Parliament: Questions And Answers – 29 August 2024

26.12.2024 15:19

Scoop

Press Release – Hansard

Hansard Report: Debates- 29 August 2024

Sitting date: 29 August 2024

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

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, “Our Government will not tolerate people who accept the Jobseeker Support benefit but refuse to uphold their obligation to seek a job—it is not fair on hardworking Kiwis who pay their taxes that go towards those benefit payments”; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. Our Government believes that people on the jobseeker benefit who are supported by taxpayers have obligations in return for this support. That is why we are introducing a traffic light system to make clear to people whether they are complying with their work obligations and what steps they need to take to re-comply with their obligations if they have not fulfilled them.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many of the 202,000 people currently on jobseeker support have refused to uphold their obligations to seek a job?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m very pleased to announce to the House that of the job seekers currently on the jobseeker benefit, only 1 percent are in orange and 1 percent in red.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many of the 202,000 people currently on jobseeker support have a health condition or disability and are unable to work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The jobseeker benefit and the work obligations are clearly stated. Some job seekers who have health conditions and disabilities don’t have work obligations. None of that has changed.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she expect grandparents, raising grandchildren, who are on jobseeker support and also receive the unsupported child’s benefit to work full time?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I confirm again: none of the requirements that have existed prior, in terms of work obligations, have changed. The only thing that has changed is that this side of the House is actually making it really clear to those who are on the jobseeker benefit what their status is—are they in green and they’re complying; are they under a warning, which is orange; or have they failed their work obligations, which means they go to red.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How could she expect a single grandmother on jobseeker support with her own 14-year-old and two grandchildren—one of whom has ADHD and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and for whom she is receiving the unsupported child’s benefit—to work full-time?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I can only say it again, because it appears the member wasn’t listening to my answer: our Government has not changed any of the settings around what the work obligations are and who they apply to. All we have done is said that, actually, where there are responsibilities that are not fulfilled, we expect the Ministry of Social Development to take action.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What has happened to the 1,500 people that have been sanctioned and lost their benefits since she took office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m hoping that many of them have then re-complied and got their benefit reinstated, or, hopefully, more of them have got a job.

Question No. 2—Health

2. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to improve the lives of New Zealanders, and their families, affected by cancer?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Tomorrow is Daffodil Day, so I’d like to start off by acknowledging our hard-working health staff and the volunteers helping those with cancer. Daffodil Day represents hope for many New Zealanders and their families who have been impacted by cancer. We know that many people will experience cancer in their lifetime, whether that’s personally or through a relative or a friend; we know the toll that it can take. That’s why this Government is committed to improving cancer outcomes for all New Zealanders. That’s why we have brought back targets, invested in cancer treatments, improved access to cancer services, and expanded cancer screening eligibility.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What investments has the Government made into cancer treatments?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Since coming into Government, we’ve been very busy in the cancer space. We’ve made a transformative investment of $604 million into Pharmac, which will deliver up to 26 cancer treatments from October this year, increasing access to vital medicines for those impacted by cancer. We’re also building a new cancer radiotherapy machine at Whangārei Hospital, so 520 Northlanders a year will no longer have to travel to Auckland for treatment. For those New Zealanders who do still have to travel for their specialist treatment, we’ve boosted the National Travel Assistance scheme by $18 million a year.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How has the Government improved access to cancer screening?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We know that improving access to screening and diagnostic services will save lives. That is why we have prioritised action in this area. You will have already seen that we are extending the breast cancer screening age from 70 to 74 years, which will save an estimated 65 lives per year at full uptake. This extension also means that around 120,000 additional women will be eligible for screening every two years. We’ve removed access barriers for positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET-CT) scans by approving funding for an updated set of criteria, which allows for about 1,000 more publicly funded PET-CT scans per year—many of which will be for cancer, especially prostate cancer. New Zealanders deserve timely access to healthcare when they need it most.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What else is the Government doing to drive better cancer outcomes?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: There are many initiatives that we have got under way to improve cancer outcomes. Cancer touches thousands of Kiwi families each year, and although we have already made a number of significant advancements, we know there’s still a long way to go. In recent years, we’ve seen people experiencing longer delays in accessing cancer treatment. More patients are waiting longer than the 31 days for their cancer management to start, with those meeting the target dropping from over 90 percent a few years ago to around 82.7 percent now. This is unacceptable. That is why we’ve introduced a target to have 90 percent of patients receive cancer management within 31 days of the decision to treat. Having health targets back at the forefront of our decision making will help direct the attention and resources to make this happen. This target will also provide the accountability and transparency that the system needs to ensure it is delivering timely access to cancer treatment when New Zealanders are in their time of need.

