Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 10 September 2025

E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Members, yesterday following question time, the Hon Kieran McAnulty raised with me whether the proper procedure for members withdrawing and apologising was being followed. In the first instance yesterday, the Acting Prime Minister withdrew and apologised but only after prefacing it with further comment. I want to reinforce that a member is required to withdraw and apologise, and they must do so without qualification and no other words must be used—Speakers’ ruling 60/6. Doing otherwise is highly disorderly.

In the second instance, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer raised a point of order after an exchange during question No. 12 that was hard for me to hear because of the noise in the Chamber. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was addressing a very serious matter that is of concern to all MPs. Interjections should always be rare and reasonable, and they should be calibrated to recognise the seriousness of the matter before the House, a matter that has generated significant passion and concern from all sides of the House.

The Minister’s reply to an interjection caused offence. I didn’t hear the words used, due again to the volume of interjection. However, I invited the Minister to withdraw and apologise. He contested that the response was offensive. I’ve now read the Hansard and concluded that while the exchange and the voluminous contribution across the House was disorderly, there is no further action to be taken, and I would refer members, if they want greater clarification, to read the Hansard of question No. 10 from 23 July.

I’d like to thank the Hon Kieran McAnulty for directing me to the words of the former member of the seat of Ilam while he was shadow Leader of the House. It was fascinating and exceptionally good reading.

No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered two papers.

Government Response to the Report of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Christian van der Pump

2025-2029 Statement of Strategic Intentions for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Promoting Integrity in the Public Service. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

to the Minister for Regional Development

What recent announcements has he made regarding geothermal energy?

Earlier today, I announced the first site for supercritical geothermal further exploration. This is an exciting development and a contributor to energy resilience. The location is the Rotokawa geothermal reservoir, and it is on Tauhara land. It’s a classic example of where the Crown can work effectively with Māori land owners—both committed to expanding the supply of energy for the future development of our country. Obviously, it builds upon the $60 million committed from the Regional Infrastructure Fund, as a practical demonstration of how we can better secure the future of energy resilience.

What else can he tell us regarding supercritical geothermal energy?

This is a challenging area. Not only does New Zealand have a high calibre and a high range of graduates in terms of this natural resource industry but the technicalities and the demanding engineering requirements mean that we will be drawing on international talent and using homegrown expertise. The first phase of this project involves not only further prefeasibility studies, but we will be able to borrow on the broad range of experiences that are now within the New Zealand economy as a consequence of having a long period of development of this industry. I expect drilling to start within the next 18 months.

Why is this energy important for New Zealand?

Well, given that the Opposition spokesman for energy has repeated the Labour Party assertion that they will be repealing the legislation recently passed, where we have overturned the oil and gas ban, we now need to ensure that our energy future is not held hostage to vanity politics by people who realise they made a tragic error cancelling the oil and gas ban.

With all due respect, the rules are that you don’t use a supplementary question to attack the Opposition, and that answer was certainly running as close to the border of that as possible. Just bear that in mind.

How does this help the regional economy?

First, I’d like to make point of order, sir. Speakers’ rulings are very clear that you’re not a quizmaster. They are also very clear that question time is, essentially, a political experience. I think your admonition was if not unworthy, then unnecessary.

Speakers’ rulings are what guides the House in these matters, and it’s long been a Speaker’s ruling—I’ve stated it a number of times—that a Government cannot use questions to itself to attack the Opposition. The Clerk has just provided me Speakers’ rulings 205/4—it shouldn’t bring other parties into answers—plus 181/3. Here’s the point: a Government obviously has the ability to point to situations that they have inherited, and the latter part of the question most certainly did, but referring to comments from spokespeople is outside of that, in my opinion.

Speaking to the point of order, Speakers’ ruling 206/7 makes it very clear that question time is a political experience, and it actually uses the expression “quizmaster”.

Yes, that was in reference to a former quizmaster who operated in this Chair and who actually also insisted that all questions begin with “where”, “when”, “what”, or “why”. I certainly have not followed that practice.

Mr Speaker, can I just make this point on this issue: we’re talking about a policy or concern where most countries would seek bipartisan support so there’s a continuation of the policy election by election, regardless of there being a change of Government. The inability to make that point that that bipartisanship doesn’t exist is surely not just politicking; it’s making a clear statement that the people outside there need to know. This is a conversation not just with ourselves but with everybody out there in the thousands. People listening need to know we’ve lost the chance of our bipartisan approach, and that’s not attacking the Opposition; it’s just stating a fact.

Well, it depends on where you position that bipartisan point.

Speaking to the point of order—

No, you’re not, because I’m speaking at the moment, so sit down.

Sorry, I thought you had finished, Mr Speaker.

The second part of the question, which was totally in order, talked about the Government repeal of the oil and gas ban. That in itself could be a question about whether or not there was a bipartisan position taken. Of course it’s political; everyone knows that. I’m just saying the opening of that question was pretty much designed by way of attack. Speaking to the point of order—it had better be relevant because I’ve had a lot to say and if the member had listened, she wouldn’t have much more to say.

I would just like to point out that the Minister referred to “the Opposition spokesman”. I know definitions like this are important to that party. I’d just like to point out I’m a spokesperson or a spokeswoman.

I’m almost tempted to require everyone in the House to post their pronouns so that everyone gets it right, but I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to do that, because common sense should prevail. We’re back on, now, question No. 1 from Andy Foster. Any further supplementaries, Andy Foster?

Should I give the last one again?

Beg your pardon?

The last one hasn’t actually been answered, because there was a point of order.

Yeah, I realise that. Just ask it again.

How does this help the regional economy?

Geothermal energy lays the platform for future jobs. It also reflects the fact that this is a very practical way of moving forward to boost the prospects of engineering, further investment, and ensuring that that part of New Zealand where this activity will take place doesn’t disappear as some sort of rust belt. It reflects also that under the leadership of this Minister, great innovation is about to be visited into the energy sector.

How will this announcement in geothermal energy support the retention of skills in the drilling and exploration sector, and how are these skills transferable across oil, gas, and construction sectors?

Well, it’s well known since the oil and gas ban, a juvenile decision visited upon New Zealand industry—

Here we go. It’s the same again. Just ignore the Speaker.

It is also very clear—

Hold on, Mr Jones. Sorry, Minister. You were making a comment before he made any comment that might have been considered unorderly. How you knew what he was going to say is beyond me, but it’s not something I’m going to deal with at all now.

Point of order, sir. We have canvassed this issue numerous times in the House, and you have agreed whenever we have raised concern when a Minister is expressing a political opinion on a policy of a previous Government, and to use the word “juvenile”, at which point I then responded, surely is not anticipating anything. It is in response to something that is in clear breach of the guidance you’ve already provided.

I did not hear him say “juvenile” because of exactly that sort of reaction that was going on. Mr Jones will now continue with his answer.

As a consequence of an immature, underdeveloped set of ideas foisted upon the New Zealand—

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

It’s not—look, I’m sorry. If you’re going to get to your feet to say that it’s inappropriate for a Minister to describe a previous Government’s policies as immature, then I think that either we’ve lost it completely or we’ve become such a sterile House that it’s hardly worth being here.

Sir, with respect, that is entirely consistent with responses that you have given and guidance that you have given in this House before. You have made it very clear that it is entirely appropriate for a Minister to indicate things that they have inherited; it is inappropriate for a Minister to provide critical commentary on that. Now, all we ask for in order to keep order in this House is consistency in those rulings, and I would argue, with respect, that now allowing Ministers to use words like that is inconsistent with guidance you’ve given to the House previously.

No, I don’t think it is—

Speaking to the point of order.

—and I don’t need to take any more on this. Mr Jones, continue. [Interruption] Look, I don’t want to have to send someone out over something as silly as this, but I’m prepared to.

As a consequence of decisions that have led to de-industrialisation, enormous amounts of unemployment, and the weakening of a key provincial city, it falls to this Government to look for alternatives—[Interruption]

No, just stop—sorry. For fear that someone might take a point of order over one or other of the words that Mr Jones might utter, we’ll have this answer in complete silence, including from the Green Party. Mr Jones, start again.

I’m answering a question which is: what is the impact on regional economies? The regional economy of Taranaki has slid down inexorably into a very dangerous place, where there is great unemployment and shops are closing. Fortunately, the men and women who have gained their experience in the oil and gas industry and the rig affectionately known as “Big Ben” will be deployed, but that deployment, sadly, is reflective of a very dangerous, job-destroying, industry-destroying policy announcement of several years ago, and New Zealand, in some cases, will never ever recover from the most destructive energy decision made since the Treaty of Waitangi, otherwise known as the oil and gas ban—a virtue-signalling, juvenile attempt.

Question No. 2—Nancy Lu.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I’d just like to seek your guidance—[Interruption]

No, hang on. Wait until the House listens to you.

Thank you. I’d just like to seek your guidance on how you are looking forward to interpreting Speakers’ rulings 204/4 and 204/6 in relation to, I guess, the events that occurred during this whole exchange following on from the primary question, particularly because in the context of patsies, I would say that those Speakers’ rulings were clearly not followed. But I’m keen to understand your interpretation of them.

Sorry, could you tell me what your numbers are?

Speakers’ rulings 204/4 and 204/6.

Right, we’ll just look. Well, I’m sorry, I just—there’s nothing in there that was relevant to the question.

You might think that. Is that—

No, we’re going to have Nancy Lu.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

A fortnight ago, ANZ released a new set of economic forecasts. The bank’s economists say that the economic recovery in New Zealand has been delayed by tariff uncertainty but not derailed. While GDP growth almost certainly took a hit in the middle of this year following tariff announcements, ANZ sees a stronger recovery taking hold from the fourth quarter of this year onwards as the full transmission of monetary policy to growth is realised. I’d remind members that the fourth quarter of this year starts on 1 October, which is only three weeks away.

What does ANZ say about the contribution of the primary and household sectors to growth?

ANZ says, quite rightly, that primary sector exports have been the bright spot in the economy this year—thank you, farmers.

High dairy prices.

It’s not common for all the stars to align for primary industries, but that’s what’s happened in the past year, with a combination of good global commodity prices, favourable growing conditions—

The high price of butter.

—and a relatively low New Zealand dollar. In terms of households, ANZ expects domestic momentum to gradually recover over the coming year as sizeable reductions in interest rates flow more strongly through to the economy. The interjections from the Leader of the Opposition are persistent but not witty.

She just can’t help but be nasty.

Pot, kettle!

Cheer up!

Look, for some reason there’s high tension here today, so everyone just needs to calm it a bit. One person speaking from the Government side: Nancy Lu.

What does ANZ say about the outlook for inflation?

Like other forecasters, ANZ expects there to be a temporary bump in annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation through the middle of this year thanks to tradable inflation imported from overseas.

Non-tradable is up, too.

However, the bank expects non-tradable—that is domestically driven inflation—to continue falling, Mr Hipkins, and tradables, which is the more volatile series, to turn around again. ANZ makes the point, as others have, that China, our largest trading partner, is currently facing a bout of deflationary pressure, which is helpful for New Zealand’s import prices. Overall, ANZ expects CPI inflation to stabilise around 2 percent over the medium term, which is the Reserve Bank’s target under this Government. This is a far cry from inflation of more than 7 percent under the previous Government, and I would note that in the 2010s, annual CPI inflation averaged 1.6 percent across the decade.

Is she planning to change the Monetary Policy Committee’s remit to allow for higher inflation in New Zealand?

No. The period from 2021 to 2023 made it clear to New Zealanders how costly and corrosive inflation is. I have seen, from some commentators, recent interest in a higher inflation target for the Reserve Bank; I find it perplexing. One commentator said yesterday that this is a debate and a discussion that does need to be had; another, who has been chair and chief economist of the Reserve Bank, said it was a ludicrous point of view. I know who I agree with. We will not be hiking the cost of living for New Zealand households each and every year by allowing higher inflation.

to the Acting Prime Minister

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

Yes, absolutely, and in particular I stand by this Government’s policy of cutting red tape to make it easier for existing supermarket chains to expand and for new ones to launch in New Zealand. Grocery prices are a great pain to many New Zealand households, and we need to encourage new investment in competition, because those are the things that result in more choices, more efficient supply chains, and lower prices for families. When people are driving across the city just to shop at Costco, it shows that people do actually want more choice, and that more investment can lead to lower prices. This Government is resolutely in favour of attracting investment and innovation so that Kiwis can get a better deal.

Why does he think the economy is recovering, when 10,000 jobs were lost in just three months of this year, between March and June?

Well, there is a cycle that New Zealand is going through, and it is causing great pain to many New Zealanders. That cycle involves a spike in Government spending and inflation, which has been subdued. It then is followed by the interest rates that were required to subdue that inflation, which then in turn have led to a recession because they have limited demand, which is the point of those interest rate increases. What happens subsequent to that is that interest rates fall, people have more money at the end of the week—they spend more—and you see businesses starting to hire again. As I go around New Zealand, I hear many stories that the better part of that cycle, under this Government, is coming into fruition.

Does he agree with Nicola Willis that people who have lost their jobs shouldn’t take it personally?

The fact is that people lose their jobs for many different reasons, and sometimes people do feel that it is a sense of personal failing when there are events around them that they could not have controlled. In this case, the event surrounding them was the election of a spendthrift Labour Government.

If the economy’s recovering, why did the construction sector experience a $720 million drop in sales in just three months, from March to June of this year?

This is a Government that gets out and listens to the people. It’s a Government that hears the stress that people are facing, and there is no question that construction is under pressure—there’s no question about that. However, it is also true that we are moving through an economic cycle which began with a lockdown and a spending blow-out, carried on with high interest rates, was followed by a recession, and is now seeing a recovery.

Is economist Brad Olsen wrong when he says that the ongoing decline in the construction sector represents a “new normal”, and, if he doesn’t agree with that, why is the construction sector still declining after nearly two years of his leadership?

Brad Olsen is not always right, and in this case he is absolutely wrong, because he’s talking down New Zealand. If he is saying that we are at a low point and New Zealand’s whole future will be low, then he is completely wrong, because one thing that this country needs is politicians and a Government that back them to succeed, not tear them down with negativity.

Can I ask: if the policy bonfire of early 2023—after the accession of the Prime Minister’s job—had happened a year before that, would we be in the parlous state we’re in now?

No—just no.

Is it a sign of economic recovery that 73,400 New Zealand citizens gave up and left the country in the past year, breaking all previous records?

Well, many New Zealanders choose—

Point of order. In the posing of supplementary questions, Speakers’ rulings are quite clear: supplementary questions are not to be like centipedes. There were beyond two legs, to the extent I could follow the coherence of that question: Australia, blame, culpability—it’s like a centipede.

Well, that’s an interesting observation. There shouldn’t be those descriptors used, obviously. But if we follow the law to the letter, the Standing Orders and what they might mean—and what some people might interpret them as—none of us would say anything at all, any time. The question on supplementaries is that there should be only one leg answerable. If there are more than that in a question, the Minister doesn’t have to answer them. We’ll start again. Ask your question again.

Is it a sign of economic recovery when 73,400 New Zealand citizens gave up and left the country in the year to July 2025, breaking all previous records?

We never like to see New Zealand citizens leaving the country. However, it is worth remembering that there is a time-honoured tradition of Kiwis leaving, enriching themselves, and bringing back much knowledge and skill that enriches our country. It is also true that our country’s population grew by a net 13,000 people last year, reflecting that there is strong demand to be part of the New Zealand success story that is growing under this Government. I believe that it’s the policies of this Government, that are based on saving money, spending it carefully like New Zealanders are forced to, cutting red tape and regulation, and building our connections with the rest of the world—even as we build the infrastructure required for the next generation—that will lead to a great success for this country and many, many more people, including our own citizens, choosing their long-term future in New Zealand.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that there are $7 billion of Governmentfunded infrastructure projects that will be under way by Christmas—Precinct Properties has just announced a billion dollar spend in the next 10 years on apartments in Auckland, and Simplicity is building 600 new build-to-rent apartments in Queenstown—and that some members need to look on the bright side of life?

Yes, I can confirm both of those things. It is absolutely correct that there is a stupendous amount of capital investment coming down the pipeline for New Zealand’s construction sector. It is also true that sometimes just putting a smile on it can actually in itself improve the circumstances. One of the things that people who have struggled through this winter, through this recession, need is some positivity and some positive leadership because, actually, things are getting better. What the Opposition are offering is just simple depression. [Interruption]

Just wait. OK.

So which represents the Government’s position on those who have lost their jobs: that they shouldn’t take it personally, or that they should just put a smile on it?

I know that people following at home won’t have this problem, but for the Labour leader’s information: the person who could do with putting a smile on it is none other than himself.

Question—[Interruption] Sorry, look, someone’s going to be out early today, because it’s just a little bit too much.

to the Minister of Housing

Does he expect the recent changes to support for rough sleepers to end homelessness in Auckland; if not, why not?

My expectation is the recent changes will make a difference for rough sleepers in Auckland.

Will he commit to all 809 known rough-sleeping Aucklanders being provided with emergency housing or social housing this year, and if not, why not?

That number’s dynamic, obviously, as people move in and out of the system. There is support available for all 809 of those rough sleepers. The Government spends around half a billion dollars per year on support for many of those people. For example, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) stands ready and willing to support them with social housing, with emergency housing grants, with transitional housing, with bond payments, with ready-to-rent programmes, with Housing First, with sustaining tenancies. There are a plethora of programmes that MSD—depending on people’s individual circumstances—are ready and willing to provide, and we stand by those programmes.

Are Auckland City Mission wrong when they said that “We are deeply disappointed [with] today’s announcement [leaving] these tightened eligibility criteria unchanged. Until the policy settings are changed, the number of people sleeping rough will continue to rise.”; if not, why not?

Well, I have great respect for City Missioner Robinson. The Government has said that we expect MSD staff to exercise greater discretion when it comes to emergency housing. But we are not going to go back to the bad old days of a free-for-all on emergency housing, which resulted in thousands of children living for month after month in emergency housing motels up and down the country. That was a failed policy. The Government spent $1.4 billion in five years on that policy, and homelessness during that time increased. That is not the solution for rough sleeping and homelessness. Simply opening up the gateway to emergency housing does not help society, it doesn’t help those tamariki, it does not help those families, and it certainly doesn’t help New Zealand.

Can I just make the point that when a Minister is answering a question, he’s not necessarily helped by people from his own Government barracking throughout that answer.

Does he at all see the causal connection between 50 percent of applications for emergency housing in Auckland being declined under the Government’s policy changes and rough sleeping increasing by 90 percent?

The official advice is that it’s not possible to distinguish or associate policy changes for emergency housing and an increase in rough sleeping. That’s the official advice. However, it is clear that we have a rough sleeping issue in Auckland, and indeed in other parts of the country. I agree with the member—and, in fact, I’m sure all members would agree with this proposition—that no one wants to live in a country where that is something that happens. That’s why the Government has invested 300 additional social homes, brought home almost immediately through the Housing First programme, which is evidence based, which has been running for a number of years and I think is supported by many members around the House; 300 immediate new social houses brought on stream from the private rental market; and additional support for those like the City Mission and others who are working at the front line of this problem. If it was a money issue and if it was an intention issue, the last Government would have solved this, because they spent, during that time, billions and billions of dollars, and the number of New Zealanders living in severe housing deprivation went up by 37 percent. The actual answer is to work with front-line providers that have the skills and capability, and, ultimately, fixing our broken planning system and infrastructure funding and financing system to make it easier to build houses more generally.

Was it a mistake to cancel 3,500 new homes across 200 public housing projects, now that he has to lease 300 temporary social homes from the private sector?

Well, the good news about those 300 homes in the private sector is that they can be brought online in the next few weeks and months. If we were waiting for the alleged houses that were cancelled to be built, we might be waiting until mid - next year. I think the member is right in saying we want immediate relief right now. That’s why we’ve done it. In relation to the cancelled project the member refers to, it is difficult to cancel a project for which no funding was attached. The last Government talked big about funding for social housing. It never funded those projects. Many were in the wrong place, servicing the wrong people, and were uneconomic to build. That’s why those projects have been pushed out. In the meantime, we are now building 1,500 additional homes delivered by community housing providers, much more calibrated to where the need is and, in particular, focused on the right typology. As I pointed out in the House yesterday, 50 percent of people on the register need a one-bedroom unit, but that’s not what we were building.

Yep, OK.

The good news is that we’ve changed the funding system, and now 89 percent of these new units—

Wind it up.

—are one- and two-bedroom units, which is what the system needs. [Interruption]

Just wait.

How quickly could the Government end homelessness if they spent the $2.9 billion on immediate housing support instead of tax cuts for landlords and property speculators?

I remember another person standing in this House in 2017 and saying, “We will end homelessness by Christmas.” Billions and billions and billions of dollars later, where are we? So it’s all very well to talk big. It’s all very well to rely on intentions and good thinking. It’s all very well to have the right intention. Solving this problem is not as simple as standing up and saying, “I want to do something”—I wish it was the case—“and all I need to do is throw money at it.” It is not that simple, and, actually, members who understand this problem know that. The solutions are to make sure we get calibrated support for those who need it, work with front-line providers, build more social houses in the right places, and, ultimately, fix our broken housing system. Good intentions are not enough. You have to have a plan. [Interruption]

When we’re all quiet, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Is there any particular reason why so many homeless are going to, in particular, Auckland Central?

Well, Auckland Central is a wonderful place. It does have its challenges, but we are providing additional support for the challenges in Auckland Central, as we are in Wellington and other parts of the country. We’ll continue to provide that support and, most importantly, we are focused on fixing our broken housing market.

to the Minister of Transport

What recent announcements has he made about the transport infrastructure pipeline?

Well, it’s been a busy few weeks. A few weeks ago, we announced $6 billion of infrastructure projects starting by Christmas. I’m pleased to tell the House that number is now $7 billion, including a range of transport projects—huge number, meaning spades in the ground, jobs throughout the country, and a stronger economy. Now, the numbers do vary a bit, but the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission estimate for every billion dollars of infrastructure investments about 4,500 jobs. Of course, we are a Government committed to building an enduring, credible transport infrastructure pipeline.

What announcements has he made regarding the Hawke’s Bay Expressway?

I acknowledge that member’s strong advocacy for this very important project. It’s fantastic to be with her and Katie Nimon to announce that construction will begin in November on the $600 million upgrade of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway—a key road of national significance. It will four-lane the most congested 7 kilometre stretch between Links Road/Pākōwhai Road and the Taradale Road roundabouts, with a new grade-separated interchange at Links Road. Construction is scheduled through to 2028, interchange works in 2027. Once it’s built, we will have 12 kilometres of uninterrupted travel; it will improve safety and improve regional growth. I’m told there will be hundreds of jobs into this region in the next few years, just on the expressway project alone, let alone the wider economic benefits of this project.

What announcements has he made regarding the Ōmanawa Bridge?

A few weeks ago, we announced that construction on the first phase of the State Highway 29 Tauriko West road of national significance will begin in October, the Ōmanawa Bridge replacement at the start. Site works start this month, full construction next month. This includes realigning State Highway 29 with the new bridge and making improvements with the State Highway 29 intersection. I’m pleased to say a standardised off-the-shelf bridge design is being used that will improve delivery time frames. No more gold plating and bespoke solutions, as that member knows so well, and I thank him for his advocacy on this project. Tauranga and the Western Bay are growing fast, and this will support potential development of new houses and business growth in the area.

What announcements has he made regarding level crossings removal in Auckland?

More good news—as Maurice Williamson used to say. It was great to kick off construction of $800 million of level crossing removals in Takanini and Glen Innes a few weeks ago, and I thank the member for her strong advocacy for that. The level crossing projects are a travesty on the last few years, because while we’ve been building the City Rail Link, what we should have been doing was getting on and removing the level crossings to make sure we can take full advantage of this game-changing project. It’s OK—help is on the way. This Government is getting on with it: eight level crossing removals, three new grade-separated road bridges, and three new pedestrian access bridges on the Southern Line in Takanini and Glen Innes. They will take a while to do, they are expensive, but they are worth doing, and in the meantime, it will create hundreds and, indeed, probably thousands of jobs in that very important part of Auckland.

Supplementary.

Well, the answer has to be a little bit more concise than we’ve been getting. All supplementaries are totally at the discretion of the Speaker. We’ll try it—Dana Kirkpatrick.

What announcements has he made regarding improvements to State Highway 35 Mangahauini Gorge?

There are major works getting under way on the gorge on State Highway 35 north of Gisborne as crews tackle the final and largest phase of the Cyclone Gabrielle recovery efforts. Once it’s open in mid-2026, it will be open to two lanes of traffic for the first time since Cyclone Gabrielle. Much of the work will take place around the river where repeated weather events have shifted the riverbeds—about a $50 million programme of work delivered by local East Coast contractors. I know the member will appreciate that.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the resignations of the former Reserve Bank Chair and Governor?

In context, yes.

When the former Reserve Bank chair said on 5 March that Adrian Orr’s resignation was a “personal decision”, did she consider that characterisation to be misleading?

At that time, I relied on the judgment of the Reserve Bank chair that that was as much as he could say at the time.

Did she receive any communications that the Reserve Bank board was going to recommend to her that she remove the former Reserve Bank Governor; if so, when?

I have previously set this out in the House, which is that on 27 February I received a text message from Iain Rennie, who is the Secretary to the Treasury, informing me that an employment process had commenced between the Reserve Bank and the Governor.

Why is she failing to confirm the contents of that text, which has only just been released by the Treasury, which says, “Neil’s current thinking is that you could receive recommendation later next week unless decision is taken to go down a voluntary exit route. Neil has committed to let me know of any significant developments.”?

Well, we have released those text messages, which were initially withheld because when that Official Information Act request initially came through, there was an employment process referred to in those text messages that had not been made public by the employer. Therefore, it was considered that the information in the text messages was subject to an obligation of confidence. However, now the Reserve Bank has made more information about the former Governor’s exit public, which I have welcomed, and the text messages no longer can be considered confidential. That is why Treasury has reassessed the need to withhold and has released those text messages.

Why did she not correct the record when she knew as early as 11 June that employment discussions had occurred because there was a disagreement about the level of funding between the Governor, the board, and the Government?

Well, the member is making a number of assumptions about what I knew. You need to remember, at the time, I was not aware of the specific concerns the bank had raised with Mr Orr. I was not aware of how Mr Orr had responded to those concerns. I was not aware of the details of the agreement the bank had entered into with Mr Orr. I didn’t want to create legal or financial risk to taxpayers, and I did not want to be doing or saying anything that could be seen as politicising a sensitive employment process. I relied on the judgment of the Reserve Bank chair that he was saying as much as he could say. As has been traversed, it is my view that he should have dealt with that matter better.

Therefore, does she no longer stand by her statements made to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 18 June?

I stand by my statements, although the member will be aware that I made a personal explanation in this House last night correcting a date which I shared at that committee. I made that personal explanation as soon as that error was made known to me.

Does she really believe that New Zealanders can trust her when she has withheld information, had to correct statements, also was on the possibility of receiving advice to allow for the removal of Adrian Orr, or, really, is the real reason why Adrian Orr resigned because she drove him to it?

If Barbara Edmonds wishes to be the great defender of Adrian Orr, then that is for her. I have chosen not to politicise his exit from the Reserve Bank, which I think shows good judgment.

I’ll just point out that the last part of that question was most certainly well and truly outside of Standing Orders, but it would’ve rendered the question ineffective had I stepped in too quickly.

to the Minister for Space

Was she aware of the links between intelligence company BlackSky and the Israeli Defence Ministry when she approved payload launch permits, and, if so, did she raise any concerns?

Just hold on. There’s just far too much talk during that question.

on behalf of the Minister for Space: When I took this decision in December 2023, I was advised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that while there had been previous contracts between BlackSky and the Israeli defence ministry, there was no evidence of a current contract. We’d also like to note that the first BlackSky payload was approved by the previous Labour Government in 2021. The Minister for Space makes decisions on payload permits, based on MBIE recommendation, to protect New Zealand’s national interest.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

Sorry, just wait until the House is showing the courtesy of listening.

Can the Minister assure Kiwis that payloads launched from New Zealand on behalf of BlackSky are not being used by the Israeli defence ministry, in any form, to wage war in Gaza?

Can I just say, very clearly, that the satellite is in the sky. What would the Greens have us do? Bring it back? I mean, the Greens might be lost in space, but the satellite is up there. The simple statement may be one small step for the Greens, but it’s one giant leap for the truth.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Points of order are heard in silence, and I’m getting quite irritated by the amount of noise from my right.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has grappled with these issues over the last wee while, and it’s a very serious issue. I don’t feel that that has addressed the question, and the answer was insufficient.

The answer skirted right round the question. The Minister might like to say something more.

