Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 13 May 2025

Gagaj ‘Ḁitu, ‘ḁmis ‘uḁ’uḁ’ḁkia ‘äe ‘e reko ḁlalum ‘atakoa ne ‘ḁmis pō ‘e ‘otomis mḁuri. ‘Ḁmis ‘uḁ’uḁ’ḁkia ‘äe ‘e reko måür ‘on Sau Fā ta Jiare ma far la ‘äe la muḁ’ḁkia ‘otomis hḁifäegaga ‘e terḁni te ‘i. La pō la ‘ḁmis la a’sokoa ‘amnåk tūtū ne Rī Tḁunå’ te’is ‘e ‘ou potoma ‘inea, ‘e hḁiäf’ḁkiga, hḁihanisiga ma huḁg vḁivḁi se ‘on lelei ne hanue te’is Niu Sirḁgi.’Emen.

[Lord God, we thank you because of all the blessings that we receive in our lives. We thank you for the life of King Charles and ask that you guide our discussions today so that we may carry out the purposes of this House of meeting through your wisdom and knowledge, in mutual respect, mutual care, and humility for the betterment of this nation New Zealand. Amen.]

Members, I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Vanushi Sitanjali Walters to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Hon David Parker from his list seat. I understand that Vanushi Walters is present and wishes to take the Oath of Allegiance. Would she please come forward to the Chair on my right.

I, Vanushi Sitanjali Walters, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His heirs and successors, according to the law. So help me God.

Congratulations.

Members, on Thursday last week I undertook to review questions that were said to contain allegations of deliberately misleading the House. I have read the Hansard for question time. A question included the accusation that “this House has been dramatically misled”.

Misleading is not the same as deliberately misleading. Members may have differing opinions and can make mistakes. Our form of parliamentary democracy is centred on the contest of ideas, so it is inevitable that some members of the House will think that others are wrong and that, in sharing wrong opinions, they are being misleading.

It is only where allegations of deliberately misleading the House are made that it becomes a matter of order and, possibly, privilege. Deliberately misleading the House involves conveying information that is inaccurate in a material way and which the person conveying the information knows is inaccurate at the time—Speaker’s rulings 238/2. No such accusation was made during oral questions last week.

Before concluding this matter, I want to remind members that questions should not contain opinions, arguments, or imputations—Standing Order 390. A question stating that the House has been misled fails on all of those grounds. I will endeavour to be more vigilant with supplementary questions, and, in doing so, I am sure members will appreciate that I do not have the same amount of time to consider the admissibility of supplementary questions as I do for primary questions.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Completely accepting everything that’s just in your ruling—there is still, however, an onus on Ministers, where they give information in answer to a question that they subsequently find out is false, to come to the House and correct that after the fact. I just want to check with you that you’re not ruling that that’s no longer required. Ministers have often given answers, particularly around facts and figures, which, at the time they gave them in the House, they believed to be true; they’ve then subsequently gone back to their offices and found them to be not true. They still are under an obligation in those circumstances to come back and correct the answer in the House.

Yes, that is absolutely the case. That is not changed by this ruling. This ruling simply points to the differences of opinion that people have on either side of the House, based on what are, essentially, debating points.

That’s your cue, Winston.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Well, I’m—

I knew that was where he was—

Hang on. Wait on—wait on. I haven’t called the member. I would just ask that the Leader of the Opposition refrain from speaking across the House in quite a such a direct matter.

I knew that was where Mr Hipkins was too scared to go, because what I said was backed up by the fact that 33 of the claims had not been settled, which is a fact. And I ask him now to apologise.

Yeah, well—[Interruption] Just a minute. I’ll just say that’s the—

None of the 33. One more time: none of the 33.

No, no—that’s right. Good. Well, as far as the apology is concerned, that’s for Mr Hipkins to consider. From your perspective: good luck.

Five petitions have been delivered for presentation. The Clerk will now read those.

Petition of Animates NZ Holdings Ltd requesting that the House ban the sale of fireworks to the New Zealand public

petition of Katherine Lamont requesting that the House give volunteer firefighters the same ACC coverage and benefits as their paid counterparts

petition of Joshua Riley on behalf of Sovereign.nz requesting that the House repeal section 81(1) of the Local Electoral Act 2001

petition of Roger Woolnough requesting that the House urge the Government to allow mortgage interest deductibility for first-home buyers and persons buying one house

petition of Dr Kerryn Palmer requesting that the House urge the Government to reinstate the Creatives in Schools programme.

Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered six papers for presentation.

Government responses to the:

petition from Shary Bakker and the petition of Bob McCoskrie

report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition from Fired Up Stilettos

Valuers Bill, certification under section 98 of the Legislation Act 2019

report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Valuers Bill

Reserve Bank of New Zealand Financial Stability Report, May 2025.

I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Reliability of public transport in Auckland. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Seven select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

report of the Environment Committee on the petition of Casey Regtien

reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the:

Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the

report of the Controller and Auditor-General The Government’s preparedness to implement the sustainable development goals

reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Angela Clifford, Geoffrey Mortlock, and Geoffrey Mortlock.

Those papers are published under the authority of the House, the bills are set down for second reading, and the report of the Controller and Attorney-General is set down for due consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of four bills.

Valuers Amendment Bill, introduction.

Public Works Critical Infrastructure Amendment Bill, introduction.

Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Those bills are set down for first readings.

Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Government decision not to set up a new redress scheme for survivors of abuse in care. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The way that the State responds to abuse in care is a significant issue. This matter warrants the immediate attention of the House and the Government as there are no other foreseeable opportunities to debate it. Therefore, following oral questions, I’ll call on the Hon Willow-Jean Prime to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Yes.

Why is it OK for the Prime Minister to have his pay set by an authority that compares his job to different jobs in different industries with different employers when he has removed that ability—under urgency—for low-paid women workers?

Well, we haven’t. This is a Government that continues to support pay equity and eliminating sex-based discrimination. All that we have done is fix the labour law that was unworkable—and also unaffordable—and that compared librarians to fisheries officers.

Is the Prime Minister saying that he did not remove—under urgency—the ability for those low-paid women workers to compare their jobs to different jobs in different industries with different employers?

Well, what we did was we passed a law to make sure that it was much more workable, robust, and sustainable; that’s what we did last week. We did it under urgency so that we actually have one system, not two systems, and it gives certainty and fairness to everybody.

If we are to believe the Prime Minster when he says that these pay equity changes were not about saving money, why did the Government rush them through on the same day that they were announced, preventing public and expert input and usual, good lawmaking practice?

Well, look, I mean, there’s a couple of choices there: one is you can do it quickly, or you can do it slowly. We felt a lengthy process, for people who have had their claims in the system for a long period of time, was just going to put them into limbo. Importantly, they can now actually resubmit, under the new law, and advance their claims.

Did the Government request any analysis on whether cutting off hundreds of thousands of our lowest-paid working women from pay equity claims would contribute to the record number of New Zealanders who are leaving this country under his administration?

Well, I wouldn’t conflate those two issues, and I reject the characterisation of that question.

Would the Prime Minister take up the offer of any of the many hard-working women that he has cut off from pay equity claims to spend a day in their shoes changing nappies, delivering babies, or educating young children, or does he plan to ignore them, as he has ignored good lawmaking practice?

I’d just say to that member: we are not cutting off pay equity claims. We are committed to pay equity. Under the new law, individuals and unions can apply for pay equity claims. But it’s wrong to characterise it that way, and I think, in many ways, it’s been very disingenuous from the Opposition, with a lot of scaremongering, about what this is and what this isn’t. We are committed to pay equity, but we are fixing something that was unworkable and unaffordable, to make sure that we don’t have fisheries officers and librarians, and administration workers and civil engineers, all being compared.

That is the last lot of barracking for today. People raising their hand to their mouth to make their voice louder—it is completely unacceptable.

Question No. 2—the Rt Hon Christopher Hipkins.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. “Chris” is normally fine.

I wasn’t inquiring as to your health. Just ask your question.

to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes.

Did workplace relations Minister Brooke van Velden suggest changes to the laws around pay equity right at the start of the Government’s term; if so, why have they never been mentioned in any of his quarterly plans, in any Government Minister’s speeches, or in any public announcements until the law change was introduced last week?

I’m well aware the Minister has been focused on pay equity from day one, and what I would say is that we made a decision. We had a choice: do you do it fast or do you do it slow? We watched Labour do it over three years—introduced the bill under urgency with massive amounts of flaws—and we decided to give people certainty.

Why didn’t the quarterly plan he released on 7 April say anything about the fact that the Government had decided just one week earlier to scrap the existing pay equity process and extinguish all active claims?

Well, we didn’t want to create a situation where there was uncertainty, and that’s why we moved under urgency.

How would it have created uncertainty to tell people that you were going to change the law before you changed the law?

Well, that’s the point; we didn’t want to signal that we were going to do that, because we don’t want to create uncertainty in the system.

Why did Nicola Willis state, on behalf of the Government, in May last year, “The Government remains committed to pay equity and to meeting its obligations under the Equal Pay Act 1972” given the Government had already, at that point, agreed to explore changes to the law to reduce those obligations?

Well, the statement is true, and it’s correct; this is a Government committed to pay equity. It’s a Government that is committed to equal pay and is committed to collective bargaining. I’ve seen a lot of disinformation, misinformation, and scaremongering out there, but we’re committed to pay equity and we’re committed to equal pay.

Why were National MPs briefed on the changes to the Equal Pay Act on Sunday, 4 May, yet the following day, at his post-Cabinet press conference, he didn’t tell the New Zealand public, leaving them to find out the very same day the Government intended to push the law change through all stages under urgency in Parliament?

Well, I’d just say to the member: there are two choices we had to make. One was that we could move with speed to give people certainty and clarity about the system. The alternative was to take a long time and put people into limbo. We wanted to move with speed.

Why did the Government agree to backdate pay equity settlements as part of a range of collective employment agreement negotiations over the past year despite having already agreed to repeal the law and extinguish those very same pay equity claims they had agreed to backdate, and is that what his Government regards as good faith?

Well, we have said to you from the beginning—day one—we have been concerned about the pay equity legislation being unworkable. The Minister has had that on her workplan from the beginning. We are making sure we are fixing Labour’s law, which was unworkable, increasingly unaffordable, and when it starts to compare librarians with fisheries officers, and admin workers with civil engineers, there’s a problem.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about why the Government had agreed in the settlements that it reached through collective agreement negotiations to backdate pay even though it had already decided that it was going to extinguish the pay equity claims that that promise of backdating were based on; he didn’t address that issue at all.

The Prime Minister might care to elucidate slightly.

Look, I’m just not aware of the detail of that, in order to answer that question, but what I would say to that member is that we are determined to make sure that we have workable pay equity legislation in this country. Labour’s law had massive amounts of flaws in it. You had people from lots of different occupations and multiple employers being compared to a sector. You had a situation, as I said, where you’ve got librarians being compared to fisheries officers. We are making sure that we fix our pay equity legislation. We have put a huge amount of money aside to deal with future pay equity claims. Anyone that’s had their claim discontinued can submit under the new law.

Is he telling New Zealanders that, when the Government agreed to extinguish 33 existing pay equity claims, he was not aware that his Government had already agreed to backdate the payment of those claims through collective employment agreement settlements?

I am aware of that, but what I am saying to the member is that we have decided to change and fix the pay equity legislation in this country. Labour rushed it through. Labour left a lot of flaws in it. We are fixing it, because it’s unworkable and unaffordable.

Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Just wait for the House to regain its composure.

Who is correct: Christopher Luxon when he said the decision to take billions of dollars from working Kiwi women had nothing to do with the Budget, or David Seymour, who said the decision to do so had saved the Budget?

Our primary motivation for the legislation that we passed last week was to make sure that we have pay equity legislation in this country that is focused on the core intention of the legislation, which is to eliminate sex-based discrimination. I can also say that that legislation had a number of flaws, which, I think, if the member was honest about it, he would say that actually he admits there were flaws in that legislation. We are fixing it; that’s what we do in this Government. We fix Labour’s messes, we make sure that it’s workable and affordable, and we make sure that pay equity claims are there for people in the future.

I’ll just make it very clear that you can’t question another member’s honesty in this House. That is inappropriate.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent announcements has she made on the Government’s fiscal position?

This morning, I announced that Budget forecasts will show, for the first time, a withdrawal from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. In recent years, annual contributions to the super fund have been between $1.5 and $2.5 billion a year. We are now approaching the time when the super fund is big enough to ensure that withdrawals, rather than contributions, are the normal outcome each year. This is not a Government decision; it is driven by a formula in the relevant Act. It is something of a milestone event. The first withdrawal is forecast to be in the 2027-2028 fiscal year, a very modest withdrawal of $32 million. This is earlier than previously anticipated, mainly because the super fund’s investment returns have been better than expected.

What is expected after 2027-28?

In the short term, there will be some bouncing around between withdrawals and contributions, but from 2031 onwards, projections show that withdrawals from the super fund are expected in every year. Withdrawals help cover the costs of New Zealand’s superannuation so taxpayers don’t face the full cost each year. This does not mean that the super fund will get smaller—far from it. The fund currently has $80 billion worth of investments, and on reasonable assumptions, super fund returns will outstrip withdrawals, and the fund will continue to get bigger every year. The Leader of the Opposition says, “Thank you, Labour.” I say, “Thank you, taxpayers.”

What other announcements did she make about the super fund?

I also announced that, next year, the $61 million contribution that would ordinarily have been made to the super fund, together with $39 million from the Budget 2025 capital allowance, will go into the Elevate NZ Venture Fund. Diverting super fund contributions to Elevate is not a new approach. The previous Government did the same in Budget 2019. Elevate invests in other venture capital funds alongside the private sector. These funds provide capital to potentially high-growth New Zealand businesses at an early stage in their development. Elevate was established in 2020 and is administered by the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. It is the Government’s intention that realisations from Elevate’s investments will ultimately be used to fund superannuation.

What are the benefits of investing in Elevate?

Innovative businesses begin as start-ups, and those start-ups require investment. That is usually risky, although it potentially has a high pay-off in the future. Few investors have the appetite to invest in firms at this stage of development, and New Zealand’s early-stage capital markets are typically short of funding. Elevate aims to close that funding gap by co-investing alongside private venture capital, resulting in more technologies being commercialised and exported. This is expected to stimulate the development of venture capital in New Zealand so the market eventually becomes self-sustaining, and to support many more start-ups and entrepreneurial ventures to flourish and help grow our economy.

to the Minister of Finance

Fạiȧkse’ea, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement this morning that “we need to keep pay equity claims able to be lodged and able to be progressed where they are claims genuinely based on gender-based discrimination”; if so, which of the 33 cancelled pay equity claims does she not think are genuine, if any?

Yes. In answer to the second part of the question, it is not for me to make a legal judgment to determine which claims are genuine. It is a legal question that will be considered by those negotiating the settlement or, ultimately, the Employment Relations Authority. Under the Act, claims with merit will be progressed.

If the Government pays several billion dollars less in pay equity payments, does that mean women will receive several billion dollars less?

No. I am grateful for the question because the member misunderstands the nature of contingencies. It is good budgeting practice for the Treasury to forecast potential costs that on the basis of probabilities may occur. Therefore, under the last Government, it was the practice that money was being put in the forecast, not revealed to New Zealanders, allowing for the fact that there could be significant future settlements. Whether or not those settlements would occur, and the size thereof, was still a matter to be determined through negotiations. I’d note that a number of the claims that were in progress had become bogged down due to the lack of clarity in the pay equity regime and the different approaches that employers and employees were taking to negotiating those claims. We now have a clear system, a transparent system, and we fully accept there will be future pay equity settlements.

If the system was so bogged down, how were there 10 equity pay settlements done under the last term?

It is the case that in the first instance, there were a number of claims where the Government was the employer and where the Government was therefore at the negotiating table with public sector unions. Those settlements stand. For the benefit of those opposite who seem to be ignorant of the fact, that has resulted in pay increases for nurses, for social workers, for teacher-aides, for librarians, for a number of women-dominated professions, and our Government has retained every single dollar of funding needed to honour those settlements.

Why did she call advocates for women being paid enough a “grievance industry”?

What I referred to was the fact that the pay equity regime should be used and was intended to be used for settling claims that relate to sex-based discrimination. It is absolutely the case that significant groups of workers in the New Zealand economy—not just those dominated by women, but a number of groups—wish to see their pay increased. We have a number of mechanisms for achieving this. The principal one is through negotiation between employers and employees. It is appropriate that unions and others use those mechanisms to argue for further pay. But here’s the other thing: the best way to ensure that all New Zealanders can look forward to growing wages is to have a strong, growing economy in which employers—

Good. That’s enough. It’s beyond the answer.

—can afford to pay their people more, and that’s what we’re doing.

You’ve got to keep the answers concise, as the questions should be.

Are underpaid Plunket nurses or underpaid hospice nurses a grievance industry?

If groups of workers have had their work undervalued and underpaid as a consequence of gender-based discrimination, then it is appropriate that they make pay equity claims and that their claims be judged according to whether or not there has been sex-based discrimination. It is self-evident that there are a number of issues in an economy which can lead to pay levels. They relate to where people work, the industry in which they work, the qualifications required, the skills required. There are all number of factors that are brought to bear on the pay that people receive. To ignorantly claim it’s all down to pay equity is just wrong.

What are some of the factors that lead to growing wages in any economy, and do they include a Byzantine arrangement for setting pay through overly complex labour laws?

The member makes a good point. There are two things happening here. One is about gender-based discrimination and how we make sure there is a clear process for negotiating settlements to amend for that. The other is how we grow wages in this economy. And the way to do that is to have more productivity, more growth, and employers who are better able to pay their people more. Because while others would like to labour under the illusion, the truth is there is no magic pot of money available to wipe every tear from every eye. Actually, a country must always live within its means.

Why is she continuing to gaslight the estimated 150,000 women who are saving her Budget or, like always—

I think, if the member just thinks about the ruling that I read out at the start of question time today, she might, in considering that, like to rephrase that question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is she continuing to downplay the very real concerns of hundreds of thousands of women to save her Budget or, like always, everyone else is wrong but Nicola Willis is right?

I am simply making it clear to those who have been misled by many claims, made in the past few days, that our Government is upholding protections for equal pay in law, that we are upholding pay equity settlements, and that we are both funding and putting in place a good system for resolving future pay equity claims. Beyond that, it is rich for the member opposite to talk about saving Budgets. I’ll tell you, the biggest constraint on this Government’s Budget is this: we believe in responsible fiscal management and don’t believe that simply spending more, taxing more, and borrowing more is the path to economic nirvana. That way lies terror.

to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes.

Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s decision to disestablish the Māori Health Authority, amend pay equity legislation, and remove Treaty clauses from legislation, and how does he reconcile these decisions with a commitment to governing all New Zealanders?

Well, in part, to the first leg of that question: yes, and for very good reasons.

Does the Prime Minister believe that $30,000 compensation for a lifetime of trauma suffered by State care survivors—many of whom are Māori—matches the recommendations of the survivors?

What I would acknowledge up front is that no amount of money, frankly, will deal with the harm that those survivors have experienced, but what you have is a Government that is taking very seriously its responsibility to correct the abuse that took place under State care, under successive Governments past and up to the present, and we’re doing that job as well as we can. We are lifting average payments up 60 percent, from $19,000 to $30,000 average payment. I know there will be people who will be disappointed with that but there are also survivors that have been waiting a very long time and will appreciate that certainty.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. While I appreciate the Prime Minister’s discussion about money, the question, actually, was specifically about matching the recommendations of the survivors, which wasn’t about money.

The question is: has the question been addressed, and I think it certainly has.

Why has this Government, for the first time in history, barred the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) and other unions from attending next week’s Budget lock-up when they represent hundreds of thousands of workers who will be significantly impacted by the Budget decisions, including the decision to cut or gut pay equity claims?

Oh, look, those are questions that you’d need to put to the Minister of Finance.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The relevance and responsibilities—Standing Orders 388 to 390 outlines that questions—

Urgh!

—must relate to public affairs—ka pai, David; can I carry on?—the Minister is officially responsible for. The Prime Minister is responsible for a whole-of-Government policy, so questions about the union’s approach, questions about the Budget, are indeed under the Prime Minister’s mantle.

Speaking to the point of order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for who attends the Budget lock-up.

Well, that is an interesting point except that the Budget is an exceptionally important presentation, and the member himself knows how important it is to ensure that aspects of the Budget are reported as accurately as possible, therefore I’m sure the Government at some point would have an interest across the finance Ministers in who attends that lock-up. I would expect the Prime Minister might have a better answer than the one that was given. [Interruption]The Prime Minister is going to give another answer.

Yeah, look, Treasury sets the guidelines as to who is in the lock-up, but ultimately that’s a question that I would encourage you to ask the Minister of Finance.

Does this decision reflect a wider pattern for the Government in excluding Māori, unions, and community voices from their key policy decisions?

Sorry, I don’t understand the point of the question.

Do you want me to clarify, Mr Speaker?

Ask the question again.

OK. My supplementary question to the Prime Minister is: is the decision to lock out the NZCTU and unions reflecting a wider pattern of the Government to exclude Māori, unions, and community voices from their key policy decisions?

No. We want Māori and non-Māori in this country to do better. That’s why we are working incredibly hard to rebuild our economy, restore law and order, and deliver better public services.

Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of political parties being elected to Parliament and then not even participating in the Budget debate?

Well, no, that’s—look, I’ll tell you what. We’re getting quite a few of these sorts of questions that are interesting to the people who are asking them, and perhaps their supporters, but not conducive to the wellbeing of the House. [Interruption] No, sorry—you know that it’s inappropriate for any member to talk about the absence of any other member. Therefore, to ask the Prime Minister to breach the Standing Orders seems to me a pretty risky sort of thing to do.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Well, it had better be a new one.

It is a new one, because it requires me to correct what I’ve just heard said by the Speaker. Now, when someone alleges non-participation, it does not infer absence; just non-participation. Words matter.

You’re quite right, and I’m a very, very foolish man. I should have understood that right at the start. None the less, my ruling stands.

Was this decision made to avoid scrutiny of the Budget—that will disproportionately impact Māori, women, and low-income earners?

Well, I just think it’s a bit rich. The member hasn’t even seen the Budget, and there’s a leading assumption in the question. This is a Government that has picked up an economy that was wrecked by the Labour Government because of the illiteracy that sits on the other side. It created things—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 205/4—

Yeah, I know—I know what you’re going to say.

—is really clear. And with the greatest respect, sir, if it’s that obvious, the Prime Minister, or any Minister, should be made to stop the minute they breach that—not wait until the end of the answer to bring it up.

Within seconds of the Prime Minister going down that track, you were on your feet.

I’m good like that.

Yeah, well, some people would say you’re fast; others would have a different view.

Point of order, please, Mr Speaker. The question was in relevance to the decision to lock out the unions. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with seeing the Budget.

No, I think the best way to handle this would be for you to ask the question again.

Was the decision by the Government to lock out the unions made to avoid scrutiny of Budget decisions that will disproportionately impact Māori, women, and low-income earners?

I disagree with the characterisation of the question, because you’ve got an assumption that our Budget—our Budget is being designed to make sure that we lift all New Zealanders up, Māori or non-Māori. We want to make sure we grow this economy—that’s why it’s the growth Budget. That’s why you’ll see more investment in health, more investment in education, more investment in transport and infrastructure, and more investment in business growth. That helps Māori and non-Māori.

Is the Government reviewing the “scope, purpose, and nature of [the Waitangi Tribunal]” because they believe the Waitangi Tribunal is not fit to determine the meaning, relevance, and limits of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

There is a legitimate question that commentators on all sides with different views of the Waitangi Tribunal say is a legitimate question, which is: in a post - Treaty settlement world, what exactly is the role of the Waitangi Tribunal—what it is and what it isn’t, and what it will be going forward? That is a legitimate question, and that’s what Minister Potaka is leading.

Does the Prime Minister believe that the Crown alone should define the meaning, relevance, and limits of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and not the tribunal?

We’ve kicked off this piece of work, as I’ve said, to make sure that we have clarity about the role of the Waitangi Tribunal going forward. It was set up in a context pre - Treaty settlements. We’re now increasingly in a post - Treaty settlement world. There’s a legitimate question that commentators on all sides of this debate would ask.

6. on behalf of to the Minister of Customs: What recent funding announcements has she made?

On Saturday, I announced that this Government will be doing even more to strengthen our borders, prevent drug smuggling, and fight organised crime by investing $35 million over four years to bolster the New Zealand Customs Service’s efforts to stop illicit drugs from entering New Zealand. Customs already does an exceptional job protecting our borders, but this funding will boost their front-line capacity and deliver the tools they need to keep ahead of organised crime.

How will this additional investment be used?

This investment will provide Customs with up to 60 additional roles over the next four years, growing their capacity to gather intelligence and investigate and prosecute criminal actors. This additional capacity will support greater targeting of criminals involved in low quantity, high volume drug smuggling through channels like our mail and airports. It will also focus on improving supply chain security and targeting trusted insiders who use their links within the supply chain to help smuggle drugs. Customs will also extend its presence overseas where an additional liaison officer will support investigations and information sharing with our global enforcement and border partners such as the Australian Border Force, the US Department of Homeland Security, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

How does this investment support combating transnational and serious organised crime?

We know that organised crime runs on money and that these groups are targeting New Zealand and the Pacific because we have some of the world’s highest prices for illicit drugs like meth and cocaine. Put simply, the risk is worth the reward. We also know that organised crime groups are sophisticated and will exploit any vulnerability they can in the pursuit of profits. That makes it critical that Customs has the right tools and capacity to respond to the threat and sophistication of organised crime groups, making New Zealand a harder place for the business of organised crime to operate, striking at their core vulnerability: their need for profit.

That’s a very long answer.

What other updates does she have about work to combat transnational and serious organised crime?

At the end of April, the Ministerial Advisory Group for Transnational, Serious and Organised Crime delivered their second report to me. The report focused on the financing of organised crime, in particular the cash economy that criminals operate in. It highlights that by international standards, New Zealand has credible arrangements to control the flows of money for illicit purposes and that police do admirable work. However, the report also highlights that more needs to be done to keep pace with the threat posed in the modern world. My ministerial colleagues and I are considering the recommendations made by the advisory group. Effectively targeting the flow of money makes criminals’ lives harder, and we want to make New Zealand the hardest place for criminals to do business.

to the Minister of Health

How many health workers were part of the 17 funded health pay equity claims discontinued by his Government, and what was the total estimated cost of their outstanding claims?

I’m advised that Health New Zealand does not hold all details about pay equity claims under the previous law. Based on the limited information it does have, Health New Zealand estimates there were at least 66,000 employees covered by claims under the previous law. It would not be in the public interest to disclose estimates relating to the cost of any claims as none of them had been settled. As the member will be aware, our Government is taking a more robust approach to pay equity, ensuring outcomes are fair, backed by evidence, and deliver lasting value for both workers and taxpayers. The right to equal pay remains as it ever was; it is protected in law and will always be, under this Government.

Does he agree that the hospital nursing pay equity settlement significantly improved nurse retention in hospitals, and if so, what does he say to New Zealanders who will wait for care in the community now that his Government abolished the general practice nurses’ pay equity claim?

Well, as I said in my primary answer, the right to equal pay remains as it ever was. It is protected in law and will be under this Government. Those claims are able to be put forward for them to be negotiated and settled. It’s not for Ministers to make any determination as to whether those claims will be agreed. If there is a dispute, then the Employment Relations Authority can make those decisions.

What assurances did he seek that extinguishing the pay equity claim for palliative care nurses would not affect the sustainability of free hospice services, given chief executive Wayne Naylor’s warning that “Dying New Zealanders and their families will fund the difference between the pay for a nurse in hospital and a nurse at a hospice,”?