Question No. 3—Police

3. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement that he doesn’t “think there is systemic bias in the police at all”, and, if so, how does he explain findings released by the Police that being Māori makes you 11 percent more likely to be prosecuted compared to Pākehā for the same offence?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes, I do. Our police do outstanding work every day in holding offenders to account. I do not believe that there is systemic racism or bias in the New Zealand Police. It is not for me to explain the report she mentions. However, for the member’s benefit, I draw her attention to one of the conclusions of the authors of the report, which was that this is not conclusive evidence of conscious or unconscious bias against males or Māori. The member should also note that according to the New Zealand Crime & Victim Survey, in 2023, Māori adults were almost 60 percent more likely to experience violent crime than the national average and more than twice as likely to be highly victimised.

Tamatha Paul: If systemic bias or systemic racism doesn’t exist within the police, then why were the police systematically stopping rangatahi Māori and taking tens of thousands of illegal photos of them?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’m just going to restate for the member that we have got a world-class police service—men and women in our community that do an outstanding job, that stand up every day to protect the communities that they live in and that they serve. I don’t believe or accept for one minute that there is systemic racism or bias in our police service. Again, that report is the commissioner’s report, and he can speak to it.

Tamatha Paul: Can the Minister please explain what systemic bias is?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, can you repeat the question? Was it a question for me to—

SPEAKER: Well, just a moment—just hang on, sorry. With all due respect, the police Minister has got a lot of things in his portfolio, but giving an answer of that type is not one of them. The member should rephrase the question—without loss of it.

Steve Abel: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe the Minister’s saying there is no systemic bias, so surely he must know what systemic bias is. That seems like a pretty reasonable question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that might be the case, but the question was asked on its own without any reference to the main question. I’m asking the member to redo the question, not lose the question.

Tamatha Paul: In response to the Minister’s comments that he doesn’t “think there is systemic bias in the police at all”, can the Minister please explain what systemic bias is?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, systemic bias is bias that’s systemic.

Tamatha Paul: How does he explain the fact that Māori are more likely to be exposed to police intervention throughout their life than non-Māori?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Look, all that I’d say to the member—and I’ve said this before—is that the police do not get to choose who they deal with in terms of offending. Society decides that. I’m extremely proud of our police service. I think that they do the best to respond to the very difficult circumstances they’re currently operating in, because they’re trying to get on top of a massive growth of violent crime in our country. In my view, there is not systemic bias or racism in our police. I think that if there was an individual case where it’s obvious that there is some bias or some racism, then I would expect the police to take swift action on that. But to suggest that there is systemic bias and racism in our police—I completely reject that.

Hon Nicole McKee: Does the Minister agree that people who commit crimes should face the consequences of their actions regardless of their ethnicity, and, if so, what actions has this Government taken to ensure that criminals face the consequences of their crimes?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes—yes, I do agree with that. The Government is working extremely hard to restore law and order and make sure that consequences match the seriousness of the offending. I’m pleased to see that the Minister is strengthening firearm prohibition orders to ensure police have more powers to get guns out of the hands of gang members, and bringing back three strikes. I’d also highlight the sentencing reforms being championed by the Minister of Justice.

Tamatha Paul: Why is he refusing to acknowledge the findings of the report when the Police Commissioner himself has accepted the findings and has committed to building that trust in the communities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think the member just answered her own question. This was a report that was commissioned several years ago. It is the commissioner’s report—it’s not my report—and it’s for the commissioner to speak to.