Well, it goes back to the original statement, which was that the Minister was satisfied that any national interest risk was sufficiently mitigated. I’ve already stated that the previous Labour Government approved it back in 2021. Now, the same Government, in 2021, approved changes to the payload permit in July of that year, when there was a current contract, and in October 2023, when they were in the interregnum role as we were taking over the reins of Government.

Is it in New Zealand’s national interest to allow intelligence companies to launch payloads from our shores that may be supporting Israel to wage their illegal war in Gaza?

Again, MBIE advised in December 2023 that BlackSky had previously worked with the Israeli defence ministry. There is no evidence of a current contract.

Is it the Minister’s view that allowing launches of intelligence satellites for companies that have links to foreign militaries and that may be used to wage illegal wars is consistent with our international obligations and in New Zealand’s national interest?

Well, first of all, when the term “link” is used in the question, a link is like a chain; it’s not a broken chain, and this is what’s being asked by way of a question here. Remote sensing satellites are general purpose satellites used for a wide range of purposes. For example, they help farmers manage crops, scientists monitor climate change, and emergency services respond to floods and fires. Do they suggest we should sacrifice all of that on the basis of suspicion? They are used for a range of security purposes. The Minister also imposes standard conditions on remote sensing payload permits prohibiting the sale of data to any individual or entity that is on New Zealand’s designated terrorist list or subject to sanctions and regulations. Those are the facts.

Why can the Minister not confirm if satellites being launched from New Zealand are complicit in the unfolding genocide in Gaza?

That member got all the way to that question, by way of conclusion, without one shred of evidence. The next question is: where were his colleagues in 2021? Where were you in 2021? I know. They were shouting out and making no sense, just like now.

to the Minister of Education

What announcements has she made about strengthening learning support?

Budget 2025 delivered the largest boost to learning support in a generation. Last week, I announced the allocation of learning support coordinators (LSCs) to every school with year 1 to 8 students over the next three years, so 101,000 additional year 1 to 8 students and their teachers will benefit from the skills and support of a learning support coordinator working in their school next year. These dedicated staff members will be trained in structured literacy, structured maths, and to screen for common neurodiverse needs like dyslexia and put strategies in place to give parents confidence and reassurance their child’s needs are being met. We’re working to raise achievement and provide support on the front line. Parents, teachers, and principals have been crying out for this support, and we’ve listened and delivered.

When can schools expect to benefit from a learning support coordinator?

When learning support coordinator roles were previously announced in 2019, only a single tranche of funding was provided. This left significant inequities whereby some regions only had 18 percent coverage of their students supported by a learning support coordinator. Our fully funded roll-out will span three years. By 2026, we’ll reach at least 60 percent of all students across the country, rising to 80 percent in 2027, reaching 100 percent by 2028. In total, nearly 300,000 students in 1,131 schools will benefit from these changes. Parents can be confident that we are aspirational for their kids and are delivering more support to put their child’s needs at the centre of the education system.

How has this announcement been tailored to support small, rural, and isolated schools?

We’ve thought very carefully about flexible support for rural and smaller schools, where staffing challenges have persisted for too long, working with the rural and isolated schools association. Schools will be able to choose to combine their part-time staffing entitlements across intervention and LSC roles, making it easier to recruit and manage resources in their communities. School boards and principals will receive information that will include operational guidance, where to find employment support and advisory services, and time lines of roll-outs and phases and key dates. Guidance for families will also be available so everyone knows what to expect from this expanded support. Planning is also under way to deliver professional learning and development in literacy and numeracy, as well as that dyslexia screening. This is a Government that backs our rural and small schools.

What feedback has she received on these announcements?

It’s been overwhelmingly positive. A number of principals have reached out to express their support. I note one who said, “Thank you, Erica, for consistently investing in on-the-ground support.” Another principal said, “Great initiative; 100 percent agree with this approach.” Another education leader emailed me to say, “I’m really excited to see this issue finally being addressed. It’s been a bit of a festering sore for many years, and it’s great to see the allocation being done in a way to account for those small, isolated rural schools that are often disadvantaged.”

to the Associate Minister of Housing

Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who claimed, in reference to emergency housing, that “we’ve fixed it”; if so, why?

E te Māngai o te Whare, āna, tautoko au i te Pirīmia.

[Mr Speaker, yes, I support the Prime Minister.]

I agree with the Prime Minister in the context that statement was made. We inherited large-scale abuse of emergency housing that was a fiscal, moral, and social disaster and, since coming into office, we have seen over 3,000 tamariki, or kids, exit from emergency housing—2,260 accelerated through the Priority One decision that this Government made. We’ve seen a reduction in the costs of emergency housing from over $1 million a day to less than $250,000 a day. We’ve seen the renaissance of iconic hot spots like Rotorua and Hamilton—they have turned from centres of taxpayer cost into generators of tourism receipts. We’ve also seen more clarity given to Ministry of Social Development / Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora decision makers around the need for personal responsibility, strong whānau, and strong communities. We’ve also seen the member’s anxiety rise about this Government’s success in getting emergency housing back on track.

No need for a supplementary, that was a good answer.

Questions are heard and answered. If I see someone else speaking when a question is being answered, it’ll be the end of their day.

Is emergency housing fixed when front-line providers are telling the Government that homelessness is now “The worst it’s been in living memory.”?

What I can say is this: when we came into office, there were more people on the housing register in cars than there were last month.

Is emergency housing fixed, when Auckland City Missioner Helen Robinson said, “I am very, very clear that the current emergency housing policies have a direct impact on these numbers going up.”?

We might recall in this House the Homelessness Insights Report, which members opposite have relied on for the last four weeks, and, in that report, it states officially that attributing any increase in the number of people living without shelter to gateway changes for emergency housing is inappropriate because there are a lot of contributors, fathers and mothers, to people living without shelter—whether or not that’s meth use, drug or alcohol use, economic and social contexts, or, indeed, broken relationships. We’re not about that, and that’s why we support stronger whānau and stronger communities, not herding people like sheep into Ulster Street.

Is emergency housing fixed, when Jill Hawkey from Christchurch Methodist Mission said, “Chris Bishop said in an interview that if people are homeless they could go to the Ministry of Social Development and housing support would be available to them. We know that’s not true.”?

The selective use of quotes by the member opposite reveals his palpable anxiety around the success that this Government has delivered around emergency housing. We know that people like Murray Eldridge from the Wellington City Mission, or Paul Gilberd and my whanaunga Ali Hamlin-Paenga from the community housing associations, or Julie Nelson from The People’s Project, or, indeed, Barbara Brown from Kāhui Tū Kaha have all said that the recent decisions made by Minister Bishop and myself around taking action to address some of those living without shelter are very good. The best decision that we made was getting all those kids out of hotels.

Is emergency housing fixed, when, earlier this year, there were more emergency applications declined in Auckland than there were approved?

The stats and the data reveal that most people who apply for emergency housing are granted emergency housing, and most of the declines are actually granted some sort of support. But I’m sure that members opposite would like to elide around the data and truth.

Point of order, sir. When a Minister makes an incorrect statement in the House, they are required to correct that. To save the House’s time, perhaps the Minister may wish to correct that statement immediately.

Well, I’m not able to sit here to say whether it was correct or incorrect. The Minister will obviously take advice when he gets back to his office and then make a decision about what course of action he should follow.

How much evidence from front-line providers will it take for the Minister to finally admit that it’s his policies that have led to an unprecedented increase of people sleeping on the street?

There are members in this House that rely on hearsay, and there are others that actually go and find out the facts. We are absolutely energised and enthused by reaching the target that was set—target No. 8—to reduce the number of households in emergency housing by 75 percent in six years and achieving that in 12 months. Whilst others rely on outbursts, we rely on outcomes. [Interruption]

The Hon Shane Jones, when the House is ready.

On the matter of emergency housing, has Rotorua been fixed after 2,000 people—predominantly gang members—in some motels were dumped there by the last regime?

Rotorua is an absolutely beautiful and iconic place in New Zealand—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Based on the assertions of Parliament’s selfappointed hall monitor earlier on today around the legitimacy or otherwise of questions, is the question that Shane—[Interruption]

Just a moment! It’s a point of order, and the whips on the Government side need to control themselves and the people around them.

Is the question of Shane Jones compliant with the standard he himself was insisting you enforce earlier on in question time today?

Yeah, good point. It would be a good idea to reword the question.

It wasn’t even a question.

Well, it didn’t start with a question word. I was going to stop him there, but given the “where, what, why, and when” interjection earlier, I thought I’d just refrain.

On the matter of emergency housing, has Rotorua recovered after 2,000 individuals—men, women, and children, and gang members—were dumped in that city in order to solve emergency housing by the last regime?

At the height of the large-scale use of emergency housing, over 80 motels were being used in Rotorua. Now we are down to less than 10 and soon to be less than five. I believe that we are fixing the large-scale emergency housing, if we have not fixed it already. We’re absolutely determined to make sure that Rotorua is not a cost centre but is a generator of tourism receipts and an absolute contributor to this wonderful place we call New Zealand. Kia ora.

Supplementary question.

Supplementary question probably does cover it, but a question word.

On the matter of emergency housing, can the Minister confirm that Rotorua is still reeling after having received $100 million to dump gang members in Rotorua?

No, that’s not something he can answer.

to the Minister for Land Information

What announcement has he made, if any, about the future of Watts Peninsula—Mātai Moana?

In 2011, the then Government announced that Watts Peninsula would be protected as a public reserve for the people of Wellington and all New Zealanders. Today, I was pleased to announce, alongside my good friend and colleague Mr Tama Potaka as Minister of Conservation, that a reserve will finally be created on the northern tip of the Miramar Peninsula. This will be made possible by the transfer of 72 hectares of land from Land Information New Zealand to the Department of Conservation (DOC) and through the joint efforts of Wellington City Council and Taranaki Whānui.

Why is the Government establishing a reserve of Watts Peninsula?

Watts Peninsula holds deep significance for Taranaki Whānui, iwi Māori, and many Pākehā New Zealanders as well. It’s home to important pā sites; wāhi tapu; and military heritage from the 1880s through to World War II and beyond, including Fort Ballance. The public has clearly voiced that it values protecting this special whenua, and I thank everyone who advocated for today’s outcome, including members in this House, former mayors of Wellington—including extensively Mr Andy Foster—and the local member of Parliament.

How will the Watts Peninsula reserve be managed?

The reserve will be managed by a charitable trust, with trustees appointed by Wellington City Council, Taranaki Whānui, and the Department of Conservation. I again acknowledge DOC and the responsible Minister, Mr Potaka, as Land Information passes the baton for this important work to progress. Funding for the reserve’s ongoing care and maintenance will come from Wellington City Council and Taranaki Whānui through the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. Creating the reserve will generate a great opportunity to preserve and enhance and protect this important piece of land.

What is the benefit of establishing Watts Peninsula reserve?

The benefit will be felt by all New Zealanders and overseas visitors while protecting our beautiful indigenous flora and fauna. The trust will have an important role to preserve and promote the reserve as an ecological, historical, and cultural place of importance for everyone to access. I know that I speak for myself as well as the Minister of Conservation when I say how excited we are to celebrate the official opening of the reserve once it’s ready for public access. The decision announced today will safeguard a treasured part of Wellington and its rich history for future generations to enjoy.

to the Minister for Food Safety

What recent announcements has he made about cutting red tape for New Zealand food exporters?

Last week, I announced that from 25 September, hundreds of food exporters will no longer need to apply for a special exemption from New Zealand law if their products meet the requirements of the country they’re exporting to. Companies have missed opportunities to grab new markets overseas because of the time it takes to get an exemption, which means they can’t respond quickly enough. This simple change will cut red tape, lower barriers to export, and promote innovation for those getting out there and promoting New Zealand’s primary products to the world.

Why is this change needed?

All food produced in New Zealand is required to meet New Zealand’s composition and labelling rules, but citizens around the world have different diets and different nutritional needs. Until now, Kiwi companies who are feeding the world had to go through a costly and time-consuming process of applying for product-specific exemptions. They will now be able to manage their own compliance with overseas requirements. This is a common-sense change that will help boost exports and economic growth.

Has the Minister seen any reports on the effect the new rules will have on food businesses?

Why, yes, I have. I saw a report in the media from one innovative Waikato company who noted how important it is to be responsive to international market demands and that the simplicity of the new rules will mean more Kiwi food on the shelves overseas. Export New Zealand said “The new approach gives businesses more certainty, cuts compliance costs, and reduces delays. It’s a change that will make a real difference to Kiwi exporters competing on the global stage.”

Is there further work under way to help exporters?

There certainly is; this is just the start. While this change will help hundreds of food exporters, I’m aware that there are some sectors where more work is needed to unlock that export potential. There is a phase two for this work that will look at those other sectors. I’ve asked officials to prioritise further work on dietary supplements, which has a massive export growth potential if we can get the labelling requirements right.

to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Does he stand by his expectation of “prioritisation and utilisation of the Commission’s full regulatory and enforcement tool kit to achieve real impacts for consumers”; if so, what is he doing to make the cost of living more affordable for New Zealand consumers?

Yes, I stand by my expectation. On this side of the House, we are absolutely committed to reducing the cost of living for New Zealand consumers. We’re doing that with a range of things including, for instance, tax relief that benefited millions of New Zealand households, changes to the income tax thresholds, the in-work tax credit, and other measures that made around 1.9 million New Zealand households better off.

What specific steps has he taken to stop misleading pricing and fake specials that would deliver real cost of living relief to Kiwi consumers, especially the staggering 62 percent of New Zealanders who have noticed pricing inaccuracies recently?

There are currently three pieces of legislation I have before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I invite the member and her party to support those pieces of legislation.

What specific steps has he taken to help Kiwi consumers who are paying $10,000 more in a year to feed a family of four here than in Australia?

As I said in the answer to the primary question, there are a range of things that this Government is doing. The portfolio that I have responsibility for is taking a range of measures, including legislative steps that the member’s party is most welcome to support if they choose.

What specific steps has he taken to help Kiwi consumers with the cost of insurance when house insurance prices are up 9.1 percent and contents insurance prices have risen 10.3 percent?

The member doesn’t have to wait too long before some amendments to the Commerce Act come into this House for debate and consideration. I know that she will be looking forward to them as much as I am.

What specific steps has he taken to help the Kiwi consumer, a mother, who said, “When I compared my power bills from May to July this year with last year, they’d gone up about 10 percent and my insurance renewal was around 20 percent higher across my policies”?

Repeal oil and gas.

I hear an interjection about repealing the oil and gas ban—

Just focus on the question.

—that would seem to be appropriate. However, on this side of the House we’re committed to doing all that we can to reduce the cost of living. For instance, one thing that we won’t be doing is setting higher inflation targets, as seems to be the policy of some parties in this House.

Is the real reason the cost of living in New Zealand—[Interruption]

Hang on. All right.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the real reason the cost of living in New Zealand is so unaffordable is because this Government prioritised a $3 billion tax cut for landlords, a $300 million tax cut for tobacco companies, and half a billion dollars in tax rates for multi-national tech companies like Google and Facebook, rather than taking any action for Kiwi consumers who are falling behind?

No, and I invite the member to reflect upon the role that her party had over the last six years.

No. That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a short break before I call on a member to move miscellaneous business.

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

This is a Government, a National Government, that is completely out of touch with New Zealanders. This is a National Government that is making things for New Zealand families worse, not better. This is a National Government that is resulting in tens of thousands of New Zealanders losing their jobs. This is a National Government that promised to fix the cost of living and instead is making the cost of living worse.

If ever we needed more evidence of how out of touch this Government is with how New Zealanders are feeling right at the moment, it was Nicola Willis’ declaration that the tens of thousands of New Zealanders that have lost their jobs under her leadership shouldn’t take it personally. There isn’t much that people take more personally than losing their jobs. Then we had David Seymour double down on that today and say that the people who have lost their jobs should just put a smile on it and everything would be better.

Things are getting worse, not better, under this Government. We saw more evidence of that today. Official statistics out: 74,000 New Zealand citizens gave up on this Government in the last year and left the country permanently. When the National Party launched their tourism advertising campaign saying, “Everyone Must Go”, I don’t think New Zealanders would expect their Government to be promoting a policy that drives New Zealanders out of the country, and yet that is what this Government have been doing: 30,000 fewer jobs under National—30,000 fewer jobs under National. But here’s an even more startling number: 2,700 businesses have gone under since this Government took office. That is the highest number of businesses going into liquidation in over a decade, and it has happened under this Government’s watch as a result of their bad choices.

Household bills continue to go up. Feeding a family of four in New Zealand now costs $25,000 a year. That is $10,000 a year higher than in Australia. This Government has no solution for that. They have no answers. This is a Government that is making life more expensive for New Zealand families. Our health system descends further into crisis under this Government’s leadership, and they have no answers for that either. The Government’s major cost of living commitment before the last election was giving working families with kids $250 a fortnight in their back pockets. Can Nicola Willis name one family, just one—I’d settle for one at this point—that got the 250 bucks that Christopher Luxon promised repeatedly up and down the country that families with kids were going to get? Suddenly, they’ve gone very quiet, because not one family got the $250 a fortnight that they were promised.

This is a Government that has prioritised foreign home buyers over Kiwi families looking for a home. It is a Government that has prioritised landlords over Kiwi tenants. It is a Government that has prioritised tobacco companies over the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders; a Government that has prioritised pay rises for company directors and not teachers and nurses who go out to work for New Zealand’s future generations every day; a Government that’s prioritised oil and gas companies over tackling climate change, one of the greatest challenges—if not the greatest challenge—currently facing humanity.

This Government’s choices are all wrong. This is a Government that thinks that if things are getting better for them, then that’s better for the rest of the country. Things might be getting better for them on that side of the House, but most New Zealanders are finding that things are getting worse and worse every day under the leadership of this Government. Most New Zealanders don’t get to claim a $52,000 tax-free allowance for their own house. Most New Zealanders don’t get to spend $44,000 flying to the top of a mountain so that they can film a social media video for their Facebook. Most New Zealanders don’t spend 60 bucks a week in the supermarket on their grocery shop. Most New Zealanders are finding things getting worse under this Government, not better.

Well, Chris Hipkins would have woken up on Sunday morning feeling pretty grim about life. On Saturday, he would have woken up thinking, “It’s going to be a good weekend for the Labour Party. We’re going to go into this by-election and we’re going to take back that Māori seat off the Māori Party. It’s going to be good times.” Well, the hangover on Sunday morning would have been pretty grim, and he would have got to work on Monday morning and I know what would have happened, because I’ve sort of been there, done that while in Opposition. His team would have said to him, “Mate, you’ve just got to get back on the horse. Get down to the House and have a swing—these guys are out of control. Don’t worry, we caused the inflation that the Government has had to grapple with—don’t worry about it. We caused the economic crisis and the worst recession since the 1980s, which the Government has had to deal with, but don’t worry. If you just turn up there and just keep blah-ing on and pretending that it’s the Government’s fault that we’re grappling with job losses in construction—don’t worry, just have a go.”

Well, that was a pretty pathetic effort, I have to say. Judging from the looks on the faces, particularly Willie Jackson, who has seemed curiously down in the mouth over the last few days—judging from the reaction of his colleagues—I reckon they were as unimpressed by that as the Te Tai Tokerau public were on Saturday night.

I want to talk about what a putative Labour - Greens - Te Pāti Māori Government might be like, because it’s been extremely revealing over the last few weeks. Now, Nicola Willis and I have been having a bet about what would be the first economic policy released by the Labour Party. We’ve been back and forward. Nicola says that it will be capital gains, and I say that it will be a wealth tax. Regardless, they’re both going to be stupid policies that will destroy value for New Zealanders, but that is what we’ve come to expect from the Labour Party. But I’ll tell you what, we did not expect what actually came out from Barbara Edmonds yesterday, which was extraordinary. Having caused the inflation in the first place through reckless spending, the first economic policy from the Labour Party is to drive up inflation again as a good thing, and throw out the Reserve Bank mandate—the 1 to 3 percent target. “We’re open to a conversation,” says Barbara Edmonds. As one economist said, that is ludicrous—really back to the future.

There are other policies that we’ve had in the last few weeks. We’ve had poor old Peeni—and I want to acknowledge and mihi to him for the hard work that he did on the by-election. But I’ve got to say that some of the stuff that came out during the by-election, mate—oh man, it’s like really out of left field. Banning gang patches was a personal view expressed as a Labour Party front-bencher. That was contradicted by his deputy leader and then doubled down on by Peeni Henare—bring back the gang patches. Then we had this sort of weird thing about supermarkets being tangata Tiriti - compliant and it got involved in this little weird thing, and Willie Jackson, his putative campaign manager and senior front-bencher, said, “Oh no, what we need is price controls.” All of which had to be denied by Chris Hipkins, who of course has contradicted it. So who is running the show?

It has been interesting to hear from Labour over the last few weeks. It has been a clown show, and then we get to the other clowns from the Green Party. Now, let’s leave aside the wealth tax and all the other crazy stuff. I actually thought that the thing people should reflect on is the actions of Ricardo Menéndez March, because we’ve had this lawyer who’s been going around the place, allegedly, daubing electorate offices with paint and vandalising them. Now, it’s no skin off my nose—that’s all good. But I worry for the staff in our offices—who work very hard—and also, frankly, for the people who want to actually go to the offices and be helped by those electorate office staff. It’s the height of selfishness to do this. It’s actually putting at risk our parliamentary democracy, and what does Ricardo do? Well, he writes a letter to the court—a character reference—for someone who is going around vandalising electorate offices. We are yet to get an explanation from Mr Menéndez March as to why that is tolerable. I don’t think it is, and I think that the public deserve an explanation as to why that sort of behaviour is tolerated. I think that it is really unbecoming of a member of the House, and I think it reflects badly on him and everybody else.

Then we have Te Pāti Māori. Now, where to start on these clowns? Tākuta Ferris posted this on Instagram—let me read out the quote—“Indians, Asians, Black and Pakeha campaigning to take a Maori seat from Maori”.

Yes.

Oh, here we go—“Yes.”, Mariameno says. It doesn’t get much more racist than that. I’m prepared to call it racist. Thousands of New Zealanders think it’s racist—actually, most people think it’s racist.

Does Chris Hipkins think it’s racist? No. Chris Hipkins, who has spent much of the debate over the Treaty principles bill calling us racist, says, “Oh no, no, no—it’s unhelpful to use that term.” Well, I’ll tell you what, I think it’s racist, and we’ve got to make sure that these clowns in Te Pāti Māori and their bench mates in the Green Party—who seem to stand up for all of it—are never allowed anywhere near the Treasury benches, or they will drive this country into ruin.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I think what that speech demonstrates to the House and to the press gallery is that Christopher Luxon is safe for now, because if that was the leadership challenge, it was sadly lacking. I’d set aside a full minute in my opening reply to respond to the key points that the speaker from the National Party would make. In fact, my page is this [Member holds up notes], because he wasn’t able to talk about the economy. He wasn’t able to talk about jobs. He wasn’t able to talk about the housing issues in New Zealand. He wasn’t able to demonstrate what National’s plan is for the current situation. All he could do was talk about Labour, and I think that about sums it up.

Right now, New Zealanders are leaving this country in record numbers, and we’ve got someone making an after-dinner party Toastmasters speech. That about sums up the extent of what this Government offers New Zealand right now, because he didn’t even say that the economy was turning a corner, because he knows it’s not. He didn’t even say that once, because the damage done—the damage done—by this Government is going to take decades to fill back. The jobs gone in construction are 18,000; the jobs gone in manufacturing are over 9,000, around 8,000—high regions there. In the regions, where we’re supposed to be seeing this economic turnaround, places like Nelson—losing Carter Holt Harvey jobs, losing their Sealord manufacturing, and also those jobs in the Waikato. Ten thousand jobs in New Zealand gone in the past three months, and we get a Toastmasters speech from that side.

Well, I’d like to highlight that the new data out today showed that 73,400 New Zealanders left in the year to July 2025. That is a new record, and that breaks the previous record, which was the year to June 2025. So, month on month, for each year gone in the past, we are reaching new records in the number of New Zealanders who are saying a big vote of no confidence and Christopher Luxon’s leadership and no confidence in the direction that this Government is taking people. The reality is that it was caused by this Government. They came in guns ablaze; cutting staff left, right, and centre; cutting jobs, cutting spending, but no plan B—cancelling projects up and down the country, but no plan in place. That is why 18,000 construction workers have left our shores—gone. That is what’s happened as a result.

The reality is, the fact they have no plan was evident from Chris Bishop’s speech, and the fact they have no plan is evident in the actions of Christopher Luxon. When New Zealanders are looking for leadership, he turns up to IKEA—not even for an opening, but to a reveal date. Well, he might like to know that 25,000 New Zealanders applied for 500 jobs at that IKEA shop. That’s what he should be concerned about, not the reveal date. Next, we hear the Amazon data centre gets reannounced from what we all knew in 2021—more desperation from this Government and their leadership. Finally, if all else fails, try and make friends with Taylor Swift. I kid you not—I kid you not. New Zealanders are leaving this country in record numbers, and our Prime Minister is tagging “Tay Tay” on Insta. You couldn’t write this. You know, this is a time when we can’t decide whether to laugh or cry about the direction that New Zealand is taking right now.

There’s no wonder that these rumblings on the backbenches—and there are some more rumblings in the middle benches, but from the speech we just heard, I think he’s safe for yet another coup. We’ve all lost count of the number of coups in the leadership, led by Chris Bishop and Nicola Willis.

But we need a plan. What Labour’s plan is is to make sure that there are jobs where people earn a decent wage and it’s enough to put food on the table and look after your whānau, that there is a health system where you can get a doctor that’s cheaper and easier to get, and that we can have homes—homes that Tama Potaka and Chris Bishop are taking away from people every day. We want to build our communities. We know that by looking after our people, we make our communities stronger, and that makes our country stronger. That’s, sadly, a lesson that this Government is yet to learn.

The Labour Party spokesperson that just resumed her seat, the Hon Ginny Andersen, wanted this side of the House to talk about what we’ve achieved in Government. Well, I’d be happy to oblige today, because after the most egregious example of economic vandalism that this country has seen in generations, overseen by the Ardern-led and Hipkins-led Labour Government, this side of the House—our coalition Government—has proudly leaned in to get the job done. We are all about delivery. We are not about press releases, platitudes, and broken promises that this country had to endure for six very, very long years. We are focused on the things that matter, things that actually make a difference to putting food on families’ tables and feeding our kids and getting them to school. We are focused on growing wages, improving health outcomes, reducing crime, and reforming the education system.

I note that the speaker that just resumed her seat was a former police Minister. She should hang her head in shame. The statistics that went through the roof under her watch are just appalling. Thanks to the work done by Mark Mitchell, our very, very engaged and hard-working police Minister, there are now 29,000 fewer victims of serious and violent crime than when this Government came in. That is nearly 30,000 people across New Zealand no longer being victimised by serious crime. That is the size of towns like Ashburton. That speaker should hang her head in shame.

Equally, we are seeing health targets reintroduced and really starting to turn around a system that was on its knees thanks to the stupidity of the decisions made by that previous Government. They erased a former National Government’s better public services targets. They erased health targets that were being imposed on the health sector, which saw emergency department stays skyrocket. It saw our childhood immunisation rates fall through the floor. It saw less and less people getting the elective procedures they needed and deserved and the cancer treatments they needed and deserved.

The proudest work that we have been able to achieve thus far in a very short 18-odd months is that we are turning around this economy and we are seeing promising signs of economic recovery. Inflation has come down almost five percentage points. It has been quite, quite extraordinary, the turn-around that can occur when a Government takes a firm approach to reforming the economy. We are already seeing 240,000 jobs being created.

That is huge, but as the Minister for Women, I am very, very proud of the gains we have made and what we have been able to achieve and to deliver to improve the lives of women and girls of this country. This Government is very proud to be able to stand up and say we have driven the pay gap down to 5.2 percent. It absolutely stagnated under the previous Government, which took its eye off the ball, got lazy, and stopped doing the work necessary to improve the outcomes for women and girls in this country. We’ve actually put our money where our mouth is. We have launched the first ever Government-backed pay gap calculator tool kit. It has had extraordinary uptake from employers across the country. It has had 30,000 hits already. It is just one part of our reform programme to grow our economy, to improve the lives for women and girls across New Zealand, and to encourage employers to hire people—particularly women and girls.

We know, equally—Stats New Zealand would also acknowledge—that we have not cracked the nut on the ethnic pay gap. We know there is work to do in that space. Again, we are being bold. We are leaning into it, and I will have more to say on that very soon. We are having to make tough decisions to deal with the economic mismanagement that we inherited from the laziness that occurred under that previous Government.

