Parliament: Questions And Answers – 01 August 2024

26.12.2024 16:56

Scoop

Press Release – Hansard

Hansard Report: Debates – 01 August 2024

Sitting date: 1 August 2024

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Point of Order—Punctuation within Substantive Questions

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order. Can I just ask you to consider, with respect to question No. 10, and compare it to question No. 7—

SPEAKER: Sorry, question which, sorry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Question No. 10, as opposed to question No. 7. In question No. 7, the questioner is asking and putting the quotes in inverted commas to signal that it is a quote. When you get to question No. 10, there is no such precision, no such exactitude, and I think it’s wrong.

SPEAKER: I think it’s because it’s a quote.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Well, continuing the point of order, if it’s a quote, it’ll be in quotes, won’t it? That’s the only reason why you’ll know that you can verify that. If it’s a quote, it’ll be in inverted commas so that you can then check to see its accuracy. At this point in time, none of us knows whether that’s accurate or not.

SPEAKER: My apologies; it’s not a quote.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, Mr Speaker, if that’s the case—

SPEAKER: Can I just make it clear—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does she stand by her statement—

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just a minute. For those who are watching, just to make it clear, questions are lodged with the Clerk’s Office. They are considered by the Clerks, who have considerable experience of these things. They’re signed off by the Speaker later in the morning. But the advice that comes from the Clerk’s Office, generally, is that—in fact, most days—all the questions are in order. That has been the case today. But if you’ve got a point, I’m happy to hear it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Well, my point is that, if it’s a quote, it should be in quotes so that we can, therefore, check against the evidence to see whether it’s honestly reported or not. If it doesn’t have any quote marks to it, no one knows what’s going on here, and with the greatest respect to the Clerk of the House, if this was a court of law, they’d ask for that as well.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but we’re not quite a court of law just yet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We’re the highest court in the land.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and we should do things properly. I’m assuming that the Clerk’s Office has done the right thing here, and if that’s not the case, they’ll clearly review it, but we’re not going to review it in time to rectify it for this question time. So we’ll come to question No. 1, in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment

1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “We are focused on lifting New Zealand families out of hardship and giving them more opportunities to get ahead by helping all who can work into jobs”?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. This Government is implementing a more proactive welfare system to support New Zealanders into work, because in the six years before we came to office the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit increased by 70,000, or 57 percent. For part of these six years, businesses were desperate for staff, which underscores why the welfare system needs to do more to support job seekers into work. We’ve already taken action, such as providing 4,000 more young job seekers case management over the phone and requiring job seekers to attend a work seminar in the first two weeks on benefit. This is to make sure the welfare system is more proactive.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will the additional 21,000 people on benefits since she took office lead to an increase in children living in poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What we do know from what we have inherited over the last six years: the number of job seekers increased by 70,000; the number of children living in benefit-dependent households increased by 44,000. So now there are one in five New Zealand children growing up in a benefit-dependent household. That is why our Government is making sure the welfare system is more proactive in supporting those off welfare and into work.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did officials warn the Government that the number of children living in poverty would likely increase by 7,000 as a result of her benefit indexing changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course, Ministers receive advice around changes that may be made, including the Budget 2024 tax changes, which will reduce the number of children in poverty by 17,000.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can she confirm that the Government received advice from Treasury on 23 February, stating 9,000 beneficiaries would be worse off as a result of the tax changes, and how does this support families to get ahead?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As that member has asked before and we have traversed, changes around tax and tax refunds are the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why won’t she admit that her policy decisions are leading to increased numbers of New Zealand children forced to live in poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m very proud of Budget 2024, of tax relief, of focusing on the cost of living because the cost of living crisis is the single biggest impact on the number of children living in poverty today. That’s why our side of the House is unwilling to tolerate that level of hardship.

