Thursday, 29 August 2019
Volume 740
Sitting date: 29 August 2019
THURSDAY, 29 AUGUST 2019
THURSDAY, 29 AUGUST 2019
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 10 September. In that week, the committee stage of the Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill, or the Estimates debate, will be concluded. Other legislation to be considered that week will include the first reading of the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2), the second reading of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill, and the committee stage of the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill. On Thursday, 12 September, the Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill will have its first reading. Wednesday, 11 September will be a members’ day.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly the Government’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy, which was released today, and which will help New Zealand be the best place in the world to be a child. As part of that package, children in 30 primary and intermediate schools who are among the most vulnerable will receive a free lunch every day, from term 1 next year, which will make a real difference to reducing hardship.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Crown, through officials, nominees, or any other third party, in any way involved in the negotiations to reach a deal on Ihumātao?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Kīngitanga is leading a process with mana whenua on that matter.
Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fully accept that they are leading a discussion. The question was: is the Crown involved in it?
SPEAKER: And that was not addressed.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Could you repeat it?
SPEAKER: Could the member repeat the question.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Crown, through officials, nominees, or any other third party, in any way involved in the negotiations to reach a deal on Ihumātao?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, to the best of my knowledge, no.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Crown in negotiations to provide a taxpayer-funded loan to either party to purchase private land at Ihumātao?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the process that is being led by the Kīngitanga with mana whenua is an important process to find a resolution there. I do not want to engage in any speculation that would undermine that.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she understand that our questions are not about negotiations between Kīngitanga and mana whenua, but between the Government and Kīngitanga, and will she answer those?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do understand the member’s questions.
Hon Paula Bennett: When she said the Crown is “not a party to the conversations happening at present, but, from our perspective, we know we have obligations”, is one of those obligations to provide taxpayer money to purchase private land at Ihumātao?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the obligations the Prime Minister was referring to were the ones she said yesterday. They are the obligations as a Treaty partner, they are commercial obligations, and they are the obligations to do the right thing on behalf of New Zealanders to bring us together, not seek to divide New Zealanders against each other.
Hon Paula Bennett: What are those commercial obligations?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I said in answer to earlier questions, I am not going to engage in speculation that undermines the process that the Kīngitanga is leading.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she accept that there is a very real public interest in knowing whether taxpayer money is being used to settle the dispute at Ihumātao?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I believe that the public interest is in letting the Kīngitanga play the leadership role that they are playing with mana whenua to resolve this settlement. The Government understands that real leadership comes from knowing where the public interest lies.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think there is public interest in taxpayers being entitled to know if their money is being looked at to be spent on buying private land through the Kīngitanga?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I repeat my previous answer. The public interest lies here in letting Kīngitanga get on with the process of working with mana whenua to deal with an issue that is of great significance to the people in that area. I do not want to do anything that undermines that process.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will she rule out any transfer of taxpayers’ money on any terms whatsoever as part of the deal at Ihumātao?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that is a very similar question to one asked both yesterday and today. The answer to that question is that I do not want to do anything that undermines the process that the Kīngitanga is leading with mana whenua. On this side of the House, we take seriously our responsibilities to draw New Zealanders together, not to seek to divide them against one another. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Before the member asks her question, can I ask for just a little bit more volume turned down while the Minister is answering. I’m having some trouble hearing him because of the interjections from my left.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she take seriously her promise to be the most open and transparent Government ever, when she will not even let the public know whether or not taxpayer funds are being negotiated to buy private land that people are currently illegally occupying?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied with the quality of advice he has received, including from the Treasury?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In general, yes. From time to time I will receive advice that I don’t agree with, but that is the nature of the relationship between the Public Service and the executive.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he satisfied with the advice Treasury gave his Government a year ago, when the Prime Minister was attempting to address the elephant in the room that was low business confidence, now that it has got so much bigger?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On matters to do with business confidence, I do get reports from Treasury. I do note that we have seen advice just in recent days from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), outside of the Public Service, that says that the New Zealand economy is well positioned to deal with the global headwinds we’re facing.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was: is he satisfied with the advice? He said that he’d received advice, but what I wanted to know was: was he satisfied with the advice?