Well, as I said in my primary answer, the right to equal pay remains as it ever was. It is protected in law and will always be, under this Government. Under this law, those sectors are able to put forward pay equity claims, and then they will be a matter for negotiation between employees and employers. If they cannot agree, this would become a matter for the Employment Relations Authority.

What will be the impact on women giving birth of dismissing the pay equity claims of midwives who work in privately-run birthing facilities, given that those facilities have already had to reduce capacity due to staff shortages?

Well, as I said in my primary answer, the right to equal pay remains as it ever was. It is protected in law and will always be, under this Government, and all of those sectors are able to put forward a pay equity claim under the legislation. It is then a matter for negotiation between employees and employers, and if they cannot agree, it becomes a matter for the Employment Relations Authority.

How can equitable pay for over 200,000 health workers be achieved without comparing their roles to other industries when work in the health sector is overwhelmingly care-based, undervalued, and done by women?

Well, one of the issues with the previous legislation which we’ve amended is that the comparators that were being used, such as fishery officers being considered against care workers—fundamentally different roles. Ultimately, what the legislation is doing is clarifying what the comparators are, it is putting in place a clear process, and it is then a matter for negotiation. [Interruption]

Sorry, the Minister will stop. Yelling out like that is not going to change the answer, nor is it going to particularly change the outcome of the whole question time. So can we just have the Minister answering the question.

And then it is a matter for negotiation between employees and employers, and if they cannot agree, then it can become a matter for the Employment Relations Authority.

to the Minister of Transport

What announcements has he made regarding antisocial road users?

Excellent news: I announced on Sunday, alongside Minister Mark Mitchell, that the Government are turning up the heat on boy racers and fleeing drivers with a suite of stronger measures to deter antisocial driving. Penalties for antisocial or intimidating driving behaviour aren’t strong enough to deter this appalling behaviour. Police reporting shows some types of antisocial road events are increasing in frequency. Kiwis are sick of these idiot drivers putting everyone around them at risk, so we’re taking action.

What are the tougher penalties being proposed, and how will these benefit the people of Banks Peninsula?

Well, I’m aware from talking to the member that the boy racer issue in Banks Peninsula is a real one, and the new offences and penalties will include the establishment of a presumptive sentence of vehicle destruction or forfeiture for those that flee police, street racers, intimidating convoys, and owners who fail to identify offending drivers. We’re also going to give the police more powers to manage illegal vehicle gatherings by closing roads or public areas and increasing the infringement fee for making excessive noise from or within a vehicle from $50 to $300.

to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Yes.

Does he stand by his Government’s slashing of regulations for early childhood education (ECE) despite sector critics saying these cuts would pave the way for baby farming?

New Zealand has one of the most expensive early childcare costs in the world. Part of that is actually making sure we get rid of regulations that are pure red tape that don’t create any benefit. I think the Minister has done a good review of it, and I am pleased with the progress.

Does he agree with his Associate Minister of Education that “Burdensome rules and regulations put ECE out of reach for many”, or does he think early childhood education is out of reach because corporate profiteering means that New Zealanders have to fork out for the least affordable childhood in the developed world?

In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Is it responsible fiscal management for the Government to spend $2.7 billion every year on early childhood education without knowing how much of that goes into our children’s care versus inflated rent costs or profits that go offshore?

Well, I’m proud that the Minister has picked up an issue around early childcare costs, acknowledging that they are expensive. I am proud of our FamilyBoost policy, and I am proud of the work he’s done on regulation to make sure that he simplifies the system and takes cost and compliance out.

Is he comfortable with large corporate providers bringing in millions of dollars in profit while some centres don’t even have enough nappies or food?

The member is conflating a couple of thoughts in there, but, I mean, I’ll just say, in general, I am comfortable with the concept of profit. People take a risk, they put a business together, they hire people, they employ people, and they create value in our economy—that’s a good thing.

Who benefits from cutting regulations for early childhood education: our tamariki or the private companies that profit from providing our children with subpar care?

Actually, parents benefit, because the costs get lower because the regulation is smarter.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the regulatory changes agreed to by Cabinet will increase the focus on the health and safety of young people, will improve the information for parents so that it is easier for them to select quality, and will free up early childhood educators to focus on equipping the youngest New Zealanders to navigate the world of the 21st century, instead of filling out paperwork?

Absolutely, and I commend the Minister for his work.

to the Minister of Health

What recent data has he seen on childhood immunisations?

Recent data provided to me by Health New Zealand shows that for the first time in three years, more than 80 percent of children are now fully immunised by 24 months of age—the highest rate since 2022. Just seven months ago, 75.7 percent of two-year-olds were up to date with their immunisations. Now that figure has risen to 80.2 percent. News of a measles case in Auckland this week highlights the importance of our immunisation target and the work that our Government has under way to improve childhood immunisation rates. We still have a lot of work to do, but reaching 80.2 percent is a big step forward.

How is the Government’s childhood immunisation target tracking?

After years of decline, we’re now seeing the positive impact of dedicated efforts in general practices up and down the country, alongside coordinated and targeted community-led outreach and support. By bringing back health targets, investing in community-based services, and growing our front-line workforce, our Government has enabled the health system to better protect our most vulnerable. Validated quarterly figures show an improvement for 24-month coverage, from the first quarter of 2024-25, from 75.7 percent to 77 percent in the second quarter of 2024-25. We’re taking a step in the right direction and will remain focused on meeting our target of 95 percent by 2030.

What regions have seen the greatest improvement in childhood immunisation rates?

Well, we are seeing some excellent improvements across the country, and I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the work under way. In Tairāwhiti, coverage at 24 months is up 12.7 percent, compared to the previous quarter. The West Coast also saw a 12.7 percent increase. Taranaki is up 5.4 percent, and Auckland is also up by 4.5 percent. These improvements are promising and show that our targeted approach, backed by a record investment of $16.68 billion investment in health, across three Budgets, is delivering tangible results.

How important are childhood immunisations?

Our Government is committed to ensuring every child gets the best start in life—that’s why immunisations are a priority for us. This achievement comes as New Zealand confirmed a new case of measles in Auckland this week, underscoring the urgent need to protect both children and communities from vaccine-preventable diseases. It serves as a timely reminder that measles spreads quickly and can be dangerous, especially for young children. Each child deserves protection from serious illness, and that protection starts with immunisation.

to the Minister of Education

When was she first made aware of the Government’s changes to pay equity legislation, and what advice did she receive regarding its impact on the education profession, if any?

I became aware of potential legislative work in this area through a Cabinet strategy meeting in December 2024. I received papers regarding the nature and substance of the subsequent proposal in March 2025. In relation to the second part of the question, the Ministry of Education provided an update to me in early May on what this may mean for current claims relevant to the education portfolio.

What was the Minister told about the impact of the pay equity changes on the education profession—in particular, for the nearly 30,000 secondary school teachers who will no longer be eligible for pay equity?

The advice from the Ministry of Education said that they expect—well, they gave me advice on the claims that wouldn’t be carried ahead, and they said in their advice to me that they expected that those claims would be relodged and worked through.

Was she aware that changes to the pay equity threshold would lock out secondary school teachers from future claims?

I’m not going to comment on what may or may not become of claims that were current, before. When they are relodged, they will be according to the new things that have been put in place.

Has the ministry decided to disestablish its pay equity team?

Not that I’m aware.

If there is no pay equity team at the ministry, how can she claim to be committed to pay equity?

Point of order.

I think I—yeah, OK. Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Well, Mr Speaker, I’m sure you’ve got it, but in the last question she asked as to whether it’s been disestablished. The answer was not in the affirmative, and so she went straight on and ignored the question that she just asked and the answer that was given to her.

Asking if something has happened and what that would lead to is entirely legitimate, and the Minister is more than capable of being able to address the question as it is asked.

The Minister is, but I was about to intervene on the question because I think it was putting forward a supposition that had been reasonably dealt with before that. The member might like to reword the question.

If the pay equity team were to be disestablished, how can she claim to be committed to pay equity?

Mr Speaker, it’s a hypothetical. It’s a matter for the Secretary of Education because it’s operational.

How does throwing nearly 30,000 secondary school teachers under the bus to pay for her Government’s Budget ensure they will be equally valued—

No, no—stop. Sorry, start again. I’ve just ruled on that right at the start of question time, so please just ask a straight question without all the add-ins and assumptions that might dress it up a little bit.

How will 30,000 secondary school teachers being unable to make a pay equity claim because they do not meet the new threshold ensure that they’ll be equally valued and compensated?

Well, we’re about to go into pay negotiations, which isn’t something I’m going to comment on. But, throughout my tenure as a Minister, we’ve been making sure that we are providing our teachers with the best professional learning and development, the best resources, and there is going to be more coming in the current Budget because we value their contributions hugely. There are, of course, pay negotiations to be gone through as well, and teachers and the sector are able to put in future claims if they meet the threshold.

to the Minister of Education

What recent announcement has she made about accelerating maths achievement in New Zealand?

We are investing $100 million into ensuring young learners who are falling behind in maths get the support that they need. We’ve known for some time that maths achievement in New Zealand isn’t where it should be. In 2021, the New Zealand Principals’ Federation said alarm bells should be ringing when it came to maths achievement. Through Budget 2025, we’ve delivered phase two of our Make it Count action plan to turn around and lift maths achievement in New Zealand.

What has she announced for years 0 to 2?

From next year, we’ll be introducing a maths check in students’ first two years of school. Similar to the phonics check for literacy, the maths check will identify students with additional maths need really early so that targeted support can be provided right at the start of a child’s learning journey. Professional learning and development and specialist support will be available to teachers to ensure the checks are used effectively. For the first time, we will be getting consistent, quality nationwide data that will drive investment decisions to ensure we are investing to raise achievement.

What has she announced for years 0 to 6?

Mr Speaker, $56 million will be used to fund the equivalent of 143 new full-time maths intervention teachers for young people in years 0 to 6. These teachers will be trained to work with students in small groups who need extra support, and will be supplied with maths resources to help implement evidence-based approaches to accelerate learning. This additional staffing is the same support we’ve put in place for structured literacy approaches. The initiative is about building strong foundations so that students are confident and capable in maths from the start of school.

What has she announced for years 7 and 8?

The remaining $40 million will be expanding our targeted small-group maths tutoring and online tutoring tools for up to 34,000 year 7 and 8 students from term 1 next year. This will ensure students get the foundational numeracy level that they need to be confident in NCEA and life beyond school. All of these initiatives will be introduced in te reo Māori for students who are learning in a bilingual unit or kura kaupapa, so that they all have access to the same resources and support. The system-wide boost in maths education is a game-changer and will raise achievement in schools across the country.

Those members who need to go off to other commitments should do so quietly.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. “Soul destroying” is how one survivor responded to the Government’s shameful redress announcement on Friday. The hundreds of thousands of people who survived abuse in care have a right to feel disappointment and hurt due to this announcement. The final report from the royal commission was clear: survivors wanted an independent redress system. Funnelling more money into systems that have harmed them in the past is, without question, the wrong call.

We offered to take politics off the table and to work with the Government to make sure we lived up to the words in our formal apologies last year, but the Government chose not to take up this offer. We are asking them to reconsider this. We are asking them to reconsider the poor decision they have made on redress and to listen to the voices of survivors. Survivors shouldn’t still have to be fighting for this. Many are tired of fighting. For too long, survivors have fought to have their voices heard, and it’s a disgrace that, after the formal apologies were made, they are still fighting. This is yet another injustice that survivors of abuse in care are having to deal with.

Last year, the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, said in the Crown apology, “I want to assure you … it is our intention to have a new single redress system operating next year.” During that speech, Mr Luxon also acknowledged that “Many of you, understandably, do not want to engage with the current redress system. Some parts of it are 20 years old and it can take up to five years for your claims to be addressed.”

The royal commission gave clear—very clear—guidance to the Government that survivors must be involved in designing and implementing this redress system. Survivors have spent decades fighting to be heard. The royal commission of inquiry gave them an opportunity to share their often harrowing stories. It also gave them hope that their immense suffering, pain, and trauma would be acknowledged, not only financially but also through improved access to services and proper apologies. Now, yet again, they feel ignored and silenced—once again harmed by the very State that hurt them so much when they were supposed to be cared for.

What this Government has delivered: instead, the Government have delivered nothing of what they promised—far from what survivors wanted. What the final royal commission report recommended, as survivor Keith Wiffin has put, “is another backwards step after we were given the opportunity to do something, you know, really good and make a difference. That has been ripped away from us.”

The royal commission was very clear: survivors needed to be involved in designing and implementing a new, independent system for redress. The Government has also completely ignored that. Further, survivors of abuse while in the care of faith-based institutions have been excluded and are not eligible to seek redress under the current system. This is contrary to the royal commission’s recommendation that the redress scheme is accessible to all survivors in State and faith-based care.

The reactions to the announcement came through on Friday, from Tu Chapman describing it as “a kick in the guts”, many saying they are hugely disappointed, another saying “a slap in the face”—disappointed because they had so much hope in the Government’s words that were delivered in the formal apology, which said that they would set up a new redress system. And to have waited all that time from the apology until Friday only to be told that that was not the case and that the Government was going to simply be putting more money into the system, which they have so many issues and grievances with, was for them, in their words, “heartbreaking”.

I have many questions for the Minister. In particular, I want to know how it is that the Minister stood at the announcement and said that she had consulted survivors, that she had worked with survivors in the high-level design group, that she was clear with them that their proposal was too unique and too ambitious, and that she had said that to them and made that clear to them, because that’s not what I understand. Those who are involved with that understood from any meetings that they had with the Minister, because, if that was so clear, then why did they hold out so much hope that the Government, this year, would announce a new redress system? If it was that clear, last year, when those conversations were apparently had, then why were they so disappointed in the Minister’s announcement on Friday?

I want to know what advice the Minister received about establishing an independent redress system. What advice did she receive? When did she receive that advice? What consultation did she do with survivors around the advice that she had received on setting up an independent redress system? When she said that the high-level design group’s report, which she had for well over a year, from the royal commission’s 2021 report, was clear on what redress was required, how can she say that an independent redress system is too difficult and too time consuming to establish? To be clear, the Government has had more time since the apology to do this work.

When did the Minister cut survivors out of the process for the design of what was announced on Friday, and why did the Minister do that? When the royal commission and the high-level design group recommended that a foundation of any redress system had to be the active involvement of survivors all along, why did the Minister not do that? When will the Minister release the high-level design group’s proposal, Pūtahi te mauri, he wai ora e, and what advice did she receive and analysis regarding the high-level design group’s proposal, Pūtahi te mauri, he wai ora e, including aspects of it that can be implemented?

In the final minute that I have, I want to reiterate the messages that I, again, want to repeat: the call from survivors. We ask the Government to reconsider their decision. We need to work closely with survivors. It’s their voices that matter most on this. We said we’d do right by them, and this announcement is doing wrong. We must listen to their voices and to their experiences of distrust with the current system. This has been, in my view, one of the most harrowing issues to come to this House, and it deserves the House’s full attention and this Government’s proper consideration of truly considering the recommendations from the royal commission to redress those wrongs of the past. And so those are my challenges and questions to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to start my contribution the same way I started my announcement on Friday around the Government’s response to the redress scheme. At the time, I said to the survivors who were listening in that I acknowledge them, their families, and their supporters. I said that waiting had not been easy. I said that the decisions that we were sharing on the day would come with mixed emotions. I wanted to reiterate that and also to thank them for all of the time that they had spent on the royal commission, many of them sharing their stories and many of them meeting with me and other Ministers along the way to share their stories and their views.

The announcement on Friday was significant; let’s start with that. More than three-quarters of a billion dollars—$774 million as a pre-Budget announcement; the single largest investment into redress in this country’s history. Not only was there the redress part of that announcement but there was also a very significant investment into futureproofing the care system, making sure that we are reducing the numbers of young people and vulnerable people going into care and, when they are in care, making sure that those situations that they’re in—the care agencies—are strengthened and that they have the ability to let agencies know when things are not going well. So there was a range of announcements there as well, which I’d like to acknowledge.

When I announced this on Friday, I started by saying that nothing that this Government would do would take away the pain from what has happened in the past, and we’ve always acknowledged that. We also acknowledged that there would be many survivors—it was the same with Lake Alice—who would not feel that what we were announcing met their expectations. We’ve always acknowledged that as well. But what we have wanted to do with this announcement was to provide clarity, certainty, and surety to survivors that we could get something up and running as quickly as we could to provide them with those things.

The advice that I had received around creating something new and complex—it would have taken an extraordinarily long period of time and would have been very expensive on the one hand. The Government and Cabinet had to make a call on whether or not we went with something like that—highly complex, very expensive, would take a long time, and may not get us the outcomes that we expect. I think we all know what happens when Governments try to create giant, complex new things; it doesn’t always go as planned. The other option in front of us was: here are some things that we can do now in moving the system towards that end goal. It may well be that in the future, we move to an independent system, but here is what we can do now, we can do quickly, we can get in place so that we can prioritise that certainty and surety for survivors and also make those additional top-up payments and create equity across the system, which I’ll talk about in a moment.

Those were the decisions that were put in front of Cabinet. We had to make a decision in the best interests of survivors when it came to clarity and certainty and surety about what we could deliver to them. Now, we looked at what the royal commission had said in their recommendations, and it was clear that we needed to have something that felt and looked like one system. What we have now is multiple payment frameworks across multiple agencies with multiple front door entries and multiple people that survivors must deal with along the way. That is not a good system. It is a system that’s been in place for 20 years. We know that that causes frustration and that it’s not equitable because we know that certain agencies have got different claims payment frameworks that they use, causing inequities across the system.

What we saw from the royal commission is we needed to move away from that. The first step of moving towards something in the future that may well be an independent state is that we had to get something that looked and felt like one single entity, so when a survivor was entering that system there was one front door, there was one person to deal with, there was one common payment framework, and one person that survivor would deal with for all of their records. What we could do quickly to give certainty and surety for survivors was to have this common payment framework across the agencies, to have one person they dealt with, one entry, so it feels like when a survivor is entering the system that it is one single entity. That was the intention and the driver behind much of what the royal commission said, and we acknowledged that. That’s what we can do now, and we know we can do it well and we can do it quickly.

That was the decision that we had. We’ve got, currently, a very complex system. The decision was to create another very complex, large bureaucratic system and then somehow merge these two very large, complex systems together. We’ve got to remember that other countries who have been dealing with this are not in the same situation as we are. They have not had a system that has been running for 20 years like we have. Many of them—in fact almost all of them—are starting from a blank slate, from scratch, and creating something new. We are in a very different position where we have a very complex evolved system that we need to get into good shape.

It’s not to say—and I said this on the day, that it may well be in the future that we move to an independent state. That will take some time and some cost. What we are doing now is moving in that direction. We announced that the other day and we know that we’ve already had a number of people who have come into the system apply for their top-ups.

In saying that, I think it’s important to note the announcement on the day was also around making sure that we are going back over the historic claims, creating that consistency across the board to make sure that the payments that were paid out under health, for example, are equivalent to those paid under the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). That was really important to do because we know that there are some agencies who haven’t been paying as much over time because the frameworks have been different. That will be equalised and then all of those people are eligible to apply for a top-up of another 50 percent on top. Moving forward, for claimants who come into the system, the average payment will climb by 50 percent. That, as I said earlier, was the single biggest investment in this system.

What we are trying to do is create that certainty and surety today. Moving along, what I see is a continuum. In 2027, we’ll have a review to make sure that we are looking at the number of claimants coming forward. It’s really hard to pick the numbers because even the royal commission said it could be anywhere between 30,000 and 250,000. We’ll look at the numbers—which, by the way, in this announcement, we are moving to be able to process more claims every year—and we’ll take another look in 2027 to see if we need more resource. There may be future Budget-bid top-ups, and there may well be decisions made in the future once we’ve got more of a single entity in place that we cannot then take what will be a far less and complex system and shift it into something that is more independent. But that is what we are able to do now and able to do well.

I do want to respond to the previous speaker, Willow-Jean Prime, because I think it’s important to note that the previous Government received the royal commission redress interim report in December 2021. They had two years to implement a redress entity if they thought that it was important, but they didn’t. In December 2022, they implemented a rapid claims process in MSD, building on the very system they are now criticising us for strengthening and investing in. I’m advised they did this without consultation with survivors. Then, three months before the last election, they established a redress design group who heroically delivered their report in five months.

So it is all very rich for the member to stand up and say that the current system is not appropriate when the previous Government did exactly the same thing after receiving the royal commission design report, which stated exactly the things they’re talking about today. They had time, if they wanted to, to do something. They chose to do absolutely nothing. Then they chose to put a design group in place to kick the can down the road. We are investing $774 million. We are creating certainty and surety for survivors, which is far, far more than the previous Government ever did.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today with a heavy heart to address an issue that has long been ignored, is long overdue, and that continues to fail the very people who deserve the most justice: the survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care.

On Friday, 9 May, the Government made an announcement regarding the redress system for survivors of abuse in State care. They allocated $774 million in Budget 2025 for abuse in care redress claims, a sum that survivors had hoped would bring them justice and healing. Unfortunately, this announcement is another letdown and is deeply disappointing for survivors. I’ve been listening to survivors all weekend. They say they are angry. They say they are sad—and that they are strong. There is a class action that has been started, around the Government’s announcement, that shows survivors will continue to fight for justice. They shouldn’t have to, but they will not stop.

The Government’s response to the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care fails to address key recommendations. These recommendations were worked on for years, by experts and survivors, to ensure that the Crown is accountable for the abuse to children that occurred on its watch and to ensure that no children are ever abused in care again, something that happens every day in our country—every day. Key recommendations, including the creation of an independent survivor-led redress system, continue to exclude faith-based institutions from the redress process. It’s clear to everyone, except the Government, that this is not what survivors were promised, nor is it what they deserve.

The Prime Minister’s words from his apology speech on 12 November 2024—he assured survivors that “it is our intention to have a new single redress system operating next year.” The Government’s announcement is a continuation of the same broken system, one that failed survivors in the first place. There is no independent survivor-led redress system, as promised. Survivors continue to be left in a system governed by the very people and institutions that caused them harm. Of the 138 recommendations made, 105 directly relate to the Government. Of these, only twelve—12—were fully accepted, and we’re left with a redress process that still fails to include faith-based institutions, institutions that horrifically played a major role in the abuse survivors, children, endured. This is not progress. This is deeply unjust.

Seven hundred and seventy-four million dollars is woefully insignificant. It fails to meet the scale of harm done to these survivors, these children, and is well below the international standards for compensation. It is tokenistic, it is disrespectful, and it is not enough to make up for the trauma and suffering that these survivors experienced and the generational trauma that continues today. In the words of Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll, the co-chair of the redress design group, “The payments processed are still … [considered] lower than other jurisdictions”. Ihorangi Reweti-Peters says the Government’s response is “another broken promise by this Government”. Murray Heasley of the network of survivors of faith-based abuse stated that faith-based survivors feel they have not been listened to at all and are being thrown back on the tender mercies of the very institutions that abused them in the first place. Keith Wiffin expressed that Friday’s announcement was topping up an existing rotten process. Karl Tauri, spokesperson for NZCAST, New Zealand’s largest survivor-led rōpū, said, “We exist because the system that was supposed to protect us failed us, and it’s still failing us.”

I call on the Government to return to the table and listen to survivors, and I call on my fellow members of the House to stand with me today in ensuring that the Government’s response is not the final word on this matter.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very sensitive topic for many, and if we look at the timeline of the actual inquiry into the abuse in State care, it’s quite horrific how long it’s actually taken to get to this point for survivors of abuse in care.

So if we look when this first began, when we started the inquiry in February 2018, it then took a few years for us to get to the stage where the redress report and recommendations were ready. The previous Government received that redress report and recommendations in December 2021. Then fast forward two years into 2024; the report was finally tabled in this House. So the time frame from when the report and recommendations were received in December 2021 to the time it was even tabled in Parliament was quite distressing for survivors in itself, because knowing that those recommendations were ready, and knowing that the previous Government had an inkling of what was required by survivors for two years before this report was even tabled—you would have thought, even though it wasn’t tabled publicly in those two years, that the previous Government would have been making plans in the background of what they were actually going to do in response, once this was tabled. But unfortunately, the only response that happened, from what I can tell, is that rapid claims were looked into through the Ministry of Social Development—the current system that survivors were saying, very loud and clear, was not a system that they were happy with.

So fast forward to now, when, as a Government, we are very committed to victims of crimes, of sexual harm and violence; we want to make sure that we get this right for survivors in care. My response to this is: looking at the $774 million investment into the redress system, and also strengthening the care-based system to prevent, identify, and respond to abuse in the future, is a good start. Because at least we’ve laid out, in black and white, in a short time frame, what we are actually going to do not only for survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care in the past but what we’re going to do in the future to prevent them from happening again. Because to be perfectly honest, compensation is not just about money. Redress is not just about money. It’s also about knowing that our voices are being heard, that the hurt and harm that is being brought to this House and put in black and white in a report of what has happened, that their voice mattered and counted towards making sure that Governments in the future, and agencies in the future, are doing everything they possibly can to prevent that harm from happening again, which is what this Government has made a commitment to doing.

We are in the process of implementing a seamless service, so that survivors with claims with multiple agencies will now have the ability to have those claims managed by one point of contact. Now, that is not a separate system in itself, but quite frankly, I would rather that all of that $774 million be invested into the survivors than building up a new system that may take years when these survivors have waited long enough to have their claims addressed. We may not even know if creating a new system will make that better in the future. This is not saying that we can’t do this in the future, but just making sure that we address this as quickly as possible, allow claimants to make their claims, allow claimants that have previously made claims to have top-ups as quickly as possible, so that we’re not dragging them through what’s next for more years to come. Because that is actually worse than doing something right now, and we need to make sure that we are doing something now, that we are showing our commitment, and that moving forward, we are committing to make sure that this kind of horror does not continue into the future. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is, I think, timely to recognise, as the Minister reflected, that this is a difficult and troubling process that we have to work through, and it is a process that has sat around for a long time to seek resolution. Will there be a perfect answer? Will there be the ability to rectify the harm that was done? I would suggest not.

We have a very difficult task ahead. The perfect solution does not exist because every single individual that has been harmed, that has been damaged, has their own individual story, their own individual expectations. Our job in this House and in this Government is to try and wade through with a clarity that will provide some direction, some trajectory under which we can seek to diminish the challenges that are being faced by these individuals.

I think it is really important that we do not use this as a political football to kick around this House, using those very voices that we need to be listening to, and we actually look at how we can make these decisions reflective of the voices that you’re hearing and how we can continue to develop a process. As the Minister has outlined, we are not at an end point; we are on a journey. But what this Government had to do was make some decisions about a pathway forward. They had been waiting long enough. Is it the perfect solution? We will not know, because every single person, as I said, has their own expectations and their own harms to heal.

You know we could do better.

But what we do know—rather than heckling in this House—is that we have invested $774 million into a process, into redress, into something that is tangible that we can say there are some actions under way. It is tragic that we are not revisiting this message over and over again—that we are on a pathway. This is a solution that we will work on, that we will develop.

But this end point, this new redress system—as we’ve said repeatedly in this House, there is no perfect system. We could have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to develop this new redress system, but what we do have is something that we can hear what have been the issues and what have been the frustrations. The single point of entry, the time it’s taken to be processed—all of those things have been taken into account as we have discussed this issue. Therefore, we are trying to fix those things to ensure that this money is directed where it needs, that we are increasing the average payments, and that we are topping up payments to survivors so there is an equity. We are providing higher payments for those where there has been the highest level of egregious harm. We are increasing the capacity to process those claims—as I’ve said, a single point of entry into the system. And we have established an independent review and access to support.

