel our capital is so welcome in this country." It was a great success.

Question No. 10—Health

10. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement regarding the health workforce, "understaffing—more fake news"; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): In the context of talking about Labour's bloated bureaucracy, yes, as I went on to say—and I quote—"They've talked about leadership. All they're focused on is the bureaucracy. We're focused on the front line, and on delivery. I will be relentless in my focus on the five health targets and making sure New Zealanders can access their GPs. I don't stand here not conscious of the challenge in front of me, and in front of this Government, because we know how important this is to every single New Zealander."

Hon Peeni Henare: Is it "fake news" that understaffing at Whakatāne Hospital means that families are having to travel long distances to access basic maternity care such as epidurals and caesareans, putting pregnant women and their babies at risk?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As the member will know, there are always services where there is need for healthcare workers. In that instance, there has been a resignation, I think, of a couple of the surgeons, and that has left vacancies. Health New Zealand is rapidly filling those and intends to have that service up and running again as quickly as possible.

Hon Peeni Henare: Is it "fake news" that a new mother who couldn't be cared for at Whakatāne Hospital because of understaffing was taken to Tauranga Hospital where she was told that her care couldn't be prioritised because they too were understaffed?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I'm not aware of that particular instance but I suggest the member put that question in writing. Health New Zealand cares for tens of thousands of people around the clock, across the country, and provides care. My mission and this Government's mission is to ensure that all New Zealanders can access the timely and quality access to healthcare that they all deserve.

Hon Peeni Henare: Is it "fake news" that palliative care for children is understaffed when there is nobody available to give terminally ill children end-of-life care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As that member will be aware, it has been traversed in the newspapers. It is a highly specialised service. There has been a senior clinician who has taken extended leave. Health New Zealand is backfilling with other clinical teams at Starship to ensure that those children get the care that they need. At the same time, they are recruiting for additional roles, and there is work under way around a national model of care for paediatric palliative care, which is, of course, an issue in an area where there is a lot of interest by all New Zealanders.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he stand by his Government's decision to spend $216 million on a tax cut for tobacco companies when it would cost an estimated $8 million to fund end-of-life care for children throughout New Zealand, and why won't he fund it?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I just said in my previous answer, there is work under way around a national model of care for paediatric palliative care. This Government has invested significantly more money into health. We're spending around $30 billion a year in health, and our expectation is that Health New Zealand delivers the timely, quality access to healthcare that all New Zealanders deserve.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. In that question, there was an allegation of $200 million spent in tax cuts for tobacco or cigarettes. That is demonstrably false and has been repeated in this House over and over again, and I'm asking you to next time demand that that sort of question comes up with the evidence behind what they're saying. It is a total and unfathomable lie that it's got away with for month after month now, and we're not going to stand here and take it any longer.

SPEAKER: Well, if I sat here and required validation or confirmation of any claim that's made inside this House, the House would make no progress whatsoever as I was wading my way through it. What I would say to you is the same as I said to the Hon Kieran McAnulty earlier—if you believe someone has misled the House by way of statement or allegation, there is a remedy under the Standing Orders.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. You are quite right to point out the proper process, and we will pursue that but it is totally inappropriate, regardless of what point any member wishes to make, to accuse another member of lying, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters did just that.

SPEAKER: No. I was listening very carefully—very carefully—and there was a general statement that the claim that was being made was being made too frequently in this House. It wasn't directed at any particular member, as I can recall.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir. There's only one member that he's referring to, and that is the member who was asking the question.

SPEAKER: No. I've heard it said by many members, actually, over the last 18 months.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: When any member says that a statement is a lie, is it your ruling that that is appropriate language in this House?

SPEAKER: Well, he didn't say it was a lie.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: He did, sir—he did.

SPEAKER: Then I'll look at it and do something about that at a later point. I'm not getting into the argument today.

Hon Peeni Henare: How can New Zealanders have confidence in his leadership when hospitals are having to operate without doctors, mothers and children aren't getting the care they deserve, and he stood up in this House and called understaffing "fake news"?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, I was referring to the bloated bureaucracy which the last Government focused its six years on while wait-lists ballooned. They let wait-lists balloon. They removed the targets, and they focused on bureaucracy, rather than on delivery. That's what I'm focused on—getting this thing fixed.