As Chris Bishop rightly pointed out, it is a horrifying proposition for New Zealanders to look at what a future Labour - Greens - Te Pāti Māori coalition might look like. Imagine Chlöe Swarbrick being in charge of finances. Imagine Barbara Edmonds being in charge of finances. Imagine seeing the likes of Chris Hipkins having to accept the Green Party’s Budget proposals to be able to form a Government. What an utterly stupefying proposition that would be for New Zealanders. On this side of the House, we are ambitious for women, for girls, and for New Zealanders. We intend to keep up the hard work.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In this country, our economy is based on rich people trading houses between each other rather than an economy based on hard work that provides people the opportunity to contribute meaningfully and productively to the future and prospects of our nation. We used to have a country where you could work hard, save up for a home, set down roots, get a family homestead, and put away money for your kids to have a good education and a decent future, but now we have a society where there are “haves” and there are “have-nots”. The “haves” have more homes than they need; they’ve got homes in excess—owner-occupied homes, holiday homes, and investment portfolios. They yank the ladder up on the “have nots”, who grind themselves down in their 9-to-5s and then have to divvy up their pay cheque every week to go on higher rents, higher power bills, and the high cost of food. How is anybody meant to save for a deposit and be able to service a mortgage when there’s nothing left at the end of the week? Wage growth has declined and barely keeps up with inflation, and we’ve created a workforce of working poor.

More than half of all household wealth in this country is in land and in houses. If we live in a home-owning democracy, what does that mean for the third of New Zealanders who do not own a home, and what of the growing number of people who are rough sleeping—sleeping in cars and in tents or sleeping on the streets tonight? There is no better way to understand the inequality that exists in this country than to take one look at our housing system. We believe that housing is a human right, but our politicians treat housing as a business opportunity—a chance to cash in on the uncertainty and hardship that many New Zealanders live in every single day.

As we saw yesterday in the House, nobody in a position of power wants to give a straight answer as to whether they want house prices to go up or down. The Prime Minister wants house prices to rise. New Zealand First have abandoned whatever few principles they had left and allowed the door to be opened to overseas speculators because they’re more concerned with the last names of Patel and Singh and policing the definition of woman and rearranging words on our passports than they are with New Zealanders, who they used to care about.

They won’t give you a straight answer on where they want house prices to go, but I’ll give you a straight answer based on their actions and based on their choices. Their choice to cancel 3,500 public homes has driven up house prices. Their choices have meant that building consents are at their lowest in over seven years. Their choice is to allow 10,000 tradies to leave the construction industry—the industry hit hardest by this Government’s decisions. The Deputy Prime Minister chooses to undermine the Government’s one genuine attempt to address the housing crisis—to increase housing supply—by saying that he doesn’t want more housing in his backyard, in Epsom. The Prime Minister, as of last week, has decided to open the floodgates to overseas speculators to buy houses worth over $5 million, which will push house prices up. Their choice is to drive 191 New Zealanders out of the country every single day; the 18- to 30-year-olds who make up our working population are leaving in droves to go overseas to try and reach that dream of homeownership, which is out of reach in this country.

Housing will continue to be out of reach for everyday hard-working New Zealanders, and homelessness—even for the working poor—will continue to rise so long as our country’s leadership continues to deny young New Zealanders a fair shot at homeownership, which is, essentially, the pathway to social and economic freedom. We need more public housing to house people in housing desperation, to stimulate productivity, and to decouple our economy from housing. We need to zone for more housing growth but, alongside that, we need to introduce measures that break down the financialisation of housing. Most importantly, we need normal people in this House who, like most New Zealanders, don’t own entire portfolios of investment properties and who make choices that make them even more wealthy and sorted.

As a consequence of the weekend, Labour is in crisis. They actually have figured out everything but how to win. They faced the weakest candidate that Māoridom has ever produced in a by-election—she who had to rely on a cell phone to answer basic policy questions and then found that the cell phone wouldn’t work and then was given an easy pass by TV 1.

Of course, they say—and Labour should bear this in mind, apparently—that losing teaches you something. Well, let me list the things that Labour ought to learn. Number one: stop driving international investment away. Stop announcing summarily that you’re going to destroy people’s rights such as reinstating the ban, stopping people from creating new opportunities to boost our energy and gain better employment outcomes. Stop threatening New Zealand investors. But, most importantly, make your mind up where you stand with Māoridom. Do you sleep with John Tamihere or are you the proud former party that stood up for blue-collar interests, fairness, and empowerment, or have you been completely overtaken by identity politics, trans issues, wokeism, and lost your way?

They say, “Show me a good loser.” I’ll show you a basic loser. They have stumbled from failure to failure and, sadly, the winners of that tawdry experience are the Māori Party, despite the fact of “Ferris Wheel” continuing to assault and insult verbally. I’m glad he’s suffering some sort of review, investigation, by the Electoral Commission. Maybe that will teach the lad a bit of humility and whakaiti.

Come closer to the matua. I know about those matters, because they might say to me that I’m warm-blooded, but I’m cold-hearted, because I believe that unless we use our own resources, our own coal, our own minerals, and we fly away from all this climate change folly that’s designed to undermine our economy—this notion that somehow New Zealand will single-handedly save the planet. Leave all that cultural Marxism for minority groups. One of them from the Green Party just said “normal people”. Well, obviously, she’s talking about the matua, because there’s no great normalcy in that party. They want to import Karl Marx. They want to import a whole lot of other dangerous ideas that will have the effect of ruining our economy.

Ah, my colleague has said, “Why do they love Indonesian coal and hate Huntly coal? Why are they so internationally orientated and willing to undermine the resilience of our own economy?” I’ll tell you why. Because they’re basically not only confused, but they’ve fallen under the thrall of these UN dictates, these UN global imperatives, that are designed to drive New Zealand down into the ground, ruin farming.

Ah, but wait! There is a champion in the form of New Zealand First, and we’ve come from a highly successful conference where not only have we put difficult issues such as compulsory savings back up on the agenda—and, yes, we’re providing Kiwis with the opportunity to establish whether there is a place in the future for appropriate models of nuclear energy. Of course, people might quiver, they might tremble, but that’s the cost of being a bold and imaginative group of politicians. We don’t shy away from these difficult issues, because we know that there has to be a trade-off.

In the event that no one wants to have that discussion. I will continue on your behalf to dig for coal. In fact, I see a future—massive coal diggings all throughout the Waikato to save the electricity system. Of course, the Green Party privately believes in me. They privately believe that we should go for coal, whilst Megan Woods kills what’s left of the gas and the oil industry.

It’s sad for the Labour Party. The only reason they’re holding on to that untruth is because of the vanity and the shallow sense of that particular MP and unwillingness to actually admit they were wrong. I have offered penance on their behalf and that exile, otherwise known as the political fugitive Jacinda Ardern, now living at Harvard, never to come back to New Zealand and face responsibility for not only having destroyed the economy but having undermined energy. But the matua will be back in all occasions, warm-blooded and cold-hearted.

National promised to get New Zealand back on track, and despite all the global headwinds and the deep hole we found ourselves in, less than two years on we are making some real headway. Kiwis this week can be so proud of our police, the commissioner, and of course our police Minister. Overall, Kiwis are feeling safer, helped by no gang patches around, helped by very few ram raids, and helped by restoring real consequences for offenders, and putting victims front and centre of our justice system—and of course, more bobbies on the beat, including West Auckland.

National is now also more trusted on education: higher standards, higher attendance, and many more learning support coordinators and teacher-aide hours as well—the biggest learning support package in a generation, and I commend Minister Erica Stanford for that.

National is squarely focused on growing the economy, thanks to the laser focus of our finance Minister and Minister for Economic Growth, the Hon Nicola Willis. Inflation is down, interest rates are down, farm gate prices are up, and farmer confidence is well up—well up. Growth will start lifting in the last quarter of this year and will only strengthen and accelerate next year.

We are getting back on track, and when the dust settles next year, Kiwis won’t want to put that all at risk with that rabble over there. They won’t want to risk that. We’ve come too far digging this country out of the hole that they put us in to have them do it all again to us. Imagine Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori coming together in Government—a fellowship of fiscal doom. A fellowship of fiscal doom—or is it an axis of taxes? The choice is pretty stark.

Let’s look at just three indicators, three examples of why they should never be in Government for a long, long time, if at all. Exhibit one: according to Treasury, it was the largest spend-up in the history of New Zealand. I’m talking about Labour’s completely over-the-top spending response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Treasury now estimates that Labour spent a mammoth $66 billion—all borrowed, all still collecting interest, and now all limiting investment choices for us. Treasury has declared that not only did their spending go on for too long, but it went against official advice when they told them to put the brakes on. They refused to listen, and, in fact, borrowing spending only accelerated after COVID, fuelling inflation, fuelling the cost of living crisis, and—guess what—history is already showing us that they should be ashamed of themselves.

Exhibit two: listen to this from an Opposition member. “This blows my mind! Indians, Asians, Black and Pakeha campaigning to take a Maori seat from Maori”—that was a post from a Te Pāti Māori MP during the recent by-election. If that wasn’t bad enough, Opposition leader Chris Hipkins refused to call it out as the racism it was. That’s not the New Zealand we grew up in. That’s not the New Zealand we want, but a divided, separatist policy agenda will be the reality if this Opposition ever gets the chance.

Exhibit three: you have a woman convicted of wilful damage for vandalising buildings across Auckland, including MPs’ electorate offices, and what does the Opposition do? They try to get her off the hook—they try to get her off the hook. At this woman’s sentencing for wilful damage, a Green MP writes a letter of support wanting this convicted vandal to walk free of any consequences. That would be the alternative Government. That’s the look and feel of an alternative Government, and not to mention the absence of any policy so far from the Labour Party. The Green’s “tax and borrow” alternative Budget would tax Kiwis by another $88.8 billion, with net Crown debt lifting to 53.8 percent of GDP by the end of the decade.

National is getting this country back on track. We are focused on delivery, growing the economy, restoring stability, lifting standards, building opportunity, and making our community safer. National is putting stability first and rebuilding confidence in growth for every New Zealand family. Kiwis have gone through too much and worked too hard to put all of that at risk. The choice in 2026 will be very, very clear indeed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Minister for Disability Issues announced that this Government is finally bringing back flexibility to Disability Support Services funding after this Government took it away, effectively, 17 months ago, in March 2024—17 months of unnecessary confusion, devastation, and harm that they caused to disabled people and carers across New Zealand.

Disabled people said that their world was shrinking because of decisions made by this Government. Disabled children couldn’t use their funding for therapies that helped them cope with school. People couldn’t use their funding for equipment that helped them to avoid pressure sores when they were wheelchair-bound. Disabled people couldn’t use their funding to travel to a different city to see their family and said that they were being isolated. Carers, parents who looked after disabled children full time couldn’t use their funding to take a break and access respite and get some sleep, all because this National Government took away flexible funding in March last year, and in 17 months, it reversed the dial and brought it back and decided that they were saving the world. It was dire and it was caused by them.

Then the press release by the Minister last week: it basically talked about the changes that they were making—flexibility that people have marched down the streets for over the last 17 months. There have been rallies. There have been public meetings—disabled communities calling for flexibility to be brought back. Finally the Minister does that, crows on about it in her press release, but doesn’t mention a few salient points. She doesn’t mention that next year there will be interim budgets that will be put in place for disabled people that will be based on how much they spent in the last 24 months—16 months of that was after flexibility was removed, which means that they couldn’t spend the budget that they were allocated—and now that will dictate how much they get to spend next year. How is that fair, and why was that not in the press release? Why was it also not in the press release that there will be a new assessment and allocation tool that will then determine, from October onwards, how much funding disabled people will get?

The sweetener was announced in a press release, to much fanfare. There will be flexibility coming back, but what was not foreshadowed was the potential cuts that will come in next year, within which flexibility will be brought back. That is in the Minister’s own Cabinet paper, where she says clearly that it will be perceived as a blunt tool to improve financial management: “There is a risk that we will continue existing inequities, given the lack of data or explanation of the gap between allocation and spending. There is also a risk of unintended consequences.” She says this pretty clearly. She also foreshadows the fact that a fixed allocation based on current or past spending could be perceived as cuts to packages, because they are cuts to packages that are coming. All of this is unfair and not foreshadowed by the Minister.

Now, the total impact of the cuts that this Government has made—we know that one in eight children in New Zealand live in material hardship where they cannot afford the basics like food, power, and rent. The rate for children with a disability or living in a household where someone has a disability is almost double that. One in four children who are disabled or live with someone who is disabled cannot afford the basics, all of which this Government is making harder to afford, directly because of the decisions that they make, plus, of course, unemployment for disabled people—7.9 percent in 2022, which almost doubled to 14.1 percent in June this year.

The care and support workers’ claim was cancelled by the Minister for Women, who just took a call in the general debate and went on about how life is becoming better for women—33 active pay equity claims cancelled, including making it more difficult for those who work in disability facilities as well.

Ultimately, the responsibility and the blame fall on the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who is weak, out of touch, and doesn’t have a plan for New Zealand. The decisions made by this National Government are directly causing harm. They can only make their numbers add up by slashing services and cutting funding for those who are doing it the toughest in New Zealand. They’re making it worse, and that’s why Labour will keep fighting.

A Government of action and delivery—we’ve heard a lot of talk from that side of the House, but on this side of the House we’re all about the action, we’re all about the delivery, not just dreaming about ideology, wasteful spending, light rail in Auckland. We are delivering infrastructure in New Zealand, and it starts with the Hawke’s Bay Expressway—how good. Hard hats, shovels on the ground, diggers on site—that’s what a Government of action and delivery really looks like, not just dreaming. Unlike Labour, we see the value of infrastructure.

In fact, this road could’ve been built by now. We campaigned on four-laning the Hawke’s Bay Expressway back in 2017, but, no, Labour came in, they wiped it off the table, they said it wasn’t important and it wasn’t needed. Well, it is important, and we are now delivering on it. We see the value. We see the value of a growing Hawke’s Bay population. We see the value of growing productivity, of getting our exports to the port faster. In fact, it was short-sighted to stop that Hawke’s Bay Expressway. Labour was wrong to put the brakes on, literally bringing us to a standstill. The frustration we see every day in Hawke’s Bay—stuck in traffic lined up from Links Road to Taradale—well, we’re taking the brakes off. We’re getting things moving in Hawke’s Bay, our economy moving, and moving our wages up. That’s what good infrastructure does. That is the way to achieve this, by building strong infrastructure.

Our region is an export region. We are the fruit bowl of New Zealand. We grow the best produce in the world: the best apples, the best wine, and the best red meat. We want to grow our exports—in fact, double the value of our exports in the next few years. The way to do this is to build good infrastructure, build that four-lane expressway in Hawke’s Bay, and get our produce off to the markets a lot faster. This is what grows local economies, and this is what creates jobs.

It was so exciting to have our amazing Minister of Transport, Chris Bishop, in Hawke’s Bay a few weeks ago announcing a $600 million investment into the four-lane expressway, announcing it will start in November. That is real hard hats on site, real shovels in the ground, real people, real diggers. We are driving progress and getting things built, and we are walking the talk, because that’s what action looks like—$6 billion of Government-funded infrastructure to start by Christmas. Great news for Hawke’s Bay, and this will provide great Christmas cheer for the region, because, wow, is this going to create a pipeline of work for our local families: over 300 jobs. We do appreciate it has been really tough for our local contractors, so this is welcome news. The four-laning of the expressway doesn’t just create a long-term connection between Hastings and Napier; it creates a strong pipeline of work for our local people and our local families: 300 jobs forecast and many local businesses and families supported.

It’s not just the four-lane expressway that we’ve committed to in Hawke’s Bay. We’ve announced the Waikare Gorge realignment: over $1 billion worth of investment. This is the single largest investment in Hawke’s Bay in years, and the four-lane expressway will provide road users with easy-moving freight—12 kilometres of it, straight to the port and off to market our product.

Building infrastructure isn’t just about bricks and mortar; it’s about connection and building communities, and we saw this in Hawke’s Bay, where our infrastructure didn’t stand up in Cyclone Gabrielle. I was recently humbled and touched in the communities of Puketapu recently and Kereru, where we reconnected those communities with strong, resilient infrastructure. This is progress, and this is what gets New Zealand back on track.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. When New Zealanders voted two to one for the End of Life Choice Act in 2020, they voted for compassion and for dignity. It was based on a simple belief that no one should be forced to endure unbearable suffering when they would rather go peacefully and on their own terms. Since then, more than 1,200 terminally ill people have taken that path. They have chosen to meet death with grace, calm, and on their own terms, often with their families beside them.

But when the law was passed, it was a compromise, and to get it through Parliament, David Seymour, now Minister Seymour, had to agree to some restrictions so that, unfortunately, some New Zealanders are still missing out. While it was a remarkable effort by David Seymour to get this bill through, there are people who aren’t able to meet the restriction in the law of having a terminal illness that means that they’ll die within six months. As we all know, it’s very hard when you’re living with a terminal illness or degenerative illness to put down on paper that your life might end in a strict time line. It doesn’t necessarily follow a calendar. I’ve had many people who’ve had to sit beside or next to loved ones with degenerative illnesses—motor neuron disease, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, end-stage lung disease—where their decline might stretch over a number of years, but it’s known that their death by the disease that they’re living with is going to be inevitable. They continue to live with immense suffering. Unfortunately, under the current law, they’re told, “You do not qualify.” That is not compassion.

I was very moved last year when I actually accepted a petition in August of last year which Social Justice Aotearoa had organised. Again, it was signed by over 3,300 New Zealanders, really drawing attention to this issue. It had actually been initiated by the plight of Nicole Martin, who lives with a degenerative illness in Taupō, and she, unfortunately, wasn’t able to access the end-of-life regime.

I’ve heard from families across New Zealand about this issue, and that’s why I’ve proposed amendments to the End of Life Choice Act which will make it more compassionate, will draw it closer to the original intent of the bill by removing this arbitrary six-month cut off. The safeguards that New Zealanders expect will still remain—the law will remain safe, it will remain careful, but it will become finally a bit fairer.

We know that end-of-life choice is not for everyone, but I want those who do want to access it to know that they can take comfort that the disease that they’re living with will be accessible for it. Again, what we’re trying to do is just give New Zealanders back a sense of control, and often that is taken from them by an incurable disease. I’ve taken the step in the last few weeks of writing to every member of the House, and they will have received this letter. In addition to dealing with the sixmonth restriction, I’ve also taken the opportunity to pick up the 25 recommendations that the Ministry of Health published in their report, which was released at the end of last year. This was, again, a piece of excellent work done as part of the End of Life Choice Act, which required a review. I’m asking to meet with all MPs—some I’ve already met with, and I know there’ll be some in this House that don’t support the change, but I’d still like to meet with you and talk over the options, because it’s important that we do actually have a dialogue around this.

I also want to thank the End of Life Choice Society, Russell McVeagh, and Social Justice Aotearoa for supporting the efforts to date. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Maryan Street who has, once again, come back on board to try and build some political consensus around this sensible amendment that I’m asking is made to the End of Life Choice Act.

I look forward to delivering for New Zealanders, because, at the end, this bill isn’t actually about politics or law; it’s about love, compassion, and dignity, and I want to make sure that that is abided by.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Teachers across Aotearoa are rightfully angry. They’re angry at this Government continuously and relentlessly undermining, underpaying, and undervaluing them. We are seeing events unfold in Aotearoa that are unprecedented in our history, where teachers—primary school teachers, secondary school teachers, support stuff, specialist staff from the ministry—are coming out to oppose the relentless attack that this Government has on their profession.

We’re seeing organised strike action by teachers over the last few months because they have had enough. They have had enough of this Government, and they have had enough of this Government gaslighting them. What does it actually mean when we’re looking at the offers that are being presented to the teachers? We’re looking at offers that do not meet inflation. We’re looking at offers that mean that teachers will have less for their whānau, while we are funding other things disproportionately, like defence and landlords.

What we are seeing are figures continuously misquoted by this Government, trying to undermine the profession. We are seeing the Government talking about teachers getting a 4 percent increase in salary without realising or acknowledging the fact that 68 percent of teachers, who are on the top step scale, do not see that increase. We are seeing Ministers talking about teachers earning $140k a year—wouldn’t that be nice? We are seeing the removal of active pay equity claims. We are seeing the cancellation of resource teachers in Māori, resource teachers in literature, kāhui ako, Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, Creatives in Schools—just to name a few things that have been cancelled by this Government.

We have seen the Government shamelessly parading around saying how much they’re putting into education, without looking at the real numbers. They say that they are putting in three-quarters of a billion dollars into learning support; in fact, it is only a third of that. To use the Minister of Education’s own word, “most” of that is reprioritisation from cutting other parts of the sector.

Why are teachers doing this? It is not simply about the pay. It is about the treatment, and value, and their voice within the sector. We’re seeing that NCEA is being scrapped because of one professional advisory group made up of 12 people, who have to sign non-disclosure agreements and cannot go and consult with the public until it is too late. We’re seeing an open letter written by 121 principals—that is over 20 percent of our schools—saying, “Do not scrap NCEA.” We have yet to see a response from the Minister.

Fundamentally, I reiterate what I said in the beginning, from the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand report in 2023, that the teachers are feeling underpaid, undervalued, and undermined, which then leads to a real issue that we’re going to be seeing with teacher retention. We’re seeing, from the same report, that 58 percent of teachers are likely to leave the profession within the first five years. A survey done in 2018 showed 50 percent, or half, of all secondary school teachers would be leaving the profession in the first five years, and 20 percent of primary school teachers.

We are seeing the ever-increasing—at an alarming rate—average age of teachers. Within a decade’s time, we’re going to have a real issue with a shortage of teachers. If we can fund $9 billion for defence and $2.9 billion for landlords, we can do that for teachers. It’s not just about teachers; it’s about our tamariki, it’s about our parents, it’s about our whānau, and it’s about our communities.

“Hutia te rito o te harakeke, kei hea te kōmako e kō?”—“If you cut out the centre of the flax, where will the bellbird sing?” If we don’t support our teachers, then how do we expect our students to learn?

I cannot believe in 2025 I have to stand in the House today and give this speech to address the concerning actions of Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March, who wrote an official letter of support for someone convicted of vandalising MP electorate offices. What a disgrace in 2025. That member used his official MP letterhead to write a character reference for Hannah Swedlund, a lawyer who systematically vandalised MP electorate offices across Auckland. This included the offices of Christopher Luxon, Judith Collins, Simon Watts, Paul Goldsmith, Melissa Lee, Dan Bidois, and a sign belonging to ACT leader David Seymour.

This is the same MP whose party colleagues are the first to complain about intimidation of MPs and who’ve actually just had one of their own resign because of intimidation. But let me be clear what this member chose to support: Hannah Swedlund orchestrated nine separate acts of vandalism across three nights, beginning in November 2023, with the targeting of the United States consulate and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade offices in Auckland, before moving on to throw red paint, symbolising blood, on National MP electorate offices. The paint was intended to be a clear act of intimidation. The judge noted that Ms Swedlund, a practising lawyer who knew this was illegal, took steps to cover it up. This was sustained, it was planned criminal activity that cost over $5,000, and it disrupted the services to constituents. Yet Mr Menéndez March saw fit to write a character reference for this individual.

The decision to support someone who vandalised parliamentary colleagues’ offices is extraordinary. His choice to use official MP letterhead makes the support even more inappropriate. This isn’t just about MPs; it’s about the people who work in these offices. Imagine turning up to work to find your workplace splattered with paint symbolising blood. Staff and constituents would have been intimidated by this display. The disruption this would have caused for constituents is significant. Meetings would have been cancelled while offices were cleaned and secured. Vulnerable people seeking help from their local MP would have been turned away. Yet that member thinks that this behaviour is acceptable enough to support with an official character reference.

Everyone in this House talks about the abuse we receive as MPs, both online and in person, and threats that MPs experience. Parliamentary security now requires us to secure our electorate offices. We have to lock front doors, and staff must confirm who’s coming in before opening them. My own electorate office is getting more security installed over the coming months, which is required by parliamentary security, including meeting rooms having two exits and more doors with deadlocked bolts, along with many other changes. While the rest of us deal with these security realities, Ricardo Menéndez March is writing letters of support for people who create the very intimidation we’re trying to protect against. It’s shameful.

The member doesn’t have an electorate office himself, but for those of us who are electorate MPs, his support for this behaviour directly impacts our ability to serve our community. This limits our ability to interact with our constituents who need help. Imagine if a Government MP wrote support letters for someone who vandalised Chlöe Swarbrick’s office—we’d be criticised heavily. Yet he faces no scrutiny, and I’m calling that out. I’ve never ever seen an MP write a character reference for someone convicted of vandalising MP offices. Ricardo Menéndez March’s judgment call deserves scrutiny from this House and an explanation to the public. These actions undermine the democratic processes. Electorate offices are where constituents access their representatives. By supporting vandalism of this office, he legitimises intimidation tactics that have no place in our democracy.

If we want a democracy where all MPs can serve their constituents safely and effectively, we cannot have MPs selectively supporting those who engage in intimidation when their cause aligns with their politics. The message it sends is clear: vandalism and intimidation are acceptable as long as you agree with the cause. That is not democracy; that is mob rule.

The member’s time has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for: the first reading and referral to select committee of Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill; the consideration of Government notice of motion No. 1 and the report of the Health Committee; further consideration in committee of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill and the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill; and the interrupted debate on the second reading of the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill.

Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio, so there will be no sector-specific debates. All Votes are available for debate, but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolio. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister for Māori Development will be available today. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Ministers’ portfolios. In leading off the debate, the chairperson should take care not to be overly political and should ensure their call gives a fair reflection of the committee’s report on the Votes relevant to the portfolio. The debate expires after 11 hours, at which point questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the Schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill.

There are now five hours and 51 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has one hour and 48 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has one hour and 45 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 44 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 54 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has 38 minutes remaining. Te Pāti Māori has 23 minutes remaining.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the Votes is available on the Table. The question is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2025-26 stand part.

Members, we start with the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 4.16 to 5.16.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I rise to speak on the beginning of this Estimates debate on Social Development and Employment as the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee.

Vote Social Development is the largest Vote in Budget 2025. The Vote funds many social services including income support, student loans, emergency housing and support, and disability support. In 2025/26, the appropriations sought for Vote Social Development totalled $45.33 billion—that’s over $45 billion.

The appropriation of Vote Social Development comes under seven ministerial portfolios. The Ministry of Social Development administers the Vote. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is responsible for 94.6 percent of the Vote, with appropriations totalling $42.829 billion, including benefits or related expenses.

Five other Minsters have responsibilities for appropriations of the Vote: the Minister of Revenue, the Minister of Housing, the Minister for Veterans, the Minister for Youth, and the Minister for Seniors. As part of our consideration of the Vote Social Development, our committee held hearings with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Louise Upston; the Minister for Youth, the Hon James Meager; the Minister for Seniors, the Hon Casey Costello; the Associate Minister of Housing, the Hon Tama Potaka; and the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Penny Simmonds.

This is obviously an incredibly important Vote for the people of New Zealand—a very significant part of Government expenditure. It is good to have a debate about these Estimates here in the Chamber today. With that, I will conclude my contribution.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As I said in the Estimates hearing in June, my highest priority is supporting more New Zealanders into employment while at the same time ensuring that those who do need support are able to draw on State support when they need it. I’m committed, of course, to the Government’s target of reducing the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by 2030. Our Government is focused on supporting people on welfare into employment and therefore providing with them with the opportunities that work provides, because the faster we can help beneficiaries find sustainable employment, the better outcomes they have for themselves, their families, our communities, and, also importantly, our economy. It’s part of the Government’s commitment to boost growth and with a key emphasis on maximising the potential of New Zealanders and developing the talent of our people. I’m conscious we’ve only got a short time, so I’ll provide some brief opening statements before going to questions.

Through Budget 2025, Vote Social Development received funding in key areas that align with our priorities while also reducing expenditure and delivering services more efficiently. If I look for a moment at the focus, clearly, of reducing the number of people on jobseeker support by 50,000 to 140,000 by 2030. We’ve also confirmed the multi-year transformation programme, which is called MSD—services for the future. It’s about improving services to New Zealanders who need assistance.

Some of the key investments are as follows: 490 front-line staff in employment programmes to help get more people into work, adding a parental assistance test to determine eligibility for jobseeker support and emergency benefit for 18- and 19-year-olds, updating automated decision-making using the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) processes, improving both the accuracy and integrity of MSD payments, and also changes to the accommodation supplement. We’ve improved redress for survivors of abuse in State care, including increased payments. Other key areas include the continuation of supporting national and regional food distribution infrastructure and community food provision, and we’ve continued the important funding for Kickstart Breakfast programmes and KidsCan jackets for two years.

I want to talk briefly about the Employment Investment Strategy, which will run through to 2028. The strategy guides decision making about which clients to allocate to employment support and which programmes to invest in based on people’s employment support needs, evidence of what works, and their distance from the labour market as well as value for money. It supports MSD to be more targeted and efficient with the investment to help achieve our priorities for employment. This strategy will support MSD’s front line to shift investment through allocation of clients to case management, and employment interventions under the improved employment and social outcomes support multi-category appropriation.