Tamatha Paul: What actions will he take to eliminate systemic bias that was identified within the report, acknowledging that it is not a reflection on individual officers but on the system that they work within across New Zealand’s policing system?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: As the Minister of Police, I’ll continue to support our police service in making sure that they have got the resources, the support, the legislation, and the powers that they need to be able to keep our country safe.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How are her employment policies going to support New Zealanders in to work, given that the Reserve Bank’s August Monetary Policy Statement predicts that unemployment will rise to 5.4 percent?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Because we already are. In July this year, there were 800 more exits from the jobseeker benefit into work compared with July last year, despite the challenging economic conditions, while we inherited a low-growth economy where unemployment was forecast to increase above 55 percent. Recently, we have announced an employment investment strategy which gets more support to young job seekers and more strongly targets those on benefit long-term. And yesterday, we released an employment action plan to ensure agencies are focused on ensuring more New Zealanders can enjoy the independence and opportunities that work provides.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she stand by her statement that her Government will make early interventions to get people into work or training and prevent them from entering the benefit system; if so, why is she planning to reduce the number of non-beneficiaries who can access Mana in Mahi?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because we need to do both, but what our Government is clearly prioritising is a beneficiary-first process. That means we are focusing on those who are swimming in the ocean, not rescuing those who are already in a lifeboat.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve just answered that. I would remind the member that, in both instances, we have tilted the balance to beneficiaries first. We are still providing access to those programmes for those who are at risk of long-term welfare dependency, who may not have come on to the benefit first. But we must provide taxpayer support and taxpayer-funded programmes to those whom taxpayers are funding on welfare.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will preventing non-beneficiaries from accessing Mana in Mahi and Flexi-wage increase their chances of becoming beneficiaries; if so, how will this affect her 50,000 job seeker reduction target?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve answered that question: because we must do both. We have seen, unfortunately, a 70,000 increase in the job seeker numbers under the previous Government at a time there were jobs everywhere. Our focus is to make sure—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: 24,000 extra beneficiaries under her watch.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —that we are supporting those who are on the jobseeker benefit now. And thanks to that previous Minister, who watched a period of time where 70,000 more people went on to the jobseeker benefit and 220,000 children grew up in benefit-dependent households—we’re not willing to accept that that’s as good as it gets.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can that Minister remember who was the Minister that introduced the Mana in Mahi policy but, apparently, doesn’t like the mahi anymore?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely—our Government is focused on getting more New Zealanders into mahi that is paid.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister commit to increased funding for Mana in Mahi and Flexi-wage in order to meet demand from the expected rise in unemployment to 5.4 percent, as predicted by the Reserve Bank?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The $1.1 billion investment that goes into employment initiatives—we must ensure is delivering results. The Mana in Mahi programme that he refers to is expensive—$17,000 per participant—so we need to ensure we are targeting those expensive investment initiatives into those who are at risk of long-term welfare dependency. Our focus, unlike the previous member, was to focus those on 18- to 24-year-olds who are at risk of long-term welfare dependency.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why is the Minister content to be the ambulance at the bottom of the hill rather than supporting programmes that can intervene early and make a real difference in people’s lives, particularly Mana in Mahi?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m proud to be the Minister that set a target to reduce the number on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000, because our Government is clear that those who are in work have better lives and better outcomes. We’ve got to focus on those coming in, but, as I said, we’ve got large numbers and better exit rates than there were a year ago.

Question No. 5—Environment

5. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has he made relating to significant natural areas?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Yesterday, I announced the scope of the Government’s planned review into rules that relate to significant natural areas (SNAs) in the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB). The NPSIB was brought in by the previous Government in August last year and requires councils to map out so-called SNAs, which limit landowners’ ability to develop the land and use it to maximise its productivity. Officials will undertake the review over the coming months, which will take a good look at three areas: the criteria councils use to identify SNAs in their district, the processes that councils use, and the restrictions that are put on land identified as an SNA. Targeted consultation is under way with ecologists, landowners, and iwi, and full public consultation will follow.

Mark Cameron: How does this fit into Government policy?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Thank you. This Government made a firm commitment in the ACT Party coalition agreement: stop the implementation of new SNAs and review their operation. We have already introduced legislation to suspend the requirements the previous Government brought in for councils to identify SNAs under the NPSIB. That legislation is progressing in the House now and will be passed by the end of the year. This will give us time to do this review, and I expect that the outcome of the review will be implemented by the middle of next year.

Mark Cameron: Why is this review necessary?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Thank you. In their current form, SNAs are a rather blunt tool that doesn’t recognise all the good work that farm owners and landowners already do to protect the biodiversity on private land. I’ve heard from a huge number of landowners that this NPSIB will mean that they have areas of land that are, effectively, locked up, despite the fact that they are not all that significant. What is significant is the contribution our primary sector is making to getting the economy humming again. ACT wants to remove the unnecessary barriers for success and to create certainty for our primary sector. We do that by making sure that any measures sensibly protect the most unique and special environments while balancing private property rights and the ability to use land for its most productive purpose.