Question No. 10 to Minister

SPEAKER: Before I call Sam Uffindell, can I just say to the Deputy Prime Minister, I reread the point that he was making. Question 7 is a quote; it was a quote from Hansard yesterday. Question No. 10 is not a quote; it’s more general. If there’s a presentation issue here, then we’ll take it up with the Clerk’s Office for the future, but thank you for bringing it up.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Perhaps I can explain the situation to the House so everybody understands. The reason that it wasn’t put in quotes is because there was a misspelling of the Minister’s name, and we didn’t want to include that. We provided authentication to the Clerk’s Office, and as such they’ve approved it accordingly.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Why were tax thresholds increased yesterday?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): As I’ve said in the House previously, incomes rise over time due to inflation and growth in the economy, but if tax rates and thresholds remain the same, more and more of people’s incomes are taxed at higher marginal rates, and they will pay a higher and higher proportion of their income in tax. Periodically, Governments should adjust tax thresholds or rates to address that, at least in part. Otherwise, we get into the ridiculous situation which existed the day before yesterday, where a person could work full-time on the minimum wage and be in the 30 percent tax bracket. The Government has done something about it.

Sam Uffindell: How do other countries deal with fiscal drag?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Almost all OECD countries either index their personal income tax thresholds or periodically adjust rates or thresholds as a response to fiscal drag—or bracket creep, as it is sometimes called.

Sam Uffindell: Has she seen any support in New Zealand for this approach?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. As my colleague Chris Bishop pointed out yesterday, at least one commentator has endorsed this approach, saying, “Bracket adjustment is a legitimate thing to do, and I think it’s a sensible thing to do.” I agree with that particular commentator, who was Chris Hipkins. However, that commentator goes on to argue that now is just not the right time to give tax relief.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: It never is.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It never is for some people, as my colleague Mr Goldsmith says. In fact, further, I am advised, having asked about New Zealand’s track record on this, that every Government since 1980, whether National-led or Labour-led, has, at some stage, adjusted rates or thresholds to provide tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders—oh, with one solitary exception. The solitary exception is the previous Labour Government.

Sam Uffindell: How many people have now used the Budget calculator?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am advised that as of this morning, 638,000 people have used the tax calculator to see what they are getting in long overdue tax relief. That is 39,000 more people than yesterday, and 121,000 more than this time last week. New Zealanders are clearly very interested in tax relief and glad to be receiving it. I am not advised as to how many of them were Labour voters, but I’m guessing some. Let us not forget that members opposite voted against it.

Question time interrupted.

Question time resumed.

Question No. 3—Children

3. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement regarding cuts to Oranga Tamariki that “There will be no financial impact and there'[ll] be no impact on the frontline services. This is a guarantee”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes, in the context in which I said it, which was in relation to the proposed Oranga Tamariki organisational restructure. From the beginning, the safety of children has been at the forefront of all decision making about the proposed restructure, and front-line managers and staff who report to them have been out of scope of this process. However, I do recognise that this has been an unsettling time for all staff at Oranga Tamariki, front-line or otherwise, and I just want to take the opportunity to acknowledge this.

Kahurangi Carter: What does she say to the chief executive of Māngere East Family Services, who was forced to lay off a third of their front-line social workers because of these funding cuts and is concerned that “We won’t be able to provide [support] to as many whānau as we have in the past. Whānau may miss out. Children may fall through the cracks”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The member is conflating two issues. My statement was in relation to the proposed Oranga Tamariki restructure.

Kahurangi Carter: What does she say in response to Nikki Hurst of the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, who said, “Some of the things that will be winding up, there is no comparable service available in that community”, and how, if at all, will Oranga Tamariki be filling the gaps in front-line care and prevention that these contract cuts will create?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ll say again that the member is conflating two issues. My statement was in relation to the proposed Oranga Tamariki restructure.

Kahurangi Carter: Does the Minister stand by the answer made on her behalf yesterday that funding “goes to services that are getting the outcomes that we expect and need”, and, if so, why are the many service providers facing cuts getting no justification, evidence, or rationale from Oranga Tamariki behind why their funding is being cut?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes.