SPEAKER: The member lost me at the introduction of his question. The way that he asked his question, he opened himself right up for any sort of reply. He referred to elephants in rooms, and I think that can be addressed in a number of ways.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has Treasury advised him that his Government’s actions, in adding cost to businesses and families, creating uncertainty around policy, and demonstrating incompetence, particularly in regard to KiwiBuild, have all contributed to the continued collapse in business confidence?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury provide us advice on the nature of our policy proposals from time to time. I don’t believe I’ve heard that specific language that the member is raising in his question there. What I do know is that Treasury advises the Government on the range of economic development proposals we’ve got, and, just as they would have done for the previous Government, they express free and frank opinions from time to time.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he regard the business sentiment figures released today, particularly the decline in business expectations of their own activity into negative territory for the first time, as an indictment on his Government’s economic management?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Is that relevant to the primary question?
SPEAKER: I think it related to one of the answers.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I know is that New Zealand businesses, actually, in large part, in an open export economy, are subject to the headwinds of the global economy—all around the world that is occurring. The good news for New Zealand is that, as the NZIER said yesterday, we’re well positioned to deal with that. The other good news is that although growth in New Zealand is slower than it has been, it is still faster than in Japan, Canada, the UK, the eurozone, and Australia. We still have the lowest unemployment in 11 years. So, yes, there are challenging conditions, but we’re well positioned to deal with them.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was associate transport Minister Julie Anne Genter right when she said the advice Treasury provided the Government in relation to a Government car tax is “wrong”, “totally untenable”, and Treasury is “sceptical of whatever we propose.”?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m sure those are indeed the views of Ms Genter. I certainly agree with her that the advice around the “feebate” scheme is not something I would agree with, but it is not uncommon for Governments to disagree with the advice of Treasury: Bill English on 13 September 2013 “defends ignoring Treasury advice on smelter”; 23 July 2015, “Government ignores Treasury climate advice”; 16 June 2016, “Joyce disagrees with Treasury’s per capita GDP forecast”; 17 June 2016, “John Key dismisses research that finds 90-day trial doesn’t boost employment.”
SPEAKER: OK. I think that the Minister’s made his point.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he satisfied with any advice he’s received from Treasury on how to structure a loan to the Kīngitanga or Tainui so that either could purchase land at Ihumātao?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is asking a hypothetical question.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he requested or received any advice on the impact of events at Ihumātao on the confidence of landowners and developers?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on approaches to Government fiscal management?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: It’s an unchanged Minister, so he can keep going.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s why you’re not going to call me. That’s fair enough too. I’ve seen a number of reports over recent days about how the Government manages its accounts. One report said that the Government books look set to remain in surplus and leave the country in good shape to wear the global headwinds. That’s because we are keeping debt low, at around 20 percent of GDP, with the books in surplus, and we’re investing in infrastructure. I saw another report suggesting that debt was currently at 25 percent of GDP. This is, of course, absolutely wrong, and would indicate the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t know how to read the Crown accounts.
Greg O’Connor: What reports has he seen on approaches to managing public debt?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen a number of reports on different approaches and views on managing debt. Yesterday’s Dominion Post editorial said that the Government and the Opposition were on the same page when it came to what was an appropriate debt target. They based this view on the Opposition spokesperson’s statement that the fiscal approach was “about right”. However, I also heard a different view from the Leader of the Opposition—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member knows what the rules are about cheap shots on supplementaries.
Greg O’Connor: What views has he heard about the alternative approaches to fiscal management?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve heard a wide range of views about fiscal management this week. I’ve heard that our debt is too high, too low, and about right. This is not the “Goldilocks approach” but rather the “Goldsmith approach”. To quote one commentator, “With the greatest respect, I’m entitled to my views. I’ve read the stories.” This is the response, I might say, from the Leader of the Opposition to Mr Goldsmith.
SPEAKER: All right. OK, that’s—thank you.