These are not small things. This has been an incredibly tough decision. We cannot risk harming those who are seeking support and guidance by making this all about what is missed out and not about what is being delivered. We will continue to listen. I would say really categorically, as I have stood beside the Minister, talking to these survivors about their journeys and their stories, every single story is individual and every single story has been listened to. Can we meet everybody’s expectations? Unfortunately not. But what we can do, instead of sitting in a paralysis of the perfect solution, is not let that perfect be the enemy of the good. We have to make sure that we do something. That is the discussion that we should be having.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. When I first spoke on this take [subject] the gallery was full. Apart from a number of things that I said, I do remember saying this, and I know that it landed not only with the House but particularly with the gallery—I said, “Because we apologise here in the House does not mean that you have to be ready to forgive us.” That point is still so real in my mind, in my heart, and I want to land it here again and ask all of us, particularly the Government, to consider this.

The best definition that I’ve ever heard of “forgiveness”, by the way, is this: to give up your right to resent. The definition: to give up your right to resent. There is not a single thing in the announcement that says to me and to the many that we know that are survivors of this that we would consider as a reason to give up their right to resent. In fact, what it does say is “continue to hold the resentment until the forgiveness is clear and shown in the announcement, in anything that this Government will do”. I want to make those points as I open up my discussion, to say this is a violent regime of disrespect against survivors.

When I was listening to some of the discussion earlier, the word “investment”—$744 million of “investment”—like we’re doing you a favour. It’s such a strange word to use—the word “investment”—when this is about harm and trauma that has been caused to so many. “Well, here’s a $30k payout” and use it as an investment discussion—I don’t understand that, and I find it strange and offensive, actually. Let’s say that—I’ll repeat it: $744 million split across 200,000 survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care equates to only $30,000 each. That’s your total compensation for State-sanctioned abuse—“Sorry about it”—that has completely derailed the lives of survivors and, in actual fact, derailed the lives of generations following.

That inquiry was meant to be a turning point of transformational change, but this coalition Government has chosen to continue the legacy of abuse. To say, as well—I was listening to it again—to not turn this into a “political football”; let me say that there are many, many a whānau and family member that are saying, “Get into that House and make this discussion.” Whether it’s a political football—I mean, I don’t even understand that idea. Everything that we do in this House and say in this House has to carry some power and importance so that our family do go, “Yeah, Meno, you’re saying what we need you to say, so don’t back off saying it, whether it’s a political point or not: make our voice heard in this House.” That is why I’m standing to talk to this issue today.

I want to mihi to Willow for actually raising it in this way, to bring another opportunity to call, to change the minds of Government, to go from your head to your heart, and understand what this means for family and whānau. This Government has offered band-aids for bullet wounds, and the Minister should be ashamed—deeply ashamed—just as every other complicit member of Parliament in the coalition Government should be, too. To reject the findings—let me just say that again: to reject the findings of the commission—is to reject the truth.

Te Pāti Māori remains unwavering in its commitment to justice. We will continue to fight this, we will continue to name it, and we will continue to reject it and to say the names and bring the voices of our whānau to the House. Good intentions—and I heard that phrase earlier, too—are simply not enough. It is the road to future harm and hell. We stand, as Te Pāti Māori, and reject the ongoing position and the ongoing harm of abuse in care. Tēnā koe.

Thank you. I’m really concerned about what we are talking about today because I think it shows that the Government is ignoring the lessons learnt from the people who are affected by this, who went before a royal commission and told their stories. That is of deep concern; when a Government this new has forgotten how to listen, has forgotten to connect with the very people that the Government—and we are the Government that was responsible for State care—caused that harm. It has immediately turned around and done something that is offensive to those people—immediately. It’s only 18 months in, and this is where it’s at, at this incredibly insensitive level.

What people said to that inquiry was that they had absolutely no faith in the current system. They said it wasn’t independent and it wasn’t informed by the trauma that they’d been through. It did things like delayed matters, it belittled them and minimised what was going on. We had an issue come up last year where we were talking about the role of the State when there was a prosecution on issues of sexual abuse and this kind of violence, and how the Crown prosecutor had looked at that situation, the Solicitor-General, and tried to minimise what had happened; denied claims because that’s what they thought their job was as Solicitor-General.

That is what happens when you don’t have anyone independent in a role. When you confuse your role, that is what happens, and it caused so much harm to so many people. We had a royal commission that did incredibly good work and it came out with a finding. It said that what had to replace the system was a survivor-led, survivor-designed redress system. Now, I have heard the Minister talk about how—today, she said: “we were trying to create one single entity system and that was too difficult in the time frame.” I’ve heard another Minister say, “We can’t wait for the perfect system.” I don’t think many survivors in this country expect the perfect system. I think they expect a half-decent system, a system that doesn’t re-traumatise them, and it’s our job—because we lead this country—to do a better job of giving them what they need. Because we, the State, hurt these people and we did despicable things. This is not something that we can take lightly. This is what we’re here to do—to lead.

So I reject the characterisation of this debate and the objection of the Opposition to what has been announced as somehow “looking for a perfect solution”. I reject that. It is really important that we face this practically. Practically, we needed a new system, and the reality is that this Government is not going to give a new system—that actually helps people and doesn’t harm them—to the survivors of this terrible atrocity. That’s what it is: it’s an atrocity. We need a system that doesn’t traumatise people.

Now, I went to see something recently; it was the Pohutukawa Clinic. It’s a clinic that deals with people who have been raped, basically, and sexually abused. And one of the doctors said to me, “The thing about this system is people come out a little bit healed.” That is the measure that we should be looking at. We should be trying to create a system that brings about a little bit of healing for people we have seriously harmed.

I just wanted to end with a statement that I read from a person reacting to the coverage on this. It was a person in a Newsroom article. He said: “Torture and abuse including being repeatedly abused by the legal system and a resultant lifetime of despair is worth $30,000!”—actually, that’s a very few of the claimants, they mainly would get three—“I might be a little naïve although I don’t believe so but put this up against a $2.9 billion tax break for landlords and it doesn’t appear that this government has any moral compass.” Thank you.

I want to start, as I did on the day of the Crown apology, by acknowledging the survivors. In particular, I want to acknowledge that far too many were deaf and disabled New Zealanders who were abused in care.

I want to put very carefully on the record the enormous time and energy that the Minister in charge of the Government response, the Hon Erica Stanford, has put into this. For the comments from the other side to suggest that she hasn’t wholeheartedly listened to survivors, met with them, and heard their views, and, although many of those views differed, to then try to find a way through—it will never satisfy everybody’s concerns, but it satisfied enough for us to at least make a start in righting the wrongs. So I do want to acknowledge the Hon Erica Stanford.

As many members across this House have done, those of us who have met with survivors and listened to them are only too acutely aware that no amount of redress will take away the trauma that was inflicted upon them. So it is in that context that navigating a way through, where one of the very common threads that survivors have said is that they are sick of waiting—and that was a big consideration in the Government working out this completely new redress system that actually wouldn’t have got any redress out the door in the short term. The challenge of that was actually too great for us to accept, and so that’s why, by listening to the survivors and by listening to the things that they prioritised in terms of making it simpler, making it easier, and giving them one point of contact, some of the key parts in the improvements that have been made have been absolutely in response to the feedback they gave.

Is it perfect? It never will be. There will never be a perfect solution to this. But, actually, members on the opposite side of the Chamber can’t just sit there and say that this is about the Government’s intentions. We’ve actually announced a significant way forward, which is a start, and no amount of money—no amount of money—will ever take away what has happened to a group of New Zealanders that it should never ever have happened to.

Instead, we need to focus on practical things that will mean that we can make progress in redress, and I want to say that the team at the Ministry of Social Development who have dealt with claims already—actually, with the announcement on Friday, as of 2 p.m. yesterday, they have had almost 350 top-up applications. That is delivering for survivors. As I’ve said, it may not be perfect, but it is a very important start in improving what we have.

I do want to also put on record that the team that I have met who are the ones who are at the end of the phone and who are that one point of contact, are an extraordinary group of New Zealanders and public servants who get up every day to provide support and assistance to survivors of State care. I want to put on record my thanks to them.

There is more work to do—significantly so—and the Minister outlined that. I also want to make clear, as she asked me to pass on, that we still are yet to make decisions about those who were abused in faith-based environments.

This is an enormous piece of work. It won’t be just our Government but Governments of the future, and I think we should focus on the survivors, not on politics.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. For us on this side of the House, it is about the survivors that we stand today. It is about the survivors that my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime put in a request for a debate, because the survivors have been asking us, have been pleading with us to actually speak up and speak out in this House around what we can be doing to do what is right—what is right. It’s not easy doing what is right. It is not cheap, doing what is right. But to honour—to help in the restoration of mana for so many survivors, it is about doing the right thing. That is why we on this side of the House stand. That is why we on this side of the House are doing our best to be a voice and to push Government, not—well, it is to be political; it is to be political for the right decisions to be made.

When, just under a year ago, the royal commission report was presented in this House, the byline of it was “Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light”—from darkness to light. That is the challenge we are wanting to continue to debate in this House. But as we move forward, how do we move from that darkness into that light? It is about an apology but it is also about us as the State; us making bold, courageous, and difficult decisions to restore mana for those who it was lost, often, for many of them many, many years ago, due to what we as a State, we as the church, have done.

It was a couple of weeks ago that I turned on Whakaata Māori and I saw the documentary The Stolen Children of Aotearoa. For anyone who hasn’t seen that documentary, which follows a number of survivors, I challenge you to watch it. It is not easy to watch, but it creates more of the story, it creates a depth to the story for the understanding of us not only as a Parliament but for us as a community, to look at what we can be doing because of what we did do in terms of how we ignored and how we swept this under the carpet for so, so long.

I want to challenge the Government and I want to challenge the Prime Minister, directly, in my contribution this afternoon, as he stood in this House with a full gallery—with this Parliament—full of survivors who heard him apologise last year. I want to quote him, because he said, “I know that financial redress is important to many of you, and no amount of money will ever make up for what you have endured”, and then he went on to say that “Many of you, understandably, do not want to engage with the current redress system.” He said that, the Prime Minister. He acknowledged it. He also committed to this year, in 2025, establishing a new single redress system that will be operating in the year to come. Well, we’re in that year, and then, last Friday, survivors were handed what the Government handed them, and it’s not OK.

We look at what the royal commission recommended, as well. They also talked very clearly about the fact that survivors are looking for and needing a system that is designed specifically for them to be independent, for the redress to be meaningful. Why would you go back to your oppressor, with your hands out asking for some crumbs? Why would there not be a separate system set in place?

Finally, I just want to reflect on the survivors. As I watched that documentary, we heard people speak who were in Epuni Boy’s Home, we heard people speak who were in other spaces like Kimberley and Lake Alice. Those were institutions that this Parliament ratified and supported. We need to come back to the survivors, we need to come back to those places that this system allowed to establish and say “No more.” We need to look forward, we need a separate system, and we need the Government to do what they said they were going to do and create a new system.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in this urgent debate this afternoon, and I want to take the opportunity at the outset to acknowledge again, because I’ve had the opportunity to speak on this topic before, the survivors and the hurt and the pain that they have experienced, and their justifiable desire to see this appropriately acknowledged by this House. Money doesn’t solve all things, but certainly it is an important part of the redress process, and this Government has committed the single biggest investment, in this pre-Budget announcement recently given, for redress in this country’s history—that is the single biggest investment for redress in this country’s history, at $774 million.

I note the concern that is being addressed and has been raised in response to this urgent debate, which is the concern that there isn’t an independent organisation that’s responsible for that redress system and the redress payments, but the Government was faced with a difficult choice. Does the Government spend more time and money on setting up a new scheme, or does it provide more to survivors now through the current redress process? The decision of the Government was to ensure that as much of that $774 million that is going to go towards redress would go directly towards those affected rather than spending that additional money and time on setting up an independent process.

Now, I do note that the survivors’ concerns were carefully taken into consideration, that trust and confidence in redress is certainly integral to ensuring a positive claim resolution, and concerns of the survivors that the State claims process would be managed by the same institutions that were responsible or had agreed care responsibility for survivors, which the royal commission found had contributed to low trust regarding the integrity of claims outcomes. To address that concern, there will be a process for an independent review of claims if survivors are unhappy with the decision and the redress payment that is being offered. So that is an important component of this, to ensure there is an additional mechanism to address concerns, if survivors have those, about the way that the system is interacting with them.

I would note that this $774 million package includes increasing the average redress payments for new claims from $19,180 to $30,000, so that’s a significant increase in the average redress payment for new claims that this package enables. That is part of making sure that this additional money can go to survivors through this. It’s also providing for higher payments for the survivors who experienced the most egregious abuse, it’s providing top-up payments of 50 percent to survivors who have already settled claims to ensure consistency with increased payments for new claims, and it is introducing a common payments framework so that survivors receive the same financial redress for similar experiences of abuse regardless of where in State care that abuse occurred.

It is also increasing the system capacity to process claims, from 1,350 to 2,150 per year, from 2027, to reduce wait times for current claimants, because the Government recognises that time is moving and the Government wishes the time to move quickly to get those payments to survivors. It’s also implementing a seamless service so that survivors with claims with multiple agencies have those claims managed by one point of contact, and it’s introducing a single entry point for survivors wanting to register new claims, as well as what I mentioned before: introducing an independent review. An independent review is important for people who are unhappy with their redress offer. There’s also funding for redress agencies to provide survivors with access supports and services.

I would also note that a real concern to survivors is around ensuring that there’s a prevention, identification, and response to any abuse in the future, to try to stop this from happening again. So this package also includes investments in the wider care system over the next four years, including such things as $71.5 million to build a capable and safe care workforce for children and vulnerable adults, and over $50 million to make mental health inpatient units safer and improve privacy and dignity for patients. There’s more, but I’ve run out of time—but this is a very good package.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported by select committees.

There are four hours and 51 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has 59 minutes, New Zealand Labour has one hour and 40 minutes, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 49 minutes, ACT New Zealand has 47 minutes, New Zealand First has 31 minutes, and Te Pāti Māori has 20 minutes.

The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister for Children, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, the Minister of Police, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister of Conservation, the Minister for Māori Development, and the Minister of Climate Change will be available today, together with Associate Ministers, to respond to each member’s questions. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Ministers’ portfolios. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is here for one hour to respond to members’ questions.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak briefly on this to introduce it as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee. My committee heard evidence on this and reported back to the House, and I’ll just make some brief comments about the context of what we reported back.

So in 2023-24, the Ministry of Social Development’s total revenue was $1.81 billion, which was 3.9 percent more than the previous year as expenditure increased 4.6 percent to $1.73 billion. In 2023-24, the non-departmental expenditure administered by the ministry was $41.07 billion compared to $37.88 billion the year prior. Superannuation and the four main benefits—jobseeker support, accommodation assistance, sole parent support, and the supported living payment—accounted for the bulk of this expenditure. Superannuation was the largest of these costs, with a cost of over $21.57 billion.

The ministry provides services via phone or internet and offices throughout New Zealand, and I acknowledge the many people who work hard to service our communities across the country. As of 30 June 2024, it had 8,394 employees.

The ministry has a finite set of resources and every year it uses an investment strategy to determine where and how those resources are applied to match need. It told us that it does not always get the balance right. It sees itself as part of a wider ecosystem trying to make a difference for families in the country, alongside employment partners, community providers, and iwi providers.

The Auditor-General issued a standard report for the 2023-24 period and rated the ministry’s management control environment as needing improvement, recommending improvements to appropriation management, procurement and contract management, information management, management of fraud risk, and a regular review of policies. The Auditor-General rated the ministry’s financial information and supporting systems and controls as good. He did recommend improvements to the management of documents related to benefits and associated expenses and regular reconciliation of the fixed asset register, and he did recommend the ministry further enhance its performance reporting. With that, I’ll conclude my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to acknowledge some of the work that was done by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) during this year in review, which is up to 30 June 2024. MSD supported 71,000 people off benefit and into work, it answered close to 4 million phone calls, it funded community support services accessed by over 135,000 people, and it processed 242,600 student loan and student allowance applications. This on top of all the work that’s well under way to reduce the number on jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by the year 2030.

It’s our Government’s focus because we believe the default that if you can work, you should, and also because we cannot afford the huge social and economic cost of large-scale welfare dependency. At the end of June 2024, there were about 380,900 people receiving a main benefit, and, of those, 196,400 receiving jobseeker support. Our Government believes benefit sanctions should be fully applied to incentivise job seekers to fulfil their work obligations.

Last year, a suite of new Kōrero Mahi seminars were introduced, and they are for people who are new to jobseeker support and work ready but not in case management. They occur within the first two weeks of their benefit starting and job seekers learn about the employment support that is available through MSD. Work check and seminars are for those who are still on jobseeker support after 26 weeks where MSD catches up with job seekers to discuss what progress they have made to find work and check what support they need. There is, of course, much more work ahead of us as we implement our welfare that works reforms, but I want to acknowledge the amazing work that MSD does.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I wanted to open up this debate, on the Opposition side, by quoting the Minister the Hon Louise Upston, who just said that “everyone who can work, should work”. That’s all well and fine providing there is a job for every single person on the jobseeker benefit or unemployed person all together. Can I ask whether the Minister is aware as to whether there is a job available for every single person on the benefit, and, if not, what is the Minister doing to ensure that there is a job for every single person on the benefit? Otherwise, what I am seeing is a welfare regime that sanctions people when there is not even enough jobs for every single person who is receiving income support.

The member again provides misleading information. The sanctions are only if people don’t fulfil their work obligations. They’re not sanctioned if they can’t find a job.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some very disparate questions, so I hope I’ll get to take another call. I have a few different things, but I’ll try and cover some of them. One of the things I noticed in the annual report was a question about emergency housing. It comes into the sort of sundries of it, but it’s an interesting question. It said, “We discussed several aspects of emergency housing that were in our structured agenda, including the reduced target for emergency housing, tightened gateway settings, emergency housing exits”. I’d like to know if the Minister can tell me about those gateway settings and how they’ve changed under this Government. Because what I’m hearing out there is that people who need, for example, emergency housing because they’re in a violent relationship—I’m hearing that they just can’t even get on the waiting list at the moment. So I would like an answer to that.

I would also like to know about the employment issue a little bit raised by my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March in the Green Party there, but it’s really around this expectation of employment when you’ve got a rising amount of unemployment. Now, we had record low levels of unemployment under Labour. My alarm is raised by the fact we’re now up to our highest level in many years and my understanding is that clusters around certain groups. So, for example, youth unemployment is through the roof in Auckland. So we’re seeing this whole new cohort of young people who are not employed and it looks like it’s very, very difficult for them to get employed.

I also understand, because I was here when it was done, that all the settings that used to complement the kinds of policies that the Minister’s in charge of from the Reserve Bank—and its policies were to maximise sustainable employment when it was making its settings—we took all that away because we wanted to bring down inflation by there being more unemployment. We took all of those targets away from the Reserve Bank. So it’s absolutely in your hands, Minister, to make sure that as many people in this country, particularly youth, are employed, because it’s so critical. I think we both agree that employment is critical to the mental health and the wellbeing of people. So I’d like to know what’s she doing with regard to youth unemployment. How bad is it out there for youth at the moment? And what’s the work that’s being done, not just to build a CV, because if you’re a young person in Auckland, you probably haven’t got a lot to put on that CV. And you could write as many CVs as you like and you’re not going to move in the stack. So I’d like to know what’s happened there.

I’d also like to know—forgive me, I’ll just get to one of my notes here. You’ve got—the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) are an amazing organisation; I give you that. They’re incredible. They do incredible work and they do it on a shoestring. But one of the comments made in the annual review is it says, “Some of us expressed concerns about the ministry’s frontline capacity to facilitate this new system.” It’s talking about the traffic light system in that case. I’m worried about the front-line capacity of MSD, full stop, because all this pressure’s going on this department. How much were they affected by job cuts? Are you getting feedback from people on the ground that, actually, it’s pretty tough doing the ask from the ministry, because that’s what I’m getting back from people—that there is a real concern that these people are absolutely amazing, they do very good work, but they just simply haven’t got the capacity to do it. Thank you. I’d love answers to those questions—I’ve got some more.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This debate’s going to go pretty badly if the Minister for Social Development and Employment can’t even answer the questions in front of her. I asked whether there is a job for every person on the benefit. So I’ll ask her again: is there a job for every person on the benefit? And if not, I’d be keen to understand what the ratio is.

I’ll move on to other topics. In the annual review debate on housing, we heard that everyone who has a genuine need has been granted emergency housing. Can I ask the Minister, therefore: does everyone declined for emergency housing not have a genuine need? This is related to her portfolio since it’s Ministry of Social Development staffers who make these decisions.

I also want to ask about whether her directive asking to apply sanctions more often has directly contributed to the recent statistics that came out that show that food insecurity is increasing in Aotearoa. This matters because people are often deprived of the means to survive when they’re being sanctioned—which also ties in with a subsequent question, which is whether she believes that the increase in the rate of food grants being declined has contributed to a higher rate of food insecurity experienced by children in this country under her watch.

I look forward to her answering my questions as to whether there’s a job for every single person on the benefit, and whether the two statistics that I named earlier have contributed to a higher rate of food insecurity experienced by children in Aotearoa.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will keep my comments brief so that we have time for further Ministers later.

Firstly, in terms of the unemployment rate, the Treasury forecast—so, for this year in review, half of it was under the previous Government and half of it was under our Government. The Treasury forecast when the previous Government left office was to peak at 5.3 percent—

It’s not the question.

Well, I’m actually answering a previous member’s question, if you would oblige me the ability to do that. I would have thought that that is a respectful thing to do.

The Treasury forecast under the previous Government was for unemployment to reach 5.3 percent. That is the continued forecast despite there being more challenging economic times than were originally anticipated. That is the good news. For the year in review, compared to the year previous, the youth unemployment rate went up 25 percent. Unfortunately, under the previous Government, the trend continued, when more young people were on benefit and on the jobseeker benefit, and what we do know is that, for young people who went on to a benefit under the age of 25, their future years on benefit is 20.4 years. That is why, in the year in review, we have absolutely focused on the need to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit and support them into employment.

The member from the Greens Ricardo Menéndez March asks whether there is a job for everybody on the jobseeker benefit. Well, in this climate, where the unemployment rate is 5.1 percent, I would have thought the answer to the question is quite obvious, and that is why our Government is focused on growth, to create job opportunities—

Just tell me the answer.

I remind the member, again, no one is sanctioned for not getting a job; the sanctions and the responsibilities are for people taking the steps they need to, which are their work obligations, which are their responsibility when they signed up for the jobseeker benefit.

Which brings me back to the previous Labour member Helen White’s question around the Public Service and the front line. She will remember that a big part of the savings exercise for Budget ‘24 was protecting the front line, and one of the really important things, which is about ensuring the balance of rights and responsibilities for those on the jobseeker benefit, actually means that the responsibility sits more fairly with the job seeker, and that is an example where, instead of a Ministry of Social Development (MSD) front-line worker having to chase a job seeker, now the responsibility equally sits with the job seeker. Actually, it’s freeing up the time of MSD’s front-line staff, which, I think, is where it should be. I’ll pass to my colleague, the Hon Tama Potaka.

Just in response to the questions about emergency housing—and I’ve spoken on these matters before in this House—emergency housing is a last resort, not a first resort for those in genuine need for a short-term stay in temporary accommodation. There are many options to pursue prior to emergency housing support being processed expediently, whether or not it’s transitional housing or rapid rehousing, Housing First, rangatahi housing, and housing support services. Often if someone presents themselves as having genuine need, the team will try and figure out how we can move that person into private or other forms of accommodation rather than reverting to emergency housing, which is a last resort.

The gateway settings—and in relation to that we have started instituting a responsibilities framework as of the 30 June 2024 date. Effectively, those that seek emergency housing—of course, as a last resort—have some responsibilities to undertake: to look for the housing, to take on some training and some education, and also to pay the appropriate amounts in the event that they do stay in emergency housing.

There is a non-entitlement period in the event that those that do stay in emergency housing get two-plus warnings for not meeting their responsibilities. Of course, as people understand, as we were getting past 30 June 2024 up until the date that the gateway changes were formalised, there was clarity around the types of discretion that the Ministry of Social Development could undertake to grant emergency housing. In relation to the social housing register matter, that’s separate from emergency housing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for her responses, and Minister Potaka. I have a few questions around what Minister Potaka has said, because we still have questions that the Minister might be able to inform us on, in terms of where do some of these people go, and the impact of homelessness. That’s been one of the big questions that, Minister Potaka will know, has come from this side of the House. Is there any research, is there any data that can tell us about the impact on homelessness, and is there data in terms of the sanctioned regime, how it affects Māori in particular? So I want to put that to Minister Potaka.

To the Minister in the chair, can I ask her what support systems are in place for clients who have been sanctioned, and where do they go—a very similar question to Minister Potaka—if they don’t, or when they don’t, comply? Over the past year, is there a plan to evaluate the long-term effects on the impact of sanctions, and will the Minister consider a sunset clause in the legislation to ensure that a review of her sanctions can be assessed? Just a number of questions there.

Then coming back to Minister Potaka, I would like to know, in terms of the Government’s position with regards to “by Māori, for Māori” solutions going forward, is this still part of the strategy? In particular, we had seen the success in Government of Māori trade training, which was designed to encourage Māori organisations to try different approaches. And I ask the Minister, what feedback has he seen during the past year regarding Māori trade training, how many people have gone through the programme, how many Māori have progressed into work, and generally, if the programme is delivering?

Can I just seek confirmation, then—because she said that it’s obvious, but then she didn’t really say the answer to it—that there are not enough jobs for every single person on the benefit out there? I also wanted to ask what she did, and address whether her request to increase the use of benefit sanctions has contributed to an increase in children facing food insecurity across Aotearoa, as well as whether she believes that the increase and the declines of food grants under her watch has led to an increase in children experiencing food insecurity in Aotearoa.

But I also want to move on to an issue around step capacity. In recent reporting from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), we have heard from MSD themselves that admits that the front line is “oversubscribed”. With the introduction of the policies that we have seen during the period that we’re reviewing, on top of the new policies that are currently being debated in the House and that are soon to be introduced, is she confident that MSD will be able to deliver on her policies when they’re already having to scale back on the work to prevent homelessness because their front line is oversubscribed?

What we hear from the front lines and from people on the ground is that MSD is now so burdened with a lot of her own policies that MSD themselves accept it doesn’t have a correlation with helping support people into jobs. This is because benefit sanctions don’t have a correlation with supporting people into jobs. So how confident can she be, then, that she’s not just putting more pressure on the front line without actually getting any positive outcomes?

Given the time restrictions we have, I’m not going to repeat answers to questions I have already answered, and nor will my ministerial colleagues. In terms of the question around sanctions, as of 30 June last year, there were no legislative changes, and the graduated sanctions system remains.

In terms of the Māori Trades and Training Fund, it was not rated but needs to be. In terms of the participation, 93 percent are Māori, and we’ve seen 75 percent had gained an employment outcome for the year 30 June 2024.

In terms of the question around the number of children in poverty, well, actually the cost of living and the state of the economy is the significant contribution to that. That’s why our Government is focused on the cost of living. That’s why we are focused on reducing the number of children growing up in benefit-dependent households. And that member will know, in Budget ‘24, we continued funding that was originally COVID time-limited funding for food security in communities.

Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I want to move back to employment and ask: how is the ministry measuring the effectiveness of Te Pae Tata, a Māori strategy and action plan, and improving employment for Māori? And how are iwi providers being resourced and empowered to deliver employment services that reflect tikanga- and whānau-centred approaches?

We too have been hearing out on the ground that there are pressures in front-line services. So we want to know: how are these pressures in front-line services impacting Māori communities, knowing that it’s our people that are those that are impacted the most? What services, programmes, or kaupapa Māori initiatives were reduced or cut by the ministry in 2023 and 2024, and what communities were most affected? Also, did the ministry receive any direction in 2023-24 to shift away from equity-focused or Tiriti-based approaches; if so, who made that decision and how was it justified?