Kahurangi Carter: Will she apologise for Oranga Tamariki leaving hundreds of front-line care providers in the dark about their contracts and their funding for what Social Service Providers Aotearoa describe as “an unsettling and distressing few months for providers waiting to hear about funding decisions.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ll just continue to say this again: my statement was in relation to the proposed Oranga Tamariki restructure.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she acknowledge, as identified in the Aroturuki Tamariki report released today, that shortages in front-line staffing contributed to Oranga Tamariki’s failure to protect baby Malachi Subecz and continues to be an issue, and, if so, how does Oranga Tamariki rationalise these cuts to front-line service provision?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ll say it again: the member is conflating two issues. My statement was in relation to the Oranga Tamariki restructure.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “It’s my view that the board [of Health New Zealand] didn’t even know what questions to ask”; if so, does she agree with the Prime Minister that they lacked financial literacy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, in context. That context was a botched merger of district health boards (DHBs) where national planning and budgeting was disconnected from local management, where financial reporting was ineffective, where data systems were fragmented, and where, in consequence, there was limited oversight of financial performance. In answer to the second part of the question, that was not what the Prime Minister said. He was talking about cash-flow analysis and said, “To even get an understanding of cash flow from the system has been incredibly difficult.”, and that is exactly what I’ve just been saying.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When did the Minister of Health communicate to her that the Te Whatu Ora board rejected her allegations about their performance, and did she seek a meeting with them in light of their letter to the Minister of Health dated 22 March?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would want to check my records to give an entirely accurate answer to that question. I do recall being given a copy of that letter.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If she recalls receiving a copy of that letter and she knew that the board rejected these allegations, why did she make comments this week about their competency?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because I did not entirely agree with the characterisations in the letter, and the comments I made in my letter were consistent with the advice I received from my officials.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Should, then, directors working for her Government be aware that their reputations can be defamed without due process if it is politically convenient for the Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the characterisation that the member has made, and that’s for this reason: I would agree that each of the individuals who served on the Health New Zealand board are capable individuals, and I believe that every one of them was on that board because they wanted to do better for New Zealanders in the health system. It is also my view that they were given an almost impossible task by a Government that completely botched an ideological merger of the DHB system and left them with entirely inadequate systems and planning, and in that context, they had a very hard job to do. The thing that’s important to New Zealanders and that this Government takes very seriously is that we ensure that the health system can better deliver to New Zealanders in our hospitals and doctors’ surgeries, and we’ve taken decisive steps to ensure we can give them that confidence.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Given her concerns, why does she feel more qualified than board members whose experience includes overseeing the largest Government IT project that was on time and under budget, the executive of Air New Zealand and NZX50 companies, and a former National Party finance spokesperson?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I’ve just said, I believe that each of the individuals on that board are highly capable people with particular strengths. What is also abundantly clear to any New Zealander observing the health system right now is that it is facing fundamental challenges. What is also clear from the exchange that has occurred in public over recent weeks is that there was disagreement between Health New Zealand and monitoring officials about the financial performance of that organisation. What that has shown, in due course, is that actually the financial position was a lot worse than was made clear at the time. What is important and what I wish the member would join me in is fixing it.

SPEAKER: Have you got another supplementary?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: No, no. I’m good.

Question No. 5—Education

5. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Education: Does she consider the Waitangi Tribunal’s report Kei Ahotea Te Aho Matua, regarding the urgent claim made by Te Rūnanga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori, is of critical importance to the educational success and achievement of tamariki and rangatahi Māori?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Hei waha kōrero mō te Minita Mātauranga, e mihi ana ki ngā mahi tongarerewa, kāmehameha hoki a Te Rūnanga Nui. E mihi ana ki a rātou nā rātou anō i kerēme atu ki Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kei au tāna ripoata, ka mihi kāmehameha ki te taraipiunara.

[On behalf of the Minister of Education, I acknowledge the valued and significant work of Te Rūnanga Nui. I acknowledge them, they who made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. I have their report, and I greatly thank the tribunal.]

We have set ambitious targets for education and committed to excellent outcomes, including attendance and achievement, and with tools such as structured literacy.

Tākuta Ferris: Given that the Waitangi Tribunal described kura kaupapa Māori as “a proven model” where “success has been achieved”, what actions will she take to expedite the development and expansion of kaupapa Māori education as a means of closing the Māori educational achievement gap?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Hei waha kōrero mō te Minita Mātauranga [On behalf of the Minister of Education], the Minister is currently progressing a number of matters in relation to this report, but particularly asking for advice on the report, and when that advice is received back from officials, she will give it due consideration.