As expected in the current economic climate, the overall number of people receiving a benefit has increased ahead of a forecast decrease from December this year. However, our focus on employment and proactive staff engagement is helping more people to move into work. We’ve seen more than 80,700 people moved off welfare and into work in the last financial year despite these challenging times. There is, of course, more work to do, and we’ll continue to help people overcome the challenges to prepare for and find a job. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to take questions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the major problems we’ve got in the country at the moment, and have had for some years, is a problem around Māori and Māori unemployment. When we were in Government it was running at nearly three times what the average rate was, and we were able to bring that down. This Government has still got it at just over double what the general rate is, and it’s very concerning.

I would like to know from the Minister: what’s the plan in terms of Māori unemployment? Is there going to be a focus on some of the targeted programmes that the previous Government brought to the table—obviously, Mana in Mahi was one of those major programmes. Māori Trade Training was a major investment from the previous Government. Has she considered reinvesting into and boosting Māori Trade Training, which delivered 63 Māori-led projects and supported over 4,000 Māori across Aotearoa?

I’m just opening up with those questions in terms of what the Government’s overall plan is—because I never heard that in the Minister’s introductory remarks—in terms of Māori unemployment and boosting Māori in employment.

I thank the member for his question, and, as we’ve discussed in this House before, unfortunately, when we have a labour market the way it is, Māori are disproportionately affected. What I would say is that what we’re seeing in the numbers between those aged 18 and 24 coming on to jobseeker benefit is that, actually, the number of Māori coming on is less than we might have expected in terms of that proportionality, so that is positive. The investment strategy, with investment in initiatives like Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi, is absolutely focused on young Māori and Pasifika. I’ll also add that Budget 2025 will mean that every young person under the age of 25 on the jobseeker benefit will be in case management.

Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, I just wanted to comment on the Minister’s initial remarks. I find it incredibly rich that she both talks about her focus of getting people into employment while yet her own Government is cutting thousands and thousands of jobs—intentionally so, despite not needing to do so.

My question’s related to the advice that Treasury gave her in relation to the tightening of the eligibility for jobseeker supports who are between the ages of 18 and 19. At the time that the Budget initiatives were going through, Treasury actually said that this should be deferred to next year’s Budget because the savings would be highly uncertain as there’s little data on the number of young people who may be affected, and that this change would also have several perverse incentives as it’s currently designed. What are these perverse incentives that Treasury warned her about, and does she agree with Treasury that the savings coming from this initiative would be highly uncertain?

This is no small feat that we’re talking about. This is about restricting access to some of our youngest and most affected, at the moment, by unemployment, alongside Māori and Pasifika; we’re talking about young people here who are struggling to get access to entry-level jobs. If the Government is going to be making it harder at a time of high youth unemployment to access these benefits, I would like some answers in relation to the advice that Treasury gave her in relation to the savings but also around the several perverse incentives that are created by this policy—can she name them?

I’m pleased the member raised the 18- and 19-year-old policy, because it gives us the opportunity to talk about the intention behind it. The intention, which I’m assuming members opposite would also expect, is that every 18- and 19-year-old in New Zealand is in further education, further training, or in a job, and that going on welfare isn’t the first option to them. That’s the intention of it. Treasury, in many of the Budget savings, will say that the level of savings is uncertain. That is no different from this proposal. What I will say is the member will need to wait only a little bit longer to hear the final policy settings of the 18- and 19-year-old policy.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Now, moving on to one of the savings that will start coming in in this Budget—despite the announcements being made last year, the legislation was introduced during the Budget process. It is in relation to the tightening of access to the accommodation supplement for people who may be receiving the income-related subsidies who may have boarders, for example, or who may be in private rentals. Does she agree with the advice that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) gave her that this policy will leave people worse off, on average, by $100 each week, and does she also agree with the advice that shows that the disabled, Māori, the young, and the old will be disproportionately impacted by this policy? What message does she have to old people, young people, disabled people, and Māori, who, as MSD has noted, will be disproportionately left worse off as a result of these changes?

As I’ve said previously when we’ve debated this legislation—which is a Budget 2024 measure—the changes to the boarder contribution are about making the system fair, transparent, and equivalent. If somebody is receiving income from a boarder, that will be counted in terms of the housing assistance that they are eligible for. It is a simple step that is about making the system fairer. I accept that in this policy there will be some people who were receiving income from one and two boarders, and now their housing supplement will be affected. We appreciate that and we accept that, but what we need to do is ensure we have a system that is fair and has integrity.

Thank you very much. When the Minister for Social Development and Employment talks about fairness, does she think that it is fair that some of these people may be left in even deeper poverty and may be requiring additional assistance from Work and Income, and, if so, does she think this undermines the supposed savings that she’s trying to make through this initiative?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from what the Minister has just said, does the Minister accept that the impact of our youth unemployment is much more extreme, and can she give the latest numbers for 18- to 20-year-olds unemployed and 20- to 25-year-olds unemployed?

Can I also know from the Minister: is she concerned that such high youth unemployment will have long-term consequences on the mental health of those people who are unemployed at a time when they are forming their careers, their future careers? This is a critical time in their lives, and has she considered the impact on that, both economically and in terms of mental health?

I’d also like to know from the Minister—she came into Government at a time when Labour had the highest employment rates. That was something that we could be extremely proud of. How many more unemployed people are now requiring jobseeker benefits today than when she took over in November 2023, and what does that cost the country? There have been promises made about reducing the number, but my understanding is we are 26,000 more on the lists than we were. That seems to me to be an extremely worrying statistic, but it also seems to be one that would come with enormous cost.

Does she accept that those people that are on the jobseeker benefit today are there because they are legitimately unemployed due to the downturn in our economy engineered by this Government? If that is the case, if she accepts that they are legitimately unemployed—and I see the Minister’s expression and I accept that she might not accept the second part of what I said, but she can actually answer the first part, which is: does she think that those people that are unemployed now are there because of their own fault, or is it through no fault of their own, given that she accepts there’s been a downturn, in which case, why has she moved into a mode of penalising those people?

What I want to know, for those people today who face really high costs of things like butter and the cost of registering a car and the cost of energy: what are they actually receiving from this Government if they’re on the jobseeker benefit? I don’t think a lot of New Zealanders know just what that looks like for the average person. What do they get, and has it been inflation-adjusted for those very things that I said—energy, for the cost of food, and for the cost of things like car registration? Have they had more as those costs have gone on—is that part of the equation? Actually, has there been an inquiry made as to whether they can actually live on what they’re on? Can they make ends meet? I’ve got more questions for the Minister, but I’d thank her for an answer for these first.

I’m not going to go into an economics class about how the economic recession got created. I think most people know that, and it’s been debated in this Chamber. I’m more than happy to answer the question, but I’m also going to refute outrageous statements that were made by the member prior.

As of the end of June, there were 48,200 people on the jobseeker benefit between the ages of 18 and 24, which, of course, is an increase from the previous year. What we saw under the last six years was an increase in the number of years that that age bracket would be on benefit throughout their lifetime—18 years—which we are totally unwilling to accept. That’s why, as I said, Budget 2025 and the Employment Investment Strategy means that every one of those young people will be in case management. That is the most successful programme. That’s why we are investing in it—to improve their opportunities of being in employment. While it is challenging at the moment, we want to ensure young people are using this time to prepare and get ready as the economy grows again.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have a series of questions, all in and around the youth figures. Recent statistics out yesterday from Stats NZ show there’s 19,000-plus fewer jobs filled by 15- to 24-year-olds. What I’d like to know from the Minister is what plan does she have or what solution is she offering for those young people who might go through a training course or receive some extra support but there’s no job to go to? In that space, what solutions does she offer, particularly those that are in that 18- to 19-year-old bracket, which aren’t impacted yet but soon will be by no longer being able to receive the jobseeker benefit? What specific solutions are in place for young people who have gone through training but have no place for work?

As I said, that age bracket is a concern, because we know their lifetime years on benefit have been increasing, and we want to pull that back. We want 18- and 19-year-olds to be in further education, training, or in employment, and we know that as the economy grows, it creates more jobs—the level of investment in infrastructure projects, for example: 240,000 new jobs expected. These next few months are challenging. The 18- and 19-year-old policy doesn’t come in until 1 July 2027. That’s what we announced in the Budget.

I just would remind the committee—and it’s what most people will expect—that 18- and 19yearolds will be the responsibility of their family first, as opposed to just this idea that the best life is to go straight on welfare. We’d be encouraging them to go into further education or further training.

I neglected to answer the question of the previous member about increases to welfare payments because of inflation. They are annually adjusted with the Consumers Price Index.

I’ll reframe it again for the Minister, because I listened very carefully and I did not hear the answer to my question, which was: if there is a young person in New Zealand that has gone through training and education but does not have an offer of employment that they’re able to take up, what is the Government’s solution to situations such as that? Are they going to take up some more training? Are there incentives by the Government? Is there any action or plan in place for young people who have gone through training but have not managed to secure a job like the 19,000 over the past 12 months?

I did answer that. I answered that very clearly: further education or training, infrastructure investments, bringing 240,000 additional jobs, and parental responsibility.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. I will be sticking with the tightening eligibility 18-19 piece, if I could. Now that Budget 2025 forecasts over $325 million in savings by restricting benefit access to 18- and 19yearolds—I’ve got a couple of supplementaries after this—how will the Government justify this cut when it disproportionately affects rangatahi Māori, over 4,500 of whom currently receive support? Can the Minister provide an update on the development of the parental assistance test and whether Māori advisers or youth advocates or other Māori—smart people, like me—have been involved in its design to ensure cultural appropriateness? Will the Minister confirm whether young people will be denied support if their parents refuse to complete the parental test, and how does this protect the rights and wellbeing of vulnerable rangatahi?

The final question, if I may, Mr Chair, is: what safeguards are in place for rangatahi escaping unsafe or unsupported home environments where parental means cannot or should not be tested? Thank you.

As I said in answer to one of the previous members’ questions, more detail will be available on that shortly. Some of those issues are exactly what is being considered in the detailed policy assessment. Let me just say again that this policy is about ensuring 18- and 19-year-olds are in further education, training, study, or employment. What we do know—I know that members opposite would be deeply concerned when we quote these figures—is that for a young person to go on to a benefit under the age of 25, they spend 18 future years of their life on welfare. None of us want that, so we are looking at new interventions to reinforce an expectation that, actually, most people in this Chamber would have been raised with—that when you come out of your secondary schooling education, further education, or further training, you get a job. That’s the expectation our side of the Chamber wants to set. We are aspirational for young people; we’re aspirational for young Māori, and we want them to have a life of opportunity and choice, not one trapped on welfare.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to follow the member Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s line of questioning over there, because I think, with respect, that the Minister has been a bit vague in terms of her responses with regard to Māori employment and Māori unemployment, and I do want to know this. We’re still trying to get our heads around why, when unemployment was on the rise and was dramatically rising for youth and Māori, she cut Māori trade training at Budget 2025, particularly given that Māori trade training, as we know, has had a significant impact in terms of young people right around the country. It confuses me that something so successful was cut by this Government. That was something that was embedded in in a couple of generations, actually, and I was able to bring that back when I was a Minister. Something that was so successful was cut by this Government, and we’ve never really had any answers on that.

I also want to ask the Minister whether she is able to break down for us Māori, Pasifika, the over-65s, youth, people in their own homes—are we able to get some details in terms of those who are needing the accommodation supplement? We seem to be lacking in the detail which would really help in terms of any overall plan from this Government. In terms of Māori, again, can I ask the Minister: does she have any details in terms of how many Māori are on a main benefit since she took over in this position?

I would ask that member to ask his question again about the accommodation supplement, but let me answer the others first. As at the end of June, there were 406,100 people on main benefit. Of that, 148,539 were Māori. In terms of the increases over the last year, the total percentage was 6.6 percent, and for Māori, it was 5.7 percent. The increases are lower, and that’s why I made that comment before about the under18 to 24-year-olds.

In terms of the Māori trade training, we made the decision to end that. It was a programme that was brought forward in terms of a response to COVID. As we have done in many instances, we have ended funding for things that were COVID-related, and we clearly never saw the levels of unemployment—thank goodness—that were forecast at the time. What we have done is invest in the most intensive programme that is available and that we know has the greatest success, and that is case management. As I’ve said, every 18- to 24-year-old will be in case management.

Well, that’s very sad to hear that type of response in terms of Māori trade training. As I said, it was a programme that was acclaimed by everyone no matter what their political affiliations were. I just want to come back to the question that the Minister asked—she asked me to reframe that question. The question is: how many more people have needed the accommodation supplement since she took over? Can she break that down for us: Māori, Pasifika, over 65, and youth—are there any numbers in regards to that? While we’re talking about Pasifika, does she have any numbers in terms of Pasifika on jobseeker support since she took over? It would be good to get a response on that. But back to what I was saying on Māori trade training: I think that’s one of the biggest mistakes that this Government has made.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In response to the questions by the Hon Willie Jackson regarding Māori trades training places, he will be pleased to know that in the tertiary education space, we have increased the number of youth guarantee places by 175 places per year, where that wraparound support and additional care of the students is absolutely imperative to the success of that training. So those 175 additional youth guarantee places are certainly most useful in that space.

In terms of the 18- to 24-year-olds, the option is either case management or contracted services if they’ve got work obligations, which could be part-time or full time. I’m happy to answer the question around accommodation supplement. I don’t have that data on me. If you wouldn’t mind, please, putting that down in writing, and we could get an answer to you.

At a time of high inflation, more people sleeping rough, and front-line organisations talking about the struggle of the high cost of living, what we have seen since this Budget is a record number of people—at least the only other highest number we’ve seen is in September 2024—being declined for assistance. In fact, in the latest quarter, June 2025, under her watch and after this Budget, we’ve seen the highest proportion of people on the benefit being declined for assistance for something like an advance. An advance is something that can help you sustain your rental, pay your bills, have enough clothing so that your children do not get sick. How does the Minister justify seeing, under her watch, the highest proportion of people and applications being declined for assistance that is lifesaving for many?

Following up on that, does the Minister have any information on who is most disproportionately impacted by this record proportion of people being declined for assistance such as advances, and has she made any directives, received any feedback, or passed on any feedback to the Ministry of Social Development on this issue? This is real, because people on the ground are telling us that they’re facing more declines for basic things that they need, and the data is clear that a greater proportion of applications are getting declined under her watch. What is the reason for that?

Let me just go back and answer the question around Pasifika: the number of 18- to 24-year-olds on the main benefit is 7,047. That was just to answer the Hon Willie Jackson’s question.

In terms of advance payments, I have not made any directives to the Ministry of Social Development around advance payments. We are experiencing challenging economic times, and some of the measures that we have done in Budget 2025, for example, are to ensure that people aren’t getting overpaid so that that lends to a debt. One of the challenges with advance payments is it then creates further financial difficulties further down the line. I want to assure the member I have issued no directive around advance payments.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister a little bit more about what she said concerning youth. She talked about this group of people who spend 18 years on the benefit. What I wondered is if she would accept that that was not apples with apples, because what you had when that was the number was the entrenched unemployed group, versus now, when the reason you have such high youth unemployment is because there are no jobs out there and these are the last people that will be employed because they have no job experience. Does she accept that this class of people is very different in that way and this is the opportunity for them to get work if work is available? The answer isn’t just training; it’s actually the availability of work.

Also, I would like an answer to my question about what it is actually costing the country to have the giant blowout of people on jobseeker benefit. I think that’s a fair question. I’d also like an answer to the question about how much people get on jobseeker, because I do not think that the public understand how little it is, and whether people can live off that amount that is there. I appreciate the answer about the adjustments that are made on the basis of the Consumers Price Index, but my question wasn’t that. It was: was it actually something that was adjusted in terms of the things I mentioned? Car registration was one, the cost of food was another, and I think I had a third thing—the cost of energy, which is, of course, huge. I think those are all questions that the New Zealand public would really like the answer to.

I also want to know from the Minister—we talked about the Government engineering this. I mention engineering this unemployment, because they wanted to kickstart the economy, as they saw, by bringing wages down. The Government changed the Reserve Bank mandate to exclude any concern for unemployment in its decision. I understood the logic of that to be that it would create lower wages in that situation, because lower wages were good for kickstarting the economy. Why does the Government punish the very New Zealanders who are victims of a faulty strategy? They become unemployed by their very own design—they want them to be unemployed so there are more people in the workforce and the wages go down—and yet they’re punishing them by sanctions and suggesting that 18-year-olds are somehow, in some habitual way, staying on the benefit for 18 years. Thank you.

Sorry, I need to correct the figure that I gave the Hon Willie Jackson: it was not main benefit; it was jobseeker.

Just going to the lifetime number of future years on benefit, because I think the House will be interested to know that in June 2017, for someone under the age of 25 who was on jobseeker support, their future years was 12.2 years—it is now 18.2.

Not continuous—they’re not continuous years.

No, it’s not continuous, it’s someone who goes on and off, but hopefully your maths will tell you that 12.2 is a lot less than 18.2, which just happens to line up with the six years that Labour was in office.

We are deeply concerned about young people being on the jobseeker benefit, which is why we are fully unwilling to accept that 18 years is as good as it gets. That’s why we are focused on very intensive programmes like case management to support them to have higher expectations for 18- and 19-year-olds.

To the member Helen White: Consumers Price Index (CPI) calculations are based on an average of household costs across a range of baskets—I’m not going to spend the time in this committee listing them. That is why we index to CPI the jobseeker benefit. For someone over the age of 25, the flat benefit is $361.32.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d just like to pick up from my questions before. I was asking the Minister specifically around the 19,000 fewer jobs for those young people and what the Government’s solution was to finding a place for them if there was no job there. The Minister’s answer was that her Government was going to create 240,000 new jobs. Well, I would just like to understand, from the Minister, how did she get that figure?

As I understand from previous comments that the Prime Minister has made, that’s over 4 years. Can she just confirm that the 240,000 new jobs her Government will deliver—how was that specific number arrived at? If she’s able to, what specific initiatives will produce those 240,000 jobs?

I’m not going to list the infrastructure projects that have been already quoted in this House around the creation of new jobs. One thing that’s very different about the Government we have today as opposed to the one that was outgoing in 2023 is we’re clear that it’s not the Government creating the jobs. We create the conditions for the jobs to be created as opposed to the Government creating them.

Is it correct that it is not the case that the reason why there’s been a greater proportion of declines for advances is that people have be put in a worseoff financial situation, which she alluded to in her previous answer to me, and that it could instead be because of a changing culture at Work and Income due to increased anti-beneficiary rhetoric? I say this because the stats speak for themselves.

There’s been an uptick of proportions of declines for things like advances. Her own answer to my questions in writing shows that it is not because people would be put in a worse-off situation but for a range of other reasons. Does she think it is fair for a greater proportion of people to be declined assistance at a time of high cost of living pressures and front-line organisations talking about increasing homelessness?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to come into the sanctions area now. In terms of the culture, what communities are saying to us is that the culture, sadly, has changed tremendously given where we were a couple of years ago. We’ve always had a sanction system, but obviously imposing sanctions is difficult if children and whānau are involved. I want to ask the Minister, in terms of the sanctions area, what reports has she had of the checks and balances to ensure that some of our tamariki have not been hurt by these sanctions? Is she following through with a lot of the reports that we’re getting from whānau? How much have sanctions increased since she changed the sanctions regime? It’s a very punitive strategy that this Government has gone down. How many of those families are ones with children who have been punished by the sanctions strategy? Has an increase in sanctions correlated with a reduction in job seekers, which surely has to be the aim of any Government? This is an area of vital importance to our communities who have suffered through this terrible sanctions strategy that this Government is rolling out. Where are we right now? I ask the Minister if she could respond.

I’m proud of the fact that we have a much more active welfare system than when we took office. That is for a range of reasons. One of the reasons is the traffic light system, and 98 percent of those receiving benefit are at green, which means they know their obligations and they’re fulfilling them. I think that’s something we should all be really pleased about—0.6 percent at orange, and 1.1 percent or 1.2 percent at red. The number of people who are actually under a sanction is incredibly small, which I think is great news.

The other great news, of course, is that we introduced non-financial sanctions for the very reason that there was a concern for a blunt financial sanction where there are children in the household. There will be a review after 12 months, and the next two non-financial sanctions don’t come in until 1 October. That was very deliberate and about giving Ministry of Social Development case managers more options to have a sanction that was more suitable and appropriate to that family.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just going back to those 240,000 new jobs, I am aware that the Minister has said that’s going to come from a range of infrastructure projects and she doesn’t want to list them out, but I would still like to know how she arrived at the figure of 240,000 additional jobs. I would also like to know: is she using job growth based on population growth? Now, she may want to take some advice from officials, but the Government must have undertaken some form of calculation to arrive at the figure of 240,000. I’m assuming they didn’t just make that up. If so, can she please explain: is she using job growth based on population growth to produce that figure of 240,000 more jobs?

Minister, is it factually correct that disabled people will be disproportionately pushed into deeper hardship as a result of the changes that she has made when it comes to eligibility for accommodation supplements for people who have boarders? If it is correct that disabled people will be disproportionately put in hardship from this change—I don’t think she’s listening to the question, but if it is correct that disabled people will be disproportionately affected by this, what is her message to disabled people affected by this policy?

Does the Minister accept that there’s a real possibility that the increase in sanctions may have led to an increase in previous beneficiaries not having enough food and seeking help from food banks, and this also may have led to an increase in beneficiaries becoming homeless? If so, what work has happened to track this correlation, and what advice has she been asked for or has she received about those issues?

Just in the interest of the Minister addressing and answering my question, is it correct that disabled people are going to be disproportionately impacted due to the changes she has made to the eligibility—it’s actually really hard to speak to the Minister when she’s talking to someone else. Is it correct that disabled people will be disproportionately impacted by the changes she has made to the eligibility of the accommodation supplement for people who have boarders, and that disabled people will be pushed deeper into poverty as a result of these changes compared to other groups? If so, what is her message to disabled people affected by these changes?

I’m not sure if the Minister for Social Development and Employment has answered my question, which is: has an increase in sanctions correlated with a reduction in job seekers? Further to that, many of our organisations, particularly community organisations, have talked to us about a dramatic increase in homelessness and the use of food banks. Does the Minister accept that there’s a real possibility that the increase in sanctions may have led to an increase in previous beneficiaries becoming homeless? It seems to be obvious as we go out there and see the results community organisations are responding to us about. Can I also ask the Minister: in terms of some of those community organisations, is she working closely with those organisations right now? Thank you, Madam Chair.

There’s been a number of questions around sanctions, so I would repeat what I said about a very small number being under red, which is when a sanction applies. It is really simple for someone to come off a sanction, and that’s for them to re-comply with their obligations. Just because somebody is at red, it doesn’t mean it’s a permanent state of things—they have options in terms of complying with their obligations. I will say again in this Chamber—because it tends to be misrepresented on frequent occasion—no one is sanctioned for not getting a job; they are sanctioned because they are not fulfilling their work obligations, which are things like going to an interview, having a CV, fulfilling their appointments with the Ministry of Social Development, and taking the necessary steps to look for, prepare for, and find a job. The sanction isn’t if they can’t find a job, and I said before that the new traffic light regime will be reviewed after 12 months.

Thank you. I still have not received an answer to the question about what the cost is of the blowout of 26,000 more New Zealanders not being in employment under the watch of this Government. I would really like that, and I’d like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to tell me whether she considers it a personal failure that those people are currently unemployed. I want to know from the Minister whether those people are ones she considers to just have an attitude problem or, in fact, they have been the result and fallout of an economic downturn, in which case what I would expect is that we would step up as a Government and support them into work in a way that actually was manageable for them.

I want to know an answer to a question I asked right at the beginning, which is: does she think that people, our families, our working families, often, who get accommodation supplement, and our unemployed families where one or two of the breadwinners have lost their jobs since the Government took hold of this economy and has been responsible for the way it has been run for quite some time now—are they actually able to pay the bills? Has she made an inquiry? I’ve asked about specific payments, not Consumers Price Index, which we know is a flawed system and it doesn’t quite manage to do that. Has she looked to make sure that those families can pay their bills?

One of the things that the Minister has done is she has decided to review people on accommodation supplements and take away the bare amount that they were getting from boarders. That was $100 a week from those very people who were trying to make ends meet. I would like to know whether she’s looked at that since and thought, “Well, the cost of butter is now about $8.”—if you’re very lucky, it’s $8—“Maybe I need to look at this in terms of whether they can actually make ends meet.” I’d like an answer, sincerely, to those questions.

I was hoping I wouldn’t need to do this in the Chamber because it’s been said multiple times before, but let’s just—

I still haven’t heard it.

OK, good. Excellent. Here’s what happens. High levels of spending, excessive levels of spending, wasteful spending, leads to high interest rates, high inflation, and higher unemployment. Unfortunately, when we came in, we came into a period where inflation was 7.2 percent. We’ve managed to get it down to 2.5 percent, which is remarkable in this short period of time. If the member’s worried about the price of butter, she should worry about inflation and be celebrating the fact that it’s down from 7.2 percent to 2.5 percent.

In terms of the unemployment rate, the unemployment rate forecast by Treasury for the previous Government—I think it was June 2022—was expected to be at 5.2 percent at this time. Guess what it is? It’s 5.2 percent. We are not further away from what the unemployment rate was expected to be when that member’s party were in Government. But, unfortunately, anyone on this side of the House would prefer not to be dealing with the circumstances we’re dealing with. We have got inflation under control, but for, I think, something like 44 percent of mortgage holders, they are yet to refix their mortgage. They are not seeing those falling interest rates in their bank account yet—that is still to come.

We know that there is a lag period between inflation coming down, interest rates coming down, the economy turning, and recovery beginning. Unfortunately, the unemployment rate is always the last to follow. The member asked specifically: what is the taxpayer bill for those on the jobseeker benefit for 2025-2026? It’s $4.6 billion. But, actually, I’m less worried about the fiscal cost; I’m worried about the human cost. That is why our side has set an ambitious target to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by 2030. Yes, we could have said, “Let’s have a really pathetic target because we have inherited an economic recession, we’ve inherited challenging times.”, and given up and gone home. No, because for every single one of those people that come off welfare and into work, we know what a difference it makes for them and their families. I’m celebrating 80,700 people in the last year coming off welfare and into work, despite the trainwreck of economic conditions that we have inherited. It’s $4.8 billion.

I will ask, once again, is it correct that disabled people are disproportionately affected by the changes she has introduced that will strip away income for people who have boarders; if so, what is her message to disabled people living in poverty, who will be disproportionately affected by this change?

The changes that we have made around the accommodation supplement, going back to Budget 2024, were to make a fairer, more equitable system. If you are a disabled person who has boarders, yes, it will affect you. If you are a disabled person who is a taxpayer, you want a fairer, more equitable system, and also if you are a disabled person who sees benefit of the accommodation supplementary boundaries and rates changes, you’ll be celebrating.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think just because the Government’s come in under forecast doesn’t mean at all that the Government has been successful in terms of their employment strategy. In fact, it’s been a disaster for this Government. We’re seeing record numbers go to Australia, and the question, again, is where is the employment strategy in terms of this Government? We don’t see one. All we see and hear is that you have come in under what was forecast with the previous Labour Government. That is not an employment strategy; it is just a continual waffle about the previous Government.

I ask the question: is the closing of major work sites such as Kinleith and now Eves Valley sawmill indicative of the Government doing enough to tackle unemployment? What is the strategy? Where is the investment, and has the Ministry of Social Development accounted for a potential increase in demand for its work programmes in areas where major work sites are expected to close? Is there something that we can expect from the Minister other than her continually saying we have come under the forecast that was forecast for the previous Government?

We have published an Employment Investment Strategy, which the member is asking about—an employment strategy for 2025 through to 2028. That is very much focused on a range of things—a priority around 18- to 24-year-olds—so that we can move that curve back from the 18.2 years average future time on benefit that we have inherited, back to the 12.2 years, for example, which is where it was in 2017. Part of the investment strategy is the 490 case managers, because we know that one-on-one case management is the most effective intervention we have had. That is through data and evidence that tells us which programmes are more successful. We are investing in what works the best. Other initiatives like Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, and Ngā Puna Pūkenga are all about focusing on how we ensure we are targeting those programmes to the people they will have the greatest impact on. I would invite the member to read that employment investment strategy, and, if he has questions on it, to put them down in writing.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m going to have a third go at asking the Minister. She’s promised that her Government will create 240,000 new jobs. Could she please confirm how that number was calculated? If so, is she using job growth based on population growth to arrive at the number of 240,000 new jobs that she has promised?

Well, from Budget 2025, it was Treasury’s forecast at that time that there would be job growth of 2.7 percent, 240,000 jobs.