I’d just like to ask a couple of questions around some of the changes that have taken place over the course of this Government, as the Minister has been responsible. Part of that has already been mentioned: the introduction of the traffic-light system, the greater use of sanctions, and also the requirement for job seekers to reapply, which has been seen, for some, as frustrating and hard for people to comply with. To many—

Could the member just clarify—I’m just hearing that that might not be in the year in review, so could you please just double-check that?

Point of order. The traffic-light system was explicitly mentioned in the annual review debate. There’s a report from the select committee.

Thank you. That answers the question. That’s helpful—thank you.

Thank you. The introduction of those changes which have been weighted on introducing sanctions and also a requirement for people to reapply for jobseeker support. This has been perceived by many as making life harder or worse for people who already are struggling. As a result, we’ve also seen, in the March 2025 quarter, job seekers have increased. We have now 209,883 people who are receiving a jobseeker benefit, which is an increase of 22,000 people—or 11.6 percent—compared to the same time last year.

I’d like to know, from the Minister, what are the initiatives that her Government has introduced to assist people? Not sanction—the opposite: to support and assist people to develop skills, to have training, to have financial support in order to be able to develop the independence and the requisite skills to be able to enable them to take up meaningful employment, and also to continue in those jobs and to hold down those jobs once they have already received them, and, as well as that, well-paying jobs—jobs that pay enough for people to live off. What are the measures or the programmes that this Government has developed in order to assist people into employment, not just penalise them?

I’m not going to answer questions again that I’ve already answered, and I will be focusing on the year in review. In terms of the employment programmes and their effectiveness, Flexi-wage, effective; Mana in Mahi, effective; He Poutama Rangatahi, which was introduced by the previous National Government, effective. A number of programmes that hadn’t been rated: driver licensing, effective. One of the things that we do want to ensure is that there is greater evaluation of the employment initiatives, Welfare that Works, and the addition of coaching for under-25s by community organisations to ensure more one-on-one support to address the unique needs that young people face. In terms of the previous member’s question about—so those employment programmes, many of them are delivered by Māori providers. I don’t have a list on me, but if you wanted a more detailed answer, if you could put that down in writing.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on that Māori stuff, I appreciate that the Minister doesn’t want to repeat herself, but I just need to know—we did have a specific Māori employment programme that she’ll be aware of, so I just wanted to know from the Minister: we thought that we were on target with it—the Minister’s absolutely correct in terms of the number of Māori organisations out there, but we did have a specific Māori employment programme, as we had a women’s programme. Why was that discarded in the end? That’s the question.

I also want to know—I think I asked her before—what is the stakeholder feedback to the new measures that the Government is rolling out? Particularly for Māori—and I’m saying that because I’m aware, obviously, the unemployment rate in general didn’t go up, but Māori unemployment went up to 10.5 percent. I think it was another 7,000 Māori, in terms of the statistics. So Māori unemployment went up. So it’s really important that I’m able to get some feedback from the Ministers with regards to this, and whether they have been engaging with stakeholders over this.

I’ve also asked the question—and I want to ask the question again, particularly not of Minister Upston but, maybe, of Minister Potaka, in terms of emergency housing. Has there been any data, any research in terms of where do the people go? I certainly realise that the Government is ticking all the boxes in terms of the numbers and it’s all looking very lovely, and Minister Potaka’s coming out with his stats, but we have huge concerns in terms of what happens to people after they’ve been moved out of their houses. What we’re getting back from our stakeholders is that homelessness is now going through the roof and there’s more homelessness on the street than ever before. So have either of the Ministers got any data relating to that?

Can I ask the Ministers: is the Government still committed to the by Māori, for Māori strategy that we talk about often, but it seems that parts of the Government are walking away from? I would like to know what the general view is, because, as we all know, by Māori, for Māori approaches can be and are successful. Kia ora.

There was no funding reduced for Māori employment programmes in Budget ‘24.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So, to get the facts straight: the Minister may have been right when she said no legislative reforms have been passed under the year of review, but she did write to Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to ask them to implement sanctions more often, and she has introduced a traffic light system, which is why I asked, once again—which hasn’t been answered properly—whether her directive to increase benefit sanctions contributed to more children facing food insecurity.

Saying that there’s a cost of living pressure does not address the question as to whether her own directives, her own policies—which is showing in more families facing benefit sanctions, more families being declined for hardship grants—has contributed to more children facing food insecurity. She’s saying it’s not true, but over the period we have evaluated there have been more people sanctioned, which means people having less income. How can that not contribute to the growing food insecurity we’re seeing across Aotearoa?

My second question, which also wasn’t addressed, is whether she agrees with the statement—well, with the advice from MSD saying that MSD’s front-line capacity is currently oversubscribed and there are wider organisational pressures because of the focus on implementing initiatives to support other Government targets, including the jobseeker target. Does she disagree with MSD’s advice that explicitly mentions that the front line is oversubscribed as a result of her Government policies?

Thank you. I’ve got two questions about targets—not at the back end, which is what the Hon Willie Jackson’s talking about, but at the front end. The first is regarding emergency housing. What do we know, what statistics have we got, about how long it’s taking for people to be placed in emergency housing when they first come and ask for it, in comparison to previous years? So I am concerned—the stories I’m hearing out there—about people waiting a really long time or being declined for emergency housing in situations which seem to me, as the local MP or as the Labour Party spokesperson for both the community and voluntary sector and for the prevention of family and sexual violence, to be meritorious situations to be put in emergency accommodation, but they’re not going in. So I’d like to know: what is the delay time that it is taking for people, and how many people are being turned away?

I’d also like to know that about employment. For the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, I can see from the annual review there’s a discussion about how, originally, the ministry initially recommended that the Government jobseeker target be about people leaving the benefit and going to work, rather than just a reduction in the numbers—they talked about, actually, both ends of the pipeline. It looks to me, from that discussion, like there was a decision made that we wouldn’t move the target; we’d take people away from the front end of that—so not going on to the jobseeker—and people leaving it. So I’d like to know: why people would not be going on the jobseeker benefit when that is the pathway through to getting a better job, if they are in fact unemployed? So I’d like her comments on that and I’d like the comments of the other Minister. Thank you.

Cool. I’ll just recap once again: have any of her policies or directives contributed to an increase in children facing food insecurity; if not, why not?

I also wanted to ask the question once again on the relationship to emergency housing. Has everyone who has been rejected for emergency housing been deemed as not having a genuine need?

I’d like to know about payment cards, because it is in the annual review. I appreciate we’re not looking forward, but we did have a discussion about payment cards and people having 50 percent of their benefit on it. I asked a question of the Minister, during the stages on this, which was about what that does when you’re trying to teach people to be good financial managers, and where the cheapest things they can get are often from somewhere like the Wesley Market, where the food is much, much cheaper. If they’re on a payment card system, I am worried about what I see, which is the shops that have big signs up saying, “WINZ” and actually everything is a lot more expensive than I would pay for it because I’ve got cash. I would really like to know about that.

I’d also like to know about the decision to move from the traffic-light system—which, actually, we’ve always really had, haven’t we; we’ve always had a sanctions system—to this more sanctimonious approach in terms of the kind of control we have, and why this was not sufficient. It looked, to me, like we were getting good results with what we had already in this area, and I’d be very grateful for the Minister’s answers. Thank you.

So in terms of the target, actually, the target in terms of the total number on the jobseeker benefit is more ambitious than just exits into work. In terms of the graduated sanctions regime, that remains the same and has remained the same in the year in review. Part of what we wanted to do and I wanted to do as a Minister was for people to be really clear about what their obligations were when they came on to benefit and how would they know more simply if they were complying.

Just further to the whole question around sanctions, it’s a tough area, this, because the Minister for Social Development and Employment feels that she’s repeating herself. But it’s incredibly important, given that so many of our communities are affected by sanctions, and so we need to get some feedback from the Minister in terms of the effect of sanctions and how the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) are treating many of our people at the coalface. So I’m asking the question, and I think it’s a different question: what is MSD doing to measure how the sanctions regime is working? Is it working, and are we just talking from a punitive side? Is there a strategy in place to confirm the strategy and the process with regards to sanctions?

I ask the Minister whether there will be an obligation for case managers to follow up and meet with the client, or is it just the case that they fail to comply and we leave them to survive on their own, which seems to be Minister Potaka’s strategy with regards to emergency housing? I keep asking him and he won’t respond in terms of what happens to these people when they leave emergency housing. Is there any track or is there any process with regards to following up on these people, because at the moment, we’ve got homelessness at record levels.

So I’m just asking those questions with regards to sanctions. I think that they’re a little bit different from previous questions. Also, what is MSD doing to ensure that the financial and non-financial sanctions are not always punitive—if that makes sense for the Minister to respond to?

Just coming back to what Te Pāti Māori was talking about, I’m aware that the Māori employment strategy was disbanded, but what we want to hear and what we’re not hearing is the commitment in terms of Māori, going forward. We’re not hearing a cohesive strategy with regards to Māori, and given, as I’ve said earlier, that the Māori unemployment rate has shot up—I think it’s gone up to 10.5 percent, but the Minister might want to correct me. I don’t have my notes here on that, but I believe it’s around 10.5 percent, and it’s gone up by 7,000, if I recall.

What is the overall strategy with Māori? Yes, there are Māori providers out there, but is there a cohesive, coordinated strategy in that area, particularly given that Māori fill all the wrong stats in that area but in the homelessness area also?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to ask a couple of questions in and around the Government’s Employment Action Plan. The plan has some quite clear goals, and I’d like to understand how those goals are going to be assessed and reported back on and, in particular, goal number two, which is to “Support people to have the skills they need to succeed in work, increasing earning potential and reducing benefit in-flows and encouraging continued upskilling in-work for improved productivity and resilience.” So just to recap, the question is: how are you tracking on that and how will the New Zealand public be kept up to date on the accountability of the Government to the commitments it’s made under the Employment Action Plan?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m still looking for an answer to my question as to whether she agrees with her ministry’s officials who said, “MSD’s frontline capacity is currently oversubscribed, and there are wider organisational pressures because of the focus on implementing initiatives to support other government targets, including the Jobseeker target.” Does she agree with that statement from the Ministry of Social Development? If not, why not?

Thank you. I’d like to ask about food security and family violence, in the last minutes of this debate. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) do some incredible work actually giving funding for very important services in the food security area. I understand it was a really stressful time while they waited for funding in the last year over the winter, and those were the organisations that are giving food out to the very families that we’re talking about that are utterly struggling.

We’re now going to have a situation where we have less money in some families, not through any fault of the children involved in those families, but more restriction. Can I seek the Minister’s assurance that the funding will be adequate for the kinds of food security services in Auckland that so many families—even working families, but many families that have got someone unemployed in them.

May I also ask you about the work of the MSD in the National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence? MSD have been playing a role there. I’d like to know what kind of role that is, that they are playing.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. We are very concerned about Māori beneficiaries, and we want to make sure that we are continuing to share their voices and concerns. Given 41 percent of the Ministry of Social Development’s clients were not receiving their correct income support, what measures are being implemented to improve accuracy, and how many Māori beneficiaries are being affected by these inaccuracies?

I want to go back to food insecurities. A year ago, butter was $4.59; it’s now anywhere between $8 and $11. It’s a basic staple on every table, but whānau, families, can’t afford butter. So we want to know if the Government is committed to decreasing the cost of living for the benefit of our families. There’s been a reduction in funding towards food banks, and a lot of our Māori communities rely on food banks, especially those within our marae. So I’d like to know if the Government are going to commit to more funding to supporting food for our whānau? Kia ora.

Once again, I’m simply just looking for an answer as to whether she agrees that the front-line capacity of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is currently oversubscribed, as her own officials report, as the result of her own Government’s initiatives. I think it’s a pretty simple question. I just can’t see why she can’t give us a pretty simple answer on that matter that’s been raised by MSD officials, which is really concerning, because we’ve seen how other initiatives like preventing homelessness are being affected and we know that on the front lines, MSD is really, really busy. So does she agree with her own officials who advised her that MSD’s front-line capacity is currently oversubscribed?

I’m not going to repeat things I’ve already said. Questions around Māori unemployed: absolutely our Government supports “by Māori, for Māori”. We do want to, absolutely, reduce the number of people—Māori—unemployed. In terms of the accuracy question: yes, I’m concerned about that; 78 percent of all clients received their accurate entitlement. There’s ongoing work to improve that. Seventy-five percent of that were Māori. In terms of the family and sexual violence work, in terms of the 25-year focus, the action plan for the period for which we are under review, there were 40 actions—the Ministry of Social Development supported 18 and led five.

Tēnā koe. I want to move to disabilities. With the transition of the disability support services to the Ministry of Social Development and the restructuring of Whaikaha into a stand-alone policy department, how will the ministry address concerns from the disability community about potential service-delivery issues, particularly for Māori with disabilities?

Thank you. Since stopping the work on the wage subsidy, which would have enabled people earning under the minimum wage under the minimum wage exemption, has she started any work to look at alternatives that would’ve lifted the incomes of those disabled people to the equivalent of the minimum wage? [Waits for Minister’s reply] Bit of a joke!

Point of order. Yeah, thank you. I really want to raise an area of concern, which is that we have had the Minister repeatedly tell us that she has answered our questions, but she has actually failed to address it. There have been multiple questions raised on this side of the House, particularly recently from my Te Pāti Māori colleague Takutai Tarsh Kemp and myself, and those go completely in silence. I totally understand the Government has a limited amount of time to participate in this debate, but I really am starting to worry that the Minister’s silence and inability to actually accurately address the questions is making a mockery of this process.

Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. There is a restriction in the number of minutes that National Party members have to contribute, so I’ve signalled that. So in terms of not being repetitive and answering things that I’ve already answered, that’s where I’ve focused on it, and also not answering questions that are out of scope that are not in the year in review.

Just to acknowledge that there will be different views as to whether questions have been adequately answered or addressed—so just sort of noting that. Some people will be, I guess, on that side of the Chamber, OK with it, and others on that side will not be OK with it, but this is an opportunity to further interrogate the Minister with those questions. But if we’ve come to a point in the debate where we’re ready to move on, we can also do that too.

Tēnā koe. I’m going to ask a rangatahi homelessness question, and this actually came from our community in South Auckland, from Mā Te Huruhuru, who look after and focus on rangatahi homelessness. Their questions are: what is the Government doing to prevent rangatahi Māori from becoming homeless after they leave Oranga Tamariki care at the age of 18? How many care-experienced rangatahi Māori have become homeless or transient within 12 months of leaving care in the past five years? What percentage of eligible rangatahi Māori have accessed transition support services under the Oranga Tamariki Act in the past year?

Is the Minister concerned that, under the period we’re reviewing, Māori have been disproportionately targeted by benefit sanctions?

Members, our time with the Minister for Social Development and Employment has ended. The Minister for Children is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions. Is there a chair—who is taking the call for the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee? We need someone to take a call on behalf of the Social Services and Community Committee. What a surprise—Joseph Mooney!

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, I will be yielding my time to the Minister as there’s only so much time available for this. Proud to chair the Social Services and Community Committee; we reported back to the House, and I’m sure there’ll be questions from the Opposition in respect of that report.

Thank you. I would like to start by reflecting on the comments by the Chief Children’s Commissioner and Independent Children’s Monitor. They raised concerns about the cuts to community services. They gave examples like the cutting of $1.5 million in funding from front-line services at Presbyterian Support Northern that will see 800 children and whānau left without the social work and counselling services they need to keep functioning. They also talked about the cutting of funding to front-line services across the country at youth one-stop shops, including in regional areas like Taupō, Tūrangi, and Rotorua where there are few services available to children and young persons.

I’ve also been really concerned in Auckland when I’ve gone in and seen that the North Shore Women’s Centre, which is incredibly important to issues around the safety of children as well as their mothers, because of family violence, are closing up shop because of the end of their funding, and I could name many other instances. Does the Minister accept that funding, in this area, from Government is incredibly important? If you’re going to keep people safe, children safe, and if you’re going to reduce harm, you have to fund these NGOs that we rely on so heavily.

I am also concerned that places like Presbyterian Support and the Salvation Army, places where—last Budget, I could see that there were cuts to Salvation Army, but when I approached the Salvation Army, it was really hard for them to know where those cuts were, because the devil’s in the detail. Does the Minister accept that these kinds of services have become so integral to localised support in these issues that to not fund these organisations and to engage in those cuts is quite a serious concern? And what does she say to the Chief Children’s Commissioner, who raised these, and to the Independent Children’s Monitor, who raised these issues? These are independent bodies who are absolutely bright and connected to these issues. They are not slugs. They are not in the pocket of the Labour Party. What does she say to those groups that are saying that they are concerned about those funding cuts and their devastating effect on children in this country? Thank you, Minister. I’m very interested in your answer.

So, in regards to talking about NGO contracting, last year Oranga Tamariki undertook an annual contractor provider funding review, and I know that at the heart of the ministry’s decisions was supporting the children and young people in care who would have otherwise come to their attention and, most importantly, would require support. These decisions have not been easy for Oranga Tamariki, but they were under the expectation that we need to go back to the core purpose of what Oranga Tamariki is there for, and that is the safety and wellbeing of young people in care and those who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki.

Through that process, one of the organisations mentioned was the North Shore Women’s Centre. The decision was made to not continue specific funding, and that funding was in relation to social work with women and families. Oranga Tamariki continues to provide and fund a broad range of services across Auckland to support tamariki, rangatahi, and their whānau. We were spending around $500 million a year on those supports and we continue to be on track to spend the same; they just may not necessarily be with the same organisations.

Thank you. I want to follow on with a question that’s specific about those community providers, and that’s about their contracts. When will she be providing certainty to community providers about their contracts? When I am talking to those organisations, a lot of them are under a totally uncertain future where people who have contracts coming up—in fact, I am very much interested in exploring the idea of much longer contracts with these organisations. These are workers of high skill, low pay. I don’t know how they make ends meet every week on some of the salaries they’re on. Surely, what we need, if we’re going to keep that kind of talent and enthusiasm and expertise, is longer contracts for these organisations so that they can employ people in a less precarious way so they can get on with their job of helping our children.

I also wanted to ask about the relationship between the safety of women and the wellbeing of children and whether she sees there is a direct relationship. I’d like a really direct answer to the question, because to me it seems a fundamental that we have such high family violence in this country—I think it’s 89 percent of protection orders are in favour of protecting a woman in a violent situation—so giving people a safe place to go is incredibly important. People like the Women’s Centre, even though they’re not directly working with children—in fact, does she accept that the work that they do is essential to the wellbeing of children in this country? I’d like a direct answer. Does she accept there’s a direct connection between providing safety and support to women in those families with the wellbeing of children?

I would also be very interested to know how she is going with her work in the space of child sexual abuse. It’s part of the national strategy, and I’d like her to talk about where we’re at in this very sensitive area. It’s so important and yet at the moment there isn’t a lot of clarity about what’s going on.

Finally, I’d like to ask her if she’s raised the issues—with the Minister of Police—that are present around police going to family violence issues that have been raised with them. If they’ve had a call made by somebody who is embroiled in a domestic violence incident they are going out and there is a delay in the way that they are going out. They used to go out faster. That’s been reported this week as quite a concern. My understanding is that the Minister for Children is aware of that. What has the Minister done to progress that situation? Is she as alarmed as I am about that situation? I’d like her answer on the record about that. Thank you.

Just in regards to the questions around the policing matters, this is a review into Oranga Tamariki and the financial responsibilities of Oranga Tamariki in the financial year of 2024-25, so that does not come under that.

What I would say, in regards to talking about the Women’s Centre, I ensure that they provide a service to women that is good, but what I would say is, when we talk about children with Oranga Tamariki, often we forget that “children” is an all-across-Government approach to young people. Oranga Tamariki is not the be all and end all and should not be going outside of their core purpose, which is the care and protection of kids in their care and children that come to the attention of them and need the help of Oranga Tamariki at the time.

The Oranga Tamariki (OT) annual report highlights a consistent decline in the number of children entering statutory care since 2015-16, attributed to the increased preventative work. Can you elaborate on the key factors driving this decline, particularly in relation to prevention strategy such as the $200 million allocated over two years under Taumata 4, which is on page 13 of the annual report? How does Oranga Tamariki assess the effectiveness of these strategies in sustaining this trend?

I’ve got a supplementary question while I’m here. During the 2023-24 year, OT allocated $200 million under Taumata 4 to scale up prevention work. With the recent $64 million reduction in prevention funding and the $120 million cut to contracting capacity, how is this ministry now positioned to continue the trajectory, and has this affected progress towards the goal of reducing entries into care?

While we’re here, another supplementary on this: what advice, if any, did Oranga Tamariki provide during 2023-24 about the risks of repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act or reducing prevention investment? Given that 7AA was integral to funding and coordinating early interventions, how did these changes affect Oranga Tamariki’s capacity to meet its commitments under Mana Ōrite?

Another supplementary here, while I’ve got the call: as the annual report notes on page 44, there was a decline in prevention spending from 48 percent in 2022-23 to 43 percent in 2023-24. What steps were under way, during that 2023-24 time period, to reverse this trend and ensure prevention remained a core strategy, and is the ministry still pursuing those steps or have they been halted?

Another supplementary here: in 2023-24, community providers consistently raised concerns about loss of capacity. I quote page 7 of the Social Services and Community Committee report: “The Auditor-General opened an inquiry into Oranga Tamariki’s procurement and contracting practices in October 2024.” So what steps were taken at the time to rebuild trust in strengthening partnerships after the community providers expressed their concern about the lack of capacity they’ve got for prevention—keeping kids out of care—and have those steps continued into the current year or have they been deprioritised under the current funding approach?

Just a couple more supplementaries while I’ve got time here. Was any review or evaluation completed in 2023-24 on the effectiveness of the ministry’s prevention investments; if so, what risks did it highlight about the sustainability of those gains—should there be a funding cut?

Another supplementary here, because I’m talking really fast: by the end of 2023-24, Oranga Tamariki has acknowledged increasing complexity in tamariki entering care. What advice did the Minister receive about diversifying eligibility of contractors to address the increasing complexity of tamariki’s needs?

Just finishing up here: based on the trajectory set in 2023-24 with a strong emphasis on Mana Ōrite, section 7AA, and investment in prevention, would it be fair to say that current funding reductions—[Phone rings] oh, sorry!—and policy reversals risk undoing the progress and jeopardise the ministry’s core goal of reducing tamariki in care?

Thank you, Mr Chair. If I can just add to the questions about the cuts to community services, because I think it’s important. We are just a week away from the next Budget and we still do not have answers from the Minister for Children and from the ministry, from Oranga Tamariki, about last year’s Budget cuts to community service providers.

Now, in the report, it notes that we were told by the ministry at the Vote Oranga Tamariki Estimates hearing in June 2024 that community providers would have their contracts finalised by 1 July and that the committee would receive information about the changes to contracting. My question to the Minister is: why do we still not have that information available to us about those contracts that were cut or changed in the last round?

We are now heading into the next round. We need to be able to see whose contracts were cut, whose contracts were changed, what services they were providing, and the impact that it has on that. We also need to see where that reinvestment was made, because our understanding from the Minister was that that money would be taken from those services and redirected to those services that could provide the services better, and we do not have that information. We still do not have that information from the ministry.

While the Minister gets advice on why we are still waiting for that information to be provided to us more than eight months later, I also want to ask the Minister questions about the investment into the military-style academies, which is $30 million over four years. The Minister pointed out at the hearing that there is a reoffending rate in normal youth justice facilities of between 60 to 80 percent. What I want to know from the Minister is does the evidence of the military-style academy pilot show that the reoffending rates are better, that there’s been an improvement in reducing that from the military-style academy or not, and she should be able to answer that question for us. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to ask, first of all, a philosophical question. I’d like to know what the Minister for Children actually believes about the community organisations that we rely upon in this sector. Does she believe that they are a preferable way of delivering services because they are more locally connected and they’re more sensitive to the needs on the ground? If so, when we’re talking about the North Shore Family Centre, is she aware that there were many, many posts from the community kicking back on the suggestion that this was not a helpful service in that community to assist children? Did she know that that happened? Has she visited the centre and had a look at what was going on there? So that’s my philosophical question: how committed is she to those organisations?

But connected to that is really the issue over pay rates for people delivering this kind of service, and this is in Oranga Tamariki as well as the community sector it relies upon. So I want to know, the workers involved in this area—they are social workers, nurses, caregivers, and they are teachers and kindergarten teachers. They are a whole lot of teachers where we have really been in a situation where we have had a shortfall of workers. We have not had enough social workers on the ground. We have a real need for more people doing this work, and the work involves quite a degree of judgment and a degree of trauma. It’s something that really needs to be adequately supported, yet last week, we saw legislation in the House which cut away any settlements that those groups had made for pay equity, even though many of them are predominantly female occupations. Those occupations have had lots of women in them traditionally, and so they are very likely to be less well-paid than they should be because people have been discriminated against because they are female.

So I would like to know: has the Minister thought about those things and sought advice about those things; if so, what is that advice, and what’s her position with regard to building up a workforce which is clearly very skilled and is clearly in a hazardous environment, really, for the individuals concerned, and where we have continual drop-out of people. Even when they are trained, they tend to move on because it is underpaid and it’s risky work. It’s risky psychologically for those people doing that work.

One concern I’d really like to hear about is the value of the work that’s being done in that community sector and how she sees it—the value of the workers in her own field under the actual Oranga Tamariki system—and what she thinks of these pay equity claims being trashed for these very workers and what that means for her. Has she received advice on what it might do to the pipeline of workers prepared to do this work and on what impact that might have on the children in this country who desperately need the support of those professionals? Thank you.

In regards to the Pay Equity Amendment Bill: once it receives Royal assent, any future pay equity claims across the public sector will need to meet the new requirements of the Act, but any pay equity funding received by Oranga Tamariki this year or on previous years for social workers in the community, and iwi organisations, has been allocated. So in this financial period we’re talking about right now, the pay equity bill has not made any changes.

On the funding information that Willow-Jean was asking for, I understand that Oranga Tamariki is planning to publish the information on its spend on contractor services, broken down by service, in the coming months, once all the final contract adjustments have been completed for this financial year. So whilst contractual decisions are an operational matter, Oranga Tamariki will also be extending all contracts ending on June 2025 through to December 2025. These extensions were to enable Oranga Tamariki to take the time required to refresh its commissioning approach, working alongside the Social Investment Agency. We do value the work that social workers do and we do value the work that community organisations do. Alongside iwi partnership programmes and our Enabling Community programmes, we want to make sure that we’re getting the best outcomes for children and young people in care or coming to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. So that process needs to be done well and we’re now doing it, working alongside the Social Investment Agency.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I just want to say thank you to my colleague Kahu for allowing me to take a quick call on this. I just wanted to ask some more questions around youth offending, because that’s a really big part of the annual report. What was positive to see is that there was a lot of information about how successful the fast-track programmes have been. I’ve been able to go and visit some of those programmes, such as Kotahi te Whakaaro, that bring together a wraparound kind of care and service to prevent young people from going into the youth justice system and to try and help them to turn their lives around. What the annual report found was that fast-track intervention has been effective. So I’m weighing that up against the investment that also has been made in this financial year towards the military-style academies, and I wanted to ask: what has been the sacrifice to early prevention, such as those fast-track programmes, in the trade-off towards giving more resources towards things like military-style academies, which have been shown to have no evidence—to not work and to have failed in the past? So I’m keen for the Minister to break that down a little bit more.