Tākuta Ferris: Given the report states that kura kaupapa Māori deserve effective policy now, not later, what immediate actions does she have planned to improve the policy framework available to kura kaupapa Māori?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Hei waha kōrero mō te Minita Mātauranga, kei te kohikohi kōrero, kei te noho kōrero, rangatira ki te rangatira, te Minita me ngā rangatira, ngā manu noho mātārae o Te Rūnanga Nui, katoa atu ki Te Matakahuki, katoa atu ki ngā Kura ā-Iwi me ngā rōpū mātauranga nei ki te āta wherawhera i te ara, te anga whakamua.

[On behalf of the Minister of Education, the Minister is collecting information, and is sitting to discuss, leader to leader, with the leadership, the eminent leaders of Te Rūnanga Nui, and also Te Matakahuki, and also the Kura ā-Iwi and these other educational organisations to carefully consider the pathway, the way forward.]

And she will continue to meet on a rangatiratanga basis with the various officials and leaders of these big kura kaupapa Māori organisations to understand how to best support them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that the National Party have brought in kura kaupapa Māori, why is he being lectured on it?

SPEAKER: Can you ask that question again? Sorry—[Interruption] Just a minute, we’ll hear the question—we’ll hear it in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m asking the Minister: given that the National Party brought in kura kaupapa Māori, why is he now being lectured on it?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I stand with absolute pride that National-led Governments have continued to support the establishment of various kura kaupapa, wānanga, and kōhanga reo throughout the last four decades.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I’m just interested to understand how the Minister has responsibility for the question around why is he being “lectured on it”. It’s not within his responsibilities. It requires him to speculate on the motivation for the question, and I’m not sure that points of order or supplementary questions in order to make a political point are appropriate.

SPEAKER: No, they’re most certainly not, and I take the member’s point. To be quite honest with you, I’ve got to do something about these seats back here—the hearing that I get is not great. I can hear far more from the back of the House than I can from the front. So that’s part of the point there. But those sorts of questions don’t particularly help the order of the House at all.

Tākuta Ferris: Will she commit to the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation that the Government establish a stand-alone kaupapa Māori education authority to ensure greater Māori educational success; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Education, I will commit to receiving advice on the report that has been procured right now from the officials, and once that advice is procured, I will give it due consideration.

Tākuta Ferris: Given the report cited the very poor state of buildings and infrastructure of several of the kura shown to them, will she commit to reinstating the building programmes of the 15 kura Māori that have had their building programme stopped as a result of the Government’s cost-saving measures; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Education, those matters really fall within the remit and the purview of operations rather than the Minister, and I’ll leave those for the ministry. However, I will note that in Budget 2024, 19 kura have been supported for renovation.

Question No. 6—Infrastructure

6. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What announcements has he made about the Quarterly Investment Report?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): This morning, I announced that the Government is going to release quarterly investment reports which outline information on large Government investments throughout their life. This is part of our plan to get the books back in order, drive better performance from agencies, and also give New Zealanders the openness and transparency they deserve about their investments. The aim is to change the culture inside the public sector after years of opaque, inefficient, and wasteful spending. The quality of information about these investments is unacceptable, and taxpayers deserve better.

Carl Bates: What are the highlights of the quarterly investment report ending March 2024?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The quarterly investment report shows there is a significant amount of investment across the pipeline. There are 137 investments in planning, with an estimated value of $93.7 billion, and 171 investments in delivery, with a combined approved budget of $79.4 billion. These investments are bringing needed infrastructure and other services to New Zealand, but the report also paints a grim picture about the state of the investment system. We have inherited a system that cares a lot about paying consultants to write business cases and not enough about delivering and looking after the investments that we already have and that we need. So we are resetting expectations to drive high-quality information, shorter and more fit for purpose business cases, improved asset management, better monitoring oversight, and enforcement from both the Treasury and also Ministers.

Carl Bates: What else is the Minister doing to reset expectations to drive fiscal sustainability?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Minister of Finance and I have written to our colleagues setting out our expectation for robust investment discipline and improved reporting. We know that the state of the investment system is unacceptable, and we take our responsibility to uphold fiscal discipline seriously. We will be monitoring agencies and chief executives to ensure that they are driving improvements in long-term planning, business cases, asset management, and reporting. We are also closely monitoring the progress of large projects to keep them on track and on budget, doing away with a previous recipe for delivery which includes taking the cost of projects and doubling it before serving it to the public and expecting them to support it.