Mark Cameron: Are there other ways to protect biodiversity?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, yes, there are. We see it across the country all the time. Many farmers don’t need the council’s help to protect areas of natural beauty or biodiversity. They’re doing it already. All farmers want to leave the land in a better state than it was before. You only have to look at the number of voluntary entries into the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust, now up to 180,000 hectares. Over 5,000 landowners have voluntarily retired land into covenants for ever. This is the way forward—partnership. Another point that we need to remember is that a third of New Zealand is already under the Department of Conservation’s management. Surely we can find the significant biodiversity within that third. Why are we trying to grab 10 hectares off farmers here and there? We will recognise the good work farmers are doing, not strip away New Zealanders’ property rights and create fear in rural communities like the last Government did.

Question No. 6—Police

6. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Police: By how much have Police foot patrols increased under this Government?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Before I answer the member’s question, I’d like to acknowledge the hard work of our police in Christchurch and Auckland who yesterday terminated Operation Avon, an eight-month investigation targeting the Comancheros in Christchurch. As a result of Operation Avon, every patched member of the Comancheros gang in Christchurch has been arrested by police. I want to acknowledge and thank those staff for the work they have done to rid Christchurch of the misery and violence that gang peddles.

SPEAKER: Good. Now, what about linking that to the primary question? It would be helpful.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, beat constables have got a very important role to play in that too, and, actually, they have prevented $50 million worth of crime harm and sent a clear signal that police are protecting and controlling our streets, not the gangs. In answer to the member’s question, he may not have seen a 1News report last night which identified that foot patrols have increased by 10 percent under this Government’s watch compared with the year prior. This is in part due to the community beat teams that police have stood up in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, and an increased focus on visible presence throughout the country.

James Meager: Has he been asked about claims of a decrease in foot patrols?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yesterday, I was asked about claims that foot patrols have decreased by 15 percent nationwide, despite this Government’s investment in 500 more police and the resulting community beat teams from police. Not only was that claim wrong; it was also misleading, and it undermined the front-line staff doing great work getting out on the beat. As I’ve said, Police data shows a 10 percent increase under this Government.

James Meager: By how much have foot patrols increased in Upper Hutt?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Alongside the claim of a nationwide decrease, there was a claim that foot patrols have dropped by 75 percent in Upper Hutt. The data shows that—comparing December 2023 to June 2024 with the year prior—there’s been a 250 percent increase of foot patrols in Upper Hutt. A 250 percent increase. This coincides with an increase of 84 percent in Lower Hutt, of 128 percent in Naenae, and of 450 percent in Wainuiōmata.

James Meager: Has he—

SPEAKER: Hang on. We’re just going to wait for your question to be heard in silence. Away you go.

James Meager: Has he had any feedback on the increased beat presence here in Wellington?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. I’ve received very positive feedback on the outstanding work that our police beat constables are doing and the sense of safety and security that they’re bringing to Wellington’s CBD. The reassurance and preventative work that they do with an increased presence is outstanding. The feedback I’ve had from constables is that they are enjoying engaging with the public and getting to know their patches.

Question No. 7—Environment

7. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her statement that “It’s getting that balance between the actions that we take, and environmental protection … we consider that the balance had swung too far towards environmental protection at the cost of not being able to get things done”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Yes.

Lan Pham: Does she think that cutting jobs at the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for the Environment, the Climate Change Commission, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), and GNS Science has now achieved balance through reducing environmental protection?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, obviously, I don’t have responsibility for NIWA, the Department of Conservation, and a number of the other entities that the member mentioned, but I can assure her that at the EPA, the work that is being done there is ensuring that the main operational part of the EPA is not being impacted and it is the peripheral support services that are being impacted.

Lan Pham: Does she consider reopening oil and gas drilling, rolling back freshwater protections, allowing coalmining on precious wetlands, and granting blanket extensions for every marine farm in the country to represent more of a so-called balance, or will she acknowledge that her Government has got the balance wrong?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No, I certainly won’t acknowledge that. This country has a housing crisis, an infrastructure deficit, and an energy crisis, and much of this is because consenting major projects in New Zealand takes far too long and is far too expensive. This Government came in, in a cost of living crisis, with the most debt that this country has ever had. We are determined to get things built to enable economic growth and look after the environment.

Lan Pham: In her Government’s fast-track process, will she commit to delivering on her ministerial responsibility for environmental protection by recommending the declining of projects that significantly damage the environment or that have been previously declined by the courts due to unacceptable environmental harm?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: That bill is still in the process with the select committee and has not come back.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister accept that Māori were extremely involved in marine farming well before the arrival of Europeans and that they’d like to do so again into the future?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I wasn’t here then. However, I’m quite sure they were, and they are very involved in fishing and aquaculture now.