Hon Peeni Henare: Why won't he just apologise for those comments when every single day there are more real-life examples of mothers and children going without care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: If that member wants to talk about wait-lists, we can talk about the 2.5 thousand percent increase in people waiting for elective treatment under that Government. We are turning the health system around. We're investing more money. We're making sure we are putting the focus back on front-line services rather than the bureaucracy that he and his Government were focused on.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. 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: Does he agree that millions of dollars of Government funding going to private hospitals to do elective operations could help many more patients if it was invested in the ailing public system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. Many Governments under different political persuasions have had contracts between Health New Zealand and with private hospital providers. It makes a lot of sense, frankly, when we've got things like knee replacements, hip replacements, cataract surgeries, to use the private hospital capacity as well. When you're lying on a bed, looking up at a ceiling, you're less hung up as to whether it's being done in a public system or a private system; you just want relief done as quickly as possible.

Hon Marama Davidson: Then, does he agree with Dr David Bailey that "Had that money been available over the last 12 months, we could have treated many more patients than they are going to do with this. This is a political move to make them look good.", and, if so, will he instead put this money into the public health system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I've just explained to that member, we want to make sure we have a very strong public healthcare system, but we also use private health system capacity in order to deliver for patients. What matters most here is patient outcomes. Given the remarks I've just heard, I just would point to the former Minister of Health, who said, in 2020, "I am not opposed to the use of private providers to help speed up treatment." Of course, that was the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think New Zealanders will be happy to know that our collective resources are being spent on helping private companies make profit off healthcare?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think, when New Zealanders are facing massive wait-lists for elective surgeries and getting access to first specialist appointments, what they want is a Government that's focused on patients and outcomes for patients. And as to how it's actually delivered for them, they want their issues fixed and they want their service delivered. That's what this new Minister is focused on—is patient centricity.

Hon Marama Davidson: Then, did he prioritise equity when his Government decided to invest in private hospitals, considering that this is likely to disadvantage people with acute health needs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think the member is misunderstanding this conversation and was part of a Government, and a Minister in the previous Government, that also had contracts with private health providers in order to deliver health outcomes for New Zealanders—that's what we're focused on. Private healthcare capacity should be used. Public healthcare capacity should be used and continue to be built up. It's an "and", not an "or".

Hon Marama Davidson: Then, what does he say to the Associations of Professional and Executive Employees union, who gathered at Parliament this morning to warn against the failures of corporately owned private lab testing that results in lab workers being paid less?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we are here to deliver outcomes for patients and New Zealanders. If that means we are using public and private healthcare resources and capital and capacity to deliver those outcomes, we will.

Question No. 12—Trade and Investment

12. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent announcement has the Government made regarding New Zealand's trade relations with India?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment): Last week, the Prime Minister and I announced New Zealand has formally launched negotiations on a comprehensive free-trade agreement with India. This is a significant breakthrough in the economic relationship, with the last negotiations ending almost 10 years ago. This comes after a concerted period of increased engagement led by the Prime Minister. Through these negotiations, we aim to deliver economic opportunities to benefit all New Zealanders.

Suze Redmayne: When will negotiations on the New Zealand-India Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement start?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yesterday, I published a call for submissions for interested New Zealanders to share their views on the comprehensive free-trade agreement with India. Negotiators will have their first discussions this week and they will start to exchange texts in the coming months, and I expect the first in-person negotiations to take place in New Zealand next month. Both sides have made the conclusion of this agreement a priority, however we've also agreed that we must take the time required to secure a high-quality deal that delivers for both New Zealand and India.

Suze Redmayne: How will a comprehensive free-trade agreement deliver on the Government's growth agenda?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, when we came to Government 16 months ago, we committed to making our relationship with India a priority. Over the past six years, Australia increased their exports to India by $7 billion per year and concluded a trade agreement during that time, while our exports fell by $550 million per year. Since then, led by the Prime Minister's close relationship with Prime Minister Modi, we've lifted our engagement across all levels, including a very important visit by the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister Peters, last year. Every New Zealander can be assured that through our free-trade agreement negotiations, we aim to level the playing field with Australia so that New Zealand exporters can also benefit from greater access and lower tariff rates, which in turn will grow our economy.

Suze Redmayne: How else is the Government strengthening ties with India?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the comprehensive free-trade agreement or negotiations are only one part of the Government's commitment to stepping up all parts of the New Zealand - India relationship. Just last week, the Prime Minister led the largest ever trade mission to India—over 120 delegates—during which 33 business memorandums of understanding and six Government memorandums of cooperation were signed. These included Air New Zealand and Air India committing to better air connectivity between our two countries, including direct flights by 2028, and increased cooperation on defence, customs, horticulture, education, sport, culture, and forestry. This is all part of our ambitious goal to lead more trade missions than any Government during this part of Parliament and to double exports by value in 10 years.

© Scoop Media