Carl Bates: Are there any further actions the Minister is taking to improve investment decision-making?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, there is a lot of work to be done to fix our investment and infrastructure system. As a further measure, we are also reviewing Treasury’s Better Business Cases and Gateway frameworks to ensure we’re getting rid of what I call the “fluff and nonsense” and selecting projects that New Zealanders need and that we are confident represent value for money and can be delivered on time and on budget. That work is ongoing, and it is going to take some time to get our investment system back on track, but we are committed to doing so.

Hon Peeni Henare: Buy some ferries.

SPEAKER: We come now to question No. 7—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s precisely a demonstration of the problem.

SPEAKER: Well, when the demonstration is over, we’ll carry on with question time.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement in reply to a supplementary to oral question No. 3 yesterday that “there is no hiring freeze”, and what advice has he given to the Prime Minister on this matter?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister’s statement, because we understand that our front-line health workforce is the backbone of the system. As I’ve advised the Prime Minister, it wasn’t just a botched merger that this Government inherited but also a workforce crisis that had not been prioritised. That’s why this Government continues to actively recruit into front-line clinical roles. In June alone, Health New Zealand has advised that over 883 people were hired, including 124 doctors, 243 nurses, 30 midwives, and 140 allied health professionals. That doesn’t sound like a hiring freeze to me. As Health New Zealand have said, there are some restrictive hiring processes in place so that we can continue to prioritise clinical recruitment, particularly in specialties such as mental health, addictions, and critical care.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he acknowledge that his prioritisation of clinical recruitment at the expense of clerical jobs has meant that doctors are now telling me they have no one to book clinics, load and complete wait-list referrals, answer patient queries, fill cancellation slots, or help patients navigate their appointment times?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I acknowledge is that we are committed to reconnecting with the clinical front line and delivering better patient outcomes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What does that even mean?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I can understand the member doesn’t understand better patient outcomes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How is it productive—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait, Dr Verrall. The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How is it productive to have medical specialists, some of New Zealand’s highest-paid public sector workers, tied up in admin and not providing care?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We completely agree. We want to reconnect with the front line and have the clinical front line actually seeing patients so that they can have better patient outcomes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why should we believe him, and why should New Zealanders believe him, over doctors and nurses on the front line who are speaking out about the underfunding under his Government and its impact on patient care?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Because the patients have also seen the layers and layers of management that that Government put in as part of their botched health reforms, and we’re reconnecting the front line. Furthermore, Health New Zealand have told us, in June alone, 883 people were employed by Health New Zealand.

SPEAKER: I’d just remind the House that when questions are being asked, the House is in silence, and at other times, the House is orderly. That was a bit unfair on Dr Verrall, on that occasion.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting young people on the jobseeker benefit into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Today, I announced that 2,100 extra places will be available in community-led programmes in the 2024/25 financial year to help those on jobseeker benefits, aged 18 to 24, shift into work as part of year one of Welfare that Works. We are helping during these challenging economic times by powering up high-performing community organisations that understand the needs of their young people. Five hundred places will be with a selection of He Poutama Rangatahi providers—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, who set that up?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: National in 2017. [Interruption] We launched the programme, National, in 2017. I was one of the people who launched it.

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I haven’t finished. Five hundred places—I’d just like to finish that sentence. Five hundred places will be with a selection of He Poutama Rangatahi providers for young people who’ve been on jobseeker support for more than a year, and the other 1,600 places will be across a variety of community providers throughout New Zealand.

Tim Costley: Why has the Government decided to increase the number of young job seekers supported by community-led programmes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Young people who go on to jobseeker benefit under the age of 25 are currently predicted to spend nearly two decades of their lives on welfare. The coalition Government is not prepared to watch the potential of young New Zealanders being wasted in this way. Community organisations who know their young people are often the best positioned to help them overcome the challenges they face. Young New Zealanders deserve to experience the independence and opportunities that come from work, which is why we are taking action to support more of them into jobs.

Tim Costley: What key features of Welfare that Works will young job seekers experience in the first year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Welfare that Works is about ensuring young job seekers get a proper needs assessment, a job plan, and tailored support, including job coaching. Community providers will be selected based on their ability to provide these features; however, of course, they will look different for each local provider. We will assess what works using robust evidence to inform what happens in subsequent years of Welfare that Works. The initiative aims to prevent young people from being trapped on benefit long term, which is why we are funding 500 more young job seekers to receive the high intensity services that He Poutama Rangatahi provides.