Lan Pham: What assurances can she provide to the local Ōhinemuri River community who have seen their awa degraded as a result of heavy metal contamination from historical mining, and does she have any concerns that similar environmental damage could be her legacy as a result of her Government’s decisions?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. Also, I acknowledge that things that happened probably hundreds of years ago, or certainly decades ago, did not have the same level of environmental protection that is there now.

SPEAKER: Question No. 8, the Hon Deborah Russell—and we’ll just wait for the House to settle itself down, and we won’t have any calling out during questions.

Question No. 8—Tertiary Education and Skills

8. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Does she stand by her statement that Te Pūkenga is a “financial mess, drowning in debt of over $250 million”; if so, why?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): Yes, I do. Te Pūkenga has $8.426 million of commercial debt, $35.391 million of Crown debt, and $207.311 million of intercompany debt, amounting to a total debt of $251.128 million.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is Jeremy Morley—Te Pūkenga Council member, former director at PricewaterhouseCoopers, chair of the Te Pūkenga finance, audit, and risk committee—wrong, who, when asked, “Is Te Pūkenga $250 million in debt?”, replied “As a consolidated group, as a family group, no.”; if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because he is a member of Te Pūkenga Council and so, as Te Pūkenga stands, yes, they have taken reserves from some entities and applied it to debt of other entities. However, as Te Pūkenga is disestablished, that debt will have to lie where it was generated, and the reserves will have to go to where they are generated. However, I understand that the member and her party take a much more cavalier attitude to using other people’s money, and so they are possibly thinking that that doesn’t have to occur. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That was a totally unacceptable level of noise. Just keep it down.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is Gus Gilmore, CEO of Te Pūkenga, wrong when he said, “We are a viable institution.”; if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No, he’s not wrong. It is a viable institution; I have never said it isn’t a viable institution.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) deputy chief executive Gillian Dudgeon right when she said just last week that “there wouldn’t be a single ITP business division that could stand alone independently”; if so, why is the Minister proposing to dismantle a structure that supports them?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: She is correct, because of the actions of that previous Government that the member was a part of—first of all, bringing in the unified funding scheme, which took 20 percent of the funding away from the polytechnics. So, as it stands today, those individual business units have indeed been decimated by the actions of the previous Government, but we are working through a process with intervention by TEC to get the cost out of those institutions that should have been done four long years ago.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the independent team of specialist advisers, appointed to give advice on the future structure of vocational education, wrong when they advised that any structure that splits institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) into some independent ITPs and some grouped ITPs would continue to run deficits of tens of millions of dollars until 2028?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Those individual specialist advisers did not have the benefit of all the financial information that is being gathered now, and so they put a number of options with some estimates of the financial situation.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why is the Minister proposing to break up a viable institution, with little debt and sustainable finances, to replace it with independent institutes of technology and polytechnics, none of which can stand alone independently?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because we intend to ensure that they can and because the communities that have those institutions wish to have a say in the running of them and in how they operate, rather than a head office. It is localism.

Question No. 9—Forestry

9. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Forestry: What action has the Government taken in respect of forestry and the clean-up of the East Coast?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): As everybody will know, last year the East Coast region was significantly impacted by severe weather events, including Cyclone Gabrielle, which left around 1 million tonnes of woody debris, including whole trees, scattered in the catchment along beaches and rivers, posing ongoing risk across the region. To date, the Government has provided $110 million for the treatment of woody debris and sediment in Tairāwhiti. This includes $27 million additionally that was announced in Budget 2024. Yesterday, I visited Gisborne to announce that the Government would establish the Tairāwhiti Forestry Action Group so the forestry sector and Gisborne District Council can work more closely together to clean up the East Coast.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What is the primary objective of the Tairāwhiti Forestry Action Group?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the action group will focus on speeding up the clean-up of existing wood and slash, as well as action to reduce the risk of wood that is still likely to come down from the hills. The action group includes representatives from the Gisborne District Council, forestry companies and contractors, the farming sector, and iwi. It brings together the right expertise to accelerate clean-up and deliver ongoing positive outcomes for the region. This is an important next step to ensure work is done on practical initiatives to clean up more wood more quickly, reduce risk, and implement best practice for the forestry industry. It’s important that taxpayers can have confidence that Government funding is being used effectively. The action group will greatly assist Gisborne District Council in this.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What further work is the Government doing to speed up recovery from severe weather events?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Just last week, my colleague Minister Mitchell announced an allocation of $16.8 million of Budget 2024 funding to support 12 councils in accelerating recovery efforts following those severe weather events in 2023. Of this funding, an additional $5 million has been allocated to the Gisborne District Council for initiatives to accelerate roading, network recovery, speed up voluntary buyouts, and flood risk mitigation projects.