Question No. 4—Health
4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: How many of the 100 measures of the five reported health targets in the 2018/19 Quarter Three Health Target data file recently loaded on the Ministry of Health web page entitled “How is my DHB performing?” show an improvement on the equivalent measure for quarter one 2017/18, and how many show a reduction in performance?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): For context, I note that the measures do not cover mental health, primary care, acute surgery, workforce issues, or the state of our hospitals, all of which are long-term challenges we’ve inherited. The premise of the member’s question is in fact incorrect, as only 99 measures were loaded—as the member may know, since the information has been publicly available for several weeks. None the less, I am advised that the answer to the first leg of his question is 27, and the answer to the second leg is 61. The remainder are unchanged.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that the fact that 17 of 20 DHBs have poorer immunisation rates than they had when he became Minister is linked to the serious measles outbreak currently being experienced?
SPEAKER: Or vice versa, possibly, yes.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Obviously, questions on immunisation are best directed to the Associate Minister of Health who has responsibility for that portfolio. I will speak to the targets question, though. It is true that our immunisation rates as a country have remained stubbornly around the 90 percent mark since the previous Government introduced a target of 95 percent. It has never been achieved, unfortunately. We do need to immunise more children, and I want to congratulate the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who has recognised that targets don’t immunise children; health professionals do. She’s put more nurses and other health professionals on the ground in South Auckland to do just that.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: In light of that answer, is he not then accepting that fewer health professionals are immunising children than when he came to office?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I would note is that as a result of the targeted measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine campaign that is being run over the period of February to July this year, I’m advised that more than 20,000 more immunisations were dished out than in the same period last year. There is much more work to do in this area. There are big challenges and, unfortunately, some people will not accept the science. But I would encourage everybody who is able to get immunised to get immunised for the sake of those vulnerable people around them, and because it is the right thing to do.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that the fact that 13 of 20 DHBs have poorer performance against the faster cancer treatment target since he became Minister is connected to the lack of a cancer plan on his watch?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. What I know is that we do need to do better, of course, in cancer care, and I do look forward to putting out a comprehensive plan. There are, of course, factors that have played into that, including workforce issues. Our plan will cover the whole spectrum of cancer care, including prevention, screening, treatment, and palliative care. It will be a well-thought-through plan that has been worked through with the sector.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the reason the Government no longer bothers to report the elective surgery measure in the “How is my DHB Performing?” reports a sign that they’ve given up trying to match the previous Government’s excellent record on elective surgery?
SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the question, but only just. The expression of opinion in the tail end of the question should’ve ruled it out.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yeah, Mr Speaker, that’s right. That does border on irony.
SPEAKER: Order! And the member doesn’t comment on my rulings.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would note that under this Government, there has been more acute surgery and there have been more non-admitted procedures. So more people are getting treatment where it is more appropriate for them, more convenient for them, and, indeed, more cost-effective. We’re determined to do better with taxpayer resources than the previous Government.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Doesn’t the latest data show that in the absence of clear targets, performance in key measures of Kiwis’ health is going backwards at an alarming rate?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Absolutely not—absolutely not. Despite nine years of neglect and under-funding by the previous Government, we are determined to tackle the long-term challenges we have inherited. As I noted for the member, we are focused on mental health: rolling out a programme of free front-line care for 325,000 New Zealanders by year five, making sure that people with mild to moderate mental health needs can see a person to support them when they need it. We are the first Government that has really taken mental health seriously. We’ve invested in primary care, making sure that 600,000 New Zealanders now have cheaper doctors’ visits—for many of them, $20 to $30 cheaper. We’re tackling the capital issue, because in our last Budget, we put aside $1.7 billion in capital for our health system; by contrast, the previous Government put aside less than that in the whole nine years they were in office. We’re tackling the workforce issues—
SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 5.
Question No. 5—Social Development
5. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: What sanctions, if any, is the Government proposing to remove as part of its welfare overhaul?