Tim Costley: What else has the coalition Government done in addition to Welfare that Works to support young job seekers into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Government has already delivered a series of initiatives to support job seekers into work. We recently established a new over-the-phone case management service for 4,000 young job seekers. Benefit sanctions are being fully applied to motivate job seekers to comply with their obligations to find work. We’ve started work seminars that job seekers must attend within two weeks of coming on to benefit and after six months. The coalition Government is very focused on helping people on jobseeker benefits experience the independence, choice, and opportunities that come from work.

Question No. 9—RMA Reform

9. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the Minister who responded on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that “there is no licence to desecrate the taiao in this process” and “within the Fast-track Approvals Bill you see various protections for the taiao”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yes, and yes.

Lan Pham: What precisely are those protections for the taiao when water conservation orders, which are the highest possible protection used to recognise the outstanding value of water bodies, can be overridden through his Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are many. At the expert panel stage of the process, conditions will be set to protect the environment. As the bill is currently drafted, in deciding whether a project is eligible to be referred to a panel, Ministers may consider whether the project will address significant environmental issues. Ministers may decline an application if Ministers consider the project may have significant adverse effects on the environment. Applications will include an assessment of environmental effects, with an assessment against relevant national direction, regional, and district planning documents. When making decisions on referring projects to an expert panel, joint Ministers must seek and consider comments from other members, local government, and relevant Māori groups. And an expert panel is required to seek and consider comments from local government, landowners, and other groups listed in the bill. The member should read the bill.

Lan Pham: Does he agree with the former Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, that “The advantage of [water conservation orders] is that any decisions made in future … on any resource plans or consents would have to be within the bounds of the protective covenant provided by the [water conservation order].”; and, if so, will he commit to making changes to the Fast-track Approvals Bill to ensure these longstanding environmental protections are maintained?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Hon Dr Nick Smith is a friend and someone who I have a lot of time and respect for. I haven’t seen those full comments and I haven’t seen them in their full context, so it’s difficult to proffer a view without that.

Lan Pham: What message does he have to the Save Our Springs group from Tākaka, Golden Bay, who are so concerned about the invitation that he sent to Siren Gold mining company to apply for fast track that they delivered a 24,000-strong petition to urge his Government to uphold the water conservation order that protects the crystal clear waters of Te Waikoropupū Springs?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, my message to them is the same as it is to everybody, which is the characterisation of a form letter sent to hundreds of people and organisations as an invitation is wrong. It was not an invitation; it was basically a form letter to say the fast-track process is happening. And my message to them is the same as it is to everybody else, which is that the bill is before the select committee. We are, as a Government, open to sensible improvements and amendments to the bill.

Rachel Boyack: It’s not sensible.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you haven’t even seen what the bill looks like yet, so just wait and see. We’re open to sensible amendments, but the core of it is not going to change, which is that it’s got to be a fast-track process because it’s too hard to do things in this country—it takes too long and costs too much. And it has to be a one-stop-shop regime because that’s a core part of the regime. Of course, ultimately, we are building on what has come before, and the Hon David Parker left us with a very good model for fast track.

Lan Pham: Can he offer any assurances to the many students from Tākaka who signed the petition, including 8-year-old Nico Housley, who said, “Te Waikoropupū Springs is a very precious spring, and might be the most clear spring that you will ever see in your life. Most kids like to jump into the Tākaka River. We want to be able to do this forever.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It would be inappropriate to comment on the specific example the member is talking about. I’m not aware of where that project is at or may be at as part of the fast track. So it would be inappropriate to make any further comment.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Will the Minister amend the Fast-track Approvals Bill—the purpose of the Fast-track Approvals Bill at clause 3—to include some mention of the environment or even sustainable management, or consider ruling out anything that goes against a conservation order, such as that Te Waikoropupū Springs that was accepted and gazetted by the past Labour Government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The bill’s before the committee. My understanding is the member who asked the question is a member of the select committee, so no doubt she is engaged in robust debate as part of that select committee about possible amendments and changes to the bill. It would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment while the bill is before the committee.