Can she confirm that that calculation that she’s referred to by Treasury is actually job growth based on population growth, not any specific action that her Government has taken?

I would invite that member to ask Treasury. It’s Treasury’s forecast.

Again, is the Minister for Social Development and Employment telling me that she does not know herself? Is the Minister responsible for how her Government is going to deliver 240,000 more jobs, and does she not know how that figure was calculated?

I’ll correct the member, because I’ve already said it in this House. The Government is very different from the previous one in terms of who they believe creates the jobs: businesses create jobs. If I think about the announcement today, with Qantas and Jetstar adding 660,000 additional seats across the Tasman and within New Zealand—that creates jobs. The Government is creating the conditions where businesses will grow and create more jobs. In terms of additional jobs that have been mentioned in this House—the member referred to the Prime Minister; I’d also refer to the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Infrastructure. The significant projects that kick off in the next six months will create more jobs.

Last question in this section.

Thank you. It is really a question that I have asked and I have not had an answer for. I think it’s a central one. Twenty-six thousand more people are unemployed than there were under our Government. While the Minister for Social Development and Employment gave me figures for what it cost the country this year, she did not give me the answer to the question, which is: what is the difference in cost between what it cost under a Labour Government, when we had less unemployment, and the cost that it is now because we have 76,000 people that are unemployed and having to receive that money? What is the extra cost to our country, let alone the cost to the mental health of those people, etc., etc., etc.? Thank you.

As I said, we now are forecasting in the 2025-26 appropriation documents $4.6 billion on the jobseeker benefit. That member wants to ask a question about comparing a cost to 2023. I’ve gone through the figures, I’ve explained how we get to this point in terms of the economic cycle, and she seems to have missed the point that we have come in at a time where high spending, high interest rates, high inflation led to economic recession and the harshest economic times since the 1990s. What follows is higher levels of unemployment. That is why our Government has set a target to reduce the number of people on the unemployment benefit by 50,000. We will push through these challenging economic times with our Going for Growth strategy, which is all about not just the fiscal cost but the human cost. The human cost that I as Minister am unwilling to tolerate is that someone under 25 will spend another 18 years of their life on welfare.

Members, the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s time in the chair has come to an end. We now have the Minister of Education. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from now until the dinner break, and I give the first call to Carl Bates, the deputy chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As deputy chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, it is my privilege to speak on Budget Estimates for 2025-26 for Vote Education. This year’s Budget, as the Minister told the committee, included the largest investment into learning support in a generation. Budget 2025 includes $645.8 million for operational funding and just over $100 million for capital funding for learning support initiatives over four years.

In addition, Budget 2025 extended the early intervention service through to the end of year 1 at primary school. About $192 million is allocated over four years to fund that provision. An additional $43 million funds additional speech language therapists, psychologists, and teacher-aide hours. Furthermore, the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme, known as ORS, has traditionally been funded via a fixed budget. From Budget 2025, it will now be demand-driven. If a child is eligible for ORS, they will have access to it.

Contrary to the belief of some, the facts are that the total Vote Education budget has had an overall increase in spending of about $429 million, with the five largest areas of spending being $8.7 billion for primary and secondary education, $3.4 billion for school property portfolio management, $3 billion for early learning, and $1.8 billion for Ministry of Education capital expenditure, as well as $1.6 billion for outcomes and target groups.

My question for the Minister: is she as excited as the principals I spoke to on Friday, who said learning support sparks up optimism about the learning support allocation starting in 2026, as a result of this Budget?

Thank you, Mr Speaker—oh, Madam Chair, I should say; old habits. Can I just start by saying this was a transformational Budget. One of my key six priority areas was learning support. We learnt when we were in Opposition but also from being the Minister that a key priority needed always to be a serious investment in learning support. For too long, we have been having meetings and creating strategy documents and having a think about it and have been tinkering around the edges. Meanwhile, children sat on wait-lists. The child was not getting the right service at the right time for far too long.

We put a lot of effort into working with the sector to find out what it was that they needed. They talked to me about a number of different things, and we’ve allocated those into a tiered-system approach, starting with universal support. One of the things we found that the principals were telling us from across the country was that the previous allocations of learning support coordinators were inequitable. The second tranche that was always promised never came. It was extraordinarily disappointing. There were some regions of New Zealand that only had 18 percent coverage of learning support coordinators.

This historic Budget, which is the largest investment in a generation, of three quarters of a billion dollars will go to solving that inequity problem with learning support coordinators. It was just in the last week or so that we were able to go out to all schools and say to them when they could expect their learning support coordinator—either next year, the following, or the year after that—so that they all know and can plan. I know that schools in the great electorate of Whanganui were very excited, including Kane from Aberfeldy School, who said that that was the best news that he’d almost ever received. It is going to make a huge difference on the ground.

There is so much more than that. That extension of learning support through early childhood to the end of year 1 is something that teachers and principals have been crying out for for so long. It now means that when a child turns five, they will continue to get the same support that they got before. What used to happen was it would stop and you’d have to start again, and it would be months before you could get that learning support back on stream. That was a huge loss to those young people who needed support. We are flooding in resources. This is hundreds of millions of dollars into early intervention support, and we are taking a social-investment approach because we know that the earlier we intervene into these young people’s lives, the better their outcomes are for learning.

That does mean a lot more early intervention teachers—hundreds of them. It does mean a lot more educational psychologists and speech language therapists. One of the questions I’ve had from around the country—I front-footed this in my Budget speech—was: where are all of these people going to come from, Minister? I’ve said to the sector, “We are agnostic about where the support comes from.” We are working very differently now. It may not be that the ministry employs that educational psychologist. Where there is private provision, we will use it. Where there is an NGO, we will use it. Where there is philanthropy, we will use it. All we want and all parents want is for the service to get to the child. We will make sure that that happens, and we’re going to work in a very different way to ensure that those wait-lists are reduced.

There’s not only that but also, as a previous speaker mentioned, the ongoing resource scheme (ORS), for our very highest learners. I remember, when I became the Minister of Education, there was a certain official who said to me, “Minister, you will never make this demand-driven.” What I would like to say is that I had one meeting with the Minister of Finance, and I asked her if we could make this demand-driven rather than a set budget, and she said yes, because she gets it, she cares, and she understands. That now means that if a child is eligible for ORS, they will get it. There will be no more raiding from other budgets or making it really difficult to get the scheme. They will get that support that they need. This will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds—up to 1,700—children additional over the next few years. It is a huge amount, and that will kick in from next year. It is very, very exciting for those families who know how difficult it is.

We know, from across all of these announcements, the amount of teacher-aide hours that will be provided will hugely increase. From next year, it’s an additional 900,000 hours, building up to 2 million hours by 2028. That’s a huge amount next year and more thereafter up to 2028—an additional 2 million hours from every year into the ongoing resource scheme and into the early intervention scheme. Teachers have been crying out for more help in the classroom to get those waitlists cleared, to get more support for their children in need, but also to make sure that there were those learning support coordinators. All the things that teachers have been asking for for many, many years and that they’ve been fighting for, now they have them, and I’m extraordinarily proud of that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say that we’ve had our time cut short here today, so I hope that our questions can be short and sharp and our answers can be short and sharp as well.

To the Associate Minister, I’d like to ask three early childhood education (ECE) questions. I’m not going to give a preamble, but, basically, how much funding, if any, for Budget 2025 was freed up specifically pausing or stopping ECE sector pay equity claims? How much of that, if any, went back into ECE? Does the Associate Minister recognise that qualifications, skills, and experience should matter for new ECE teachers? If so, how does changing the way that pay parity, as he has announced, for new teachers coming into the profession—how will that encourage new teachers into the profession when they’ve had their pay parity, basically, cut?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Labour member for her questions. In relation to her first question—what sort of money was freed up from potential early childhood pay equity claims—the answer to that is none, because it was held in contingency. As to what amount was held in contingency on behalf of early childhood education (ECE), I don’t have that figure. I’d be happy to ask the Minister responsible, which is the Minister of Finance, for that information, if indeed it exists.

The second point that I would make about, I think she said, skills, experience, and qualifications in relation to an early childhood educator’s ability to educate children: well, you know, clearly, those things are extremely important. The question that I think people interested in this area should be thinking about, personally, is who decides? At the moment, under the pay parity scheme, you continue to be promoted and get additional pay each year for being there, and prior to these pay parity changes, you also entered the scheme at a certain level based on formal qualifications. I just make the point that as I move around New Zealand and I visit many early childhood centres, I have enormous admiration for the people that work in the centres and enormous admiration for the people who operate the centres. In my view, those people should have more say about how they apply their funding to remunerate the teachers, because it’s they who can judge the skills, experience, and value of the qualifications of the teachers better than perhaps a rather rigid framework set out in Wellington.

To answer the final question, I think the changes we’ve made to pay parity will really enhance the value of teachers and skills, experience, and qualifications, because the people closest to the situation—the people with the blood, sweat, and tears on the floor of the ECE—will be able to apply their judgment to those remuneration decisions to a greater extent than they could before.

One very short question, again following on from the Hon Jan Tinetti on early childhood education (ECE): why did the Associate Minister of Education go ahead with setting up a ministerial advisory group (MAG) for an ECE funding review when that was against Treasury’s advice, especially now we see there are already members of that MAG who have left the MAG?

Well, first of all, the great thing about our democracy is that the people can vote for whoever they like. Maybe one day you’ll be able to vote for the Treasury, but the Treasury wasn’t on the ballot at the last election. These people over here were elected to make decisions, so the fact that we’re not doing everything the Treasury tells us to—that’s called democracy.

The second point is the Treasury’s perspective is not the only one that matters. I’m interested in the perspective of the parents, I’m interested in the perspective of the teachers, I’m interested in the perspective of the taxpayers, and I’m also interested in the perspective of the schools that early childhood centres are feeding into. They’ve all got perspectives. What I hear from people is that the way that early childhood education funding is done in New Zealand is not really intentional. It’s a little bit like a sedimentary rock. It’s layered up over many decades as different Governments have put different policies in place. We have put together, under the chairpersonship of Linda Meade, a really talented group of people. It is true that we’ve had one person depart, and yet we have rapidly been able to replace them with an equally, if not more, skilled person. I think that is an enormously positive outcome for New Zealanders, because we’re going to have an under-the-hood look at getting our early childhood funding right.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Government has removed or completely rewritten the curriculum framework Te Mātaiaho so that it is almost unrecognisable. The Government has refreshed the refreshed draft curriculum for English and maths. It has minimised te reo Māori, references to Te Tiriti, and mātauranga Māori in many curriculum areas. My question to the Minister is: how much money is budgeted for recolonising the curriculum?

Further to that, during the Estimates, at select committee the Minister said this. My question to the Minister is: why did she justify the lack of dedicated funding for Māori education by claiming that all brains learn to read the same and so the investment is going into structured literacy for everyone instead?

As far as it relates to the Budget, I’ll answer those questions, and the second one does because it talks about investment in Māori education. If the member would like to go to the Ministry of Education website, there is an entire document about the investment into Māori education in this Budget, which totalled $100 million of many really important initiatives, one of which, and the biggest of which, of course, is into property—there is $60 million going into property.

There are a number of other initiatives in this Budget, none of which are around structured literacy in the Māori education budget. In terms of structured literacy and raising achievement, if the previous Minister is interested, she should visit some schools who are doing structured literacy and are seeing incredibly accelerated learning for their tamariki Māori. There’s one in particular that I mention a lot because it was extremely impressive when I was up at Kerikeri Primary School up in Northland. They have accelerated Māori achievement in structured literacy through having a dedicated teacher workforce but also through having structured mathematics as well, and their Māori students are now achieving at the same rate as every other child.

You’ve got to remember that most Māori children are in the mainstream. When we look at what is going to make sure that we’re accelerating that achievement, we are looking across the board at things that make the biggest difference: structured literacy, structured maths, the science of learning.

With regard to the comment that she made about “all brains learn the same”, it was a particular question that I was asked in the select committee around learning to read and the difference between long-term and short-term memory, which is a crucial underpinning of the science of learning, and if the previous Minister is interested, she could read up about it. Essentially, what it says is that the short-term memory can hold only a small number of things. The underpinning of structured literacy is that you need to retain things in your long-term memory, and that is the same for all brains. There is no brain that I’m aware of that can hold inordinate amounts of knowledge in its short-term memory, as that would create cognitive load issues. That was the context for that.

There is a $100 million Māori education budget. There is also an extraordinarily huge amount of money going into curriculum design, and resources are available to make sure that we are accelerating learning for all students, including tamariki Māori.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister didn’t answer my first question, which was: how much money is budgeted for recolonising the curriculum? In fact, I’ll point out that in the Minister’s answer, she talked about most Māori being in English-medium schools, and so that question is particularly relevant because it is the recolonising of that particular curriculum.

The member will be well aware that there wasn’t anything in this Budget for curriculum design.

Why does the Minister listen to people like Elizabeth Rata, with an established history of anti-Māori views?

I’m not sure that that’s actually an Estimates-related question.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. This House has long-established conventions and Speakers’ rulings that a member should not be accused of being racist. I believe that it brings the House into disrepute if members use their free speech in this House to make a similar accusation against a member of the public, who cannot defend herself in this House. I think to uphold the mana of this House, that member should withdraw her comment. Otherwise, the public will lose faith in us having free speech, because they’ll see that we just abuse it.

Speaking to the point of order, this member of the public that Willow-Jean Prime has spoken about has a history of writing against Māori over the last generation. Māori have taken offence against this woman. Many academics and many Māori organisations—

OK.

—have opposed the writings of this woman. The woman—

I take the member’s point in speaking to the point of order, and I’d just ask the member to take his seat. We’re actually not here in a general debate. We are here in a sense that we are here to question the Minister on the Estimates of the Budget, and I think it would be most helpful if the members would actually take that course, and regardless of what people outside of this place have said, it isn’t helpful to use them in this particular debate. Can we stick to the Estimates, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is relevant because this person that I have referenced is writing the curriculum, and so it is covered by the Budget that we are talking about.

Point of order, Madam Chair.

Point of order, the Hon David Seymour. I haven’t asked the member to apologise; I’ve asked us to move forward as a committee of the whole House. Look, there is a view that’s held on this side of the Chamber that a particular person has had a view that they speak to in regard to education. What I’ve said is that it’s irrelevant to bring other people’s names into the Estimates. If we’re going to get the best out of this debate, we’re going to need to ask questions about the Estimates to the Minister. I haven’t asked that member to withdraw and apologise at this time.

Is that because you don’t believe that it brings the House into disrepute, because saying that someone is a racist person—which is what she said—

Anti-Māori.

—yeah—and saying the person—

She was asking about that person’s influence on policy. I’m asking the member to stick to the debate.

Well, she also made a reflection on the person. I mean, this is quite a serious point for the House, and it’s different from what Willie Jackson said.

Yeah, no, I say to the Hon David Seymour that we’re going to move forward into the Estimates debate so that we can get—

OK. Well, I think that’s really sad.

—the best from the Minister. I’m sorry if the member disagrees with me, but we’re moving forward.

I do want to ask the Minister of Education if the Minister agrees with a certain person’s statement—just checking with the Chair that I can do that. This is publicly available information. I want to ask the—

If it relates to the Estimates—

To the Budget, yes. I would like to ask if the Minister agrees with Michael Johnston, who went on The Platform to say that in terms of the current bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) that’s going through, Stanford is being “politically sensible to not remove it”—Te Tiriti—“at this point.” He points to Stanford saying in another interview “that Te Tiriti ‘would be considered under’ Minister Goldsmith’s ‘omnibus reform of legislation’, so avoiding a ‘fight with the school sector’ is the right thing to do while she’s focusing on driving curriculum reform.” Does the Minister agree with that, and, if not, how much of the Budget is driving the removal of Te Tiriti from curriculum and the Eurocentric ideology that is being pushed?

In answer to that, I didn’t hear that particular interview, so I can’t comment, but I would say that there is a huge amount of resource going into this Budget to raise Māori achievement. When I think about honouring the Treaty and Te Tiriti, I think about making sure that outcomes for tamariki Māori are equal to, if not better than, everybody else in the system, which is why there is so much resource going into providing equity of resource in te reo Māori, not only in structured literacy but in Panguru, where we’re making sure we’ve got professional learning and development for those teachers. This is from a previous Budget, but we’re making sure we are refreshing Te Marautanga as well, and there’ll be some announcements tomorrow about new curriculum areas within Te Marautanga. Everything we are doing is about honouring the Treaty to ensure that those young Māori who are coming through the education system have every opportunity to succeed, and that they are succeeding. I know that every parent wants their child to succeed. In terms of the specific question, there is nothing in this Budget relating to that particular bill that the member talks about.

Our follow-up question is: we have seen the statistics around the fact that ākonga Māori and kaupapa Māori-medium education do better at NCEA, so is what the Minister’s saying that the only way for ākonga Māori to achieve is through a Eurocentric pedological framework?

The member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan is exactly right, which is why there is so much investment going into kura kaupapa Māori. We have spent a lot of time—I have spent a lot of time—with Ngā Kura ā Iwi and Te Rūnanga Nui talking about aspirations for their students and delivering on the things they have been asking for. In terms of that, one of the things we have budgeted for in this Budget is the Virtual Learning Network, which is making sure there are specialist te reo teachers around the country who are able to beam into classrooms in different parts of the country, because it can be very difficult to find a reo teacher who is a specialist in a particular area. They asked for that, and we delivered.

More to that, we’re also making sure we’re delivering literacy and maths resources for kura kaupapa Māori in te reo Māori that haven’t been produced before. There is more around professional learning and development. As I said earlier, it’s a $100 million package, $40 million of which is outside of building. As I have already said, they do get very good results, and we’re committed to building out that network. As I’ve said previously, for the very first time in this nation’s history, we are including kura kaupapa Māori in network planning. It has never been done before, which is why in every single Budget we are setting aside tranches of money to make sure we can continue to build those schools, and in this Budget, there was $60 million. In the previous Budget, there was $50 million. We’ll continue to do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move on now, actually, to NCEA. Budget 2025 doesn’t actually include anything about the scrapping of NCEA, which is currently being consulted on by the Minister. Can I just check with the Minister: how much has she budgeted or is she intending to budget in supplementary budgets for the scrapping of NCEA? Also, will she respond to the open letter by 121 principals?

The Minister’s just clarified that it’s not in the Budget.

But this will have Budget implications, because it’s happening now.

Give the other guy a go. I mean, he can’t be worse, or can he?

Shush up, David Seymour. Can I ask the Minister: has she consulted with Ngā Tapuwae college with regards to NCEA, where they’ve had some of the most successful results in terms of Māori students over the last few years, led by Arihia Stirling? We visited there recently, and obviously they want to work with the Government. I want to ask the Minister: has she worked with this school, which is one of te ao Māori’s most successful schools and also a real success in terms of South Auckland? Were they given any opportunity in terms of her strategy around NCEA?

I see that the Minister of Education didn’t answer the first questions around the Budget for the replacement of NCEA. We find it interesting, through others, not herself directly, that apparently there is no budget for it, when it is supposed to come into effect next year. What is the budget if this is to be approved? I think you’re trying to say that it’s not predetermined. What budget will be allocated, if this is approved, from next year’s Budget?

On that question, I think we are a little bit concerned by the fact that this is something that is happening within the financial year of Budget 2025, yet the Minister could not respond to the fact that something as major as replacing the qualification of Aotearoa New Zealand has been considered.

We are in a consultation phase. No decisions have been made. I was very clear in this year’s Budget when I talked about the massive investment, predominantly in primary schools, and I said that next year’s Budget would be a secondary Budget. We haven’t made decisions. Nothing has been budgeted for at this point because we’re only just at the very start of consultation, which is going to take some time. In terms of speaking with Ngā Kura ā Iwi o Aotearoa on te reo Māori, we have been doing, and I spoke with Arihia this morning.

Sorry, just one follow-up question around that. We see, in terms of the Budget document—particularly the Cabinet paper and the Budget paper that was released last week—that anything to do with the Budget is a long-term process, so what conversations has the Minister had with the Minister of Finance around something like this in anticipation to any changes to NCEA?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, this is very difficult, because it is something that we’re talking about right now, and for it to be able to be effectively implemented, if it is to be approved, we need to know how much consideration the Minister has given to the funding that is going to be required for the effective implementation of this—for example, what budget is there for additional teaching and staffing and professional learning and development? What budget is there for industry skills boards, who are going to have the role of developing the curriculum and assessment under this proposal? Surely the Minister and the ministry have done some thinking about this, because if they haven’t and it starts next year, then we have a problem.

I suggest that given the Minister’s answer that this doesn’t involve Budget 2025, the Minister’s made it very clear. I suggest that questions are aimed at what is in the Estimates of Budget 2025 to get the best out of the session.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You can ask a different question, but you’ll get the same answer.

No, but, Madam Chair, the Budget actually covers a forecast period. What is the forecast for this proposed change of overhauling the entire assessment framework? There’s significant amount of work that is going to need to go into the implementation of this, the staffing of this, the funding of the industry skills boards, if they are to have the roles. In the forecast period covered by Budget 2025 that has been released, what funding has been put aside for this?

I think it is peculiar that the four-year period that the Budget is in—I’m assuming that means that the Minister of Education has decided that NCEA changes will not happen until 2029, so we will see how that goes. Let’s look at NCEA in a different light. We’re looking at the qualification, but let’s talk about curriculum. The public has emailed us in terms of changes to some of the subjects, and particularly when it comes to the general academic subjects. What is in the Budget on the implementation of new curricula and new subject lists? Nothing? OK.

As the Opposition are failing to ask any questions, I thought I would help out with the whole procedure and start by just talking a little bit about the communities of learning, which I understand are being disestablished. I understand that there’s been some people who were concerned about that, but, overwhelmingly, there’s been a lot of success and also a lot of money that has been freed up that can be used for other purposes. I just wondered if the Minister might like to talk to the committee about the disestablishment of the—

Point of order.

—communities of learning and also about how the funds freed up have been applied.

Do I have a point of order? No, I don’t.

Very quickly, Madam Chair, because I am running out of my own speaking time. It’s nice to get—

Oh, sorry.

That’s OK. It’s a nice to get a question about this Budget rather than imaginary future Budgets. But it was something that the sector had called for very loudly. They wanted an extra learning support budget; they wanted additional funds put into the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme and teacher-aides and learning support coordinators, and they overwhelmingly lobbied me to disestablish the communities of learning or kāhui ako. We listened to their feedback. We have done that. We’re winding it down over a number of years while we power up the learning support budget, and it has been very, very well received by the sector.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t know why the Minister did not answer the questions about curriculum and subjects. Regardless of the NCEA change programme, or entire scrapping of it that the Minister is proposing, curriculum is supposed to start next year. The ministry says it has been delayed but curriculum should be implemented in term 4 and then next year. Can the Minister please talk to the Budget for that as well as the professional learning and development to go with it?

In terms of this year’s Budget, there was plenty put aside for additional curriculum advisers, specialty secondary curriculum advisers, and the member will be able to find that in the information sheets that are printed on the ministry website.

In terms of professional learning and development, there is baselined money for ongoing professional learning and development. In terms of the—I know that the previous Minister’s very interested in the future, but the senior secondary subject areas will not be coming in for many years. There will be future Budgets that go to that, but they’re not in this Budget round, which is why it makes it difficult to answer questions when we’re talking about this particular Budget.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m so glad that the Associate Minister and the Minister of Education mentioned about kāhui ako, because can I check with the Minister that when in this Budget, kāhui ako has been removed, has the Minister consulted with unions, which was advised as a priority?

Just very quickly on that—because I am, as I said, running out of time. It was very interesting to note that when kāhui ako were established in the first case—many years ago, under a previous National Government, as it turns out—the people that railed against them at that time were the unions. I listened to them from that time but also listened to more of the evidence, which shows us that, actually, overall, the Education Review Office found that those schools who were part of kāhui ako—their results were very marginally worse than those who weren’t.

I just wonder if the Minister has any comments—perhaps with the assistance of one of her associates—on the Ka Ora, Ka Ako - Healthy School Lunches programme.

I’d have to refer to my associate to speak about that.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. I’d just like to say that I think it’s been absolutely—

Point of order.

Oh, here we go.

The Minister has made herself unavailable for the remaining 16 minutes that we have for this session, and here we have the Associate Minister interrupting—

No, each party in the House has an allocated time in this debate. Now, we’ve just been through a period where the Opposition members have been asking questions which the Minister has clearly said do not relate to Budget 2025. On that basis, I’ve given the call to the Hon David Seymour.

Thank you very much—

Speaking to the point of order, just one small clarification from you, Madam Chair: are you saying that a person can now ask themselves questions as a part of the Budget debate?

Well, the person actually asked it to the Minister, who delegated the Hon David Seymour to answer the question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I thank the Minister of Education for referring this very good question to me. I want to talk a little bit about how the Healthy School Lunches Programme is performing. In short, it is performing exceedingly well.

Last week, just to take one example, the delivery in full on time, or default, was 99.98 percent. Now, anyone involved in any kind of logistics delivery, that kind of business—and people do say this to me. They say, “What you’re achieving there”—well, it’s not me. They say that what the people delivering the Healthy School Lunches Programme, the School Lunch Collective, are achieving is actually quite extraordinary in the world of on-time delivery.

They’re also getting very, very positive reviews in terms of the quality. The term 3 menu was evaluated by groups of students. They gave it 73 percent approval. Now, if you talk to parents in this country, most would be pretty happy to get 73 percent approval for the lunches that they’re putting in students’ lunch boxes, so that is a big victory.

I think the other thing that’s critical to recognise is that this is being done for $130 million less than the previous programme. As primary schools come into the programme next year, as budgeted, there’s going to be an opportunity to increase that saving to over $170 million. Now, to put that in perspective, had the previous Government adopted this approach, they would have saved about $800 million of debt over five years, and that is debt that the young people at school would not have to pay, but, sadly, they will have to because of the inefficient programme that preceded this.

It’s also a really good example of actually celebrating something that works and backing change, because we had a lot of people who were very happy to pile in and criticise when we had some teething problems with the programme. What do you hear from those people today?

Crickets.

Crickets. Crickets. Crickets. That’s what we hear from them, because they’re very happy to pile in, drag down, do the whole “pull them down” thing, but they’re not there to push up what is a success. I think it’s actually a very good example, and I would say to the people in the Ministry of Education and the School Lunch Collective: good on you for getting 99.98 percent on-time delivery; good on you for saving the taxpayer money at a rate that would have taken $800 million of debt off these young people.

We look forward to the programme in the next year rolling out to primary schools as well, as budgeted in the Estimates—which, for the Opposition’s information, is what we’re here to debate.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā koe e te Minita. I’ve been going up and down the country speaking with different whānau, different kura, different kaiako, and their biggest concern—particularly coming up to Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori next week—is that the biggest barrier that will keep tamariki Māori out of learning their language is actually waiting lists. Across the country, there’s about a thousand kids on waiting lists for puna reo. There’s about another estimated thousand kids on a waiting list for kōhanga reo. For the majority of kura kaupapa and wharekura—any full immersion school—you have to have had some learning of te reo Māori or have gone to kōhanga reo before entering into these fullimmersion schools. It’s hard for them to even get to that point when there are a thousand kids on those waiting lists. The realities for all whānau, actually, is that they’re having to put their tamaiti on the waiting list before they’re even born. There’s a five-year waiting list. The biggest concern across the country, actually, is waiting lists.

Historically, Māori education has been underfunded across the board, only getting, at most, 1 percent of the full Budget, no matter who’s in Government. I’d just really like to know from the Minister what in Budget 2025 is going to eradicate these waiting lists so that there are more resources and there’s some more capacity for Māori education for tamariki Māori across the board in Māori education. When it comes to resourcing and staffing and building capacity within our Māori education, what specifically is in Budget 2025? Tēnā rā koe.

I thank the member for her question; I thank all members for questions on early childhood. In relation to kōhanga reo, and te puna reo for that matter, in this Budget we have carried on with business as usual. However, in Budget 2024—I know we’re focused on this one—I just want to make the point that the Government did put a substantial increase in funding to help capitalise kōhanga reo in the previous year. I think that reflects the fact that the Government remains committed to offering choice, remains committed to supporting te puna reo and kōhanga reo, and as we work through the funding review, we will continue to do that. We’ve had a track record of investing and we will continue to do so. We didn’t make any changes in this Budget that we’re talking about, but that’s not a reflection of our commitment, which was shown in the previous Budget.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In what was perhaps the biggest sabotage of women’s rights in a generation, the Government ripped up, in one day, the pay equity regime in order to save their Budget. This particularly affected teachers, who saw their multiple pay equity claims cancelled, and for secondary schools, cancelled entirely—completely shut out from any future claims.