Dana Kirkpatrick: And how else does the Government intend to ensure safety in the region and to mitigate future risk?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yesterday, I also announced the Government’s intention to review slash rules within the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry to improve outcomes without adding unnecessary cost. The Government will help councils and industry better manage high-risk areas while supporting forestry’s contribution to jobs and regional economic growth. Forestry is an important part of New Zealand’s economy and a big contributor to meeting our climate change obligations. We now need to reduce cost and get the rules right to get Tairāwhiti and other parts of the economy back on track.

Question No. 10—Health

10. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that there is a health “workforce crisis”, and, if so, how does he respond to senior medical officers of Tairāwhiti, who have said, “Recent national directives setting recruitment restrictions and hospital budget cuts make our situation even worse”?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, and on this side of the House, we acknowledge that there have been ongoing workforce issues. Regarding Tairāwhiti, Health New Zealand have advised me that recruitment issues are, unfortunately, nothing new. Over the past four years, the vacancy rate in Tairāwhiti has been running at around 30 percent. The botched merger of Health New Zealand certainly hasn’t helped resolve this ongoing issue. However, the recent move by Health New Zealand to a regionally-based model is an important step in ensuring, for example, that Tairāwhiti can access support from other hospitals for specialist services as needed. Health New Zealand have also assigned HR resources to help Tairāwhiti develop a retention and recruitment plan specifically for the district.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: What actions will he take to reduce the vacancy rate of senior medical officers at Tairāwhiti hospital, where, according to those senior medical officers, “Staffing levels in all areas of our hospital are at critical levels.”?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Health New Zealand chief executive has met with senior staff. The local management team are working with the international recruitment team on critical vacancies that require a focused approach to swift onboarding. Health New Zealand is assigning HR resources to help Tairāwhiti develop a retention and recruitment plan specifically for the district, and Health New Zealand’s move to a more regionally-based model will be an important step in ensuring Tairāwhiti can access support from other hospitals for specialist services as needed.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Will he admit that recruitment restrictions that he has imposed across the motu have made the problem worse at Tairāwhiti hospital?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I admit is that as we move to a regional model, Tairāwhiti will benefit from a shorter line of decision making to a regional deputy chief executive; it will improve recruitment and retention.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: What is his response to the senior doctors in Tairāwhiti, an area with the highest proportion of Māori, the highest trauma rates per person, and the highest levels of deprivation, who wrote to Ministers, “You are failing to meet your obligations.”?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: My response is that we will fulfil action five of their request—that is, having senior regional leadership meet with heads of departments.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Further to that, will he commit to undertake the minimum actions demanded by those senior medical officers, including lifting restrictions on recruitment, committing to reducing the senior medical officer vacancy rate to less than 10 percent, delivering on recruitment and retention allowances, appropriately staffing the hospital’s people and development office to enable recruitment, and, as you’ve said, having senior regional leadership meet with the head of each department to plan appropriately?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I said in my last answer, to those multiple arms to that question, I do commit to having senior regional leadership meet with heads of departments.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: In the spirit of that response, will he accept my invitation to hui in Tairāwhiti, hearing the aspirations of the community, developing solutions together, and, of course, enjoying Tairāwhiti manaakitanga?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I thank the member for the invitation. I have already visited Tairāwhiti and Gisborne Hospital, but I look forward to doing so again. Thank you for the invitation.

Question No. 11—Revenue

11. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Revenue: What announcements has he made on tax?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): This week, the Government tabled the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill, which sets the tax rates for this year and makes changes to the tax system. The Government tables a bill like this every year, and this time we’re focused on boosting productivity and making the tax system simple and easy to use.

Cameron Brewer: How does this bill relate to the Government’s announcements on tax relief?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, after 14 long years, around 1.9 million households have now received the first of their promised tax relief. This bill will lock in those rates for the next year, lowering the tax rates for low and middle income New Zealanders. I hope all parties will support lower taxes for hard-working Kiwis when the bill has its first reading this afternoon.

Cameron Brewer: What other changes to the tax system are proposed?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the bill proposes various changes to the tax system to make it function better. These include simplifying and shortening the process required to deliver tax relief during disasters, delivering on our commitments to change the tax treatment of employee stock options, and making it easier for young people to enrol in KiwiSaver to get them saving early. All these proposed changes underline the Government’s commitment to focus the tax system on simplicity, productivity, and growth.