Question No. 10—Children

SPEAKER: Question No. 10 is going to also be heard—both the question and answer—in silence.

10. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement about cuts to Oranga Tamariki that there will be no financial impact and no impact on front-line services and that this is a guarantee?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is it not a broken promise when that restructure was part of the Budget savings exercise that also saw $30 million a year being cut from community providers whose services are at the very front line of protecting children and whānau?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I just want to make it very clear, Oranga Tamariki was reviewing its costs and efficiencies long before this Government directed the Public Service to make any savings. The proposed organisational restructure has not just been about making cuts or finding savings. This is part of Oranga Tamariki’s journey to become an effective statutory care and protection agency that’s focused on its core responsibilities, when decision making is made as close to the front line as possible, including with iwi, Māori, and community where it makes sense to do so.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she saying that her restructure and budget cuts are not impacting on front-line services like social workers in schools, youth workers in schools, wraparound whānau support, family and sexual violence counselling, teen parenting prevention programmes, Tākai, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We’ve made it clear that front-line services were not to be involved in the restructure process, and I am sure that Oranga Tamariki followed my expectations.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is it not a broken promise when, as a result of Oranga Tamariki staff and community providers’ funding cuts, agencies have said that the result of this will be more babies uplifted and more kids in boot camps?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ll say again: that member is conflating two issues. My statement was in relation to the Oranga Tamariki restructure.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can people believe her, the Minister responsible for the welfare of our children, when she claims that there is nothing more important than the safety and wellbeing of our children and then makes empty promises?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What I would say is stakeholder groups, Opposition parties, Governments, and Māori have all called for Oranga Tamariki to change. This is what change looks like. It’s not an option to keep the status quo. To do so would be to say we’re happy with how the organisation is running now and delivering for children, and we know it’s not. So I would urge the Opposition to get on board and make sure that we can enable change that’s going to be enduring.

SPEAKER: Question No. 11, I call on Dr Vanessa Weenink.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I’d like to seek some clarification on the ruling you just made in relationship to the questions of the Minister for Children, because while members of the Opposition actually respected—

SPEAKER: Could you just speak into your microphone. Sorry.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Of course—I can. So while members of the Opposition respected your request for the answers to be heard in silence, members of the Government definitely were cheering on, particularly at the end of that last supplementary. So I would like to seek some clarification as to whether this is a ruling that’s going to be applied for the future specifically to that Minister or as a broader kind of way that we conduct ourselves in the House, when one side of the House doesn’t seem to be abiding by it.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think that’s a fair question, and they should have. I think, probably, the Minister might like to think in future whether or not it’s worth having at the end of a question an engagement with the Opposition, which I thought left my ruling a little bit floundering, quite frankly. So it’s not a permanent thing; it’s for now, because I think there does need to be a slight cultural reset in the place, and, from time to time, this is what I will be requesting of the House.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, the Government will cease to provide that sort of support for the Minister answering a question when the Opposition cease sotto voce offensive remarks about her. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK, well, I think we were in a settled position—let’s get back to it. Dr Vanessa Weenink.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Hang on—away we go. The Hon Kieran McAnulty, a point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very reluctant to get involved in this and do so only because I feel I should. But this is a sensitive issue, and you’ve made a ruling which we’ve respected—we did not challenge it and we complied. It is very hard for us to continue to do so when points of orders are used in a way to make accusations, which I believe, given that there are three parties in the Opposition, were unfounded and unwarranted. Without that being challenged by you, I feel I’ve got no option but to stand up and make a point of order.

SPEAKER: OK, and I agree with your point of order 100 percent, and I appreciate that Opposition parties have complied with those two requests today particularly. It is disappointing that there was a flick at the end of the Minister’s question that was not necessary, and I think the Hon Chris Bishop should reflect on the point that he was trying to make, given that I had just made comments to the House about the need to reset the culture in here. We won’t go into any apologies or withdrawals or other such, but we are going to get a little tougher on each other, I think, in the future, as we try and tidy the place up a bit.

Question No. 11—Tourism and Hospitality

11. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcement has he made regarding the Regional Events Promotion Fund?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Tobacco sponsorship!