My question to the Minister is: is she comfortable being the Minister of Education who oversaw the daylight robbery of teachers’ rights to pay equity? Will the Minister commit, like the Associate Minister of Education did earlier, to asking the Minister of Finance what the figure was that was saved from the cancellation of those pay equity claims? I want that commitment. Further to that, how much of that money has gone back into education, perhaps paying for that learning support package she spoke about earlier?

Members, the time has come for the dinner break, but I just wanted to make one comment before we go to the dinner break, because I thought maybe if people had—this debate has been fairly frustrating from a number of fronts. If somebody’s got a spare half an hour, I suggest watching the debate between 9.30 and 10 p.m. last night, when Shanan Halbert was questioning the Hon Penny Simmonds and the Hon Dr Shane Reti—the homing in on questions relevant to Budget 2025. It was a far less frustrating time in the Chamber. I just do want to make that comment that those questions were really homed in on the Budget, and we’ve missed the point a wee bit in this session.

So, members, the time has come for the dinner break. We’ll resume the debate at 7.30 p.m.

Members, the committee is resumed. We now have the Minister of Health. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 7.30  p.m. to 8.30 p.m. I’ll give the call to the chairperson of the Health Committee, Sam Uffindell.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. It’s good to be able to rise and speak on the Health Estimates, and I just wanted to run over a few things that we saw. The Government looks to be funding an increase of $5.5 billion across hospital and specialist services. There’s also a significant focus going forward in this Budget. There’s also an increase in around over a billion dollars for additional cancer treatments. There’s an expansion to urgent after-hours care services, and I want to, of course, note my hometown Tauranga, which is one of the fortunate beneficiaries of that—the new 24/7 digital GP service—as the Government looks to take a load off and help to address some of the challenges that we have in that space, which has already supported over 21,000 consultations. Obviously, Elective Boost has been a very significant focus looking forward for this Government coming out of the Budget.

My questions for the Minister would be if he could give us a little bit of thought around Elective Boost, the wait-list progress around the primary care action plan and the progress on the Government’s 2025 Budget investments in primary care, something around the new cancer medicines—a billion dollars in that space—and also the primary care funding booster. If I can get some thoughts on that, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the chair of the Health Committee for your address. The Government is delivering record investment in our health system in Budget 2025. Across three Budgets, we’ve committed an additional $16.68 billion in funding to ensure our hospitals, doctors, nurses, and health professionals have the resources they need to be able to provide timely, quality healthcare to all New Zealanders.

This is the largest investment in health in our country’s history, because we know that putting patients first requires a system that is properly resourced and focused on outcomes. That investment is translating into more staff on the front line. Since 2023, we’ve seen over 2,100 more nurses and more than 600 additional doctors join our health workforce. These are the people who make the difference every day for patients, and our Government is backing them to succeed. The Budget also builds on this record with new funding for modern health infrastructure. It strengthens primary care so people can get access to GP care closer to home, and it supports initiatives across cancer services, extended prescriptions for patients, and elective treatment to ensure New Zealanders receive their hip operations, knee replacements, and cataract surgeries when they need it.

The investment in our new cancer medicines—and I want to acknowledge my Associate Minister of Health, the Hon David Seymour—is a record investment in new cancer medicines: 33 new lifechanging cancer medicines, which will be helping thousands of New Zealanders to be able to have access to treatments they would otherwise not have been able to receive. That is absolutely life changing and is a huge focus of Budget 2025.

The investment into Health New Zealand is also allowing us to get on top of wait-lists, which have grown too long, with too many New Zealanders waiting too long to get the care that they need. Just this week, we announced that our Elective Boost at the beginning of this year performed over 16,000 additional outsourced elective procedures to ensure more Kiwis get access to the treatments they need, and puts us on track to meet the 2024-25 milestone of 63 percent of patients receiving treatment within four months. We know that too many New Zealanders are still waiting too long to get the care that they need, but that is why we’ve put in place the health targets.

We’re providing record investment in health funding and we’re focusing the system on delivering services that New Zealanders need in a timely and quality manner. By putting patients first, we’re making sure that New Zealanders can get that care that they need. I’m proud of the record this Government has, but I acknowledge that too many New Zealanders have been left waiting for too long. We have a significant task ahead of us, and that’s why my expectations of Health New Zealand are incredibly clear: to stay focused on their health targets, put patients first, and deliver the timely, quality healthcare that all New Zealanders deserve and expect.

Mr Chair, thank you. Thank you to the chair of the Health Committee and to the Minister for those opening remarks. This Government campaigned on making cuts to back-office services in order to be able to, in their logic, free up more funds to support clinical services. I’d like the Minister to describe how the programme of cuts for the current financial year will go ahead, what level of cuts have been identified, and whether that quantum of money to be released by cuts matches the difference between the deficit at the end of the last financial year of $900 million and the projected deficit of $200 million at the end of the current financial year.

I have a pātai to the Minister in relation to the hauora Māori appropriations and am wanting to examine where the spend has gone. What gains have been made in terms of reaching the proposed targets for closing the life-expectancy gap between Māori and nonMāori, and what are the specific initiatives that are funded through new money in the hauora Māori appropriation? Further, I’m wanting to understand from the Minister in terms of the pilots undertaken to inform Māori outreach and the extension of the immunisation services into the community, particularly in the Wellington region. What happened from those pilots, and then where did we commission services from there, and what are the targets associated with those new services? Kia ora.

Thank you. Perhaps the best way to progress would be to have some back and forth with the Minister on some of these big issues relating to the overall shape of Health New Zealand’s financial position and the Vote. I would like to have the opportunity to discuss that in some depth—firstly, the savings programme, the scale of the cuts that are needed to be able to make that $200 million deficit, and the items that are currently being progressed to reach that deficit. I’d like it if the Minister could engage in some back and forth on these issues.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll address firstly the questions from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall in relation to Health New Zealand’s budget. I would point her to page 38 of Health New Zealand’s statement of performance expectations, which outlines Health New Zealand’s revenue and expenditure for the financial year that has to do with this Budget. It points out in that statement that total revenue for the 2025-26 year for Health New Zealand is projected to be $30.58 billion and total expenditure is expected to be $30.78 billion. That is an increase in expenditure from $29.05 billion the previous year, so that is an increase in expenditure of $1.7 billion in investment in our health system through Budget 2025.

That’s more funding going into personnel, that’s more funding going into services, it’s more funding going into services provided by funded sectors, it is more funding going into infrastructure and non-clinical supplies. I’ll point the member to that forecast statement of comprehensive revenue and expenditure, which actually shows the significant investment this Government is making in health and where that money is going in terms of providing additional services for patients and for New Zealanders, and it shows the real commitment this Government is making to deliver more access to services so that all New Zealanders can get the timely, quality healthcare that they need and deserve.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. The question, however, related to the scale of the cuts or the, you might prefer to call it, “savings programme” or “efficiencies”. We know—and Health New Zealand has spoken frequently about its plans to achieve savings—that at the time of the last election, there was a programme of work that appeared to be important to the Government. Could the Minister please outline what is on the Government’s agenda in order to make those savings?

Well, as I said, we’re focused on the delivery of services, and as pointed out on page 38 of the statement of performance expectations, we are investing more into Health New Zealand than ever before. They will be spending more money than ever before. Our focus is on making sure they deliver more for patients than ever before so that we can get the timely, quality access to health services that New Zealanders deserve.

When it comes to the organisation and how it operates, ultimately, my expectations are very clear: I want to see as much delivery for patients as can be done with the funding that we have provided. That’s why we put in place the targets. That’s why we’ve got programmes in place like the Elective Boost. That’s why we’re focusing to make sure that we can reduce wait times and wait-lists for patients who have been waiting far too long to get the specialist appointments, the surgeries, the treatments that they need and they deserve.

I point the member to the statement of performance expectations, which clearly demonstrates that this Government is investing more, Health New Zealand will be spending more than ever before, and our expectation is very clear that that needs to deliver increased services for patients up and down this country.

The Minister can direct me to a document that does not answer my question as much as he likes, and I will take this opportunity to be clear that the question wasn’t answered. It does make me wonder why it was so important for this Government to point out at the election that they felt that there were massive opportunities for cuts or savings in Health New Zealand and that there was wasteful spending, and yet they cannot account for the cuts that they are undertaking in the health system now when they have to debate the health system’s budget. Yet thousands of New Zealanders have lost their jobs because of the Government’s programmes of cuts at Health New Zealand. The people at home listening know this programme is happening, and yet the Minister speaks of unrelated documents when he takes a question on that. I would like the Minister to consider what his obligations are to taxpayers to explain what is happening with their money. Would he reconsider answering what programme of cuts is under way at Health New Zealand?

As I’ve said on a number of occasions, I’m focused on delivery for patients. There have been change processes done, but those change processes have been completed. There are no major change programmes under way at Health New Zealand. I’m focused on delivery for patients and ensuring the organisation delivers the services that New Zealanders need and deserve. That is my expectation of the organisation. As with all parts of Government, there will be opportunities to do things in a more efficient manner. Our expectation of all parts of Government is that they find the most efficient ways to deliver things so we can get as much value for taxpayers’ money so that more patients can get the treatments that they need in a more timely manner. My focus, very clearly, as Minister of Health is to ensure that this record investment in Health New Zealand is delivering results for patients and that it is supporting the front-line services to be able to deliver that service so that patients can be seen in a more timely manner and receive the quality of care that they rightfully deserve.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Prior to the Estimates hearing, we knew from released documents that Treasury had warned the Minister of Finance that Health New Zealand could not make the cuts required to go from a $900 million deficit to a $200 million deficit in one financial year. The Auditor-General has also issued a similar warning. Can the Minister confirm: is it the Government’s position that that $200 million deficit target no longer applies at the end of this financial year? Is Health New Zealand going to get a capital injection in order to reach that target, and, if not, what is the expected deficit now for Health New Zealand at the end of the current financial year?

Well, as I stated earlier, if the member looks at page 38 of the statement of performance expectations, the organisation has a projected deficit of $200 million. That means that their expenditure will be $200 million more than their revenue. The Government is supporting Health New Zealand to deliver services and for the organisation to spend more than what it has been provided in its revenues so that we can maintain and deliver the services that it needs. If you look at the appropriations the Crown is providing, Crown funding is increasing from $24.296 billion to $26.218 billion. That is a direct almost $2 billion increase in direct appropriations. Other funding from Crown or Crown entities is increasing from $3.1 billion to $3.395 billion, third-party and other revenue is increasing from $428 million to $889 million, and there’s a slight reduction in interest received.

Overall, there is increased revenue for Health New Zealand and increased expenditure being provided for. My expectations are incredibly clear: I want to see Health New Zealand deliver more services for patients, reduce those wait-lists, which ballooned under the last Government—a 6,400 percent increase in the number of patients waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment under Labour. That’s their record—6,400 percent increase.

Didn’t they increase spending by two-thirds?

Well, this is the magic from the other side: they appropriate money on Grant Robertson’s magic money tree and then don’t expect any outcomes.

I thought it didn’t exist.

Well, apparently it’s in Dunedin at the moment! But the point is: they don’t expect outcomes. They removed the health targets, let wait-lists balloon out of control, allowed patients to languish on wait-lists, and we’re now addressing that with things like Elective Boost so we can actually get patients seen in a more timely manner.

Point of order. Thanks, Mr Chair. The Minister’s answer—we’ve engaged here with a series of questions about the financial situation at Health New Zealand, none of which have been addressed and answered in the Minister’s responses. They’re pretty straight up and down questions about numbers relating to Health New Zealand’s financial performance, not answered in the documents that he refers to. We seem to have pivoted to some matters that are not really related to the Estimates at all. We just want answers for our questions. The New Zealand taxpayer deserves answers about their health budget. We’d really like to know what’s happening with the Health New Zealand deficit.

Thank you for that point of order. If I can draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 144/2: “On the Estimates a member may ask a question relative to the expenditure of an appropriation voted the previous year, but may not debate it—discussion must not travel outside the items which are to be appropriated during the current financial year.” If you could contain your questions within that ambit, that would be useful for the committee. But also, I note that many answers that Ministers will give will not satisfy all members as well. I would encourage members to continue to probe if necessary, but if those answers continue to not be to your satisfaction but are still being addressed, can I also encourage members to move on. Also, to note for members as well, there are other Ministers that are available here if there are questions for them as well. Let’s continue.

Speaking to the point of order, if I may. I think the point was not that the question—well, partly that the question wasn’t addressed, but the key point was that the Minister was straying into Budgets of years gone by, which have nothing to do with the Estimates. If the debate that we are to engage in must relate to the current Estimates, then surely the Minister’s responses have to relate to the current Estimates.

Actually, I take the member’s point. I would ask Ministers’ responses to also focus on this appropriation as well, as opposed to looking back. Let’s continue.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We heard from the Minister of Health about the revenue and expenditure in Health New Zealand; we would really like to hear about the deficit for Health New Zealand and how the deficit from the 2024-25 financial year will be addressed. Is it by revenue from the Vote or by a different capital injection?

I’m going back to the hauora Māori appropriation again, seeking answers from the Minister of Health in relation to what new money has eventuated in terms of spend for hauora Māori services.

Going back to our babies, our mokopuna, we have set targets around immunisation, commissioned services that were based on pilots that were delivered into communities. How is the direction of travel being achieved in terms of tamariki Māori, particularly in the first eight months, as to the targets of achievement for the services that have been commissioned—the hauora Māori appropriation initiatives specifically that the Minister can put on the table that will close the life expectancy gap between Māori and non-Māori?

I’m further wanting to discuss with the Minister in terms of his view of the spend in maternal health and the access of pregnant wāhine to lead maternity caregivers, and how is that direction of travel and the spend going into community services.

Then one further question: for kaupapa Māori mental health youth services, how are we treading in terms of both the funding that has gone into those services and what targets may have been set for our young people to be accessing those kaupapa Māori hauora services?

It’s a hauora Māori pātai for our babies, our mokopuna; our mothers accessing maternity services; and then further for youth mental health.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of hauora Māori services, there’s been an increase in the appropriation. Again, the statement of performance expectations highlights total revenue increasing from $484 million to $555 million. The expenditure is projected to be $555 million in the Budget 2025-26 year. One of the key initiatives—and the member touched on it—was in relation to the immunisation target that we have set. Of course, there’s been a significant decline in the number of children who have been immunised at two years of age, from 92 percent down to 77 percent in 2023. We are starting to see that result start to turn around, which is good.

Programmes such as Immunising Our Tamariki are central to doing just that. I’m advised that, as of 31 May 2025, more than 125,000 immunisations had been undertaken by hauora Māori partners across the country through that programme—12,952 of them in May alone. That is a significant initiative, which was launched by the previous Minister of Health, Dr Shane Reti, to help increase immunisations amongst our Māori population. Ultimately, for us to meet the target of 95 percent of two-year-olds being immunised, we have to ensure we increase the rate of immunisations amongst our Māori communities. That’s where that appropriation is so critical to help and support initiatives that help drive that increased immunisation.

We are seeing increased immunisation rates within our Māori population. It’s increased, I’m advised. In 30 June last year, 63.3 percent of Māori twoyearolds had been fully immunised. That increased to approximately 68 percent at the middle of this year. Clearly, that’s a long way behind other populations, and that’s where this programme is so important to address that critically important health issue.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to that member for questions around mental health. This Government is committed, through its mental health plan, to delivering faster access to support, growing the front-line workforce, and a better crisis response. We are turning the corner and seeing our mental health plan working—almost 10 percent more front-line mental health roles since coming into office—and we know people are accessing specialist services by well over the target of 80 percent in three weeks.

In fact, this Government set the first targets for this country ever in mental health—five mental health targets. Three of them are around faster access. One specifically the member referenced for our young people: accessing specialist services. The target we set is 80 percent to access specialist services in three weeks. The latest data for quarter three of the financial year 2024-25 is a national average of 82.4 percent. There was a question more specifically for the access rate for Māori, and I’m happy to report Māori are accessing our services faster than the national average, at 84.9 percent.

Mr Chair, if I can please then ask the Minister for Mental Health, just following on from those questions about under-19-year-olds—the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission has got data showing that there are worsening trends in youth access to specialist mental health services—I’m sure he’s aware of it—to March 2025, where, for GP referrals for under-19s, nearly 30 percent were declined. That was up from nearly one in four last year. Is the mental health Minister now saying that that has improved—and I’m speaking here about specialist mental health services, not about accessing services for more complex needs.

Well, the first thing I’d say is the reason that we can actually measure the access to mental health services in New Zealand is because this Government has put targets in, and not only for primary mental health and addiction services but for specialist services as well. There’s nothing more accountable to myself, as the mental health Minister, and this Government than actually setting New Zealand’s first targets for access to mental health services.

I can report that the access has increased. If you look back at specialist services for under-25s, in quarter one of the financial year 2024-25, the access rate was 72.8 percent were being seen within three weeks. In the following quarter, quarter two, that went up to 77.1 percent—so from 72.8 percent to 77.1 percent—and in the latest data we have for quarter three, it even goes up again, to 77.5 percent. We’re due to release soon the quarter four data, and I’m looking forward to that, because for the first time, we’ll be able to have a trend line of the last 12 months.

Let’s be very clear: in Budget 2025, this Government invested more into the mental health and addiction ring-fence. Broadly, we’ll go from $2.6 billion to $2.8 billion, and what we have learnt in mental health from previous Governments is that it’s not just about how much money you announce. It’s actually ensuring that you get the outcomes from that investment, and that’s why it’s important that we have these targets to drive performance forward.

I’m wondering then if the Minister can explain in Official Information Act response 00092305, released on 11 July 2025, why the numbers are showing that the number of young people being declined and not being referred from general practice services has risen under his watch rather than declined? Is this because he is measuring different things, and is he prepared to provide a response to that question, which is from his own officials?

Well, I think you’ll agree that when you look at the reasons for people being declined, more often than not it is because there is a more appropriate service than the service that the individual has been referred to. I’d only look to investments into programmes like Gumboot Friday: an extra 10,000 young people seen, an extra 30,000 sessions. In fact, if we look at the investment: an extra $5 million into the mental health innovation fund that funded organisations like the Rotorua Youth One Stop Shop and other youth services as well. That’s why we have more services offering more timely access to support to young Kiwis in a time of need.

Thank you. I’d like to take the opportunity again to go deeper on another topic in back and forth with the Minister of Health in relation to the affordability of general practice. I’d like to start with the findings of the last New Zealand Health Survey that shows that one in six New Zealanders have missed going to the general practitioner because of the cost of a visit. My question to the Minister is: what initiatives does the Government have under way to reduce the cost of general practice visits?

I acknowledge that for many New Zealanders it has become too hard to see a GP, and for many New Zealanders the time to see a GP has become extraordinary, and that has impacted on the access that they have. There’s a number of things the Government’s doing to improve access to general practice. A significant part of this Budget is aligned with supporting general practice in a number of ways: increased capitation funding, increased funding to support practices to make them more accessible, performance-based funding to improve immunisation outcomes, and $26 million in additional funding to help GPs keep fees capped for community services card holders and those on low incomes, and to ensure those under 14 continue to receive free GP access.

The Budget also continues to support the Very Low Cost Access Scheme, which supports many thousands of New Zealanders to have access to lower-cost general practice. The Budget has a number of targeted initiatives to continue to support those who need help the most: through the community services cards, through the children under the age of 14, through the Very Low Cost Access Scheme to make sure that they are able to access their GP.

Also, we acknowledge the fact that we need to speed up access to general practice and make sure that people have more timely access to a general practitioner, and that’s where the Primary Care Tactical Action Plan, announced as part of the Budget, has a range of initiatives to support primary practice, including around workforce, helping to get more doctors working in primary care, more nurse practitioners working in primary care, more nurses working in primary care; helping to advance the education of nurses to become nurse practitioners; and getting overseas-trained doctors who have passed the New Zealand registration examinations exam funded placements to be able to start work in primary practice. This is all about increasing access and making primary care more accessible.

As my colleague Sam Uffindell mentioned earlier, we’ve also invested in urgent and after-hours care services, which we’ll be starting to roll out in coming months, as well as the new 24/7 digital access to general practice, which allows people to be able to book an online GP appointment any time, anywhere around the country. We’ve had over 20,000 consultations in the first couple of months that that’s been live. The numbers are increasing every single week. That is helping people get more timely access to general practice. Of course, that comes with subsidies for those who need access the most so that they are able to access that service at a lower cost so they can get a more timely service. Of course, those subsidies help them to access that at a lower cost as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. If I may just conclude these set of questions on primary care costs, or on general practice costs. Will any of the initiatives that the Minister listed bring down the cost of seeing a GP during this cost of living crisis?

As I outlined in my answer, there’s a number of initiatives that we do to provide lower-cost access for New Zealanders: those community services card holders, to make sure they can access GPs at much lower cost than non - community services card holders; the Very Low Cost Access scheme, which has been in place for many years, that continues to support access for many New Zealanders living in low socioeconomic neighbourhoods and communities to be able to access lower-cost general practice. As I said, the 24/7 digital GP service has subsidies attached to it so that people can access that service in a timely manner at a low cost if they have a community services card, or if they’ve got a child, they can access that service at a much lower cost than if they don’t. This is about increasing access to those services and also supporting those critical ways of making sure we can provide access at lower cost for those who need it the most.

Is it acceptable, in a cost of living crisis, to pay $94 for a standard GP appointment?

Well, the vast, vast majority of New Zealanders don’t pay that much money to see a GP—and the misinformation being put out by the Labour Party, when the vast majority of patients pay far less than that to see a GP. Ultimately, what I’m focused on is making sure that those who need it the most have access to those subsidies which are in place: community services card holders, Very Low Cost Access schemes, making sure that children under the age of 14 can access a GP for free—those are critically important services which we continue to support as a Government so people can get access to those services.

The reality is that too many New Zealanders are waiting too long to see a GP, and that’s why we’re investing in our workforce, and also in digital solutions, so people can get that access where they are, across the country, anytime, anywhere. I acknowledge the issue that the member is raising, and I’d point to her record when GP fees continued to increase when she was the Minister of Health.

Ultimately, what I’m focused on is improving access and fixing the problems she left behind—making sure we can reduce the wait time to see a GP. That’s why we’re putting in place a target to actually ensure New Zealanders can see a GP in a timely manner. That’s why we’re investing in the workforce. That’s why we’re making sure those overseas-trained doctors can actually practise here in New Zealand. That’s why we’re training nurses to become nurse practitioners to work in primary care. That’s why we’ve got the 24/7 digital service. That’s why we’re investing in urgent and afterhours care. By the way, when she was the Minister of Health, she was pretty happy with Kenepuru after hours potentially being closed. Well, we’ve put in place an urgent, after-hours care service so that we can actually maintain and enhance access to urgent and after-hour care services up and down our country. That is what we are doing as a country. When they were in Government, the 24/7 service in East Auckland was—

I want the discussion to focus on this appropriation.

The appropriation enhances access to urgent and after-hours care services, which were diminished under the previous Government. We’re investing in front-line services so that more New Zealanders get the access they need in a timely and quality manner.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got three questions about primary care, and I am hoping I get answers, not political rhetoric. My first question is: is the risk structure of the capitation funding going to include addressing health inequities along ethnicities, and, if not, why not? This is something that’s future looking. The second question is: does the Minister accept that costs—

Can you repeat the first question again?

Will the restructure of the capitation funding model include addressing health inequities along ethnic lines?

The second question I have is whether the Minister believes that cost is a barrier to accessing a GP and whether any new initiatives he has brought forward will lower the cost of seeing a GP face to face.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for his questions. In terms of the re-weighting of capitation, the factors that will be considered will be age, gender, deprivation, multi-morbidity, and rurality. Those factors are critically important to ensure that the capitation funding is targeting on the basis of need. It is critically important to ensure that all New Zealanders can get the access to those services that they need. That work is now under way by the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand, with the intention for the re-weighting of capitation to flow through into capitation from 1 July next year. Of course, that needs to go through the Primary Health Organisation Services Agreement Amendment Protocol negotiations with the sector, which will no doubt take place in the first half of next year.

In terms of the member’s other questions, ultimately, there’s a number of initiatives in this Budget to support access to primary care to ensure those patients and those communities who need access at lower cost can access primary care at a lower cost. That’s why we have the community services card, That’s why we have the Very Low Cost Access scheme. That’s why we have free GP visits for under14-year-olds. That’s why we’re investing in the 24/7 digital service, which also has subsidies applied to those patients so they’re able to continue to get timely and quality access to the healthcare they need.

Just following on from that, does the Minister of Health accept that cultural safety is clinically relevant for patient outcomes?

Well, this is getting into very much a sort of—it’s gone from the Budget to more of a philosophical debate here in terms of policy.

Point of order. I think this is highly relevant to the funding decisions that the Minister’s made.

How is it relevant?

Because the Minister has changed structures and funding streams that deal with cultural safety. My question is: is that clinically relevant for patient outcomes, in the Minister’s view? It’s a simple yes or no question.

Well, ultimately, the role of our health workforces is to ensure that they are providing services which meet the needs of a variety of cultures who live in New Zealand, and a variety of ethnicities. Yes, there is a significantly important role that our health workforces play when it comes to providing those services that they do on a daily basis. I think the member’s referring to a consultation document that’s out under way with regards to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. Ultimately, there has been a submission process; those submissions are being considered. Once Cabinet has made decisions, ultimately, those will then be announced.

Further questions for the Minister for Mental Health—he’s raised the fact that referrals might not be being made to specialist mental health services because there may be better places for them to get treatment. I’m interested to know if he’s talking about the community sector, and, if so, what is he doing, and is he satisfied that there is sufficient funding in that sector?

I refer to what is happening in Waikato, for example, where there’s bed locking happening at the hospital because people are reaching crisis point—they cannot access community services. They are reaching crisis point in the hospital and then they are unable to be discharged because there are no community services available for them to be able to access, so they’re taking up beds. My question to the Minister for Mental Health: is that the type of community sector/service he is referring to, or what specifically is he referring to for specialist mental health services, because Gumboot Friday is clearly not that?

Secondly, is he satisfied that the Waikato situation is providing value for money? Thirdly, what does he say to community providers who were promised to be able to access funding through the mental health innovation fund, who still have been locked out of the funding because of the cofunding requirement? Is that building the community sector and providing those alternative treatment sources for those not referred onwards by GPs?

I have a two-part question to two different Ministers to go back to primary care to discuss with the Minister around the revision of capitation funding and how those decisions were made to focus on the multimorbidities, on the gender, on the rurality, all of that. That came from, I believe, an analysis across 18 primary health organisations. Are you able to give us more of a fulsome explanation as to how you landed in that space and how the Minister and his officials believe that that will reduce or improve health equity and the outcomes of those high-need populations that you are seeking to improve access for primary care?

Then my part two question is to the Minister for Mental Health in terms of child and youth mental health through Health New Zealand and those particularly that are sitting within the main system—not funded services. Child and youth mental health have heard from staff whereby there are long waitlists at the moment for those families who are trying to access both—I think this is more of a northern region thing that I’ve heard, where there are challenges in terms of accessing. The wait-lists are long, Minister. Are there any intentions, thinking future-focused, how we can have an injection of support to reduce wait times for families, which can be up to six months waiting for that oneonone support from child and youth mental health?

Thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of the re-weighting of capitation, effectively, the work the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand are doing, yes, has analysed—and there’s been a piece of work done which does analyse—practices in a range of primary health organisations to look at need. Decisions have been made in relation to what the factors are, which will go into that re-weighting, as I outlined earlier in relation to the question from your colleague.

What this will mean for practices is that those practices which have patients who have a higher degree of deprivation or multimorbidity or rurality is they will receive extra revenue which will allow them to be able to support their patients. For some clinics, that may mean the ability to employ more staff; they may use that to reduce the fees; they may do a range of things to improve access for patients to services which help support the patients that they have on their books in those clinics.

I speak to many of my rural colleagues in particular who talk about the difficulty in rural communities accessing their general practitioner. This is critically important for our rural communities to increase access by re-weighting that funding to support those clinics to be able to—whether it’s hire the staff, pay the GP more, extend the hours; whatever it takes to be able to improve the access in those rural communities. I think that is where the re-weighting of capitation—which has been called for for a very long time—is going to have some of the biggest difference across New Zealand once that’s rolled out and which I’m looking forward to delivering next year.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to turn to investment in the health system infrastructure. The Minister received a briefing that was directed at identifying if the health system had the capacity to particularly meet demand for surgeries and planned care. That briefing said that the health system was short by 500 beds in Te Manawa Taki and Central North Island hospitals were short 107 beds. In this region, the Central region, hospitals were short 55 beds. Te Waipounamu were short 76 beds, and the Northern region was short 209 beds. In that region, 120 new beds were created by the building and opening of the Tōtara Haumaru Hospital on the North Shore of Auckland by our last Government. I would like to ask the Minister: what progress is being made now to address that bed deficit so that we can meet today’s demands, much less the future’s?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to respond to some of the questions directed to me as Minister for Mental Health. There was one question quite rightly looking at the Government’s focus on how we can support faster access to timely mental health support, and the question was using an example of the Northern region, which I think is a very important question. The first thing I’d say is that it has been the focus of this Government by bringing back the four regions within Health New Zealand, we have regionalised Health New Zealand, because we believe that, actually, rather than centralising, we want to return decision making back as close to the front line as possible.