Also, there was some reporting on the progress that the Minister has made towards reducing the total number of serious and persistent youth offending by 15 percent by 2029. So I just wanted to ask the Minister: does she think that her Budget decisions in this financial year of 2023-24 align with that goal, particularly around that $30 million that has gone into the military-style academy? And how does she see that contributing to the reduction of those offending rates? I’ll leave it at that.

I just want to clarify that $30 million worth of funding has not gone into the military-style academies.

That’s what was budgeted.

That $28 million was allocated over four years, so in the 2024-25 year it was $5.73 million. So that $30 million you just mentioned, it’s actually $28 million, and it’s allocated over four years.

What I would also like to just mention around funding: today I’ve heard a lot of the word “cuts” used. I just want to re-emphasise that there were no cuts; there was a reallocation of funding into areas that we knew did work. And I do agree, the fast-track programme has been shown to work, which is why I am happy to report that we have signed off on contracts, newly procured services including the fast track and court support; 28 contracts in total have been finalised, and over 50 percent of the court support services are now complete. That was part of the reallocation of the funding—making sure it’s been put in places where we know it works. And I absolutely agree: the fast-track programme did work, and that’s why we decided to extend it to older young people.

Just some questions, really, around the functions of Oranga Tamariki specific to Māori. What steps can the Minister for Children confirm that Oranga Tamariki has taken in response to recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal? If no action has been taken, can the Minister explain why these recommendations have been ignored and what justification exists for that inaction? Which iwi or hapū did your ministry engage with during the 2023-24 year, and what tangible changes resulted from that engagement? If no meaningful changes occurred, how does the Minister justify what appears to be a token consultation process? And can the Minister provide specific examples from the past year where the ministry’s—Oranga Tamariki’s—actions led to a measurable reduction in inequalities, particularly for tamariki Māori in State care, who remain overrepresented? Kia ora.

So in regards to engagement with Māori within communities, I have been up and down the country this year, meeting with many iwi across the country in regards to Oranga Tamariki. I cannot name them all off right here, but I will get that list to you. Also, I have met with all 10 of the iwi partnership arrangements we have and have met with many of the enabling community programmes that are run in a by Māori, for Māori approach by iwi or hapū. I have also just recently met with the Te Tai Tokerau iwi collective team to come up with a strategy of how we work in Northland with our young people to prevent them ending up in State care, but also how we work with Te Tai Tokerau to make sure that our young people are getting the best care they possibly can, using the community rather than Oranga Tamariki.

Thank you. The Oranga Tamariki (OT) annual report shows that only 66 percent of tamariki in care had regular engagement with a practitioner in 2024. This is far below the 95 percent standard. Given that high caseloads are a critical barrier to achieving this target, how is OT addressing this issue to ensure the safety and wellbeing of tamariki in care?

While I’m here, I will ask a follow-up question. How does the inability to meet the 95 percent engagement standard reflect the impact of high caseloads on the safety of tamariki, particularly those in high-risk environments? The annual report states that 91 percent of children had at least four visits over the past year, but only 52 percent had six visits. Do these figures suggest that high caseloads are forcing practitioners to prioritise some tamariki over others, potentially putting children at risk? And how does Oranga Tamariki plan to improve workforce capacity to ensure practitioners can meet regular engagement targets, especially when case complexity is increasing?

Yes, I am aware that the complexities of young people coming to the attention of Oranga Tamariki have become greater. This has been brought up with me with my engagement with meeting the front line face to face around the country this year. We have had an unprecedented number of reports of concern which have added to the pressure on our social workers when it comes to caseloads. Whilst Oranga Tamariki doesn’t have an official policy around caseload numbers, I have had discussions with Oranga Tamariki, moving forward, around how we could look at how we’re allocating cases, because it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach. The complexities change with our young people. Some come with needing more resources and more help and some may need a little bit less. So we are having discussions currently, going forward, about what could that look like in how we look at allocating cases to social workers.

What I would say is that front-line social workers at Oranga Tamariki work very, very hard, have a very difficult job, and sometimes have to deal with some pretty horrific issues within our society. So I just want to make sure that we support those social workers to do their role and listen to what the issues are in different communities, because often different communities have different issues. So, yes, having discussions about how we’re allocating the resources, depending on the communities and what the individual issues are in each region.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I realise we don’t have much time left. I just wanted to highlight one of the issues that the Social Services and Community Committee has in the report on page 11 about some of us being concerned that the appropriation measures showed a marked deterioration both against the ministry’s standards that it sets for itself and the previous year’s results. This is in regard to the young people held in police custody for more than 24 hours. It says it will be less than 140. In 2022-23 the number was 94, but in 2023-24 it had increased to 462.

My question for the Minister for Children is: what is she doing about that, and what does she say about 17 rangatahi who last week were in police cells because there are no secure Oranga Tamariki beds in the country, including two in Rotorua who had been in cells for up to four days?

Tēnā koe. I just want to move to complaints. How many complaints were received directly by the ministry in the 2023-2024 year, and how many were escalated to the Ombudsman? Of those complaints, how many were upheld and what actions, if any, were taken as a result?

Then I want to just move us, because we’re running out of time, to Tū Māia, to childhood trauma. Childhood trauma is now widely recognised as one of the most significant drivers of poor lifetime outcomes for children and their whānau. With approximately 48,000 children in Aotearoa living in circumstances that expose them to trauma and toxic stress, what specific outcomes is the Minister for Children taking to intervene and protect those children? Is the Minister satisfied with the current level of support being provided?

I don’t have the specific numbers right in front of me of how many reports have come in. If you would like an answer to that I welcome you to just write and ask for those numbers and I shall get them to you.

Oranga Tamariki works hard every day in responding to young people that are in situations where they might be in harm’s way. That is their role. Everything they do every day is in responding to that hurt or harm, so there are no specific measures we’re taking in regard to responding to that hurt and harm. That is the role of the organisation. But what I would say is we are bringing back Oranga Tamariki to their core purpose and making sure there is a real focus on safety and wellbeing and making sure that young people that do come into care are safe in care and we’re not just removing them from one bad situation and putting them into another. I want to make sure that we’re an organisation that can build up trust within the community and work together with the community so that our young people are safe and loved.

Members, our time with the Minister for Children has ended. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the WorkSafe New Zealand 2023-24 annual review. [Interruption] Are we happy? Right, cool. WorkSafe identified at the beginning of that period a $17.8 million funding gap and addressed that through a restructure of the organisation but, despite these challenges, achieved 16 out of the 17 performance measures. It refocused on the four priority areas of agriculture, construction, forestry, and manufacturing. The committee, during the annual review process, dug into those, recognising that there were some high-risk sectors that potentially were being excluded, and asked or endeavoured to understand where further work was continuing around those.

We dug into the issues in the mental health space, the notifications in relation to that, and recognised that that was an ongoing challenge worth taking note of. Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the annual review.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start off with some stuff that’s in the annual report of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), and linking it to where we’ve headed, within the last week, in the pay equity space.

I just want to get an idea and understanding around when that work started, because it seems to me that when it’s—I’m looking at the annual report, and it is page 21, for the Minister’s reference, of MBIE’s annual report. It talks about their work plan in “enabling a safe and productive work environment”. It says, “We supported the Government’s agenda to enable more productive and safer working environments, including”, and it goes through the horrific set of legislation that had passed up until that time. But it also talks about work that they are currently doing to advance the, at that time, Minister’s plans, and it talks about “advancing plans to consult on the purpose and performance of the health and safety regulatory system”. It talks about the work around the Holidays Act, and it talks about ensuring ACC regulations are efficient and effective.

It talks about their ongoing work, but what it doesn’t talk about is pay equity; and yet, the Minister said in the last week that pay equity had been under way since—or had been on her agenda since—the end of 2023. I really want to know when officials really started on that work, and what projections they were doing at that particular time that would have informed that particular Budget in the last year—how many women would lose out on the fairer pay rates as a result of those changes, and what that would mean to the Budget and how, at that time, there were the contingencies for the pay equity space. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I thank the member for her question. I think it is an interesting one. When I first came into Government, it was pretty clear that we wanted to hit the ground running, and so the first actions I took were to repeal the fair pay agreements and also extend the 90-day trials to all businesses. That was my immediate work programme. Once I came back from the January break, I set out, in a letter to the Prime Minister, the areas of work that I wished to consider over this term of Government. I made it very clear that the Holidays Act was my top priority. Health and safety were also a priority, as well as efficiencies within the areas of Government that I’m responsible for.

It’s also true that I said I was interested in looking into changes to pay equity. Now, I think it’s really important to note that that does not mean that that started at that point. This was simply setting out the areas of interest I had. As you’ll be aware, it’s not possible to do all things at the same time, and so the process from there was that officials across Government were working on pay equity throughout the year, and my real work on this area started at the end point of 2024.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have, to start with, a simple question for the Minister. By the end of 2024, what was the estimated cost of the 33 pay equity claims, should they be settled?

I can’t speak to any particular costs. As the member will be aware, we are in a period of Budget sensitivity, and it would not be appropriate for me to give those costs.

In terms of the policy work that I undertook towards the end part of 2024, I was interested in the policy areas rather than individual claims.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In that case, by the end of 2024, what communications had the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety had with her office or officials, with any employment parties or representatives to, at that stage, the pay equity claims regarding the pay equity changes?

Thank you. I’d like to ask you about partial strikes, and I’d like to ask you a very straightforward question about this, based on my experience. I once had a case where the strike notice was one that I drafted, and I drafted that strike notice to say that bus drivers would take their toilet breaks. That was a partial strike. Are you suggesting that people who take their toilet breaks or who decide they’re not going to coach after school should be reduced in their money because they are partially striking? That’s my question about partial strikes.

Now, I’d like to ask you a question about pay equity as well. We have a situation—again, it’s based on my experience—where a whole lot of people went into negotiations in good faith. They knew that what they were doing would be reviewed in three years, because that was part of the deal they did. A question I asked you, and I saw a reaction to this when we were having a discussion in the committee stage—so I’d like to know why you looked like you kind of rolled your eyes at it. My question on it was: in those deals, you make a deal with somebody in a contractual situation—you’re the ACT Party. You’re a Minister from the ACT Party. You make a deal. When you make that deal and you know there is going to be a review in three years, you make a deal based on that—that there’s an opportunity to up the amount based on any continued discrimination in that time. What you seem to have done is take freedom of contract in one sense, over here—“Oh, yes, yes, we believe in it.”—but when it doesn’t suit us, we take away the very essence of the bargain. People had struck a bargain based on an assumption. Why is that OK to do that?

Connected with that, why is it OK to make people wait 10 years when they have made a deal based on not waiting 10 years—make them wait 10 years—and then attach a lack of backpay to their rights in that situation? So they can’t even ask, in 10 years, to recover the money they’ve lost on the basis of discrimination. Let’s take a worker who is discriminated against and is found, even under the higher threshold now that this Government has put in place, to have been discriminated against, in 10 years’ time. Under the new law, we cannot ask for that worker to be given—awarded by the authority—the amount that they have lost, because they are not allowed backpay. Aren’t we, effectively, saying, in this piece of legislation, that these people should have a loss—basically, it’s wage theft, isn’t it? They are having their money taken because it is a matter of discrimination, and they will not get that money—they will no longer be able to recover it, for 10 years. That’s a very long time. That’s about a fourth of their working life that they will not be able to recover. Are we not sanctioning wage theft when we do that?

That’s worried me ever since last week—that that’s what we seem to be doing. And I do take on board what the Minister said at the time, which was, “Ah, but they can still ask for it. They just can’t get it if they go to court.” Now, if that’s the case, does the Minister accept that, when we don’t have a sanction in place, no employer in their right mind is going to agree to a voluntary settlement of a backpay case, because it is not in their interests? Don’t we always need to back that up with a sanction from the authority to allow backpay? Those are my questions for the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to clarify my question before to the Minister—basically, the Minister has signalled that it was part of her work plan a lot earlier. Has she discussed the pay-equity claims with any employer parties or representatives or unions when she had that on her agenda? But I want to also get another piece of clarification from the Minister. The Minister didn’t answer my previous question around the estimated cost of the equity claims, should they be settled, because she said it is Budget sensitive. I am asking about the previous year, and if it’s Budget sensitive, does the Minister then think that the reason we introduced the bill in the first place is because it is tied to the Budget this year, which, up until now, the Prime Minister has denied?

Just before I take any more calls, here are just two reminders. The first reminder is: please direct your comments through the Chair; that would be very helpful for the committee. Secondly, when you’re making your interventions, please link it somehow to the annual review—so truck and trailer. If people could make their contributions in that way, that would be helpful to the committee.

I did make that link right at the beginning around the work plan and I did ask the Minister a question that didn’t come through, so I’d like to ask that one again—maybe she missed that. I talked about that being part of the work plan. When people were working on it at that time, what projections were done on how many women may lose out on fairer pay rates as a result of the changes? That was something that I know, when you’re starting that work, must be discussed at that time as when you’re starting to think about your changes into the pay equity space. So I’d really like to know that, thank you.

Well, there’s quite a few things to discuss in this one. Look, to Jan Tinetti’s question talking about pay equity and how many women would miss out, it’s not possible to note how many people may or may not be able to take a pay equity claim, because I don’t have a crystal ball into the future. Yes, there have been 33 claims that have not been settled, but it’s not for me to determine whether or not any union or individuals or employer groups would be able to successfully come together and negotiate and go through that process into the future. There are too many hypotheticals, including whether or not people even wish to continue to progress, to suggest that anyone would or would not miss out on things that they may or may not have received under a previous regime. It’s just far too hypothetical.

So, therefore, moving on to the next question, which was from Helen White regarding partial strikes—look, under the law, people do have a right to breaks in their work, but it is also the case that people can notify for strike notices, like she mentioned that she had done. Under the law, once again, it’s too hard for me to suggest whether or not any particular strike notice or partial strike may or may not meet these thresholds, because it will come down to the individual employment agreements, the collective agreements, and what would be seen as a reduction in their normal performance. So, therefore, because once again I’m not Minister of the world or of New Zealand—I’m simply responsible for the legislation that underpins how people interact in a labour market—I can’t answer to that level of detail that she wants.

When we come to pay equity, and the question was from Helen White, there have been queries about the review clause, especially the three-year review moving now to a 10-year period. This is because the Government wishes to make the pay equity system more robust and workable. And in order to find sex-based discrimination, we believe that a sufficient time period must pass in order to find an evidential basis for sex-based discrimination to return. A period of time of three years is actually a very short amount of time. To have the ability to show evidence of this discrimination reappearing, we believe we needed to have a time period that would actually show sex-based discrimination. It’s also the case that there is a concern of a conflation between pay equity and collective bargaining, and the alignment of these two issues I don’t believe leads to a good labour market.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m also still waiting on a response to my questions from the Minister. Again, whether what we’re asking for was previous years, surely there must have been some numbers or some estimates of the cost of the pay equity claims last year. It is not tied to the Budget this year, so it should be no part of Budget sensitivity.

Now, my question is around workplace safety for the time being. Now, the Minister has signalled that her interest in health and safety comes around the definition of “critical risk”. In that case, will she clarify if musculoskeletal harm and mental harm are considered critical risks under the health and safety Act?

Thank you, Mr Chair. To your question, I did have my note here, but I’d not looked at it. So, yes, to your questions on whether or not I had discussed the pay equity claims with any employer groups or with the unions while the work was under way: no. This work was in-house and across officials. To the second question—you talked about whether or not I had any specific numbers that we may have come across. The only one that really comes to mind is that the costs to date to the Crown from the settlements had been $1.78 billion.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do eventually want to get on to health and safety as well. I just want to follow up on the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s answer that was about not having the crystal ball to be able to gaze—I appreciate that; none of us do. The Minister talked about the 33 claims in her answer, so therefore how many people were represented in each of those 33 claims? If the Minister doesn’t have a crystal ball to gaze around future claims, those 33 that the Minister mentioned in her answer should be knowledgeable to her. How many people were represented in each of those 33 claims?

The closest I can get to an approximation to the answer that the member Jan Tinetti may be looking for is—my officials have provided—180,000 people potentially under those claims. However, that is an estimate. Of course, when it ties to your original question of who would miss out, it is not possible for me to suggest which claims would or would not progress, whether or not people would be willing to take them, or whether or not they would settle. I don’t have an answer to that.

Just following on from what the Minister is saying, thank you so much for responding to my questions. Now, the Minister just mentioned an estimate of 180,000 people who may be affected. Like you said, it’s an estimate. The Minister mentioned $1.87 billion to date. Is there somewhat of an estimate of how much it would be for the 180,000 people who are affected? That would be my first question.

And my second question is: as part of the Minister’s health and safety roadshow, how many of those, does she know, were unionised workers?

Just again, before I move to health and safety, further to the Minister’s answer to that 180,000, could she please provide the number of people who had had pay corrections up until Budget last year? That informs what contingencies are in place. I understand, from the Public Service Commission’s website, that it says, “over 100,000”, and I think that it would be good to have a bit more accuracy around that. I have heard Amy Ross, who used to be the head of the Pay Equity Taskforce, say that it’s closer to 200,000, so it’d be good to have the Minister’s update on that, please.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To Lawrence Xu-Nan’s other question, which was to do with critical risk under health and safety, I am still to go back to Cabinet to specifically define how we would make that into law. However, it is important for us to get it right because we do want to ensure that businesses and workers are actually focusing on the things that matter, the things that lead to the most severe injuries and death within workforces.

One of the things that I’d heard quite often on the roadshow that we took around the country over a five-month period last year was that there was so much focus on compliance and filling out paperwork that people had a lot of anxiety in making sure that they were doing everything, without us actually seeing people focusing on, necessarily, things that would reduce injury and death within the workplace. There was so much confusion on where people’s efforts should be, which is why we’re going to move towards critical risk.

To the second point that the member raised about how many, I think it was, unionised members did we encounter on the roadshow, I can’t say. We had quite a few people throughout the country turn up to the roadshows. Throughout the country, I think we had nearly a thousand people overall be part of the submissions and roadshow process. There were union members at the roadshow, because I specifically remember people from E tū, people from, I think, Workers First Union, and the New Zealand Public Service Association being at some of these meetings. I do also recall meeting people who were—like, a care and support worker who was part of a union, but she wasn’t necessarily a union rep, who did make a contribution. So I don’t have a breakdown of how many unionised members were there, but you can be guaranteed they were.

It’s also quite useful for me to use this opportunity to talk about my engagement with the NZ Council of Trade Unions with health and safety, because it has been reported that I have not met with them, which is not the case. When it comes to health and safety, I did actually have a meeting with the Council of Trade Unions, and they did help to contribute to the fact that we are keeping the law and I’m not scrapping it and starting again.

I’d just remind the Minister that I’d still like the answer to that question, please, around the numbers that have had pay corrections up until the Budget last year. That would be very helpful, thank you.

I also want to move to health and safety, and, again, go to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s annual report where it talks about the outcome in measured trends and the negative shifts in the serious injury area, and how serious workplace-related injuries have had a negative shift over that time period. In April, the Minister announced changes to health and safety regulations. What projections, if any, has she seen of the likely impact of her health and safety changes on workplace injuries and fatalities?

Thank you very much. Look, responding again to Lawrence Xu-Nan—sorry, no, Jan Tinetti.

So easy to confuse!

We just have so many questions, I had it written down incorrectly. For the question about pay corrections, I believe that around 175,000 people had their pay corrected in 15 settlements and one extension in March 2024. The Public Service Commission believes that is still an accurate figure.

Thank you, Chair. Through you, I just wanted to ask a workplace health and safety issue about landowner responsibility for recreational activities and whether the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has actually consulted with Herenga ā Nuku, the Outdoor Access Commission—which actually does state that there is no responsibility unless there are unusual things happening that would not be expected on the land—in her work to consider changing the law on landowner responsibility.

Tēnā koe. I want to go back to the pay inequities, and I just want to ask how many Māori are actually impacted as part of the 33 claims that have been cut. Then I have some workplace safety questions. The WorkSafe Maruiti 2027 strategy includes a goal to elevate its te ao Māori capacity and capability to a state of “comfortable” by 2025. I guess the question is: what is “comfortable”, and what specific actions have been taken to achieve this, and how is progress being measured? Given the disproportionate impact of workplace injuries for Māori, how is WorkSafe ensuring that its strategies are effectively addressing the unique challenges faced by Māori workers, particularly those with disabilities? Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the question about landowners and access to land, I don’t believe I’ve had contact with that specific group, but who I have had contact with is Federated Mountain Clubs, who have confirmed that there was genuine confusion about who had access to land and people’s legal obligations. I note that this has also been welcomed by, I believe, the Deerstalkers Association, who are concerned that because of this legal uncertainty that many people in our rural communities had over the law, access to land had been reduced over the last few years. So this is why we’re clearing it up, because we do want people to be able to access our great outdoors. We want people to, you know, have the ability to go hunting, fishing, shooting, doing tourist-based activities, to enjoy the land, to climb our mountains, to bike ride. But the use of land had become restricted, and that is the feedback that we have had from Federated Mountain Clubs as well as the Deerstalkers Association.

Does the Minister have advice on the number of workers within the 180,000 that she told us about a little while ago who would have been covered by the former pay-equity framework, who are employed in the funded sector, who are employed by a myriad of welfare, health, and other social sector organisations, but who are effectively funded by central government to a great extent?

Supplementary to that, how does she expect those workers in the funded sector will be able to have their pay-equity claims realised, when the Government has, effectively, withdrawn itself from responsibility and has excluded them from the new framework?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to signal to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, thank you so much for your responses. Previously, the Minister mentioned there have been 180,000 people who potentially may be affected. Is there a way to put a number or even a ballpark figure on how much, roughly, that’s going to be? So if the Minister wouldn’t mind just enlightening us on that question.

My question following on from that—also to do with health and safety, which we have moved on to—was: what has she done in terms of the concerns around engineered stone and will she consider banning it? Because it was one of the inquiries that we had in the annual review—engineered stone.

Thank you very much for the query and the question. When it comes to engineered stone, we have gone out for consultation on engineered stone. My understanding of where we are in that process now is that we have received the submissions and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is working its way through to analyse those submissions. So I haven’t yet received any information on my desk as to what the feedback is from people who are engaged with manufacturing and, I guess, the development of engineered stone, but I do look forward to seeing that one.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp asked how many Māori would be impacted by the pay equity changes, but I don’t have the breakdown of different ethnicities within claims. That sort of information, I suspect, would be held by the unions because that would come down to the individuals who are actually covered by a potential claim. As the Minister responsible for the legislation, I’m not responsible for the individual claims and the people who potentially would be wanting to take them, so I suspect a better answer to that would be through the individuals who have actually sought to bring the claim.

Mr Chair! I won’t get my time, will I?

Unless it’s a quick question, the Minister probably won’t have time to answer.

Quick question. Following up from my colleague’s question, I understand the funded framework was scrapped by the Government within this time period we’re talking about. Can the Minister confirm that, please?

Maybe not. Members, the time has come for us to suspend for the dinner break. When we resume at 7.30, the Minister of Police will be available to answer questions from the committee.

Members, the committee is resumed. When we suspended for the dinner break, we had concluded our time with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The Minister of Police is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise as the deputy chair of the Justice Committee. The committee held the 2023-24 annual review of New Zealand Police. We held that on 5 December. We considered our report on 27 March. There was a standard review for two hours. I think an important part of the report is at the beginning, where it states, “The New Zealand Police provide services that ensure that people can both be and feel safe in their homes, on the roads, and in their communities.”

It was probably a little bit of a different type of review, in the fact that we had the new commissioner in place for this review. Obviously, he was looking back at the past, when he hadn’t been the commissioner, but he did in the review set out his key priorities as being the new Commissioner of Police. There was also discussion in the review around his style around trust and confidence, and I think that will be a discussion that will happen in the next hour.

Key topics, through the report, were around cost pressures, the use of police technology, the firearms reforms—obviously, we had the gangs legislation that went through in this calendar year; also, the national gang unit that was set up. Also, there were discussions around the retaining and increasing of front-line officers, working with Māori, and working with youth.

A final part was, obviously, that our chair had quite an interest in police uniforms, and at the back of the report it’s noted, for a second consecutive year, about warm weather and police in their uniforms and possibly, in the future, the use of shorts. On the other issues there, I will open it up for questions from other people on the committee. As I say, it was a thorough review. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have quite a few questions, and I’m going to start with young people—because that is quite a key theme throughout the annual review—and the way that police interact with young people. I wanted to clarify something up front, and I hope the Minister of Police will be able to help me with this. I noticed that in Labour’s 2023 Budget, there was funding under this appropriation for the fast-track programme, which kind of helps to do wraparound support for young people who have offended, and it supports them through alternative pathways through the youth justice system. But I couldn’t find that within National’s 2024 Budget, and I wanted to check whether that has been transferred over to Oranga Tamariki, or whether that has just gone.

I also wanted to understand in terms of the police’s interactions with young people what reflections they had following some scrutiny of their behaviour around collecting images of young Māori on the streets. So I would like to hear about that.

Also, another concern that was raised during this session was around young people spending time in cells. My colleague Willow-Jean Prime quoted that there was a young person who had spent up to four days in police cells in Rotorua, and I know that this is something that the police don’t want to do either—to have young people in their custody and children in their custody. So I wanted to understand whether that has been reflected in this financial year, and whether the Minister wanted to make any reflections on that, as well. So that’s regarding young people.

Cultural competency within the police is, obviously, another big theme that was covered in this annual review, as well. I had quite a few questions around this, particularly around some of the findings from the Understanding Police Delivery report as well, which found that systemic bias existed within the police, particularly towards Māori and towards people within disability.

So my questions around cultural competence with regard to the annual review are: what actions has New Zealand Police taken to respond to the findings of bias and structural racism identified in the Understanding Police Delivery report, and what changes, if any, have been made to the Te Huringa o Te Tai ethnic strategies in light of evidence that Māori are still disproportionately prosecuted, stopped, and tasered by police? What actions has Police taken to evaluate whether current cultural competency strategies are having any measurable impacts on outcomes for Māori and Pasifika? How does Police reconcile the ongoing presence of structural racism with the claim that cultural strategies are effective, as noted within the annual review? What accountability mechanisms are in place to track whether Te Huringa o Te Tai and the ethnic strategy within Police, O Le Taeao Fou, are delivering actual change, rather than symbolic commitments. I also wanted to ask what actions has Police taken to reduce the disproportionate use of force, such as tasers against Māori men, and what role have Māori and Pacific communities played in assessing or redesigning Police’s cultural competency framework. So those are my questions around cultural competency.

I wanted to also focus in on mental health call-outs. A key feature in the annual review, as well, was that the police would be withdrawing from mental health call-outs, and I think there was a statistic in there that last year they responded to 78,000 mental health call-outs, and only 2 to 3 percent of those were actually involving a breach of the law. So I’m keen to understand, Minister, what actions has he taken to raise concerns about the lack of investment in mental health services as they step back from front-line call-outs. What assurances has the Minister received that other agencies are adequately resourced to respond to mental health incidents in their absence? What discussions has Police had with Government about the funding shortfall for mental health and family violence services? What action is Police taking to ensure there is no gap in emergency response for people in states of crisis?

So that’s kind of my first round of questions, and I would love to hear your thoughts around young people, cultural competency, and the police’s role in mental health call-outs as a start.

Well, that’s a pretty good start, a long list of questions; I’ll try to get through them all—and if I miss any, I’m sure the member Tamatha Paul can stand up and draw my attention to that.

First of all, I just want to acknowledge the opening comments made by the deputy chair of the Justice Committee, Jamie Arbuckle, and assure him that, yes, there might be a need for shorts in some places, but there certainly won’t be a return to long walk shorts and walk socks, that’s for real!