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): Well, great news for Duncan Webb and great news on a Thursday. Today, I’m pleased to announce that 132 events across the motu will receive a funding boost through the Regional Events Promotion Fund. The Regional Events Promotion Fund was established using $5 million of the international visitor levy revenue and supports the promotion of regional tourism organisations and local councils outside the main centres to attract more New Zealanders to their events throughout the year. The first round of the fund has resulted in funding for a total of 132 events, to the value of $2.3 million. The regional events fund was part of this Government’s coalition agreement, and it’s great to be able to deliver it for the tourism and hospitality sector.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why did the Government establish the Regional Events Promotion Fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Good question. Clearly, this country has a lot of economic headwinds ahead of it, and this coalition Government is committed to rebuilding the economy. As our second-largest export earner is tourism and hospitality, we want to back our tourism and hospitality operators. That’s why we want to grow the value of tourism and hospitality, but also support our regions to maximise the opportunity of this sector to employ another person and to increase their incomes. The Regional Events Promotion Fund will help regional tourism organisations and councils to attract more visitors to events in their regions throughout the year.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What types of events will receive funding through this initiative?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: A great question. A lot of different events is the answer to that. From Northland to the great South, 28 councils and regional tourism operators will receive funding from this coalition Government to promote events in their regions. The successful events range in size and scope and include everything from half-marathons and cultural events to food festivals. The events recommended for funding have been selected on their ability to drive visitation from outside their region and outside the peak season.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What value will this bring to tourism and hospitality in the regions?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Heaps of value. This fund will help promote regional events that will deliver a high return on investment and encourage visitors to explore beyond the main centres. There is life in New Zealand outside the big cities. I want to help grow the sector in a sustainable and productive way to ensure tourism and hospitality businesses can operate year round, create more jobs, and allow them to employ staff on a more permanent basis. One of the main ways we can do this is by growing visitation outside the main centres and outside of the peak season. Events are excellent drawcards to get more visitors to the regions, particularly during the quieter parts of the year, and this is a Government that backs our tourism and hospitality operators.

Question No. 12—Police

12. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement, regarding leaving the Police force in a better position than he found it in terms of morale, culture, pay, job satisfaction, and safety, “that is what I’m here for, and that is what I spend most of my waking hours working hard to do”?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did his office receive an email from Casey Costello’s office that requested, “a copy of the Police briefing on options on different way[s] to count the 500”, and does he plan to boost police morale with some creative counting?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: To the answer to the first part of the question, yes. On the second part of the question, no.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What are the different ways to count 500 police?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As the member would know, there were several issues raised while that member was responsible for recruitment. In terms of the confusion around numbers, we clarified the system to ensure there was total clarity so that when we reach 2,711, we will have increased the police force by 500, as New Zealand First and National committed to do.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the serving police officer who stated about his administration, “Our job is to detect deception, yet they serve it to us daily, not expecting us to recognise it.”, and, if so, does he consider that counting the 500 in different ways is in fact detrimental to police morale and to public confidence?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I’ve clarified, there is no counting in different ways. We have clarified. But what I would say that is important to police morale is that we are getting tough on crime, and we are making police able to do their job. I would highlight that the damage to police morale was affected by—and I think the Hon Duncan Webb said it best: “I think the Labour Party kind of didn’t win over the community on this, because even though people might not have been the victims of gang crime, they felt unsafe. They felt that one day they might be, and we lost that.” We are not the Government that will be soft on gangs. We will support the morale of the police and allow them to get back to catching the bad guys.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can the Minister confirm that he is actually able to count to 500, and, if not, is that why he gave the ministerial delegation to Casey Costello?

SPEAKER: No. Just a minute. I think the small problem here is that I don’t think this Minister can confirm such a personal matter to another Minister. Try another question without a loss of a question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If Mark promised 500 police in two years but had 124 after eight months—

SPEAKER: No, no; start again.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Sorry. If the Minister promised 500 police in two years but had only 124 after eight months, how long would it take him to reach the 1,800 delivered by Labour?

SPEAKER: No, he’s got no responsibility for any promises by the Opposition.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the email titled “Counting the 500” in which Minister Costello’s office asked for a copy of the Police briefing on options on different ways to count the 500 from Minister Mitchell’s office.

SPEAKER: Is it a proactively released document?

Hon Ginny Andersen: No, it’s not.

SPEAKER: The leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url