What that means in mental health is when you look at the mental health targets that this Government set for the first time in New Zealand, if you take the target around specialist mental health services—a target of 80 percent of people to access specialist mental health and addiction services within three weeks—I’ve always been very clear and said quite publicly, as mental health Minister, I’m not going to be happy just with the national average. Why I say that is now we have set the targets, we are measuring against them, and we are reporting on the data. We can actually drill down to the 20 health districts. We can actually drill down to urban and rural, to other population groups, and young people as well. Why that is important is I’ve worked with the deputy chief executives who head up the four regions. They are now called regional directors, and they report on the data for their regions and are required to put action plans in place.

My expectation this year—the $2.8 billion we will spend on the mental health and addiction ringfence funding is for areas or regions that are not delivering to that expectation of a three-week wait time, then investment goes into those areas to bring them up to the desired performance level. One way of doing that is bringing in the community sector, and I’d just like to link in Ingrid Leary’s question about what the Government is doing to support the community sector for mental health. We call it the “funded sector”. Already—the question was around the mental health innovation fund—the first-year tranche funded MATES in Construction, Youthline, the Sir John Kirwan Foundation, Rotorua YOSS, Mental Health Foundation, Wellington City Mission, the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, and a number of other community organisations.

The question was around why we went for match funding. Well, I just put it to you—that fund was $5 million, and because of the match fund, that is now $10 million this year. We’re just to announce year two; that will be another $10 million. We get the ability through match fund to deliver twice the activity and scale that up as well.

The member did, quite rightly, ask the question around an important issue where we have people on our mental health inpatient facilities that might be clinically ready to be discharged but there, potentially, is not the support services there. That is another task I’ve given the regional directors to look at—the occupancy rates of their inpatient facilities within their respective regions, and to ensure that we build out the system, that there is step-down care that we can discharge people into the community.

Because this is an Estimates debate, I’d point to Budget 2025, where we not only invested an extra $51 million to our forensic acute inpatient beds for Health New Zealand but funded a number of community and NGO beds in the community so people can be referred out into step-down care to increase that flow into our inpatient facilities.

I thank the previous speaker for the question in relation to infrastructure and I acknowledge the infrastructure deficit, which is a challenge that we’ve inherited, but is also something which—if you look at the average age of health infrastructure, I believe the average age of health buildings owned by Health New Zealand is 47 years. This is a challenge across Governments, whether it’s in roads or hospitals or schools—the need to invest more in our health infrastructure to make sure that we have the capacity.

That’s why, as Minister of Health, we have released the Health Infrastructure Plan, which outlines the need to invest, but we also need to make sure we’re investing quickly. That’s why in this year’s Budget we allocated funding for modular wards to be able to be built rapidly at a number of hospitals. We’ve announced two of those hospitals where those will be built—one at Hawke’s Bay and the other at Nelson Hospital. This allows us to actually build that capacity quickly whilst we are also doing the work on the business cases for the additional long-term investments that are required.

We’ve obviously, in this Budget, also funded the Nelson Hospital redevelopment. There is planning work under way in Hawke’s Bay, in Tauranga, in Palmerston North, and, ultimately, we need to continue to build that pipeline of health infrastructure projects that can continue to be delivered so that patients up and down our country in our health workforce have modern, reliable infrastructure which supports patients, supports our workforce, so all New Zealanders have access to the timely, quality healthcare that they need.

Thank you. I wonder if the Minister could elaborate on some of those points. Why is it that the Health Infrastructure Plan did not set out those initiatives to have the modular hospital beds created and the number—why didn’t it state the bed deficit? Why didn’t the infrastructure plan name the number of beds to be added this year or in the next five years or in the next 10 years? In fact, there was more specificity in the Health Infrastructure Plan around the building of car parks than there was around the building of hospital beds. Can the Minister elaborate what new beds are coming in the next year or two or five?

Well, as I’ve just outlined in my answer, the Budget funded modular bed wards are to be built in a number of hospitals so that we can provide extra capacity. Business cases are under way on a number of major builds, which will outline how many beds will be required and how many will be delivered and, ultimately, the capacity and services that will be delivered in those hospitals. That is what we are doing with the Health Infrastructure Plan.

This Government didn’t inherit a health infrastructure plan. We have had to put a health infrastructure plan together. When the last Government put Health New Zealand together, they thought that they could just jam 20 district health boards together, change the letterhead, and think, “Job done.” We are now having to do the work of actually delivering the infrastructure, the services, getting on top of the wait-lists, making sure that we’re actually delivering for patients. That is what this Government is doing so that all New Zealanders can have access to the timely, quality services and healthcare that they need. That’s the work we’re doing. I’m proud of the work that’s been delivered. This Budget delivers on that, but there is so much more work to do.

The Health Infrastructure Plan, I note, doesn’t specifically talk about what is going to happen regarding the reduced dementia and psychogeriatric beds which were taken out of the Dunedin Hospital. You are on record, Minister, saying that that’s because the beds are better in the community, and I don’t actually disagree with the philosophy. However, what work has been done under your Government to create those beds in Dunedin so that those people needing beds, who will no longer be able to get them in the new hospital, will be able to get the care they need in the community? What specific steps have you done?

There’s a range of work under way. Ultimately, the priority is to get the new hospital built. That’s my priority as Minister of Health: getting the new hospital built. We’re very focused on doing that. Once that construction contract is awarded, once we get that under way, there’s obviously a lot of work to be done around making sure we’re implementing, putting the models of care in place. That is my expectation of Health New Zealand—that they’re doing that work so that when it goes live in 2031—I believe is the time line—their work has been done before then to deliver those models of care in the community or in the hospital so that patients in Dunedin get access to the timely, quality healthcare that they need and deserve.

Can I just confirm, then, Minister, that when you said to the Otago Daily Times that work was under way to provide those beds in the community, in fact, nothing had been done by your Government?

Work is under way, and that work will continue to be done by Health New Zealand. As I said, my expectations are very clear that as that hospital is being constructed, that work around making sure it is operational, that the models of care are delivered—

Point of order, Mr Chair. Sorry, I think the Minister of Health misunderstand my question. It was the work in the community, not the work in the hospital. If he could answer that, please.

Yeah. Members, the Minister’s time in the chair has now come to an end. We now have the Minister of Justice—you being the Minister of Justice. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 8.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. Do we have someone from the Justice Committee?

Thank you. I rise as deputy chair of the Justice Committee to give a quick overview of the Estimates that we heard through 16 to 19 June. We heard from a number of the Ministers—the Hon Paul Goldsmith, the Hon Nicole McKee, the Hon Karen Chhour, the Hon Mark Mitchell, the Hon Casey Costello, and the Hon Judith Collins. We had Votes in Vote Serious Fraud, Vote Police, Vote Parliamentary Counsel, Vote Justice, Vote Courts, Vote Corrections, and Vote Attorney-General. As you can see, it’s a very busy committee.

The one thing that came out of that scrutiny week that we sent back to the House—I’ll just touch on a few of the main topics and the main points. As we heard through the Corrections Estimates, some major issues were raised around infrastructure, around the front-line staff, and around remand. These were the main topics that came from there. In the Courts Estimates, we talked around timeliness and, again, infrastructure projects. We heard through the Police portfolio that the big concerns there were around meth use and around investing in the beat teams that we’ve now got on the front line around the country. We heard about recruiting issues and also the $480 million of additional funding through the Budget for front-line policing efforts. Within Justice, we heard about the response to retail crime and about the electoral reforms.

I might just kick off a question to the Minister. The biggest issue there was around legal aid. It’s the largest single item in Vote Justice. Legal aid is allocated over $328 million for that appropriation, which was a 2.3 percent increase on the previous year. Probably, my question to the Minister is: why is legal aid so important, and why is the Government funding increased levels?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Since the Associate Minister of Justice is in the chair, I actually want to start by asking a question to the Minister around court timeliness, particularly around some of the latest data coming out of the High Court regarding the time for scheduled trials. When we’re looking at various parts of the country, Auckland’s average wait time is 486 days, and then in terms of some of the measures for court timeliness, we’re also seeing that High Court and criminal trials in particular are not performing particularly well or meeting those targets. I just want to check with the Minister: in the Budget, what areas is she prioritising, or what areas are actually being funded to ensure that we do see that being reduced?

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the deputy chair of the Justice Committee, thank you for your introduction.

Legal aid is at $328 million in there, and why is it important? It’s really important that people are given access to justice. It also means that they have the ability to get representation and also advice, especially when they go through a court or a justice system. It doesn’t matter whether it’s criminal, whether it’s civil, or whether it’s family. We need everybody to be able to access the courts, to be able to get the right information, and, where necessary, also the right representation, and we want to make sure that there is an ability for people to be able to access that. But that has gone up recently, and in response we, in turn, have increased the volume of money that will be going there towards legal aid.

To the member from the Green Party, when we’re talking about timeliness in the High Court, yes, I think what is important to note is that for the first time our timeliness measures are actually being put in place around the courts. For example, in the District Court, District Court Chief Judge Taumaunu has for the first time implemented some timeliness in the District Court. Now, I know that you’ve asked about the High Court, but we are making some improvements.

For example, with category 1 cases, we expect 90 percent of those cases to be disposed of within six months. With category 2, we are also looking at 90 percent of cases to be disposed of within nine months. Category 3 has the judge-alone trials, and 90 percent of those cases are to be disposed of within nine months, and for category 3 jury trials, they expect 90 percent to be disposed of within 15 months. These are quite high aspirational targets for the District Court, but I’m pleased to note that we are getting there.

When it comes to the High Court criminal cases, the number of new cases has actually increased by 10 percent over the last year, and at the same time as we have completed over 12 percent, the average trial took one day longer than one year ago and four days longer than five years ago. It means that the court’s workload has increased, even if the total numbers are currently similar—that is, 3 percent. I’m kind of happy with where we have landed with the High Court criminal cases, because while we have an increase in cases, we are still disposing of them, although we can always improve.

With the High Court civil cases, there was a 10 percent increase in the number of new cases that have been filed over the last year. Timeliness has improved, however, suggesting that the increase in new cases is driven by short-turnaround cases like, for example, new insolvency cases, which were making up 30 percent of new cases over the last year.

We are tracking what’s happening in the High Court and also looking to put those targets on the District Court, and the timeliness improvements are slow but demonstrable. We’re getting there.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Seeing as we have the Associate Minister of Justice in the chair, I thought I’d follow on, on the theme around stresses on the court system. I do this against the background of a couple of documents. One of the most critical ones is the Chief Justice’s report, which outlines some quite strong concerns around resourcing for the courts. It does it in essentially two themes.

One is it, essentially, points out that the workload of the courts has gone up along with the New Zealand population, but judicial resource hasn’t. I’m aware of recent moves to increase—by a very small amount—the number of judges in New Zealand, but it may be that the Minister wants to address whether we need to have a substantial increase in our appropriation for the judiciary.

The other thread in that report is the inadequacy of the court infrastructure—noting, I think it was, Whangārei, which is a busy court but has one courtroom. The bottleneck there isn’t judicial resource as much as simply having the courtroom available to both administer remands and what have you and run trials. Obviously, there’s been some deferrals—Waitakere and Rotorua courts, which are both recognised as not fit for purpose and in states of severe dilapidation, and what’s going to happen there? This is a resourcing of the courts problem, which is a justice issue.

The second document, which I think has been relatively recently released, is the Cabinet paper on the basis of which Cabinet approved the development of new offences, including coward punch, slavery offences, and some shoplifting stuff as well. But it’s those serious offences that I’m interested in, because one of the challenges that justice officials pointed out is that with things like three strikes, coward punches, sentencing reforms and so on, this is actually going to increase pressure, particularly on the higher courts.

I think this is the really important point about the justice sector—that there are interlocking pressures which come together: judicial pressures, resource pressures, and legislative reform. I guess I’m really interested in the Minister responding in terms of how the system as a whole will address these resource constraints.

Thank you. Thank you to the member for your questions. There was quite a lot in there. I’ll try and cover what I can, but please ask me if I miss one out.

Yes, we are looking at an increase in what’s happening in our court system, who’s coming through. The increase is going to come about by the amount of law and order initiatives that this side of the House have implemented to hold people accountable for their crimes and their actions against our communities. In order to address this, we have already looked to implement different changes in personnel by increasing certain areas of staffing to assist. An example of this will be the Family Court Associates that we implemented and have increased in volume. They have made a huge difference in what’s happening in the Family Court. Their initiatives and what they can help judges with is actually enabling judges to get back some of their judge time.

This is also seen across some of the other courts that we have made changes in. One of the proposals that’s currently at the Justice Committee is to implement three more additional community magistrates. That, in turn, is expected to free up at least, I think, 5.2 fulltime-equivalent judges’ time. When we talk about community magistrates—who not do not necessarily need to be qualified lawyers—we’re also ensuring that there is going to be a Chief Community Magistrate that ensures that the community magistrates are trained and rostered to the appropriate cases. That will be led by a judge once it goes through the system. We also have two extra District Court judges coming in for sentencing changes, and we’re actively considering what else might need to be done—where we should put more emphasis or more personnel and where it’s needed. We’ll be still taking advice on that, and there may still be more to come there.

In answer to the member’s questions about if we increase the workload in the courts, how are we going to utilise or increase those within the courts to do the work, the judicial resource has gone up both in the High Court and District Court with the community magistrates and Family Court Associates. We’ve also got the coroners’ assistance, which is making a massive dent in the timeliness in that we are in the process of reducing those times.

The member also asked about the courts and what we are doing to help or to make things go faster, because some of those delays are quite large. We made some legislative changes for audiovisual links (AVL) and we currently have just received a report on the AVL system, and we’re looking at what we need to do to implement it, to make it work. This is work that we’ve done with the judiciary as well, because they’re the ones that are going to have to utilise it. We’ve got to make sure that when we implement it, fund it, and get it in there, it’s done in such a way that the judiciary can use it—as well as Corrections and Police where necessary as well. There’s that work going on in the background there.

You spoke about the Waitakere courts and the Rotorua District and High Court and Māori Land Court. Yes, we are prepared and ready to go. We need the funding. We did go to the international investment summit, and we promoted Waitakere and Rotorua courts. We got some really good feedback there. We are open to any form of funding with the Government, and we’re looking at different ideas. We need to go back and have a Budget bid in future Budgets to help us with this, but, ultimately, it’s actually going to come down to what is going to be the better way to invest that’s going to be certain for those communities and have a really good outcome. We’re still working on that. However, from our view, we feel that we’ve got a really good case where we’re about ready to go. We just need to get some partners on board, and we have been talking with some in that respect.

If there’s anything else, I invite the member to ask me some more.

Minister, in this Budget, under capital spending, there is more money allocated towards building more prisons, when you look at how many people are serviced within our corrections system, than there is money going into new hospitals and hospital upgrades and into new classrooms and new schools, despite the fact that healthcare and education are far better methods of reducing and preventing harm in our communities. So how does the Minister and her Government justify continuing an endless pipeline of people into prisons when recidivism rates show that sending people to prisons does not result in safer communities?

Well, as much as I can answer that, because corrections isn’t the justice portfolio; it’s under the corrections portfolio—well, no, it actually has its own portfolio and its own budget as well. But what I can say is that this Government makes no apologies for holding people to account for bad behaviour. We do not believe that people going about doing whatever they want when it’s criminal, when it’s violent, when it’s taking other people’s property—it’s not right. To say that we shouldn’t invest in making sure that people are held accountable, we on this side of the House think that is wrong, because showing accountability actually can change attitudes. It can say to people, “We don’t accept the fact that you can come out here and take what you want that you didn’t earn from people that have worked hard and there be no consequence.” A consequence, if necessary, will be prison, especially if it’s recidivist. Quite frankly, if people who are recidivist offenders—especially violent recidivist offenders—are not out in society creating more victims but are in corrections, perhaps getting rehabilitated, then that is also a positive outcome.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually just want to pick up from the question my colleague Tamatha Paul asked, and I’m interested in the Minister’s answer, because in Aotearoa New Zealand alone, data from the Department of Corrections as well as the ministry itself says that about 44 to 49 percent of released prisoners are reincarcerated within three to four years, with high rates among young male Māori and repeat offenders. It also says that there’s very little evidence that suggests longer sentences—they fail to deter repeat offending and may even increase risk of creating a criminal learning environment. This data is backed up by Australia, Canada, the US, the UK, Ireland, to name a few. Some of the things that have consistently shown improvement to recidivism are through community-based rehabilitation. We also see factors like court delays, overcrowded prisons, and insufficient rehabilitation further undermine the deterrence and rehabilitation effect of longer sentences. That is not just what we think; that is the evidence that is being produced by our own ministries and by international experts.

My two questions to the Minister, then, are, number one: why, then, have we seen an increase in funding in the tough on crime approach, which has no evidential backing, empirical or anecdotal, rather than putting in additional money and resources into community-based rehabilitation? Instead, what I’ve seen in this Budget is a reduction in funding for some of the community-based rehabilitation providers. That’s my first question to the Minister, and I may have a follow-up question.

It’s quite simple, really. If you lock up violent criminals who repeatedly victimise people in the community, then they’re not in the community re-victimising people. It’s as simple as that. Locking them up to make sure that they are not in our communities creating harm is what this Government is committed to doing, because the people on the street have had enough. They’ve had enough of being victims. They have had enough of people like that member over there telling them that we don’t need the New Zealand Police, that we don’t need any sort of law and order—we just let them all run loose! That’s why we’re in Government and you’re not.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Associate Minister of Justice, I have a few questions in regard to the proposed changes to electoral law, which also have appropriations implications going forward. I might actually just start with the question that I was going to end with, which is just around the logic of changing the law to facilitate very serious offenders being able to vote if they’re held in a mental health facility, and what the logic of that was, sitting directly next to the complete ban, should those individuals be in prison facilities. That’s one question.

I did also want to say that of course this is a significant change, in that New Zealanders for decades now have been used to being able to register the day before the election, and more recently on the day of the election. This is a really substantial proposal to change to our electoral law, and, just as the Attorney-General’s report said, changes to that are very serious. If there are other options in terms of getting to the Minister’s objective, which was to have the vote counted within 14 days, then that ought to be the preferred option.

My questions are whether the Minister considered simply funding the Electoral Commission to the amount that they would need to adequately count the votes within 14 days, as opposed to the current, which is around 26 days—noting also that the Electoral Commission has been quite diligent in raising the fact that it’s been drawing from reserves of late and hasn’t been able to hold its operational budget. I do have another question attached as well, but perhaps I’ll let the Minister respond to those as a start.

Thank you. I was talking through that, so please ask me again if I don’t hit the mark with the answer to your question. The Government’s view is that it’s reasonable to require people to enrol before voting begins. Enrolment is compulsory in New Zealand, and the Government considers there’s plenty of advance notice ahead of an election for people to organise their enrolment. The change was relatively new, and the issue that we had, which was found after the—sorry, I’m jumping here, but what we found after the election was that the time taken to count those votes meant that we had to also ensure that the caretaker Government was extended as a result of that.

We’re basically saying we’re going to go back to what it was but actually not as far back as what it was, and we think that we have found a good area there. The Government believes that allowing enrolments up to and on election day has removed the incentive to get enrolled before the election, and the Minister had expressed his view that New Zealanders are capable of adapting to earlier deadlines. It’s quite reasonable for them to do so. Please, if I missed something there, ask me again.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in terms of meeting that objective of having the votes counted more quickly, has the Minister of Justice received advice that, actually, it may not be the case that the votes are counted more quickly? There would still be a substantial number of special votes. Indeed, people may attempt to cast a special vote without having registered, and that vote would still need to be processed and potentially discounted, so it wouldn’t necessarily shorten the period of time.

The other question I have is: no doubt the Minister received a number of proposals of alternative ways of shortening that vote count period. Was there any assessment that those other proposals cumulatively could address the need to reduce the period to 14 days so that the Minister would not have to touch that enrolment period at all?

Thank you. My apologies for reading off this. I am standing in for another Minister and was not over this part. I will be—

Oh, you’re much better!

Thank you. I’m going to be reading for this one. The enrolment deadline would need to be at least 13 days before the election day to enable enrolment processing to be mostly completed by the close of polling. Any shorter period will make it less likely that enrolment processing can be completed in time to enable the official count check to proceed immediately after election day. When looking at the enrolment deadline in other countries, in Australia, the enrolment closes seven days after the issue of the writ for federal elections—for the 2025 election, anyway. This deadline was 26 days before the election day. In the United Kingdom, enrolment closes 12 working days before election day. In Canada, the enrolment is allowed when people vote, including on election day. In Ireland, enrolment applications must be received at least 15 days before an election. We feel that we have found that sweet spot there.

Just what I spoke to earlier—people were able to enrol up to and on election day for the 2020 and 2023 elections here in New Zealand. Prior to that, the enrolment deadline had been midnight the day before election day since the 1996 election. Before 1990, the enrolment deadline was 6 p.m. on the writ day. We want to make sure that when people have actually made their vote, they get the Government that they have voted for and they get it quickly so that that Government can then start implementing their policies, regardless of whom it is. Looking at what the international comparisons were, we figured that where we landed was a good place.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to talk about the electoral reform, but I just want to pick up on the question that I asked the Associate Minister of Justice previously. While I appreciate that the Minister may need to get things off her chest, the volume of voice doesn’t necessarily materialise the evidential basis of a Government policy.

My question around that is, then, from what I’m hearing, in terms of from the Minister: is what we’re looking at, the purpose and the policy direction of Vote Justice and Corrections, in this case, to lock more people up, as opposed to reduce crime in our communities? The evidence that I’ve quoted doesn’t equate with what the Minister has mentioned. That’s my first question.

Now, on to electoral reform—I do have two questions for the Minister. The first question is in terms of some of the other jurisdictions the Minister mentioned before. Could I ask the Minister how many of those jurisdictions have automatic enrolment at the age they’re entitled to enrol? Something like automatic enrolment would make a simple and reasonably low-cost and effective way of ensuring that people are enrolled to vote. Yes, what the Minister quoted undoubtedly is what those jurisdictions are doing, but I do want to know from the perspective of automatic enrolment.

My next question is: what evidence and what consultation has the Minister or the ministry done in terms of overseas New Zealanders’ voice when it comes to enrolment? For overseas New Zealanders, it is sometimes incredibly difficult for them to enrol on time because of the limited locations and availability for them to enrol, as well as to vote.

Those are my two questions. The first one is around automatic enrolment. The second one is around consultation with overseas New Zealanders.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member, in talking about my volume of voice, when I am being barraged, I will speak to be heard. Your leader is a good example of using her voice.

You asked me a question about whether or not it is this Government’s intention to just lock people up. No; it’s our intention to hold people to account. It’s our intention to keep our community safe. It’s our intention to protect our front-line police. It’s our intention to protect our children. It’s our intention to protect New Zealand society. If that means we have to lock people up because they continuously misbehave or they create violent crime, so be it. We make no apology for that, because people need to learn that when you live in a democratic society such as New Zealand, we all want to live happily, healthily with each other. The social experiment that was held by the previous Government did not work, so we are taking the most appropriate action and holding people to account.

When it comes to your enrolment—and, if I don’t answer this, please, come to me again—this is one that I’m not really over. I will try to answer in the best way that I possibly can, and I hope that this does it. Automatic enrolment updates—the benefit of the policies that we’re going to make is that the automatic enrolment updates will smooth the peaks of high resource demand for enrolment processing immediately before the elections by keeping the electoral rolls more up to date between elections. Over time, this should result in fewer hours for issuing and processing special votes, with associated cost and time savings. This proposal should make it easier for the public, particularly highly mobile communities, to stay enrolled at the right address, which supports participation, but we think that this is probably going to take about two further elections ahead to get it into a state where it’s going to show some good results for us.

Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. I was actually finding the Associate Minister of Justice’s answers really interesting, but I don’t think members opposite are the same. Tim Costley could be potentially watching Netflix or even listening to Taylor Swift. I wonder if he’d like to take his AirPods out and join us here in the Chamber and pay attention.

My question to the Minister is regarding methamphetamine and the increase—

Sorry, Ms Andersen, I just wasn’t quite sure; I didn’t pick it up. Was that an accusation that a member wasn’t concentrating?

Yes, it was. He had AirPods in and I wondered if he needed to remove them to be in the Chamber.

I’d say let’s just stick to the topic, shall we?

All right.

If it comes to the attention of the Chair, then we’ll do something about it.

I mean, he might want to listen to Taylor Swift. That’s fine with me.

Point of order—point of order, Mr Chair.

Can we just carry on.

Maybe you confirm.

I would hate for the Chair to be interrupting when someone is not concentrating 100 percent on what’s going across the other side of the Chamber. I think I could be on my feet rather a lot. Now, let’s just carry on with the question.

Point of order—point of order, Mr Chair.

My question to the Minister is not about Taylor Swift; it’s about methamphetamine—

Sorry, point of order, the Hon Mark Mitchell.

My point of order is quite simply this, Mr Chair. If I had AirPods available to me, I’d wear them while that member was speaking as well.

Mr Chair, it was when the Minister was speaking, not when I was speaking, that he was listening, and that was the point.

Bordering on frivolous, Mr Mitchell. But let’s just all carry on and calm down.

Mitchell—one; Andersen—zero.

Tim Costley—minus 10. My question is in relation to—

There’s an hour to go, people.

—methamphetamine. We know that there was no specific funding in Budget 2025 to account for the sharp increase that New Zealand has seen in methamphetamine use, particularly over the last 12 months. We’ve seen a spike that’s gone up by 97 percent. That spike is disproportionately impacting potentially—well, it is impacting—lower socio-economic areas. We know that from the waste-water testing. We also know that that use will have an increase in the incourt time, as we potentially see more prosecutions. It will potentially see also more inmates who are requiring addiction treatment, even mental health treatment, if they’ve been users of methamphetamine for some time. It also could potentially result in more violence within our prisons if people are accessing methamphetamine or going through withdrawal of methamphetamine when incarcerated.

I’m interested to know what the Minister has in place looking forward, given that sharp increase, in terms of how the justice pipeline will deal with that increased complexity as a result of the sharp increase of methamphetamine use that disproportionately does affect our justice system and those people who encounter it.

I thank that member for the question because it’s one that affects all of New Zealand’s society and they were really good questions that you asked.

In response to the recent test showing a doubling of meth in waste water, the Prime Minister pulled together, basically, the justice sector Ministers. He has tasked us with looking to find solutions in tackling meth, not just in the areas of where it’s being sold and the crime that comes from it but also in the addiction, and how do we compel people to get off meth once we find them. There’s a lot of work that’s going on in this space. We’re considering options that have been given to us to address the serious issue. The options need to provide a balance between disrupting the international supply of methamphetamine and strengthening the domestic enforcement, as well as those options to prevent the use and strengthen the availability of treatment around New Zealand.

We’ve started this already by giving police extra powers. We’ve removed the gang patches so that they are not so visible to those that are wishing to purchase. We’ve introduced the three-strikes regime again. We have taken away the discounts offered in sentencing. Those are some of those immediate criminal justice aspects that we can look to while we look at the bigger opportunities that we have here.

Another way to stop repeat offending is to target any profit that these organised crime groups are making from drugs. Inland Revenue, for example, were doing audits, and during 2024-25, 66 organised crime-related audits were completed, with revenue assessed at $34.5 million. We have provided funding in the 2025 Budget to ensure that this good work continues.

Another important response to meth is to disrupt the supply of it to New Zealand before it even gets to our border. There has been significant success in the detection and the seizures of meth, and I do do a shout-out here not only to New Zealand Police but also to our customs agents, who have found quite a bit over a small period of time.

The final piece of the fight against meth must then be to reduce the demand—so stopping people starting in the first place and, if they have started using, getting them to stop and stay stopped. So that’s part of what we’re looking at as our response. You will see something shortly as we pull together all the options that we’ve been given and our plan on how to tackle it.

Minister, in the Budget last year there was resource allocated from the Ministry of Justice towards the Treaty principles bill and developing that legislation and undergoing that consultation process. I understand that it’s the Government’s intention to remove the Treaty from over 28 pieces of legislation, and that the constitutional team within the Ministry of Justice will likely be engaged in parts of this work. How much resource is this Government putting into petty culture wars to erase the history and the foundational documents of this country?