Cameron Brewer: Does the bill propose any new taxes?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I am happy to confirm that no such proposals are contained in this bill. This Government is focused on delivering lower taxes for hard-working Kiwis, not dreaming up new ways to tax them as some members are keen to do.

Question No. 12—Māori Development

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā rā tātou. Taku pātai ki te reo Māori i te mea e kainamu mai ana Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, ā, ka mutu ko taku pātai ki te Minita Take Whakawhanake Kaupapa Māori, ki a Tama Pōtaka. Anei te pātai: e whakaae ana ia kāore anō te tahua pūtea ā-tau a Whakaata Māori kia piki ake mai i te tau 2008?

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all. My question will be in te reo Māori because Māori Language Week is drawing closer, and furthermore my question is to the Minister of Māori Development, Tama Pōtaka. Here is the question: does he accept that Māori Television has not had an increase in annual baseline funding since 2008?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order. The questioner is required to ask the question—either in English or Māori—that’s on the Order Paper. He has not. For the umpteenth time, I’m asking you to get him to address this House properly.

SPEAKER: Yeah, there is a small problem there that even I could pick up: there were more words—there was a reference in there to Tama Potaka, which is not appropriate. And so I’d ask the member to stick to as close a translation as is possible for the words that are on the Order Paper and to do that on future occasions as well; otherwise, the questions will be terminated.

12. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: E whakaae ana ia kāre anō te tahua pūtea ā-tau kia piki ake mai i te tau 2008?

[Does he accept that there has not been an increase in annual baseline funding since 2008?]

Hon SHANE JONES (Acting Minister for Māori Development): Hei whakautu i tēnei pātai, pai kē me hoki te kaipatapatai ki te kura kia mōhio ai ki te tatau. Te whakapae kei roto i tēnei pātai kāhore e tika ana. Kua oti noa atu te pūtea mai i te tau 2008 te whakaranea mā te 12 paiheneti.

[In response to the question, it would be better if the questioner went back to school so that he knows how to count. The claim within the question is incorrect. The funding has long since been increased from 2008 by 12 percent.]

Hon Willie Jackson: Who is correct: the Minister for Māori Development, who blamed the previous Government’s record investment into Māori media on the current job cuts at Whakaata Māori, or chief executive Shane Taurima, who said today that “shifting government policies” were the cause of the funding changes?

Hon SHANE JONES: Far be it for me to disagree with that individual who shares an illustrious name. The reality is from the time of 2008, there has been an increase in the total funding for Whakaata Māori. There has been additional funding allocated for a very short period of time. It fell off a cliff because the former Minister did not make it a permanent feature of the budget of this institution.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he accept that his refusal to support Whakaata Māori to a degree that enables Whakaata Māori to continue to be a beacon of indigenous language revitalisation both nationally and internationally has directly resulted in the loss of the only TV channel that broadcasts exclusively in te reo Māori?

Hon SHANE JONES: Ehara mā te kaihorohoro o te kaipātai tēnei take ka mārama. Me mātau tātou te Whare, e whā kē ngā poupou e hāpai ana i te reo Māori. Tōmua ko Te Taura Whiri; te mea tuarua ko Pouaka Māori; tua atu i tēnā ko Te Māngai Pāho; tua atu i tēnā ko Te Mātāwai. Ki te whakarauikatia te tatau o tēnā pūtea kei te takiwā o te kotahi $142 miriona. Kei pōhēhē te kaipātai mā runga i tana mātau papaku noa iho nei kei te hē wēnei whika.

[This issue will not be elucidated by the greed of this questioner. We, this House, should be aware there are four pillars supporting the Māori language. First and foremost is the Māori Language Commission; the second is Māori Television; the next is Te Māngai Pāho; and the next is Te Mātāwai. If the sum of all of that funding were to be brought together, it would be in the area of $142 million. Let the questioner not mistakenly believe that these figures are wrong due to the shallowness of his understanding.]

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: [Listens to translation] Well, you wouldn’t want me to start making rulings not knowing what’s going on. So thank you for waiting; I appreciate your patience—a rare thing in your case.

Hon Willie Jackson: Kia ora, no problem—thank you, no problem, Mr Speaker. Happy to accommodate. Does the Minister stand by his statement “I must be a strong advocate and contributor to Māori success”, when, under his watch, he has cut funding to Māori development, supported the repeal of Māori wards and the Māori Health Authority, and, with today’s announcement from CEO Shane Taurima, supported the funding cuts to Whakaata Māori?