But, look, coming back to the points that were raised by the member, they were all very good ones. The Fast Track programme is the responsibility of Oranga Tamariki; that is where the funding sits for that. There certainly has not been a reduction in any funding for our front-line police officers and the engagement that they have with our youth. I want to acknowledge our front-line police officers, because through every community in New Zealand they are actually part of or running very effective programmes where they’re engaging with all of our youth.

I certainly know, in my own electorate of Whangaparāoa, I’ve got John Williams there, who I’ve worked for for well over 10 years, with Springboard, up north, in Warkworth, which works with youth that are getting into trouble. They’re coming from difficult backgrounds and they’re probably on a fast track into the adult justice system if we don’t help them, support them, mentor them, and do something with them. I’m lucky enough that John is now down in my patch. Last week, I was with him and a group of young people from my electorate, from a couple of our colleges, and one of the principals was there as well, and I was there to actually participate with them for the day, to see the programme that they were doing and actually try to firsthand get an idea of how effective it’s been. It’s been very effective.

I actually want to come back to a comment that the member made, which was a very good one, in terms of how we measure that and whether it’s reducing the offending. Fundamentally, that’s how we should be judging any of these programmes: is it starting to reduce the offending, is it starting to have a positive impact on the young person who is all of a sudden starting to realise that there’s great opportunities in this country and they’re being supported to actually be able to realise their potential?

The good news is that with this programme, it is starting to reduce offending. Now, that doesn’t mean that offending has gone entirely, because, especially when you’re dealing with recidivist youth offenders, you have been successful with a programme not if you’re stopping offending all together—that is a perfect world; that’s what we’d like to see—but if you start reducing that offending and if you start making progress with those young people and getting them on to a better track. Actually, that is success, as well. Now, ultimately, of course you want to get them to a place where they no longer offend, where they’ve either got the education or the skills to be able to get into some meaningful employment or get back to school, and actually start making something of their life. I just want to reassure her that our police force do an incredible job in this area. I’d invite her to come out with me and go and visit some of the sites, some of the programmes, and some of the officers that are delivering that.

We have got a world-class police service. The reason why I say that is because I spent 10 years overseas where I worked with lots of different law enforcement agencies in lots of different countries. I can talk from that viewpoint in saying that we’ve got a police force that engages with their communities, takes their responsibility to them seriously, and works really hard to try and fix some of the intergenerational issues that as a country we grapple with and we’re trying to improve.

In terms of cultural competency, again, I’d come back and say that we’re a contemporary country now, without a doubt. We are multicultural. I think we have over 170 different ethnicities that have made New Zealand their home. If you look at our police service, it is a modern, outward-looking police service that reflects back on a lot of those communities, and they’re deeply engaged and they’re very sensitively aware in terms of how they deal with and work across a lot of those cultures and a lot of those communities.

In terms of Understanding Police Delivery, that was a piece of work that was commissioned under the last Government; that is not my report. It’s not something I asked for in my letter of expectation to the commissioner; it was something that was asked for in the letter of expectation to the commissioner by the Hon Chris Hipkins. So that’s their report.

I don’t accept for one minute that we have a racist police force; in fact, quite the opposite. I think that we’ve got a police force that we should be extremely proud of: that is multicultural itself, that has lots of ethnicities sitting inside it—including a big proportion of Māori officers that are extremely proud to be serving in the police and also many of them work as our iwi liaison officers and do an outstanding job. Again, I’m very happy for the member to come with me if we go to some events. Let’s just take the Waitangi celebration on Waitangi Day. Come up and see the outstanding work that our iwi liaison officers do on the ground around the country every day. By the way, I just want to acknowledge our Māori wardens, who have got a very strong working relationship with police, and I’m very pleased that after years of decline, they seem to be strengthening, they’re getting more numbers, and they’re back out there and they’re present and they’re respected and they’ve got an important job to do right alongside police.

I want to acknowledge Mane Tahere, who is the young chairman of Ngāpuhi. We all saw, recently, that we’ve got a big challenge in our country with methamphetamine. That’s a global challenge, but it’s a challenge that we have here and we have to do something about it. He came to see me. He’s very concerned about his own people in the North. I said to him, “Mane, the police cannot do this by themselves; we need to have leadership from local government, from communities, and iwi and hapū are critically important in terms of working together on a joined-up strategy in how we make our country a safer place and how we start to purge this awful, destructive drug called “P” that is a wrecking ball through people’s lives.” I said to him, “Mane, if you can, step up and say that we’ll work together. It will send a very clear message to the communities that we’re trying to support and trying to make a difference to that we’re united and we’re developing a strategy together.”

He went out and he did that. I want to acknowledge him because that was a courageous and a brave move. He probably copped a lot of flak, too. But he got out and he said, “The police are not our enemy. We’ve got a part to play in this. We want to help our families, our hapū, our iwi, and we’re going to work together.” He was with me again at the end of last week. My commitment to him clearly is that we’re going to get alongside him and we’re going to make sure that we do it and we do it together—along with local government, along with community organisations across Government, with multiple Government agencies having a stake in that as well.

Mental health call-outs, yes. The police have been, for a long time, our only real 24/7 social agency. They’re also an agency that looks for solutions. So if you ask them to do something, they’ll step up, they’ll look for solutions, and they’ll respond. We should applaud that and we should thank them for doing that. The problem with that is that they’ve moved into spaces where they shouldn’t be in, and that includes mental health. A lot of people with mental health issues deserve a health response; they need someone that’s properly trained, that can help triage and diagnose them and work out pretty quickly what sort of support they need. Our police, in many cases, are not the right people to do that. They try their hardest. Our front-line police officers do their best. But not only should they not be in that role but they should be back on their core business. They should be back available to respond to the Kiwi that puts their hand up and needs help from our police force.

So we are working really hard as a Government. I’m working very hard with Minister Matt Doocey. We acknowledge that we have to rebuild a mental health workforce, and that takes time because of expertise. We’ve been very clear that the moves that we’re making to try and replace a police response with a health response—we’re doing that carefully, we’re doing that smartly, we’re not rushing it, we’re doing it when the various districts and areas are ready to actually step into that role. The feedback I’m getting is it’s very, very positive and it’s step change. Change is hard and change takes time, but we’re committed to it and we’re committed to making sure, in this country, that someone with a mental health issue gets a mental health response and gets the appropriate response. The police have been very, very clear that if it’s a situation where that person is a danger to themselves or a danger to the public, then that requires a police response and they’ll keep responding. But the police had an over 60 percent increase in mental health call-outs. That is not sustainable for them to be able to deliver the services that our public expect to get from the police.

I hope that I’ve covered off most of the issues that you’ve raised. Like I said, the member can take an opportunity to stand and clarify anything.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of quick questions in relation to firearms, which was covered in the review. The Minister of Police has stated publicly that a second review of the firearms registry is not necessary. I would be interested to know whether he considers that the firearms registry should continue to require all firearms to be registered—that would include A category ones such as standard rifles and shotguns. So should all of those firearms remain being recorded in the registry?

Secondly, it would be good to know if he considers whether owning a firearm is a privilege or a right.

Thirdly, recently, the Commissioner of Police stated that military-style semi-automatic weapons, or prohibited weapons, being made available in New Zealand would make New Zealand less safe. I’d be interested to know whether the Minister agrees with that.

My final question is in relation to the recently released information around the registry. Does he consider that guns are no more harmful than toasters or ovens, in light of the argument in Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole Mckee’s Cabinet paper that claims a gun registry cannot be justified because there are house fires caused by household appliances and no registry is required for those items—whether he agrees with that line of argument.

Well, firstly, I’ve been very clear that yes, I support the firearms register. It is going to be a really useful tool for us to be able to track and have a clear picture of where firearms are, who has got them, who is in possession of them, and it’s clearly got public safety implications and also for our front-line police officers as well, who, unfortunately, have to deal with more firearms instances than they should have to. So, yes, absolutely—fully supportive of the firearms registry.

I’m not going to get ahead of the work that’s been done, because the Associate Minister of Justice, the Hon Nicole McKee, is doing a rewrite of the Arms Act. It’s a big piece of work for her, and as she seeks decisions on parts of that rewrite, she’ll bring that through Cabinet. I’m not going to get ahead of Cabinet, of any decisions that are made around that, but I can assure the member that, as the Minister of Police, yes, I’m a supporter of the register. The register must stay, because it provides—and, as a result of the review that was just undertaken, clearly that is the case, that it is reported back to us.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of questions in relation to methamphetamine and organised crime that the Minister of Police already mentioned. Recently the ministerial advisory group on transnational organised crime has stated that New Zealand is losing the fight against transnational serious organised crime, alongside record profits and a 96 percent increase in methamphetamine use in New Zealand over the last year. I’d be interested to know whether the initial focus that he took on gang patches was not enough to really stem that increase in flow. Was there a missed opportunity in terms of more resources being targeted into transnational organised crime and targeting our borders and enabling that strategy to bed in more? Was there an oversight there? I’d be interested to know his views.

I’d also be interested in knowing what work is going on to counter the 96 percent increase in methamphetamine use. Also, given the fact that he has delegated responsibility for transnational organised crime to the Associate Minister, how is he intending as Minister of Police to do this work?

Finally, are there any programmes such as Te Ara Oranga that are going to be expanded? What other plans does he have in place alongside what’s in place already to counter the significant increase of methamphetamine use that is causing ongoing gang disputes and turf warfare in parts of New Zealand, as well as instances of more heightened and violent crime?

Well, I mean, the good news is that the people that predominantly are dealing with and are responsible for the methamphetamine in this country are gangs and organised crime. So we saw clearly that the gangs were operating with impunity. They felt they could take over provincial towns. You saw them taking over public roads. As the incoming Government, we said that we weren’t going to tolerate that any more and we’ve passed some gang legislation that’s proven to be very effective. I had feedback from Gisborne Hospital the other day to say that not only are the staff and patients no longer intimidated by gang patches in the hospital but it’s also de-escalated the aggression in the gang members, because they’re not putting on patches and feeling like they have to live up to the macho sort of behaviour that you see when they put their patches on.

The other thing is that, funnily enough, a perverse outcome of this too is that some of the gangs are really enjoying not wearing their patches, because they’re no longer targets when they put them on—that inter-gang warfare the member’s talking about. So, yes, we are cracking down on gangs and we’re going to continue to crack down on gangs, because that will also have a flow-on effect of being able to shut down the methamphetamine that we’ve got in the country.

By the way, I use Ōpōtiki as a classic example where the police ran an outstanding operation over there. They effectively took down the entire Mongrel Mob Barbarian chapter in Ōpōtiki. It was the only town in New Zealand that had a reduction of methamphetamine. The police are going to make sure that they keep the pressure on the gangs, so don’t have any fears about that. You’ll probably see some more very good legislation coming through this House that’s going to continue to support them and give them more power.

So in terms of transnational crime, yes, I’m very lucky that I’ve got an Associate Minister of Police who is also a very experienced detective and is also our Minister of Customs who has got a big role to play in transnational crime and protecting our borders and the methamphetamine that comes across the border. We work very closely together to make sure that we’re bringing all of our resources to bear in central government, that we do have a plan that actually starts to deal with the increase in methamphetamine in this country, because we want it to stop. We don’t just want to reverse it; we want to start making meaningful inroads into being a country that starts to purge ourselves of a drug that’s been here for 30 years and has been a wrecking ball through people’s lives for that entire time. If my associate wanted to add some comment to that, she’s welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think it’s an important discussion point to have regarding our opportunity in this space, which is, when we talked about losing the war on organised crime, the fact that this is about a broad picture that is all of the agencies, all of communities can contribute to the ability to reduce the impact of organised crime in our communities. So this is the collective approach, which is what the ministerial advisory group is focusing on, looking at all the levers that we can pull, that Police have done all of the heavy lifting in this space but we know there are a huge amount of other agencies that can contribute in this area, and that’s what the Customs work is doing and that’s why we will continue to drive that level of accountability.

The waste-water results are an indicator, definitely, around the extent of methamphetamine, but we need to focus on those solutions, which is why the most recent ministerial advisory group report was talking about how we impact the money and taking the profits out of the organised crime, which is another component. The equivalent of the gang patch removal is about how we remove the cash now. But, as the Minister has said, we work very closely across this collaboration and connecting up with all of the agencies that are able to control organised crime.

Tēnā koe. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to mihi to the Minister of Police and to the Justice Committee and different Opposition members that have talked on this subject. Within my portfolio, I guess there’s a bit of a targeted approach that I’ve taken in my responsibility to specifically look at young profiling, young rangatahi who are profiled within the justice sector. So, yeah, there’s a few points that I want to talk on and just want to refer back to what the Minister was talking about in terms of meeting with the Māori commissioners. Actually, at Waitangi, I met with all 54 Māori commissioners across the country and really want to thank them for their mahi that they do not only at Māori events but in the communities; also regularly catch up with our commanders in our electorates. Māori seats, obviously, cover six to eight general seats, so it’s a large portion of work that they have to do to keep us in the loop. So I want to mihi to them as well and the work that we’ve done with them.

My pātai is quite specific, and it touches on—in the annual review, it’s looking at a few of the points in ensuring that young people are not disproportionately targeted. We see regularly in the communities that with the gang legislation—there was a young boy who was misinterpreted as wearing gang insignia, but that wasn’t the case. So we’re just wanting to ask the Minister what coping mechanisms and strategies are in place to make sure that that doesn’t happen. I’m not talking about criminals, I’m not talking about gangs; I’m just specifically talking about the young, innocent child who’s walking on the street who is being profiled and is completely innocent in the situation. We’ve seen that a lot in our communities and we’ve had different articles and stuff that has come out recently in terms of this legislation.

I just want to quickly—I know we don’t really have much time in my party left, but, actually, last year I was talking to the Minister, this time last year, around gang tangihanga. There were three tangihanga in my electorate that weren’t affiliated to gangs at all, and we had an extreme, distressing experience. We had met with the commanders in place in that electorate, where we were able to really resolve some issues and find ways and strategies with marae, with gang members, with the police to make sure that it is safer for everyone in the community. So there are definitely solutions, but what solution specifically is the Minister looking at in terms of young rangatahi who are being falsely profiled?

First of all, I thank the member for the positive feedback and for making the effort, actually, to engage with police and recognise the work that they do. Thank you for that.

In terms of rangatahi with gang insignia being targeted, the fact of the matter is the police use their discretion in every situation that they deal with. In my experience—and, probably, I think, most people will agree with me—they’re pretty sensitive in the way they do that. Kids shouldn’t be in gang insignia. They shouldn’t be walking around in gang insignia. They become a target themselves to other gangs by doing that. And, sorry, the other issue was?

It was just that.

It was just that. Yeah, I thought so. Yeah, so I’m just trying to give you some reassurance that, no, the police would be very careful about how they deal with youth overall.

Oh, sorry, the other thing is in terms of profiling. Look, the police will run operations and do things. They will not do it off the profiling of people’s skin colour or ethnicity. They’ll do it purely off what is happening at the time in terms of crime trends, organised crime, and things like that. That is how they operate. They operate without fear or favour.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a couple of questions for the Minister around family violence. There are now multiple agencies who are front-line providers for family violence services, who have reported that when they have called police they have not come at all or they’ve been delayed for three to five hours, and that’s when there has been an assault or a crime committed. There’s more than one of these that have become public now. This leaves victims without a response. Oh, shall I say it again for the Minister? So family violence: multiple NGO providers have reported when they’ve called police for help with a victim, they have not come or they’ve waited four hours and when the offender has left. I would be interested to know what the Minister’s view on that is, considering he has stated that he wants to put victims first, if victims aren’t receiving a police response when a crime has been committed.

The second point I’d like to know is does he have data on the number of family violence call-outs that police have attended, but how many calls have come in without a police attendance—a car or a person—being allocated to that job?

The last question in this space I’ve got: is it possible that because the Government set itself a target of 20,000 fewer victims of crime and given the fact that the single biggest increase in violent crime over the past few years is family violence—is it a possibility here that the Government will achieve its own Government target on reducing victims of violent crime by simply not turning up to family violence call-outs?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few brief questions. My questions actually relate to work that crosses a number of agencies, because, historically, the Justice cluster would meet to talk about cross-agency work. The first touches on something which is also mentioned in the Ministerial Advisory Group on Transnational, Serious, and Organised Crime. One of the things that its most recent report identified was that the best way to stop transnational and organised crime is to stop the money. The police play an important role in anti-money-laundering, and I’m interested in what work is being done to enhance the ability to detect money-laundering in particular, and how that fits with other work which is making it less onerous to comply with money-laundering laws.

At the moment, we’ve got legislation going through this House that is actually lowering the compliance burden, if you like, around money-laundering, whereas in another part of Government, we’ve got a report which says we need to tighten up money-laundering. So I’m interested in where the balance is struck, and I’m particularly interested in what conversations are going on with you, Minister, and your agency, in terms of whether the work going on in Justice—kind of lowering the bar—is running any risks. If the case is no, it’s not—that it’s just a tidy-up—then what is being done to tighten up?

The other question is also a cross-agency question—it crosses into Courts. We know that there’s a massive court backlog, and in one of your other portfolios, you’ll be well aware of how many people are in prison on remand. One of the bottlenecks, it appears, is police prosecution. I’ve had some conversations with people who are in the sector, and they’ve made it very clear that whilst the courts themselves judge resource, for example, as one thing, another aspect is the resourcing of the Police Prosecution Service, including the IT system—for example, disclosure of documents is still being done by DVD and, in some cases, by pen drive, and the resourcing is so tight to the point that the police will ask for their pen drives to be returned once the documents have been downloaded.

Now, that’s a pretty old-school way to exchange information, and it’s laborious and clogging up the system. I’d be interested in any reports around what the Minister or the police are doing, in the space of prosecutions, to make them more streamlined and more effective so that we can reduce remand time and reduce the amount of time that any particular trial takes to get from charging to disposition.

Just very quickly on the family harm: no, Police has not changed its response to violent crime in the home. They’ll still respond where there is violence in the home. Yes, they are triaging their calls better. They are making sure they are going, again, to jobs that require a police intervention. It’s very hard to respond to anecdotal examples that are brought forward. They actually have to bring them forward so the police can respond to that. The only thing I would say, as I went to say before, is that some groups find change hard. They’ve got very used to the police doing things that the police have taken on that they perhaps shouldn’t be doing. A big part of the work we’re doing is being able to streamline that, but I can assure the member that the police will still respond to family harm and family violence in the home, without a doubt.

The measure for violent crime is survey based, so it’s not affected by police attendance. That does not have an impact at all—

Police data as well.

It’s a survey. To the member’s question around prosecutions, that’s exactly the same process that was being used under the previous Government. The only difference is that we have got the prosecution uplift programme that the Police are rolling out. It’s proving to be very effective. It’s building in major efficiencies between Police and the courts system, and we’ve reinvested in that and that is starting to deliver some outstanding results for us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I want to thank the Minister for not wasting any more resources or time on a second review of the gun registry. That’s an important thing, because those of us who have the privilege of being gun owners have also a responsibility to ensure public safety, and keeping tabs on where guns are, who has them, is a really important part of that, and where they are stored.

So my question is: is there a risk that the registry could be moved to another agency other than the Police? Because if this were to happen, it would—certainly as we’ve heard—put the police at greater risk when they’re investigating where guns are or dealing with criminal activity.

My second question is around the assessment on the relaxation of regulations for firearms, clubs, and ranges, the effectiveness of that relaxation for public safety. What plans do the Police have to keep tabs on how effective this relaxation has been for ensuring public safety in the first instance? Thank you.

Thank you. I had a couple of questions around retail crime. The latest survey out from the data is that retail crime has continued to increase during the term of this Government. One of the main responses that the Government has given is to provide the citizen’s arrest provision. Police have raised some reasonably serious concerns regarding public safety in the implementation of this law change. I would be interested if the Minister agrees with the Police advice. So does the Minister agree with Police advice? Police are not convinced that the benefits of these changes outweigh the potential risks. So that’s the Police themselves. I’m interested to know if the police Minister agrees or disagrees with Police advice.

The last question in terms of retail crime and the provision for citizen’s arrest is: Police have also said that there’s a fair chance that when they turn up, they might arrest the retail owner for kidnapping. I’m just interested to hear, from his own operational experience, whether that might happen.

I’m just curious around the police training framework and the Minister, I think, has said that he’s missed his own target on that, but I’m interested to understand what that means financially.

Two things: first of all, is it the case that not recruiting 500 new police will save around $30 million a year, and has that been factored into any decision making? And in terms of the Auckland training facility, I’d be interested in just some description around that. I understand it’s going to be at Massey University in Albany, and obviously there will be some recruits coming from Auckland. I’d be interested in where recruits coming from outside Auckland are going to be accommodated. Also, given that it’s in a working university campus I’d be interested to know two things: one is whether it has the ability to accommodate full wings, which I understand is around 100 people. Also, where will the more energetic training and testing be done? Obviously, there’s going be some pretty significant exercises, I imagine. You could probably tell me more about that than I’d know, but where will those kinds of physical activities be undertaken?

Thank you very much. There’s a few questions building up there. I’ll try not to ask the same ones twice. I’ve got a few questions around the 500 police. Interested to know—I saw new reports tonight on TV1—just whether the Minister can confirm that they will not be delivered by 25 November 2025? And if that is, in fact, the case that I understand has been made public now, when is the date, he believes? We know the Commissioner of Police has said it won’t happen this year; it’ll happen early next year, potentially, or in June next year. But I’m wanting to know a date from the Minister when he thinks that the coalition agreement for 500 additional police—what the new date for that is.

I’m also interested to know how that projection was so wrong—if there are any lessons the Minister has learnt, in terms of making promises, to try and understand where that did not go right in terms of getting those projections so wrong. And I’m also interested to know in relation to this portfolio, are there any other parts of the coalition agreement that won’t be delivered?

The Minister of Police gave a rollicking speech earlier on, including a story about Ōpōtiki around gangs and how good they’re doing on it. My colleague has just talked about police numbers, and police numbers are static. It appears gang numbers—on the data that I have in front of me—continue to climb. I’d be interested to know whether that’s accurate. How are gang numbers travelling? Is it right that gang numbers are around, I think, 9,893—it’s almost one for one of police—and growing faster than police numbers?

If that’s the case, notwithstanding the gang law reforms, what other steps are being taken in respect of gang numbers, and in particular what cross-agency work is being done around gang recruitment? People fall off the end of gangs due to age or growing up and getting sensible, but people are still clearly coming in at the bottom end. What are we doing particularly to stem the tide of gang recruitment, Minister? Minister—Minister?

I would have thought that such an experienced member of Parliament, such as the Minister, would have understood that he’d want to answer all of these questions, not use all his time up on the initial speech, because there’s a number of really key questions that we do want answered.

We do want an answer in relation to citizen’s arrest and whether or not he agrees with the Police advice that it could be dangerous to public safety, and also his view on whether there’s a high chance that a retailer could be arrested for kidnapping if they use that power. And the other area that we really want an answer on is around the 500. We would like answers in those areas, specifically on that, and he still hasn’t given a clear answer on whether A category firearms should be included in the firearms registry.

Well, let me start to work my way through this list. First of all, in relation to retail crime, we were very clear about the fact that the rise in violent retail crime against shopkeepers, their employees, and their customers was unacceptable, and we have been focused on reducing violent retail crime and we’re starting to make some inroads there. The police are doing an outstanding job, along with their partners.

The 500—yes, interesting. In 2017, under the previous Government, standards were changed, which I was very clear about at the time, that I did not agree with and they should have not happened. Then, as the incoming Minister, I was asked whether or not I would support returning the training course at the college back to 20 weeks, which had been changed to 16 weeks which was not good enough.

That’s not answering the question.

It meant that we were not—well, you want an answer to the question? I’m giving you an answer to the question on the 500. So, as the incoming Government, as part of our coalition agreement with New Zealand First—who always has a big focus on more numbers for our police service, and that matters—we set a date that we wanted to achieve that by.

It’s become obvious as time’s gone on—and the commissioner has come out recently and said that he’s doing a full review of standards—that we are not willing to compromise on standards. So we’re not getting hung up on that date. We still want targets. This Government feels that the targets are important—that the Auckland training facility’s going to be outstanding, because it now gives the Police an additional option for people that maybe do not want to make the commitment to, or who can’t get away from their families for, the 20 weeks down at the Police College. I’m sure that they’re going to find plenty of fields and places to do their exercise. I don’t think the member’s going to have to worry about the physical activity side of it.

I just want to say that in terms of the recruiting, at the moment we’ve got 120 police officers that left the Police, or people that left the Police, that want to return and rejoin the Police. We’ve got a pipeline of 10,000 people that want to join our New Zealand Police. I was down on the West Coast at the police station down there on the weekend, and we’ve got police officers coming back from overseas, from Queensland, that want to come back and rejoin the job here. By the way, we welcome them back; we want them back.

So we’re motivated, we’re committed, we’re not compromising on standards, and we’re going to deliver our 500 police officers.

I wanted to remind the Minister that there are two things he didn’t answer there: he hasn’t mentioned what work is being done on money-laundering, and he hasn’t explained how he’s going to turn around the fact that gang numbers are growing faster than police numbers.

Well, I’d just say that both our Police, our Serious Fraud Office, and other agencies—but those are two that I’m responsible for—do an outstanding amount of work together. They work together on money-laundering and especially with organised crime and gangs.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. There was one area which I was interested in that we didn’t get a clear answer, and that was in relation to the sharp escalation in methamphetamine. I’m pleased to hear the Minister’s been up to Northland and visited, but what programmes or what plans are in place or is he considering or does he want to draw upon in order to counter this 96 percent increase in methamphetamine use?

We know that disruption is a useful tactic in terms of controlling supply, but also controlling demand and harm minimisation are useful strategies for drug control. So I’d like to know what strategies are in place. What is the sprint team that the Prime Minister announced recently with himself, Paul Goldsmith and also Matt Doocey? What have you been considering in terms of ways to counter the sharp increase?

Yeah, the stand-up programmes—and I think the member is referring to Te Ara Oranga in Whangārei, which I met with just two weeks ago to work through the successes that they’re finding. It is being rolled out and that’s a challenging process. The meth harm sprint team is still very in its infancy stages and there are a lot of decisions still to be made. But the member will be aware of the Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities (ROCC). So the Kaikohe work is under way; the Porirua programme of work, that’s under way; there’s work under way in Ōpōtiki which is all about, exactly as the member’s talking about, reducing the demand components and building resilience into those really at-risk communities. So that will continue to be rolled out as part of the transnational organised crime strategy as long as the ROCC programme is still continuing.

Well, that seems to conclude the time for the Minister of Police. We will now move to the Minister for the Environment, who is available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m mindful of the short amount of time that we have, so I’ll just make a few introductory comments. Obviously, our environment is incredibly important to both our economy and to the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. The economy, in New Zealand, relies heavily on the natural environment, with our primary industries and tourism sectors comprising a significant proportion of our export revenue that sustains our way of life.

In the year ended June 2024, primary industries contributed $53.3 billion to exports, and in the year ended March 2024, international tourism’s contribution to total exports was $16.9 billion. Conversely, when things go wrong for our environment, our economy and our people suffer, and an example of this is that the cost to our food and fibre sectors to recover from Cyclone Gabrielle is estimated to be between $700 million and $1.1 billion.

If I could just scamper quickly through a few of the key achievements during the review period. As was noted, we repealed Labour’s Resource Management Act reforms before Christmas 2023 and made a series of quick and targeted amendments to provide relief to our primary sector; and I know Mr Bishop will want to talk a little bit more about that in detail later. We granted $6.6 million to clean up four historic New Zealand landfills and dumpsites that are vulnerable to extreme weather events and coastal erosion—those were in Tairāwhiti, Southland, Canterbury, and Nelson. We enabled faster consenting for flood protection projects in Hawke’s Bay to enable stopbanks, spillways, and other infrastructure to increase flood protection there.