Thank you. We are in a triumvirate of Government. There are three parties, here, where we also have coalition agreements with each other. The reference to the provisions of the Treaty principles within 23 laws administered by 13 Government agencies—and there’s a list of them—is legislation that refers to the Treaty as opposed to the Treaty principles, and they’ve generally been excluded from the review. The exception is sections within the Education and Training Act 2020, whose Treaty provisions were being separately reviewed and have been included in this process for practicality.

To you, this may seem trivial—to the member, and I do appreciate the member bringing it up—but to this side of the Government, we want everybody to unite and to be as one. The coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First spoke to doing this, and that’s exactly what the Government’s going to do, because they have agreed to do so. The cost of it is going to be the cost of it in order to complete the coalition agreement that the Government had signed up to, and we will support them in order to have equality for everybody and make sure that our laws are fit for purpose.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a relatively short point, and it’s actually around the capacity of the Ministry of Justice to undertake the policy work that it has. It’s clearly a busy ministry, and it has been busy under this Government, and will be busy under any Government, because justice is a critical sector. The reason I ask whether this policy ministry and its policy arm is adequately resourced is that I’ve just today received a couple of emails around the Regulatory Standards Bill.

We know that the Regulatory Standards Bill will require any ministry dealing with legislation, whether it be a bill before this House or secondary legislation, to undertake an additional piece of policy work around compliance with those regulatory standards. I’ve got these two documents—and I won’t name them, but they’re from policy analysts with the ministry—which say, “We have concerns about the ability of agencies to absorb the additional work and note this could potentially impact on the ministerial policy and legislative work programme.” That is to say, the Government—any Government—can’t do what it wants to do because of these standards. Then, the other document—this is October last year—says, “The proposals regarding active stewardship, regular review, maintenance, and improvement of legislation administered would have an impact on the policy group’s work programme, etc. This would be felt particularly strongly by Ministry of Justice given the large amount of legislation we administer. The bill also requires retrospective reviews.”

I guess the question is this: is the Ministry of Justice—so that it can remain in its current capacity—going to be given additional resources so that it can also discharge the additional functions being imposed by the Regulatory Standards Act, which is set to come into force next year?

At this stage, the Ministry of Justice is adequately funded to be able to complete their work. Should they need any extra funding, they will no doubt come to their Minister and bid for it.

Two very brief questions to close my questions on electoral reform—they’re quite discrete. One is around costings to implement the changes in relation to restricting registration, and what that costing looks like. No doubt, there’s education, etc., form changes, that will be required, and I’m sure the Minister of Justice has received some advice on that. The second is whether there’s a costing on enabling voting in health facilities, which is a new provision of the Act as well. Just those two very specific questions on costings. Costings to restrict registration is one—what are the costings for that? Costings to allow voting for health facilities is a second question.

Then, just in terms of access to justice, for the Minister, the other concern that I, and many I’ve spoken to, have is about increasing fees in terms of access to courts. On 1 July this year, we saw an increase to High Court fees and fees relating to civil proceedings, including in the Employment Court, which obviously impacts access to justice—and whether there is consideration of how that may impact New Zealanders’ ability to access a remedy where they’re experiencing just some very basic, really, cost of living issues, the things related to their employment, a civil dispute in relation to tenancy as well.

The second part of that is court appointment. I noted that in terms of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the four deputy chairs were not reappointed, nor were they replaced. It takes the decision makers down from six to two. At the moment, there are significant delays in the tribunal, so I’m just asking what the considerations are, or the projections, for people going through the Human Rights Review Tribunal, given the decision makers have reduced from six to two.

Thank you. I’m getting all this information together for you. Your questions on the electoral system reform—I’ve been told that $80.6 million is being made available, over four years, to improve and modernise the election process. You asked specifically how much is going into certain areas. What I’ve been given is full amounts that are going to specific places. As an example, $7.8 million is for modernising elections—that’s for digital comms. So $7.8 million of that $80 million is to digitalise, $18.7 million is the electoral integrity improvements, and $54 million is for general election 2026 plus implementing changes in the Electoral Amendment Bill. Within those three appropriations for that $80 million will come the costings for what you’ve asked for.

You had asked me about access to justice in courts and the fees going up, and I thank the member for that question. It was a tough one, actually, to look at having to increase the fees, because if I remember correctly, they haven’t been increased for over 20 years. We were getting to a point where it was becoming—not so much unsustainable; but we were not recovering the cost of actually operating the courts, because the fees had not been increased. We have increased the fees, and we’ve made sure that increases in the future will go with the Consumers Price Index so that we don’t have a 20-year gap and then have to do this again, or have a future Government having to do it again.

What’s really important to remember with those people that are struggling—and we do recognise that—is that we have not taken away the ability for the courts to dispose of those costs or to say that a person does not have to pay a filing fee. We have ensured that that is still remaining, so that gives people the option to be able to claim the hardship that they may find necessary to claim in order to be able to get their access to justice.

I’ve just got a few questions around the ministerial advisory group on retail crime and whether the Minister views the advice received from the group has provided good value for money, and, in particular, which of the recommendations made by the ministerial advisory group on retail crime, in particular, she thinks holds merit and will be implemented?

Thank you for the question from that member. Do we believe that there’s value for money? I think so, yes. My reasoning for thinking so is because we have pulled together people from the community that have actually been affected by retail crime and tasked them with finding solutions that they think will work. They have worked extremely hard on this, and they have come up with multiple solutions for us, which we have then investigated and seen what it is that we think that we can advance.

The member has asked me which one of their initiatives, in particular, do I really support, and I’m going to say I support all of them. I think that they will make a huge difference. Some of those ones in the package of reforms will include amending the Crimes Act so that citizens can intervene to stop any Crimes Act offence at any time of the day, because currently you can only do a citizen’s arrest at certain hours. After 9 p.m. and before 6 a.m. is when you can do it, so I’m quite happy with the fact that we’re allowing people to take control—should they feel confident enough to do so—and do a citizen’s arrest themselves. There is clarity around that, as well, which means the moment you do that, you have to ring the police and do whatever they tell you to do. I think that the controls that we have put around those reforms will help keep the public safe, keep the person who’s been detained safe, and also show respect for law in the way that we have gone about doing this.

We’ve also agreed to two new theft offences, which is a new shoplifting infringement offence and an aggravated theft offence, targeting theft at under $2,000. We have seen a lot of theft, and the retailers are the ones that have to stomach it and put up with it in the reduction in their bank accounts. When they come to us and they say, “Look, if you increase the fines, if you have infringements, it may be a deterrent.”, we think that it’s worthwhile having a look at that, and we believe that they have come up with a good solution there. We’re also looking at simplifying the penalties for theft, as well.

There are some other initiatives that they’ve got coming, and we look forward to actually hearing from them about what else we can do to support the retail groups in New Zealand, because they have been so drastically affected by crime over such a large number of years that many of them are struggling. This not only gives them a voice but also gives them an effective outcome.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have two very quick follow-up questions on the citizen’s arrest. The first one is that we are already seeing disagreements within that particular advisory group, with some of the members within that group not wanting to push forward with citizen’s arrest because of the harm that it will have for the people who are working in those particular shops. How, then, could the Associate Minister of Justice say, “Oh, look, this is the advice that we have received, and they’ve been working really collegially.”, when clearly there’s disagreement? I just want to check with the Minister how she would reconcile that.

The second question is: like the Minister said, citizen’s arrest is already in the legislation, albeit with limited hours. What evidence does the Minister have that the limited hours of citizen’s arrest we have now is working as intended? Is there a percentage? Is there any form of evidence or record that it’s working as it is?

Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the proposals we made with the citizen’s arrest is that a person actually doesn’t have to do it. If they don’t feel confident, if they’re afraid, they don’t have to do it. This has been a really important point.

You’ve asked me about the disagreements within the ministerial advisory group (MAG). It’s healthy to have disagreements. That’s where you get the debate, and that’s where you come up with outcomes. I mean, we have it even in this Parliament, right, where we don’t agree with things, but every now and again we come up with a healthy outcome on a matter which we can all agree to. Sometimes we can work together, sometimes we can’t, but, effectively, we will still come out with some outcomes. I think where we landed with this, by not making people have to do it, including security guards—they don’t have to do it; it’s up to the individual and their confidence. I think where we got to there is a really good point. I understand, again, the disagreements within the MAG, and as I mentioned, that creates a healthy debate and also means that you look at all different options. That’s what we did when we took on their advice.

The proposals enable more tools, more options to those that are victims of crime. You asked whether or not I had any evidence. There’s a story that resonates.

That’s not evidence.

There will be evidence, but there’s a story that resonates—it was in the paper, it’s in the news, and you can look it up—of some guys who had tried to entertain a citizen’s arrest of a young person who had committed an aggravated robbery on a jewellery store. They held the person down, but because it was in the middle of the day, they were told to let that person go. That person just got away with what they had done and potentially was able to go on and do it again, because there is no deterrence to what they had done. These people chased this person down the street and held him down and had to let him go. What we’re saying is that if you can only do a citizen’s arrest between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.—

That’s not what the law says.

—and we have some of these occurrences happening in the middle of the day—

I’m asking for the existing evidence.

—then we will—sorry, I’ve got two things going on here. The time of day makes it clear and consistent for the retailer, by saying that they can defend their property by making sure that they can arrest somebody who has offended upon them.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’m not entirely happy with that response around citizen’s arrest. There were some inaccuracies in there that the Associate Minister of Justice might want to take some advice on.

I actually want to talk about legal aid, and there’s two strands to it, really. The first is simply a pretty straightforward question about whether the rates for legal aid lawyers are likely to be increased. I recently had an electrician who got paid 25 percent more than a legal aid lawyer would get paid for appealing a Provider Approval Level 1 case. Perfectly happy to pay the tradie that amount, but it does suggest that things have got a bit out of kilter, and it’s no wonder there’s a shortage of legal aid lawyers. I’m interested in whether that is under active consideration with the review that’s going on.

The second one is around section 27 reports and whether the Minister has made special provision in the Budget for funding the three things which are backfilling the absence of section 27 reports. It was reported by Newsroom on the back of written parliamentary questions asked by me on the cost of psychological reports that has more than doubled. Last month was $470,000 a month. What’s that? Five, six million dollars a year, which, funnily enough, is the amount that was being spent on section 27 reports. Then, the trend in alcohol and drug reports, which was, last April, $17,000 a month but last month was $220,000 a month, which is about $3 million a year. These reports are more expensive than section 27 reports because psychologists are expensive, and alcohol and drug experts and medical professionals are expensive.

The other thing—and this is in a ministerial report that the Minister will have seen—is legal aid lawyers are using legal aid time to do the reports themselves. The sort of pitch was that this would save $7 million. I’d be curious to know if it saved any money at all or if, in fact, it’s costing more than the previous regime was.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Currently, for legal aid, we are undertaking the triennial review, and all options will be considered while that review is being undertaken. When it comes to the section 27 reports and the psych reports that the member had mentioned, yes, the psych reports have gone up, but I have been advised that the amount is nowhere near where the section 27 reports actually were.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Associate Minister of Justice. Potentially, I’d appreciate it, Minister, if I could get some advice as well around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) report and the availability of the NZBORA report, because one of the things we’re seeing is that consistently there is—well, consistently there have been inconsistencies around the timing of the upload of the NZBORA report, both in terms of when the bill is introduced under urgency but also when a substantial amendment has been introduced. I want to check with the Minister in terms of what part of the appropriation, what part of the Budget, has there been to ensure that there is prompt upload of the NZBORA reports to the Ministry of Justice website?

At the same time, are there any considerations or budget in place for consultation work or for urgent NZBORA report work when a substantial amendment has been introduced into the House, particularly during committee stage?

Thank you, Mr Chair. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports—their uploading on to a website is not a ministerial issue. That’s an operational issue for the Ministry of Justice, and my understanding is that they do upload where they can, when they can, as fast as they can.

Members, the Associate Minister of Justice’s time in the chair has come to an end. Thank you, Minister. We now have the Minister for Māori Development. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 9.30 p.m. until the end of the evening.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The total appropriation sought for Vote Māori Development is $512.7 million. This is actually bigger than the amount budgeted for in 2024, because it includes appropriations transferred from the former Vote Te Arawhiti. In essence, Te Puni Kōkiri now holds the relationship with iwi post-settlement governance entities.

The committee also discussed Māori housing, with areas of focus on this subject being new homes being built in Rotorua, Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, papa kāinga, rangatahi transitional housing, and the accommodation supplement review.

Another focus was the procurement process of new Whānau Ora contracts. We heard that under the new contracts, Te Puni Kōkiri intends to be able to prove that Whānau Ora works by including five shifts, these shifts being: greater service reach, particularly to populations most in need; a strengthened evidence base; data-driven investment planning; better front-line workforce development and retention; and stronger risk management processes.

Although there were other matters traversed during our scrutiny hearing, these are a few of the pertinent ones. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Chair, thanks for this time. I’ve got, obviously, a number of questions for the Minister but, first of all, in the Māori housing space, can we have some clarification from the Minister in terms of how much money was transferred out of Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, given that that was a major development for us in the previous Government? It was landmark stuff; we were talking about investments of over $700 million. Can I get some clarification on the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga scheme?

There’s been some investment in Te Tairāwhiti, but I’m not clear, because looking at the Budget figures, am I correct in saying that $400 million was transferred out of the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga scheme into the general fund—into the flexible fund—as Minister Bishop was saying?

Again, can I ask the Minister what the opportunities are for Māori providers in the housing space. Is he satisfied that there is priority given, or are Māori providers missing out, which seems to be the case that we’re hearing in areas like Rotorua? I just wanted to start off in that area.

Can I also now come to the Whānau Ora space, because it’s been a very controversial area. I want to ask, this being the time to traverse that area: we’ve seen questions from John Tamihere in terms of the process of Whānau Ora and in terms of how the Te Puni Kōkiri process—this is all Budget related, because, basically, the Te Pou Matakana northern agency lost all of their funding in this area; they’ve lost the contract. But what John Tamihere is implying is that that was already a done deal. He has put up evidence to say that the CEO for Te Puni Kōkiri had already made a decision in terms of the process of Whānau Ora, in terms of the future of Whānau Ora. It seems to be the case that he was held responsible, given his affiliations, in terms of being the president of Te Pāti Māori.

Can I hear from the Minister: is there any truth in what Mr Tamihere is saying? He also said that the Minister was a disgrace to te ao Māori and has alleged that—the Minister will be aware of this, it’s been well publicised—

Does this relate to the Budget?

That’s absolutely about the Budget. John Tamihere lost his whole budget, so I would like some clarification on this, because there are allegations—and I don’t like saying this, because I’ve worked very closely with Te Puni Kōkiri, but he has questioned the process, he has said that the process was corrupted, and he is saying that the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri had already made decisions with regards to this Whānau Ora decision-making process.

I wish to address the Minister for Māori Development in relation to Whakaata Māori, knowing that Whakaata Māori has suffered a budget cut that is significant in terms of the way that they’ve already lost staff and are now trying to project forward in terms of what their position is for both sustainability and also to achieve the goals and aspirations of Te Whare o te Reo Mauriora.

I’m wanting to celebrate the wins of Whakaata Māori, in terms of their social outcomes report that they launched earlier this year, where they shared that they’ve given a massive social value, created out of their small budget over $100 million worth of social value. They shared that they have had 2.5 million annual viewers, including the new 4.8 million digital users and all those social media interactions that they’ve had, and that Māori viewers feel more connected to te ao Māori. They’re showing this value on the smell of an oily rag—a budget of a smell of an oily rag—and the viewers are connecting more with te ao Māori. The reo is more active and reo speakers are engaging with te reo Māori and improving their proficiency through Whakaata Māori.

With all these findings in the report—and I acknowledge all of those that were in the whare with us at Whakaata Māori, celebrating the release of this groundbreaking report that really highlights the value above and beyond what is funded by the Crown right now—I’m keen to understand from the Minister, knowing that they are achieving so much, knowing that they have lost a lot of institutional knowledge and staff who had been within the organisation for an extended period of time, how we can look to the future for a strong reo Māori, vibrant Whakaata Māori, as a part of our independent fourth estate, as well, knowing that we have got this limited budget.

What are some of the wins that he has seen from Whakaata Māori, over this last period, that we can also celebrate and stand alongside? What are those plans? What can we do to improve this space and invest in such an important part of our te reo Māori celebration of language, culture, and heritage and further the broadcasting, social media, and Māori media landscape?

Further to what Hūhana Lyndon was saying, I would like to get something, eventually, I suppose, from the Minister for Māori Development. Anything would be fine. There are so many areas to traverse, so I’ll traverse them all if you like.

In terms of Māori broadcasting, it is important for the Chamber to understand the history of Whakaata Māori—particularly given that the Minister has given no extra funding to Whakaata Māori. No extra funding has also gone into Māori broadcasting. It is an absolute travesty that this has happened, given the contribution that Māori—and I acknowledge our broadcasting spokesman here, Reuben Davidson, who is our broadcasting spokesman, but Māori broadcasting comes under the Minister for Māori Development. The obstacles that Māori broadcasting have had to work through have been incredibly tough over the years.

What we’ve had to do with Māori broadcasting is start almost two generations after mainstream broadcasting started. When you look at Television New Zealand, for instance, it started in 1960, and Whakaata Māori - Māori Television in 2004. People talk about taxpayers funding, and we know the ACT Party doesn’t like Māori getting funding, and they always ask—David Seymour will always ask—why should they keep getting funded? Well, because they started a couple of generations after mainstream television.

It’s important that the Minister in this Government funds Whakaata Māori adequately. At the moment, there is no funding coming from this Minister to Whakaata Māori. There is no funding from this Minister and this Government going to iwi radio at the moment. I want to know from the Minister—if he’s ever going to answer a question—if he has got any plans to change that. Will there be a strategy around iwi radio and Whakaata Māori, whose primary base is to support te reo Māori? It’s really tough if the Government is not going to fund the entities adequately.

At the moment, we have a Government that is saying, “We’ll look after the tobacco companies, and we’ll look after the landlords, and we’ll borrow”—how much was it, Arena?—“$14 billion in terms of tax. We’ll do all that, but we won’t give the Māori one cent.” This is absolute fact. I feel—because I came from that area, in terms of Māori broadcasting—that this Minister, given his background and history, and this Government, also given their history, should make a real effort in terms of funding Māori broadcasting.

What is the plan? When I was the Minister, this Minister had said that we should have baselined things, and that’s a fair challenge, but what we were doing was we were giving money at different times, so our broadcasters had to manage their business affairs around that. Surely, a better strategy, in terms of Whakaata Māori, in terms of Māori kaupapa full stop, would be to baseline.

I address our Māori members on the other side. This is one of the problems they would see in terms of kaupapa Māori initiatives. Māori always have to live off the smell of an oily rag. They do not have any base. It’s always at the whim of the of Governments. Surely, the Minister might have a strategy in terms of baselining funding. In terms of Whānau Ora—that was an area that we actually baselined, in terms of Te Pou Matakana—we baselined that funding, but Māori funding struggles all the way through. Now, the consequences of that are that te ao Māori struggles because we don’t know where the next dollar is going to come from.

I’m asking the Minister tonight how important Māori broadcasting is. It’s just about—and I shouldn’t say that “It’s just about”. The primary reason Whakaata Māori was set up was to support te reo Māori. Iwi radio was set up to support te reo Māori. These iwi stations—21 in total—are conduits to our community. They connect us to our community. When you have a civil defence catastrophe or crisis, our iwi stations—whether it’s Radio Ngati Porou or Te Hiku or Te Korimako in Taranaki—feed and look after our communities. They do more than just support te reo Māori.

My question tonight is: what is this Minister going to do? What is this Minister going to do to support our iwi stations? As Hūhana Lyndon said—I think, Hūhana, we were there at their promotion, but the Minister was nowhere to be seen.

Unfortunately!

Nowhere to be seen, unfortunately.

Just like this debate.

Yeah, that’s right. Just like this debate, but kei te pai, I’ll just keep talking till 10 o’clock.

In terms of Whakaata Māori, Māori radio, te reo Māori, I want to know where is the strategy. Today, we—myself, and Peeni Henare, and Cushla Tangaere-Manuel—went to Te Taura Whiri—noticed that the Minister wasn’t there today, too. We went to Te Taura Whiri, which is our Māori language agency, and they gave us their strategy, their rautaki, for the year coming. Things are bleak in that area. Now, this Government, like us, I think, are—well, I would hope—committed to getting one million Māori language speakers by 2040. I’m going to put that question on the table now. It’d be lovely if the Minister could answer one question before 10 o’clock. I know they’re tough questions. I know he’s struggling. He’s thinking about it, and he’s writing it all down. But, if he doesn’t, kei te pai; I’ll just keep talking.

I would like to know, given that we made a commitment as a Government to te reo Māori, is that commitment still there with this useless Government? It’s a Government, as we well know, that is continually attacking kaupapa Māori initiatives. Has the Minister succumbed to David Seymour and Winston Peters? As we all know in the House, sadly, Winston Peters disgraces himself, every now and then, when he refuses to acknowledge Aotearoa as the Māori name of this country. Has that type of pressure from Winston Peters in the House now flowed on to this Minister?

Here’s the question, because we’re on Budgets: where is the extra money? Where is the extra money? We’re talking about te reo Māori, because as I said, we went to Te Taura Whiri today. Where is the extra money for our reo? I’ve asked questions about Whānau Ora, I’ve asked questions about Māori TV, I’ve asked questions about Māori radio, and now I’m asking questions about te reo Māori. Is there a plan to get any extra money for te reo Māori in the next Budget, Minister, or are we going to just allow Winston Peters to embarrass the language and this country every few days in the House when he rejects the beautiful name Aotearoa?

I would ask, in that area, whether there is a plan in terms of increasing the reo. What is happening in terms of the Maihi Karauna? What is happening in that area? Is that happening still? Does the Minister have regular meetings in terms of the Crown and in terms of what’s happening with the different agencies? Is he pushing the different agencies in terms of their te reo Māori obligations? It would be very, very interesting to hear. Thank you very much.

Mr Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to really build into some patience in my life, listening to this spray of a variety of issues, sometimes evidenced by facts but generally evidenced by opinions and hearsay.

The question of where is the additional money for te reo Māori is one that I understand Dr Rawinia Higgins asked of the then Minister, Willie Jackson, for many years for Te Tairāwhiti, and there was no material increase to the funding for Te Tairāwhiti. I’m sure he was reminded of that today in his attendance over at Te Tairāwhiti whilst I was working with Taranaki Whānui and others at Mātai Moana to establish a reserve that will be managed by Taranaki Whānui and the Wellington City Council.

In relation to the variety of cash injections—time limited—that the former Minister made in a variety of broadcasting entities, including te reo Māori broadcasting entities, we continue to maintain the baseline that was established under the previous Government. We’re very happy to continue to maintain that baseline and, also, on occasion, consider other opportunities to support the adequate protection of te reo Māori, whether or not that is some of the mahi that Minister Erica Stanford has been doing around decodable books in te reo Māori—first time ever—that will be deployed across the schooling system next year, or other tactics and undertakings that we are making as this Government.

Yes, we do have fiscal responsibility at the heart of much of the decision making that we undertake, and it’s something that we continue to abide by. I’m not saying that all Governments do that; we do. Others might not and others may not have, but that’s where we land in relation to the allocation of funding across a number of portfolios. Whilst the member may have referred to te ao Māori struggling, there are actually many, many things that te ao Māori is doing very well. Tomorrow, I look forward to welcoming Ngāti Rēhia to this House, where the first reading for the return of Kororipo Pā to Ngāti Rēhia, on behalf of all of Ngāpuhi, will be undertaken. Hopefully my good friend, my Remuera twin, Minister Metekōura Goldsmith will be here as well.

There was an adjunct reference to Te Pou Matakana and John Tamihere making some allegations and using random descriptions, sometimes laced with prejudice and bias towards me, and I appreciate those. Some of them are sub judice, and those allegations will be retained in judicial forums. Others are wildly inaccurate and—how to describe it nicely, Mr Chair—severely adjacent to the truth. Te Puni Kōkiri makes decisions according to the processes that it undertakes, not on the basis of party politics, and the Whānau Ora decisions have been made on the basis of the process that Te Pou Matakana and others participated in.

As of this date, I’ve not received any complaints from any providers or any navigators that continue to serve their whānau and their communities under Whānau Ora 2.0, the new commissioning arrangements that are in place. I’ve not heard one since the new commissioning agencies took over Whānau Ora in early July this year. We had a wonderful, absolutely fantastic embarkation point out at Hongoeka Marae earlier in July this year for those four new commission agencies.

Yes, Whānau Ora has moved in a different direction. We think that it will be really focused on evidence-based attribution of the investment of taxpayer funds for the achievement of outcomes. We know, internally, many of us who have had experience with Whānau Ora, that this happens. But we will further demonstrate how this happens by better use of data, by better data planning, and by improving and supporting the workforce that works in the space of Whānau Ora. It’s a wonderful space. We’ve seen many providers and navigators thrive in the space but, more importantly, help those whānau who are facing some serious challenges achieve better outcomes for their whānau—for the individuals and the whānau—and also, fortunately, in Whānau Ora 2.0, aligned with some of the targets that we have as a Government.

I’m just wanting to follow on from my colleague speaking about the release today on the state of te reo Māori and the insights that were garnered in the report released today, which really delved, I guess, into the growth of te reo Māori in this wonderful nation of Aotearoa and the wider acceptance of the way that te reo Māori is a part of our language, culture, and heritage—our shared language, culture, and heritage—and the fact that the Government plays a key role in helping to resource it, both in adhering to its Te Tiriti obligations and also as an organisation, to help those that are within the sector and community to thrive.

In the insights that were shared, there is a wider appreciation by non-Māori within Aotearoa of fluent speakers of te reo, also the beauty of the language—an appreciation of that—and an acceptance that the speaking of te reo Māori within our public places and workspaces is a good thing. Further, the report also talked about some of the insights by way of signage, of normalisation of te reo Māori—these things that, for us in te ao Māori, we’ve taken for granted and that wider Aotearoa New Zealanders are appreciating all the same.

My question for the Minister is: we are seeing, from the feedback that is coming in through this study, that te reo Māori is something that is valued—it is based on, of course, the Te Tiriti obligation and that it is the indigenous language of Aotearoa—and we have Māori media as a central pillar of the growth and sustainability of te reo, but also we have the Crown and community obligations and the need to flourish and thrive. What is the long-term strategy that the Minister views or has in place to continue to grow this movement and the beauty of te reo Māori and the normalisation of it, as is the call of our Māori Language Commissioner today? What are those tangible long-term strategies and the resource that we will see come through to strengthen the adoption and use and normalisation of te reo Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Just following up on that—and we’re just about out of time—I wouldn’t mind getting something back in terms of the strategy, particularly in terms of the funding strategy, given that we’ve got zero returns in that broadcasting area.

Also, can I ask the Minister for Māori Development, in terms of the tribunal, for an update on where we are with the tribunal, if he’s able to give us that, in particular, one, obviously, in terms of funding, but is there a future, given that we have a clear agenda again—I’m talking about the Waitangi Tribunal—by members of the coalition Government? It seems to shut down the tribunal. Is the Minister able to give us a quick update in that area on any plans he might have in that area? Appreciating that he’s got a review taking place, what are the next steps in that area?

Just coming back to the broadcasting side of things, adding to what Hūhana Lyndon was saying: is there a plan from the Crown? I have heard the Minister talk about private investment, but are we still looking at possible top-ups in terms of Māori television, Māori radio over the next—well, hopefully next year is last year anyway, but in next year’s Budget? Is there a plan in terms of Māori broadcasting?

I’ll leave the last couple of minutes—if perhaps the Minister could respond, particularly in that tribunal area.

Thank you. Just quickly in response to the variety of questions, and some comments that were looking for a question, this Government has given the single largest announcement of support for Te Matatini ever. We’ve also continued to support Te Māori as a kaupapa—Te Māori Manaaki trust—and I look forward to doing things in that space in the near future. Hundreds of millions of dollars continue to be invested in reo Māori education, whether or not that’s early childhood, primary, secondary, or tertiary education, and also various other initiatives like Puanga mā Matariki and other celebrations throughout the motu.

There also continues to be over $100 million invested through Māori language entities for the promotion of te reo. No, the Crown is not solely responsible for the survival and thriving of te reo Māori. It has a very important part to play and, obviously, a Tiriti or Treaty obligation to adequately protect this iconic taonga. Te reo Māori is in the DNA of our country—past, present, and future—and will continue to be so, no matter who the Government is.

There was a question in relation to the Waitangi Tribunal. That process of reviewing the Treaty of Waitangi Act is under way with the advisory group, who people know about—David Cochrane, Bruce Gray, Dion Tuuta, and Kararaina Calcott-Cribb. I look forward to getting further updates from them in the near course.

I move, That the committee report progress and sit again presently.

The committee has considered the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill and reports it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.