Hon SHANE JONES: Times are a-changing. The entirety of the media is facing substantial pressures. Whakaata Māori was in receipt of short-term funding. Not unlike other elements of the media, it is having to cut its cloth. But, I repeat, there is $142 million which was not cut made available for the four pillars that uphold the strategy of the reo: Taura Whiri, Te Māngai Pāho, Whakaata Māori, and Te Mātāwai. They probably can be made to collaborate and work closer together, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister how that might be achieved.

Tākuta Ferris: Given Whakaata Māori exists to uphold the Crown’s duty to protect te reo Māori under the Māori Language Act 1987 and article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, does he accept that his decision to cut funding by 25 percent is a breach of the Māori Language Act 1987 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon SHANE JONES: Me hoki anō ahau ki taku kupu tuatahi ki te Whare: kāhore e tika ana i tauporotia te tatau o te pūtea mō te Pouaka Whakaata Māori. Mai i te tau 2008 kua whakapikihia mā te 12 paihēneti. Nā, pēnā e turi ana ngā taringa o te kaipatapatai ki tēnei whakautu āku, me hoki anō ki te kura.

[I should return to my first statement to the House: it is not true that the total of funding for Māori Television has been reduced. Since 2008, it has increased by 12 percent. Now, if the ears of the questioner are deaf to this answer of mine, he should go back to school.]

Tākuta Ferris: What does he believe will be the intergenerational impact of belittling te reo Māori, reducing its prominence, visibility, and audibility as a result of his Government’s and his own actions?

Hon SHANE JONES: The figures that the member refers to do not lie at the heart of the salvation of the Māori language. The Māori language will endure when the adherents of the language commit every day to perpetuating it. When the language is weaponised by junior MPs, we all suffer as a consequence.

Tākuta Ferris: He pātai anō tāku. [I have another question.]

Hon Member: Junior.

Tākuta Ferris: Nau mai ki te marae, junior. [Welcome to the marae, junior.] What is his vision—

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on a minute. That’s not part of the deal, right? You’re asking a question; you ask a supplementary.

Tākuta Ferris: He kōrero nō tērā taha. [It was a statement from that side.]

SPEAKER: Well, don’t respond to them—don’t respond to that.

Tākuta Ferris: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. What is his vision for the future of te reo Māori in broadcasting without a strong Whakaata Māori, and when will he stand up for his own tamariki and tell his coalition partners enough is enough?

Hon SHANE JONES: Me hoki anō ahau ki te whakamārama ki tā tātou tamaiti me pēhea tēnei kaupapa e whakatutukitia paitia ai. Ehara mā te pūtea anake te reo Māori e rangatira ai. Mā te ū o te ngākau. Ehara mā te whakatamariki kōrero pēnei me tāku e rongo nei i tērā pito o te Whare. Kua whakapikitia te tatau o ngā moni, kei te 12 paiheneti. Kāhore anō tō tātou reo kia whakapōharatia, ahakoa kei te whakaitingia te tatau o ngā kaimahi. He pēnā katoa te ao pāpāho.

[I should go back and explain to our child how this topic can be successfully achieved. It will not be due to funding alone that the Māori language will be honoured. It will be by the dedication of the heart. It will not be by child-like statements like I am hearing from that end of the House. The total of the money has been increased, on the order of 12 percent. Our language has not been impoverished, despite the reduction in the number of staff. The entire broadcasting sector is the same.]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister concerned that someone could look at the 2008 figures and the current figures and yet say in this House that there’s no increase at all when that, dramatically, is not the case and there’s millions and millions of dollars out, on the negative, and he’s wrong?

Hon SHANE JONES: That question, related to the absence of understanding of financial matters, reflects the Prime Minister’s statement—utterly true. Too many young Māori can’t count.

Points of Order—Te Reo Māori, Simultaneous Interpretation in the Chamber

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of question time because I didn’t want to interrupt, but, with the translations, there was often a lag. We were still trying to hear the end of the answer when the next question had been called. So, just for next time, if we could have a minor delay so that we could hear the entirety of the answer before the next question is called.

SPEAKER: That’s fair enough. Some of it, I was picking up, and probably you will recall I did say to Willie Jackson there was a need to wait for a few seconds. And I think, yeah, we can do that in the future if it is going to be more prominently used.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url