Against the background of broader waste legislative reform work, we undertook urgent legislative reform of the waste disposal levy provisions for Budget 2024. Those changes enabled central government’s share of the levy—the 50 percent share—to be spent on a wider range of environmental activities. The amendments also made incremental increases to waste levy rates over three years. We continued work on product stewardship schemes, most notably Tyrewise, where an estimated 4.6 million tyres, annually, go to landfill or are illegally disposed of. Tyrewise was brought in in March and fully implemented by September 2024.

We’ve made considerable changes to the freshwater regulations—or are making those changes. We’re taking a pragmatic and balanced approach that reflects all water users in our freshwater reforms. I think, with that, perhaps, if I could hand over to my Associate Minister—Minister Hoggard—to talk about some of the delegations that he has.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just touch on a couple of my delegations. Firstly, the Minister for the Environment mentioned biodiversity credits. I can confirm that that work is moving quite nicely, and, hopefully, there will be more news on that in the very short term. I see that as a particularly beneficial project that will help out our farmers quite considerably and other landowners who have native bush on their farms or land and, basically, give them a carrot, as opposed to the stick approach, of “Here is an incentive to further look after it. If you have a gully that is not particularly useful for farming or for anything else, here is a way of creating benefits not only for biodiversity but for yourself as a business.” We understand there is quite a lot of demand internationally for these credits and schemes, and so we will be looking to test this in very short order with a number of pilot projects to iron out the system and see if we can make something work here. It’s something I’m looking forward to, not only benefiting farmers but also the environment.

Also just keen to touch on farm plans, which is another one of my delegations. The focus on that has been on removing duplication, unnecessary volume in these plans, and really focusing it on what the key issues are that the farmer should be focusing on in terms of delivering bang for buck. I’ve seen examples in the past where there were farm plans going into probably 70, 80-odd pages with upwards of 80 to 100 recommendations. Quite frankly, that is just far too much. You know, when you see something like that, you just get overwhelmed and it is hard to focus and be clear on “What is it I need to do?” We need to have a system where the top three, five are highlighted: do them, knock them off, then move on to the next one.

More importantly, these farm plans need to work in with the catchment-care groups and be informed by what is the local catchment context—what are the things that are happening. In my recent visits, I’ve really seen the benefits of what are called “edge-of-field mitigations”: things like bioreactors, engineered wetlands, detention bunds. These are mitigations that are applied at a catchment scale that can deliver really good benefits across multiple farms. So we need a system that, rather than focusing on each little farm individually as a silo and saying, “You must do this; you must do that.”, actually brings everyone together.

Another key part of the work that I’ll be doing alongside the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture is ensuring we have a fit for purpose funding regime for these catchment-care groups. It’s fair to say that some, if they’ve got good report writers or grant writers, were able to access lots of funds in the past, and others that were just focused on doing stuff and not too much writing of grant applications didn’t get a lot. We need to have a system that recognises those that are actually doing stuff rather than writing about stuff.

Finally, on behalf of the Minister, I’ll touch on the work that’s happening within the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in regards to the ag-hort chemical products review, the regulatory review there. Obviously, it’s not a delegation of mine, but wearing my other hat as food safety Minister, I work in tandem with the Minister on this project, because, obviously, agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines are the other leg to the stall in terms of getting these products into market. So 11 of the 16 recommendations that relate to the EPA from that review are being worked through right now, and we’ve got a target of a 10 percent reduction to the queue of unprocessed applications to the next financial year. We’ve already had our first sector leaders forum, and are working with the sector in terms of what are the ways that we can get these processing times down and ensure that New Zealand farmers are able to access all of the tools that are available to them and are not held up because of distance from the market and, you know, bureaucratic barriers to actually getting products on farm, which is where they’re needed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister for the Environment, just a couple of quick questions, and she may be able to be assisted by her colleague. Firstly, why, for the third consecutive year, has there been a toxic algal bloom in Lake Hood, just out of Ashburton? The second question is: has she done any investigation into why the aquifer that the Waimate community draws its water from has been too toxic and nitrate levels been too high?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify with the Minister that she does recognise the environment as having intrinsic values, not only economic values, following her opening remarks. Has not removing freshwater protections worsened water pollution and contamination, noting in the state of the environment report from the ministry this year that 12 percent of groundwater monitored sites failed to meet New Zealand’s drinking-water standards for nitrate and nitrogen? That’s 11.3mg a litre. There’s a bowel cancer risk at 1mg, increased pre-term birth risk at 5mg. Is it not correct that your policies have made water quality worse in this country?

If I could just remind the member that the period that is being reviewed is up to June 2024, and half of that time was the previous Labour Government and the first six months of this Government. So I’ll just remind the member to concentrate on that review.

What are the indications of the impact of your policies on water quality up to this point, please?

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Continuing on, the Minister spoke about the waste policy and the Waste Minimisation Act. There’s work being done on that, I understand. I’m wanting to know a little bit about where that is going, because in looking at some of the work that the Minister for the Environment has been part of in her ministry in terms of the regulatory framework, in terms of compliance, monitoring enforcement provisions seem to have been lessened under her lead and her watch.

Some questions I have for the Minister are: what is the time frame for the waste minimisation bill to be introduced? Secondly, I want to ask around the previous issue just mentioned. The previous Labour Government, we had been doing work on this waste minimisation bill. What sort of policy development is she doing that’s different to what was already proposed?

My third question in my tranche of three is: what is the issue with the third tranche around the hard-to-recycle plastic? You’ve paused the ban—sorry, I don’t think it was you, Madam Chair, but the Minister has paused the ban and the work on the third tranche of the hard-to-recycle plastics. I’d like a comment on that, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just remind that member again that the Waste Minimisation Act changes—that work is yet to occur, and that we are starting work on that now. It certainly didn’t occur in the review period that we are considering.

In terms of the hard-to-recycle plastics, yes, we have paused some of those plastics that industry did not yet have replacements for, and we are working with industry to ensure that bringing those back in will occur at a time when they have alternative material available. They are certainly working on it.

I understand your comment there about why would a Minister not be ambitious in terms of looking at waste minimisation and looking at that hard-to-recycle plastic in terms of being bold and moving forward. That’s a challenge, and I’d ask why she allowed that to be paused, because it was on track and moving forward.

I also want to talk in terms of what has gone on around the waste policy that is being worked on, and the fact that the circular economy seems to have been removed in terms of the work that’s being done. I want to ask the Minister for the Environment why the term “circular economy” is no longer used in the waste minimisation strategy. We look at pieces of legislation coming through this House in terms of—obviously, the right to repair bill, which I think is something that could be considered. So my question would be: why has it been removed, and what is wrong with the phrase “circular economy”?

Tēnā koe. Wanting to explore with the Minister in relation to mātauranga Māori and the way with which the ministry gives effect to mātauranga Māori and its relationship with tangata whenua. Can the Minister please explain their understanding of Wai 262 and how you operationalise it within the ministry and their business? Kia ora.

With my next question, I just want to finish off, from my perspective, on the waste space. The Minister was part of a Government that, obviously, brought in the Fast-track Approvals Act, and part of that, which I want to talk about, is the waste-to-energy plant down in Waitaki, down in the township—which has totally gone out of my head, but I can see it. My auntie will be very upset with me. The question is: why, under her watch as the Minister for the Environment, was she supportive of the Fast-track Approvals Act having something in the piece of legislation, the waste-to-energy plant, that actually—

Waimate.

—yeah, in Waimate; thank you—goes backwards, because it’s about burning as much material as possible, as opposed to looking at recyclable solutions and looking at the circular economy—feeding the beast, in fact? Why, under her watch, as the Minister for the Environment, did she allow for the waste-to-energy plant in Waimate to be put in the Fast-track Approvals Act?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister, if she would answer, more questions about water. The modelling estimate that 45 percent of the country’s total river length is not suitable for activities such as swimming—is the Minister satisfied with that? That figure is from the 2025 report, but it relates to the date between 2016 and 2020. My second question is: what investment is the Minister making in ensuring that we have up-to-date data on water quality?

Going on from my question relating to Wai 262, I’m really keen to understand from the Minister for the Environment what Budget allocation might be dedicated towards mātauranga Māori and the work of Western science and mātauranga Māori—

This is about looking back.

This is about looking back and it’s about what investment you have committed and programmes you had funded.

Further, another question in relation to kauri dieback and the programmes that have been funded that demonstrate the partnership between Western science and mātauranga Māori—investment to date, and an explanation on the programmes and the successes of the programmes to date.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to reiterate questions that my colleague Glen Bennett asked the Minister for the Environment around waste minimisation strategy, the circular economy. I’d also just like to add why those targets were removed from the waste strategy. Does this Government believe in targets in some areas like health but not in others like waste? If it’s because the Minister felt that the targets weren’t going to be met, then what impact is she hoping to achieve and what steps is the Minister taking in order to achieve that specific impact?

I also did have a few questions—but Glen Bennett has covered some of those—around waste to energy, but it would be really good to get some responses from the Minister before we go on to things like fresh water, for example.

I’m delighted that so many of the members are intrigued with the work that we are intending to do over the next year, and I’ll remind them again that this review period is for the final six months of the previous Government and the first six months of this Government.

With regard to science investment, can I just advise that up to 30 June 2024, $14.7 million was spent on improving the environment and climate information, including $5.7 million on statutory reporting obligations, $4.8 million on environmental data systems, $3 million on policy evidence, and $1.2 million associated with science governance, assurance, and strategic partnerships.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister what’s happening with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. That’ll be something we’d like to have some conversation on from this side of the Chamber.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister made it quite clear that she didn’t feel that Te Mana o te Wai fitted in. I want to know why she thought that and does she still stand by that? Can she please talk to the removal of Te Mana o te Wai in terms of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management?

I’m interested to see if the Minister has any answers related to water. We’ve just had another one: 46 percent of lakes larger than one hectare have Trophic Level Index scores indicating poor or very poor health in terms of nutrient enrichment. Is the Minister satisfied with that, and what is the impact of the Minister’s water policies—removing water protections—going to be on rivers, lakes, and groundwater contamination?

I just want to continue on the fresh water and the national policy statement. Obviously, in this House, in the previous year, under her watch, we had to rush through some legislation around Otago Regional Council when they were directed around their notification, work they’d been working on for years with their freshwater plan—$18 million, and the Minister for the Environment kiboshed that, shut it down. I’d like the Minister to address the House in terms of why she thought that was important and why she felt the need to prevent the council from making those decisions, putting them in place, and for the money that was spent that they could have saved. Why did she choose to do that?

I’ll just remind the member once more that that occurred in October 2024. The review period is up to June 2024.

If I could just move on to the Green member’s queries about 45 percent of total river length not being swimmable in that period of 2016 to 2020 and your comments about the impact of our policies, obviously our policies were not in place during that time.

Thank you. The reason I asked a question about the Otago Regional Council is it’s relevant because it has the ramifications and the ongoing impacts this year—this year—because things have been shut down. So we look at water quality that’s going on.

I want to ask, and it was alluded to in the briefing at the start, how many farms will no longer be required to have a freshwater farm plan under the Government’s proposed changes?

The reason I quoted those dates, Minister, was because those are the dates that are in the State of the Environment Report 2025. I also asked where the updated information on the state of our rivers is, given the last available data is from 2020. Why is there no data available? Are you hiding the fact that river quality has got worse?

With regards to the farm plans, basically, the full information will be out shortly. We are still consulting and tying up the last ends of that—in terms of the design of it. Basically, every farmer will have a farm plan. Whether they are certified and the level they need to go to will be different based on their risk, but it is vitally important—farm plans are an exceptional tool for bringing solutions to a catchment level. Every farmer having a plan and knowing what they need to be doing is important.

We do not need to force massive costs on to every single farmer, though. For many, it’s going to be a simple case of working with their catchment-care groups, using simple, other plans to do that. In fact, if you look at it, every dairy farmer in the country already has a freshwater farm plan through their companies. Many sheep and beef farmers already do. Everyone in the horticulture sector already has this work done, so this has vastly already happened. What we’re ensuring is that these plans that already exist aren’t being forced to be duplicated by another plan.

Continuing on that line of questioning, did the Associate Minister for the Environment receive any analysis to support the decision that was made to reduce the number of farms subject to the freshwater farm plans? Is there any value, actually, in even having them if he feels like he’s watering it down and less farms are actually responsible—can we have a deeper analysis of that?

I did not say there will be fewer properties captured, because we are increasing the threshold of what is defined as a farm. Previously it was 20 hectares. Now, quite frankly, I view 20 hectares as a lifestyle block. We need to be realistic around what is the size of a real, commercial farm where someone is earning a real income and can be effectively doing activities that would require this level of management. So, yes, we are not including a whole range of really tiny little properties, but every real, commercial farm will still be captured by this. Obviously, there will be a risk matrix applied to that in terms of what they need to be doing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is around the community environment funding, because during the last Estimates hearing the Minister stated that community environmental projects that had been defunded by this Government need to look elsewhere for funding. We know that under Budget 2024, the Government scrapped the Community Environment Fund, the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund, and, of course, controversially, the Jobs for Nature programmes, as well. I’d like to know from the Minister whether she has conducted any analysis to determine whether those groups have, in fact, secured alternative funding, and have any of those community environmental projects had to shut down or stop any of their work as a result of the withdrawal of Government funding?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, the Jobs for Nature funding was scheduled to finish anyway; it had a fiscal cliff. That came from the previous Government.

There were changes in the amount of funding that went to NGOs. I would note that quite a significant amount of this funding was signed off by the previous Minister for the Environment in the previous Labour Government about three days before the election day. Yes, $200,000 went to Forest & Bird; $225,000, just over, went to Fish & Game New Zealand; Environmental Defence Society got $343,883; Environmental Hubs Aotearoa Inc got $1.4 million; Para Kore Marae were given $1.2 million. You are quite correct: quite a lot of that funding was not carried on, and I’d have to say I found it an astonishing thing for the previous Minister to sign off hundreds of thousands of dollars like that.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I’m seeking your guidance on this matter. We’ve heard, on several occasions, this Minister brushing off that that was a decision or that was something made under the previous Government. That doesn’t mean that the work of the ministry that she is responsible for stops immediately. Now, the answer might simply be “We canned that when we became Government.” That might simply be an answer, and that’s totally acceptable. Now, in that final answer that the Minister just gave, she went back into the same period that she was brushing off in other questions with a rather detailed answer about saying, “Well, we find it astonishing that it should be signed off.” I’m seeking your guidance on this matter, Madam Chair, because we’ve heard it throughout this entire session with this Minister.

The Minister was answering a question about the review period in question, which relates to the question put by his own colleague, and the Minister was simply reflecting on the extraordinary nature of the funding, which the Minister is perfectly entitled to make her point about.

But she can for the other questions too—

Thank you. It was a debating point rather than a point of order, so we’ll carry on. I’m sorry, members, but the Minister’s time has concluded. We now move on to the Minister of Conservation, who is available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

The Minister of Conservation is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

As the Environment Committee chair, I’ll give some opening remarks on the annual review of the Department of Conservation. The department’s total revenue for 2023-24 was $713.86 million, and the total expenditure was $686.86 million, resulting in a surplus of $26.99 million. It was heard that the department has been instructed to make cost savings for the 2024-25 year. The department said it had saved $10 million by simplifying some administrative processes, and the department said it expected its financial controls to be improved, and it would be looking at investing money for the greatest outcomes, targeting high-value conservation areas for investment. The department also reported that science-informed management has led to improved conservation outcomes. It provided an overview of the technologies and tools that it was using to create efficiencies. This included those in the areas of pest and predator control, which was also addressed. The department continues to carry out an enormous amount of work, it said, in this area in terms of predator control and the clear priorities in predator and pest management.

Asset management was also addressed. The department has been investing $12 million annually to replace assets. If assets continue to be maintained at this rate, it will cost $487 million over 10 years. The annual review also reports that on 1 October 2024, the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy increased from $35 per person to $100 per person, but decisions about the allocation of this revenue had not been made at this point. Concessions, hunting and fishing, relationships with public and private sectors and with iwi, and settlement obligations were also addressed in the annual review. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minita Potaka, tēnā koe. I have a series of pātai talking about the effect of last year’s appropriation for conservation, the effect of announcements during that year signalling further cuts, and some questions on progress, if any, towards local and international targets. It’s pretty important because only by protecting and restoring nature can we ensure that future generations can enjoy that beautiful native birdsong.

I’d like to acknowledge—thank you, Chair of the Environment Committee—the members of the select committee who interrogated those issues and brought these annual reviews of the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Predator Free 2050 forward. I’d like to actually thank all of the Department of Conservation staff in head office and out in the field, all of the Predator Free volunteers and staff. I think that includes quite a lot of MPs as well, from previous conversations.

Does the Minister believe that savings and cuts to Te Papa Atawhai of $47 million have contributed to the increasing number of terrestrial species at risk, as referred to in Our Environment 2025? So that was over a three-year period which includes that annual review. Our Environment 2025 is jointly produced by the Ministry for the Environment and Stats New Zealand.

I’ll carry on. How do those cuts address the need for $2.3 billion assessed to manage all threatened species? How has reallocating DOC staff from climate change and biodiversity to a dedicated hunting and fishing unit helped any endangered indigenous species? In what way has reducing funding for several programmes that support Māui dolphins contributed to Te Mana o te Taiao? Given the success referred to in this annual review of community support for 1080 application in the Raukūmara range supported by Ngāti Porou and Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, has Te Papa Atawhai been able to increase support for that necessary poison elsewhere and have they been able to deploy as much as is needed across public conservation land?

Looking at our commitment to the global biodiversity framework targets, especially target one, protecting 30 percent of lands and ocean, especially given our country has the sixth largest exclusive economic zone in the world, I’d also like to know whether the national targets for the global biodiversity framework in terms of governance legislation and funding systems are any closer to being met; in particular, whether the costs and value of restoring indigenous biodiversity have been quantified and inform decision making.

The last conservation-specific question before I, hopefully, get another call and can deal with Predator Free is: does the Department of Conservation now mentioning 4,300 species at risk or threat of extinction, up from 4,000 previously, suggest that the Department of Conservation is not resourced to do the required mahi? Thank you. I look forward to the answers.

All right. Now, just before I call the next speaker, just to let members know that National have 41 minutes and 42 seconds left. ACT have no time left. New Zealand First have 16 minutes and 27 seconds. Labour have 32 minutes and 56 seconds, the Greens have 15 minutes and 25 seconds, and Te Pāti Māori have 10 minutes and 41 seconds.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I too would like to begin with a few questions around the Minister’s priorities for protecting biodiversity. I refer to a Cabinet paper of the Minister’s, where out of the three priorities that he has listed as his specific focus areas, unfortunately, enhancing biodiversity comes third. The same Cabinet paper, of course, lays out that our native wildlife is at serious risk of extinction, species decline—we’re one of the worst countries in the world for it—and yet, at the Estimates hearing, the Minister was at pains to point out that he can’t protect all species, and there seemed to be a serious lack of ambition there, to protect species. I would like to know, given the funding cuts that my colleague Celia Wade-Brown has mentioned as well: has the Minister sought any advice on what biodiversity protection or specific conservation outcomes Te Papa Atawhai, the Department of Conservation, has identified as being “at risk” as a result of the budget cuts or, in the Minister’s language, the “savings exercise”?

I’d also like to know how much of that $47.2 million in planned savings will come from a reduction in grants, partnerships, or support for community-led conservation. Specifically, I’ve got a couple of questions around the cuts to Jobs for Nature. Of course, that was support for community-led conservation projects across the country, but it also led to the creation of about 11,000 to 13,000 jobs. I’d like to know, from the Minister, whether he accepts that the cuts to Jobs for Nature’s funding undermines not just those conservation outcomes but also front-line conservation jobs; if so, what advice has he sought on the number of jobs that have been reduced because of that funding cut?

I too have some questions around Predator Free. Of course, we’ve seen just in the news lately that Predator Free Wellington has seen massive funding cuts as well, and that will impact the work that they do here, despite the fact that we’ve seen the outcomes from that funding. Of course, at Estimates, as well, we heard that pest incursions will occur more often in the future and will have a greater effect as the climate gets warmer as well. So I’d like to know what the Minister’s priorities are when it comes to Predator Free and predator control.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, tēnā rā hoki koe e te Minita, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you also to the Minister, indeed greetings to us all of the House.]

I have very short broad questions to ask in terms of conservation tonight. I just want to get the Minister of Conservation’s view. We tautoko, actually, our Green Party members raising the Wai 262 claim—tēnā koe Hūhana mō tērā—in the previous debate. So I just want to ask what the Minister’s view is on Wai 262 being incorporated in conservation as that directly relates to partnerships with iwi and hapū settlement obligations, pine trees, the native fish species. It’s basically the integral, most important claim that there is that encapsulates environment, conservation, intangible and tangible taonga species. It’s a huge part; what does he think about it? How does he think it relates to conservation and how is it related into this? Also, in terms of directly looking at the partnerships with iwi and hapū in the annual review in relation to Raukūmara Pae Maunga and the cuts that have happened in Jobs for Nature and how that’s detrimentally affected Raukūmara Pae Maunga across Ngāti Porou, across Te Whakatōhea—not detrimentally, but it has had some effects in terms of the Raukūmara Pae Maunga.

I also want to ask the Minister in terms of settlement obligations within the annual review, but also how important section 4 of the Conservation Act is in many different Treaty settlement claims. I’d like to know his views on the statement that, recently, Ariki Sir Tumu Te Heuheu has made around Ruapehu and how important that is in terms of Treaty settlement. Actually, the Minister has loads of experience in that particular sector and in that particular kaupapa, so I would welcome his views and comments. Tēnā koe.

Tēnā tātou katoa. Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s an absolute privilege to be the Minister responsible for 30 percent of the land and a great deal of the marine space here in Aotearoa New Zealand. Iconic, majestic, and pristine places that are our seascapes and our landscapes, and I’m very humbled to serve in the Cabinet of Christopher Luxon, dealing to these issues.

Biodiversity is top of mind. Many questions have been asked, and there’s a little bit of misinformation out there as well, particularly when it’s alleged that I have a lack of ambition to protect species. What I want to reiterate to this committee is that we are doing quite a bit around biodiversity and ensuring that we can get to grips with not only the importance of moving 4,500 species from the threatened and at risk status and into the persistence or persisting status that we all want them to be in, and, of course, in the words of our famous vision: Toitū te Taiao—nature thriving. So we’ve done that in a variety of ways, and it’s not perfect—it’s a work on—but we’ve got a lot of work going into a very important bio-planning tool that enables us to understand how we can invest in and commit resources to not only ecosystem regeneration but also the wildlife and species regeneration that goes with that. Yes, we have one of the highest levels of endemic species in the world, and because we’ve been separated from the rest of the world for the last 80,000 years, that separates us from many, many other countries in the world.

There was talk about funding and Budget 2024, where there was a reduction in the funding of the conservation portfolio by around $47 million to $48 million. A lot of that was uncommitted. Whether or not it was Jobs for Nature, the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, or a few other things, it was uncommitted funding.

In relation to Raukūmara Pae Maunga, that is ongoing funding until the end of 2026. It’s a significant Jobs for Nature project. Other Jobs for Nature funding was time-limited. There was a fiscal cliff, and the previous Government did not baseline that level of funding. It was time-limited, so a number of other projects are no longer funded.

I am very aware of Wai 262 and some of the intersecting arrangements around section 4, and certainly the recent comments by the ariki Tumu Te Heuheu—I’m well aware of those, and appropriate responses have been made to the ariki—and also there is a sense that a lot of the issues that have been raised will be carried through the mahi that Minister Goldsmith is undertaking with the Tongariro National Park negotiations in due course. There are thousands of settlement obligations with the Department of Conservation, as the entity across Government that has the highest level of commitments in settlement obligations, and the team is working feverishly to make sure that those matters are addressed in a timely and reasonable manner. It’s not easy, particularly as new settlements come on which have additional obligations—for example, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, and Ngāti Hauā up on the Whanganui River and surrounding tributaries—which have included and inhaled a lot more settlement obligations that go with those settlements.

I’m happy to take more questions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would be grateful if the Minister would actually give us some information about what he has done to prioritise species protection, because everything that he’s pointed to has happened in spite of him being Minister, not because of him being the Minister. For example, the bio-planning tool: what does that actually do in terms of species protection? With the Jobs for Nature—of course, the Minister makes the point that it was time-limited funding, we would have made the choice to extend the funding, he’s made the choice not to—but what I asked was the impact of the reduction of funding in that space when it comes to community conservation, and we’ve had no answers around that. With Predator Free 2050, of course, their funding has been reduced by approximately two-thirds, down from $2 million to $500,000, and I would like to know what message the Minister reckons that sends to conservation workers and community conservationists who are working to ensure Predator Free is actually successful.

Also, my question around species protection is in light of—for example, in the Hauraki Gulf, there were two aspects to the Government’s response to the decade-long work that local communities undertook through the Sea Change process. One was the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, which we understand is going to be watered down in the eleventh hour. The other aspect of that was the work that the Department of Conservation was doing in terms of bottom trawling. I understand that there’s been public consultations that took place in 2023. Apparently, we are the only country that’s still bottom trawling in the South Pacific. We all know that Hauraki Gulf is a biodiversity hotspot and yet in massive decline. And then, apparently, Minister Jones has said today that the Government will not be progressing any additional closures of Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf, to bottom trawling. So I’d like to know where the Minister is at in terms of the work that was undertaken in 2023 in terms of bottom trawling: where’s that at, what is the time frame for decision making around that, and will the Minister commit to progressing that work, as he has previously said?

Finally, for now, I’d like to ask the Minister a question around the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy. It’s called the Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy for a reason. It was increased from $35 to $100. Decisions had not been made at the time of Estimates in terms of the allocation of additional revenue towards conservation. Has the Minister made a decision around this? What percentage of that additional funding or the total funding will go towards conservation?

Thank you for the opportunity to recast some facts into the conversation, given the serious data and fact checks that need to take place. Again, the Jobs for Nature funding was time limited; it was not baselined by the previous Government. That’s a fact—it was not baselined. That is fact, OK? The previous Government had the opportunity to put it into the baseline but, like Al Bundy, took some money out of the pocket and just flew it away. That’s the narrative that is true, and I’m not going to recalibrate the argument any more.

The second thing is this: we are absolutely committed to the taiao and to biodiversity. That’s why we’ve actually prioritised what the Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai has to do. And it’s not in the wishy-washy, “maybe” highlights reel that others have run through. So, for example, we have targeted high-value conservation outcomes, we have generated new revenue and recalibrated costs, we have strengthened iwi and hapū relationships, and we have gone about and sorted out the concessions process, which was a disaster that we inhaled from the previous Government.

Now, in terms of the diversity, very interesting comments on the sideline and we have very good diversity in the National Party. We’ve even got farmers on our team. So in terms of investing in biodiversity, we’ve done significant investments in ensuring predator control and pest control is undertaken in a meaningful way. For example, investing $10 million in expanding landscape-scale predator control in national parks—something that the previous Government didn’t do; investing and reinvesting in wallaby control, particularly in collaboration with Te Arawa and folks in the Canterbury District; investing additional monies which were not invested in Queen Elizabeth II National Trust properties that are really focused on improving biodiversity on private land; investing in the Maungatautari Sanctuary Mountain kaupapa.

There are a range of projects that we have stepped out and ensured, that we’ve reinvested into and not let them die a slow and unhappy death. That’s what we’ve done. There has been discussion around Raukūmara Pae Maunga. As I said, 30/2026 is the timetable on which that Jobs for Nature funding is scheduled for and my team at Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai are looking as to how we can further support that into the future.

There was also a dreamy statement about the Community Conservation Fund being cancelled or being terminated. It’s the first I’ve heard of it and maybe we should do some fact checking on that as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to follow up with the Minister—thank you for your positive words in some aspects, but where is the Minister’s encouragement for Predator Free 2050? My colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan mentioned Predator Free Wellington—it’s got international acclaim, it’s got special mentions in the Lee Kuan Yew prize, it’s got international coverage, and now where’s the encouragement from that? I do note that the chair of the Environment Committee went and saw the people, and I’m sure she was very impressed. There is already support from Wellington City Council, so it might not be—if you cut the wellbeings from the Local Government Act, what reason has Wellington City or Wellington Regional Council got to continue it? I don’t think that this Government will be stepping up to fill in that gap.

The annual review noted—and I’m not sure whether the Minister was in the right year with his excellent support for the QEII Trust, but I’m not sure whether that was in the 2023-24 annual review. But we could be corrected.

So will the increase in kākāriki, kea, and kakaruai, noted in the annual review in South Westland, be at risk if the momentum of Predator Free South Westland is not maintained? And will requiring both Te Papa Atawhai and Predator Free 2050 Ltd to seek more non-Government funding increase the pressure on existing fenced and unfenced sanctuaries that are also struggling to get funding from corporate and philanthropic places?

Here’s a quick question to the Minister in relation to the recommendations of the stage two report of Te Paparahi o Te Raki from the Waitangi Tribunal in relation to the return of all Crown lands to Te Raki Māori. I’m wanting to understand, from the Minister and his officials, their plans in terms of preparing for the return of conservation lands to ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi.

I’m going to assume from the Minister of Conservation’s defensiveness around Jobs for Nature that, actually, no work has been done on the impact of that funding cut on conservation or front-line jobs. The Minister has also not answered my question around the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy—the visitor levy—and what percentage of that will go towards conservation. I know, to date, it has not been the 50 percent that it’s supposed to be. So I would like an answer on that and the bottom-trawling decisions in the Hauraki Gulf.

I’d like to add to that: given the Minister’s points around national parks, I would just like to question his decision to provide special protected species status to the Wapiti deer. I mean, what is that about? It’s an introduced feral species. This is about changing the law to allow a North American deer species to use, as Forest and Bird has said, a national park as its glorified vegetable patch. How does that also fit with what the Minister has said around his supposed priorities—you know, well, conservation—when it adds to things like mining on the Denniston Plateau, commercial fishing carve-outs in the Hauraki Gulf, selling off Conservation land, and now game parks instead of national parks?

Can I please call on the Minister for Hunting and Fishing?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Finally a question about hunting and fishing from the Opposition. Look, the issue with the Wapiti population in Fiordland is this: for a couple of decades now, the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation have done a fantastic job about maintaining and controlling the numbers there. The Department of Conservation (DOC), if required to go into those national parks, would be required to eradicate as far as practical all of the Wapiti deer in there, and because they cannot do that they don’t undertake control programmes. So, therefore, the best possible conservation outcome is a hunter-led conservation programme where hunters partner with community, partner with DOC, to do a herd management plan and to maintain those numbers in a way which is sustainable. By the way, when the Wapiti Foundation go and do all that work, not only do they maintain the Wapiti population, not only do they cull red deer, they also go along and maintain the tracks, maintain the huts, and do trapping along those routes as well to make sure that populations such as whio blue duck are also maintained. So actually the conservation values are enhanced through these herds of special interest, rather than degraded.

Also, to scaffold the comments of Minister Meager, generating tourism revenue along the way.

The Predator Free 2050 strategy is now out for consultation. And as many of the members of this House know, the Predator Free 2050 funding for some of those projects was actually time levelled as well—yet another gift from previous Government.

Tīkapa Moana is an absolutely beautiful place, and we can’t wait to see a tripling of the protection in Te Moana a Toi-te-Huatahi, a tripling of the protected areas in that space, whether or not it’s extending the two reserves at Te Hawere-a-Maki to Te Whanganui-A-Hei or, indeed, introducing the seafloor protection areas and high protection areas that were envisaged by many people in Sea Change. We are absolutely thrilled to be able to get that over the line with three parties in support, and I look forward to that increased protection of Tīkapa Moana.

Jobs for Nature—very few in this House have actually had experience applying for Jobs for Nature and running a Jobs for Nature project. I have, and I’m quite aware that the evaluations are taking place at Te Papa Atawhai—no doubt I’ll receive those in due course—but, again, to correct the misinformation: Jobs for Nature funding was time-limited; it was not baselined.

Can I ask the Minister of Conservation: does he believe that New Zealand does have a biodiversity crisis, and, if so, what is he doing to stand up for the Department of Conservation and ensure that it is funded to the best of its ability to deal with the biodiversity crisis in Aotearoa?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to reiterate Glen Bennett’s question, because it’s actually a really good one: does the Minister think there’s a biodiversity crisis in New Zealand? I mean, his Cabinet paper outlines the fact that there is species extinction, and he’s spoken about that as well, but I’d like to know what specific actions the Minister has taken to protect biodiversity in New Zealand. I would also like to ask him whether his comment that he made at Estimates around the “30 by 30” initiative being aspirational and not a legal obligation still holds, given our international commitment to protect at least 30 percent of land and ocean globally by 2030. I’d like to know what the Minister’s thoughts are on that and what actions he’s taken towards protecting our oceans.

The “30 by 30” target is not a domestic legal obligation: it is global target. As I’ve said before, it’s aspirational for the globe to get to the 30 by 30. Now, there are biodiversity challenges—no one’s disagreeing with that, and I’ve outlined a number of projects that we have reinvested International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy and other funds into to ensure that we actually attack some of the key contributors to biodiversity loss; for example, getting rid of feral pigs and cats down at Maukahuka—the subantarctic islands.

Members, that concludes our time with the Minister of Conservation. The Minister for Māori Development is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to go over a few issues tonight with regards to Māori development. I think it’s only appropriate that we start with the Waitangi Tribunal, because it’s been all over the media over the last few days. I want to ask some questions over the last few days—over the last year, really. And there have been appointments over the last year that we would like to know how they came about. For instance, was the pressure put on the Minister by other senior Ministers within the Government with regards to the tribunal? How does the Minister account for losing some of the most brilliant academics in te ao Māori, people of the ilk of Linda Smith, one of the most foremost academics, and Professor Tom Roa, and replacing them with numbskulls. We had an ACT hack, Richard Prebble, who was put up, and it was an insult not just to te ao Māori but to this country. So we’d like to know how a person like Richard Prebble is appointed ahead of some of the most brilliant minds in te ao Māori.

Then we have this other fellow Crump from the media, another mate of the National Party, appointed ahead of Tom Roa, so I want to know what sort of process, given the Minister’s background and history in te ao Māori—how on earth he could appoint these sorts of people ahead of these brilliant people within te ao Māori? Was there any undue influence? And does he agree with his senior Ministers, Jones and Seymour—Mr Seymour, who has said that he’s going to put the tribunal in its place, and Mr Jones, who said something very similar, and it’s time for the tribunal to change its stripes.

The question is: with this so-called independent review going on right now, how can te ao Māori feel confident with senior Ministers rubbishing a tribunal that has been very dear to this country, that has been a watchdog in terms of this country, that has been responsible for where we are with te reo Māori today, where we are with Māori radio, where we are with Māori television? We owe so much to a tribunal that has only got recommendation powers. So how can anyone feel comfortable when we have a predetermined strategy from this Government? It’s a bad-faith strategy where basically it’s “Tama Potaka, you get this tribunal into shape or else.” So, look, I wouldn’t mind a response on that and why he appointed people of the ilk of Prebble and Crump.

I want to come to Māori housing. Over the time we were in Government, myself and former Minister Henare over here were talking about probably close to a billion dollars over the three years when we were in Government, and we were very proud of the partnerships that we set up, particularly with Toitu Tairawhiti, with Willie Te Aho , Ka Uruora in Taranaki with Jamie Tuuta, and, of course, in the north there, Te Pouahi o Te Taitokerau, that very, very important partnership, and also down in the Hawke’s Bay. So I want to ask the Minister: given that background and that funding and pūtea we put in, where is the strategy? Because part of the kaupapa that we rolled out—as I said, former Minister Henare and myself and the Māori caucus—was that we wanted 1,000 new homes by the end of June 2025. So I want to ask the Minister: where are we with that? Where are we with that? Are we on course? Is the Māori strategy still in place, just for the House? Of course, the other side wouldn’t know, because they wouldn’t know a Māori strategy if they fell over one.

But the Māori strategy was all about what we call Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, and it was about putting our Māori kaupapa in with the mainstream. So that was Te Puni Kōkiri funding, which was Papakāinga funding, in with Housing and Urban Development, which was our urban Māori development, and I thought it was one of the most innovative and creative strategies we thought that we had seen for many, many years because it allowed our targeted funding to be combined with mainstream funding. We saw record pūtea being put in place and a strategy that we hoped would see 1,000 new homes built by June ‘25. So I ask the Minister: where are we with that strategy? Is it still in place? I did hear some funding announcements a month ago, which I will give credit to the Minister for. We don’t have a problem with doing that. We don’t give him much praise, if any, but at least he got some pūtea out. We’ll take the crumbs because te ao Māori is used to taking the crumbs, but he got some out. But was that it, and what is the strategy going forward in terms of Māori funding? It’s just really important because it gives hope to our people at ground level because we tell them, “You must deal with Tama Potaka. We wanted to be the Minister, myself and Peeni Henare, but he’s the Minister, so deal with him.” What is that strategy around that going forward?

I want to come to a couple of other areas. Whānau Ora was an incredibly important kaupapa for us over here, Minister. I myself, along with John Tamihere, negotiated the major Whānau Ora contract in 2014, with Te Pāti Māori boss Tariana Turia, who was the Minister. You could say we had a conflict of interest, perhaps. I always say that you’re not a Māori if you don’t have a conflict of interest—as the Minister knows. It’s too small—far too small—as the Minister well knows. In 2014, we negotiated the contract. I was very proud to negotiate it. It was a $15 million contract at the time, I think, Peeni, which was quite major at that time. We built that through. I came to Parliament in 2017 as the Minister. Of course, I wasn’t the Whānau Ora Minister. Due to Peeni Henare, that funding increased, to our last Budget of $168 million—

And baselined.

And baselined. So I want to know from the Minister—

No fiscal cliff.

Yes. Well, what were the plans around Whānau Ora? Whānau Ora was actually—again, I have no problem conceding here—a dream of Te Pāti Māori, our whaea, our kuia Tariana Turia, bless her soul, and the National Party. Some of us in Labour didn’t particularly like it, because we wanted it to be our idea, but kei te pai; I give credit to Te Pāti Māori, I give credit to National and Bill English, who came together with that pūtea. No problem to give credit where credit is due. Bill English saw the pūtea. Tariana Turia wanted $1 billion a year—that was her dream, tana moemoeā—$1 billion a year, and then she came up. It was humbly funded—our last Budget, $168 million.

Where are we today, Minister—where are we today? And can I ask: why was Te Pou Matakana cut? I think that was a vision of Te Pāti Māori. Why was the funding cut? Was it cut because you didn’t like John Tamihere? And you can, sort of, talk to us tonight. I mean, I can understand that, too! We can understand it. But you can be upfront with us tonight. How does an entity that passes every KPI, that does the business everywhere, that is internationally recognised, lose a budget like Te Pou Matakana, like John Tamihere’s crew? We’d like to know today: did politics play a part in this? Did politics play a part? It made no sense. You can tell us tonight if it was Winston Peters and Shane Jones who told you to get rid of the funding because John Tamihere was heading that area.

Maybe more importantly, with these new agencies that are in place, what’s the plan? What’s the strategy? Will the funding be increased in the Whānau Ora area? Our communities deserve it. Whānau Ora has been a lifesaver for our people. Our people have loved it. Peeni Henare saw it firsthand, and myself, and the Māori caucus, what it did for our people—taking all the politics outside of everything. Providers were able to get in the homes of our people, particularly our people who have a lot of different problems, complex problems. To be able to manage whānau, get those whānau right, is a wonderful kaupapa, and I’ll support it. Peeni Henare will support it—no matter which Government rolls it out. We just want to know what the strategy is, what the plan is, with regards to our Whānau Ora kaupapa, given, in the last Budget, the $168 million.

Just in the last minute or so: Māori broadcasting. I asked the Minister: where are we with that? Whakaata Māori told me, when I was Minister over three years, that it was very inequitable in terms of funding, and I was able to knock out $51 million for them in 2023, $40 million in 2022—yes, not baseline funding, absolutely. But the whole idea is to roll that funding out and then another Minister comes in and baselines. That’s the reality for Māori funding. You can’t baseline straightaway. I mean, that’s what we’ve done with Te Matatini. You decided to baseline Te Matatini—well done—but is there a strategy around Māori broadcasting? Overall, as I come to the last few seconds, can we feel confident, with this Minister, that we will see real funding, real resourcing, and real support for te ao Māori—a few questions there. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll be pleased, as the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, to talk to the 2023-24 annual review—perhaps a little bit slightly different to the previous person, the Hon Willie Jackson, asking his questions. But, if I can, among the various entities that we did review for this particular year in question, I do want to concentrate on Te Puni Kōkiri, the primary agency with regards to Māori development. If I may start first by talking to the financial results and the fact that Te Puni Kōkiri received a total of $92.95 million in revenue and it had expenditure of $90.83 million. With regards to the audit results, Te Puni Kōkiri’s management control environment and its financial information and supporting systems and controls were assessed as very good, with no recommendations for improvement.

On the performance results, Te Puni Kōkiri assesses its nine focus areas via 28 outcome measures. In the year in question, seven measures did not have any new data, six were already completed, and five improved. But the following 10 were reported as worsening, and they relate to, number one, measures relating to Māori economic resilience. They noted that fewer Māori live in owner-occupied homes or homes owned by an iwi, hapū, or a Māori land trust. Also, Māori employment rates have worsened; Māori unemployment rates have worsened; more rangatahi not in employment, education, or training; and fewer procurement contracts were awarded to Māori businesses.

There are a number of other areas that were a focus of the report, and I’m happy to hear from the Minister in the chair.

Tuatahi me mihi ka tika ki ngā mate o te wā. Shane Solomon, Mōrehu McDonald, Tāmati Cairns, Aurora Māreikura, Bill Blake me Fred Graham, tērā kaitoa rongonui o te ao Māori, o te ao toi.

Ka rua, ka mihi hoki ki ngā kaikōrero o te pō.

[First it is appropriate to acknowledge the recently deceased. Shane Solomon, Mōrehu McDonald, Tāmati Cairns, Aurora Māreikura, Bill Blake, and Fred Graham, that famous warrior of the Māori, and the art scene.

Second, I also acknowledge the speakers of the evening.]

I just wanted to acknowledge some of the questions but also those that have passed on in recent days who gave light and love to te ao Māori.

There have been a number of pātai. I was sort of reminded of being on interviews with Vapi Kupenga and Titewhai Harawira on Waatea 603 AM after that solid 10 minutes by the former Minister the Hon Willie Jackson.

Thriving whānau is what drives the mahi of Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Māori Development. And, of course, we’ve inhaled some mahi and responsibilities from Te Arawhiti recently as well. But, first and foremost, there are five areas which I’m really focused on: ensuring Te Tautuhi-ō-Rongo is a clear policy framework that is populated across the Public Service; making sure that we actually undertake our statutory role of monitoring the adequacy of services across health, education, employment and training, economic development, and a whole range of other things in Government; in economic development, ensuring we’ve got a good regulatory framework, looking at Te Ture Whenua but also boosting export businesses across Māori-owned businesses and involving Māori somehow, someway, somewhere in infrastructure investment à la Ruakura, led by the mighty Waikato iwi, but also other infrastructure opportunities like some of the housing and social infrastructure that many of the organisations recently named this evening are involved in; improving legislation, particularly a range of Māori purposes bills, many of which don’t have any real functionality now, and sorting out other matters such as the Māori Trustee Act; and, of course, Whānau Ora, which I’ll get to soon.

The core function of Te Puni Kōkiri around improving achievement of Māori across health, education, employment, training—and economic development really underscores the reason why I’m here in this Parliament, and I’m sure many of my whanaunga and huānga Māori are here too—is to ensure not only Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi are clearly the foundational basis for the mahi that we do in this country but also crushing the delta that exists and creates those disproportionate impacts and outcomes across Māori communities. There was mention before of 10 areas where we’ve shown some significant deterioration and disproportionality, but housing’s a great example. But those deltas are really crushing the hope of New Zealand being a small, advanced, leading economy in this world. Unless we deal with those disproportionalities across Māori communities vis-à-vis the rest of New Zealand, we are going to really struggle to be a small, leading, advanced economy, as the Prime Minister has so boldly articulated and aspired to be.

In relation to housing, the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga kaupapa and the housing pūtea that’s gone through Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has created a whole beltway and pathway of Māori homes throughout whenua Māori and general land built by Māori construction businesses, whether it’s Ka Uruora or Toitū Tairāwhiti.

There was a commitment to 1,000 homes made under the previous Government, along with a number of infrastructure sites, capability development, and, of course, attacking the outrageous effects of Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary weather events. We have doubled that. Over that period, the previous Government articulated 1,000. We want to see another 1,000 to 1,200 built with the funding that was set aside and also ensure that the infrastructure sites that were created are doubled down on as well.

We really have an aspiration to double the size of the measured Māori economy by 2035. That’s going to take a couple of new things, and I appreciate the comments around baselining some of the time-limited funding. We are really tilting a lot of our mahi into economic development and really firing up the economic development. Now, that’s a slightly different approach to previous Governments, but we think if you don’t get the economics right, it’s really hard to get the social aspects right, hence why we’ve really gone hard into increasing the amount of money going into the health system and into the education system. As you know, I’m very, very focused on ensuring that that housing ballast continues in many, many ways.

Whānau Ora: I just wanted to acknowledge the enormous work that was done by leaders such as John Tamihere, Ivy Papakura, Debbie Sorensen and others over the last 10 years—absolutely fantastic, particularly around the responsiveness to COVID and the cyclone and Auckland Anniversary flood events; really agile responsiveness to those events. We have absolutely stood our ground around the baseline for Whānau Ora and absolutely back Whānau Ora. We have tilted Whānau Ora, a procurement process has been followed, and, as a result, out have popped four new commissioning agencies who have been, effectively, charged with making sure that the provision of Whānau Ora is a smooth transition on 1 July. [Bell rung] Would you like me to stop, Mr Chair?

Would you like to continue the call?

Oh, I’ll just continue. Whānau Ora—again, it’s not just an aspiration; it’s an actual activation between the National-led Government and the cooperation agreement with the Māori Party in 2010 to 2014. But it was a 10-year arrangement, and it needed to go through a procurement process that was undertaken by Te Puni Kōkiri and, of course, tilted a little bit towards the social investment expectations of the Minister of Finance and Minister for Social Investment, Nicola Willis, and some of the increased or elevated attribution expectations, evidence expectations, of social investment.

What’s happened, of course, is we’ve done an assessment of the highest levels of deprivation, and, no surprise, it’s actually higher the further north you go, whether or not that’s on the East Coast or past the Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Northland, and, indeed, Tāmaki, given some of the costs that you have to pay for housing up there. But the funding has been tilted accordingly into what is loosely referred to as Area One, now taken up by Rangitāmiro. It’s wonderful to see, also, iwi putting up their hands: Te Rūnanga and Ngāti Toa Rangatira in Area Two and Te Tauraki in Area Three, and, of course, The Cause Collective.

Now, there are many people that have expressed their concern about that, but the procurement process was undertaken—defensible, credible—by Te Puni Kōkiri and those choices have been made. But I want to mihi those commissioning agencies and also those many providers that have been involved, because that’s where the action is at: it’s at the navigator level with the whānau themselves, wrapped around with scaffolding by the commissioning agencies.

There was a comment about the Waitangi Tribunal. This is a critical institution, and as the Minister in charge of the ministerial group that is progressing this matter and supporting the independent technical advisory group to look at the Waitangi Tribunal, I’m actually absolutely enthused by the mahi that will be undertaken by this group of experts, this group of people that have different interactions with not only Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—but Māori development. Of course, one of the members of that group also was an ex-tribunal member.

There were comments about the appointments and the change. There have been many reappointments of six tribunal members over the last year, including Tā Pou Temara—tutū te winiwini, tutū te wanawana [fearsome and inspiring]—Kim Ngarimu, and several others such as Kevin Prime, and the appointment of some very, very good new members: Vanessa Eparaima, of course; Kingi Kiriona; and, most recently, in the last two weeks, Gerrard Albert, a notable sentinel leader within the Whanganui area. Again, no pre-determination about outcomes. This is about structure; not the legacy of the tribunal. It is not about unearthing the settlements and turning them over, or the claims that have been reported on. Happy to take more questions.

Tēnā rā koe e te Heamana, otirā tēnā rā koe e te Minita, e Tama Potaka, otirā e mihi ana ki te komiti whakahaere o ngā take Māori.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, indeed thank you to Minister Tama Potaka, indeed I acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee.]

I also want to thank the Minister for acknowledging our mate [deceased], like my karanga matua [uncle] Shane Solomon, who created one of the first Treaty settlements, who recently passed last week.

I’m touching on a few very quick questions tonight in terms of key areas relating to the annual review report and the durability of Treaty settlements, the capability of the Crown, and the equitable performance of the public sector for Māori. Specifically, I also want to mihi to Te Puni Kōkiri—I know that you guys do everything and are very, very flexible in your mahi, so tēnā rawa atu koutou [thank you very much].

Very quickly, can the Minister clarify how he will prevent these settlements from being undermined, especially with the transfer of Treaty settlement commitment functions from Te Arawhiti to Te Puni Kōkiri—for example, for iwi who are settled, and post-settlement iwis, compared to unsettled iwis, and how this will be detrimental and the fact that iwis who haven’t settled yet come with a lot of complexities? I can speak to this in a very tangible way because one side of my whakapapa is Waikato and Tainui, and they’ve been settled for 30 years coming up next week, and then you’ve got my other side, Ngāpuhi, who haven’t settled yet. So what strategies are in place to make sure that Te Puni Kōkiri are able to deliver and support iwis who are wanting to settle, knowing that there is a range of complexities and challenges with those iwis who are yet to settle? How is the Minister ensuring that Te Puni Kōkiri has the capability to manage these new functions transferred from Te Arawhiti? What is in the plan to ensure that all Government agencies understand their Treaty settlement obligations? With Treaty clauses being removed from legislation, the review of the Waitangi Tribunal, and the political landscape, how will this guarantee that Treaty obligations are upheld?

I also want to go back to comparing unsettled iwis to settled iwis. I think, just briefly touching on some of the Prime Minister’s answers in question time today, saying that we are living in a post-settlement iwi day and age, that actually opens up a big can of worms and that’s not the reality to te iwi Māori. And, actually, it’s not about full and final post-settlement iwi realities; it’s actually about an ongoing relationship no matter if every single iwi in this country becomes settled. So I do want to touch on that.

In terms of equitable and effective public sector performance for Māori, how does the Minister reconcile this priority with legislative changes that reduce the Crown’s obligations to address inequities between Māori and non-Māori? What guarantees can the Minister give to Te Puni Kōkiri in not becoming a one-stop shop for all Māori issues, and being the range of flexible challenges that they have to attend—such as Cyclone Gabrielle, such as COVID-19? And that being an issue in terms of getting performance reviews done when we brief them in the Māori Affairs Committee, which can be really hard and challenging.

Then, touching quickly on Whānau Ora: where Whānau Ora is delivered through iwi organisations, what assurances can the Minister give that their existing arrangements will not be disrupted? Also, what strategies are in place to make sure that these transfers in contracts from previous Whānau Ora—and I’d like to mihi to Matua Peeni and Matua Willie and their mahi previously in Whānau Ora as well—and how will these transfers in functions be done without causing major disruption and harm within the contract and the providers themselves?

Just one last question: what long-term visions does the Minister have in making sure that Whānau Ora contracts aren’t becoming a whole divide and conquer where Māori are always fighting over crumbs in funding, where, actually, we can have funding allocated to everyone rather than just iwi and others?

Thank you for those pātai, e te hoa. Enabling the adoption of Whānau Ora as a public service model for improving the delivery of public services throughout this sector—to those with distinct needs and deprivation—is a key aspiration that I think many of us have. We see the success of Whānau Ora and how it can be both local-led and whānau-centred but also agile enough to respond to some of these quite provocative incursions. Whether or not they’re climate change or weather issues or biosecurity or pandemic issues, we’ve seen and experienced and witnessed how Whānau Ora can work, not just for Māori but, actually, for all New Zealanders.

So part of our mojo or my drive is actually to ensure that we support Whānau Ora to be in a space, to be—I’m not sure about “eligible” but hands up at that level of attribution evidence where the Minister for Social Investment and others say that, actually, Whānau Ora is a really good method to devolve or decentralise the delivery of public services, where suitable. In my world, that’s called, in some ways, mana motuhake because we go off and do what we need to do to address the needs of Māori and other New Zealanders. So Whānau Ora and social investment can complement one another.

In relation to the durability of Treaty settlements and the actual implementation of obligations and commitments set out in Treaty settlements, there’s a range of initiatives that we’ve undertaken to ensure that that gathers a bit more momentum. I acknowledge the report of the Auditor-General and his concerns around the ability of agencies to actually implement as set out in settlements. We are delivering on accords—accords are one of the main tools that are used to deploy and deliver on Treaty settlements. We have those accords of about 12 or 15 iwi groups, but the annual reports of all the agencies that have Treaty obligations have to now outline how many obligations they have completed, how many are on track, how many are yet to be triggered and, of course, settlement issues. Some of those implementation issues have been dealt with in the last year. For example, the airport at Blenheim; that was unable to be transferred back to the iwi, it went through a different process and some compensation was paid for the iwi because of the contamination under the airport.

The most recent example of our commitment to ensure that those obligations and commitments are known, understood, and acted on was a letter that I think was sent today by me to my ministerial colleagues and, of course, tō tātou Pirīmia, Kiritopa Luxon. I just reiterate that those commitments and obligations are real. We need to get on with them and we need to be transparent in working together as Government agencies in order to deliver on them.

Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) has inhaled the team that works on the Korowai Whakamana and Te Haeata from Te Arawhiti. So that function has gone over to TPK which, incidentally, monitors the adequacy of service provision by other agencies across iwi and Māori communities. So not only are they doing that monitoring but they’re also making sure that Treaty settlements are implemented in a material and durable manner.

I liked and appreciated the comments around the difference between those iwi that are post settlement and those that are still going through the process. What I’d reiterate also is that many iwi who have not gone through settlement yet are still major players and major contributors to their local communities and economies, and I note the kōrero of Mani Tāhere a couple of weeks ago about his intention as the Ngāpuhi chairperson to actually do something about some of the incessant drug and other societal challenges in Kaikohe. Me mihi ka tika ki tērā whakaaro [It is appropriate to acknowledge that idea].

But we have a number of iwi and other organisations, whether or not it’s pan-Māori, like the Māori Women’s Welfare League and the Māori Wardens, whānau, incorporations, and trusts, who are all trying to advance the health, wealth, and wellbeing of our people. That actually is running parallel and sometimes intersecting with the Government aspirations. Our aspiration is to get the economy back on track, to ensure that law and order is back on track, and to deliver better public services. Well, guess what? That’s what a lot of iwi incorporations and trusts want to achieve for their owners or their members, as well. So, in that way, I think a lot of the aspirations of our large groups—iwi incorporations, trusts, and whānau—do actually have some parallels and match, and, hopefully, some intersections, around efficiencies of who’s best to do that.

Of course, we believe—myself and those at Te Puni Kōkiri—that, many times, locally led, whānau-centred solutions are the way to go because they enable whānau. If you have strong families and strong communities, you’ve got an awesome nation, and that nation is Aotearoa New Zealand.

The time has come for me to report progress.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

This bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.