SPEAKER: The Hon Grant Robertson.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: How did you know, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: Because the member stood up.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Barely moved. On behalf of the Minister for Social Development, reviewing the sanctions regime to improve child wellbeing is a priority for this Government. We have already passed legislation to repeal section 192 so that children in sole parent households where the other parent isn’t named aren’t penalised and driven into further poverty. We are also reviewing the subsequent child policy and seeking further advice on the other sanctions suggested for removal by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group.
Hon Louise Upston: Which statement about sanctions for drug testing is correct: Jacinda Ardern, member of Parliament, who said cutting support for drug users would reduce their chances of rehabilitation, or Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. This Minister has no responsibility for the first statement.
Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister agree with the statement from Jacinda Ardern, member of Parliament, who said cutting support for drug users would reduce their chances of rehabilitation, or Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister, who said, “it’s all about making sure it’s appropriate use [of sanctions]”?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I find it’s always important to agree with the Prime Minister—
SPEAKER: No, in this case it’s on behalf of the Minister for Social Development.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister for Social Development, I find it’s always a good idea to agree with the Prime Minister.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree with the statement “Drug sanctions have a negative impact on the unemployed.”; if so, why is she not removing the sanction for failing to pass a drug test?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, the position has been made clear by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Development that, on this side of the House, we believe there are a range of ways of making sure that people look after their children and their family by supporting those families through training, into work, and by getting them into medical facilities. Sanctions are part of a picture for the Government but they are a last resort, as they should be.
Hon Louise Upston: Of the sanctions applied for people failing drug tests, how many have children in their households?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe in the last year, the number is nine, with 16 children involved.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree with Phil Twyford, who said cutting people’s benefits by 50 percent when they have children will “ultimately do severe damage to the child[ren].”?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve been clear that the punitive approach to sanctions used by the previous Government is not something that we would follow. We have never said that there won’t be sanctions in the system, but they are a last resort.
Hon Louise Upston: Why is it OK to cut someone’s benefit for failing a drug test but not for refusing to name the father?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As was made clear during the Budget debate this year, we do not believe that the sanctions that were being applied around the non-disclosure of a parent were actually achieving the goal that they had. We, actually, are very proud of the fact that those children now live in households where they’ll be $34 a week better off than they were, as a result of this. The member opposite knows that sanctions should be used as a last resort. On this side of the House, we’re putting money into case managers at the Ministry of Social Development, to active labour market policies, to supporting people to getting referrals to health services. We believe that sanctions are a last resort.
Question No. 6—Education
6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to support children’s wellbeing in schools?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Today, the coalition Government announced a prototype school lunch programme for 30 primary and intermediate schools, who will receive a free lunch every school day for every student in years 1 to 8, from term 1 next year. This is just one of the 75 initiatives that are in the Government’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy that was launched today. The Government is committed to reducing child poverty and its impact on learning. Providing a healthy and nutritious lunch for children is something that we can start doing now, while we tackle the long-term challenges.
Jan Tinetti: What makes this school lunch programme different from other Government food in schools initiatives in the past?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This prototype services a different need when compared to a lot of the breakfast programmes that exist currently. We’re going to be working with providers in schools to test different ways of delivering nutritious, safe, and appealing lunches that are packaged sustainably and that represent value for money for students and for the Government. The programme’s initially being run in Hawke’s Bay - Tairāwhiti, the Bay of Plenty - Waiariki—
Kiritapu Allan: Hear, hear!
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —and Otago and Southland will follow. These regions are chosen because they collectively represent a range of different school types, sizes, urban and rural locations, and different student needs across the whole of New Zealand. Up to 21,000 students across 120 schools will benefit from the prototype.
SPEAKER: Order! Before we go any further, I’m going to indicate to Kiritapu Allan that she is not going to interject again during this question time.
Jan Tinetti: Why has the Government taken a prototype approach to the Food in Schools programme?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We recognise that there will be a lot of schools that will be interested in accessing a programme like this. However, we’ve decided to implement it on a limited scale initially, because providing a lunch to thousands of students is actually a complex and expensive undertaking, and we would rather do it well for a few, as we scale that programme up, than do it poorly for many, by rushing it. We want to get this right for schools and make it work for them so that the programme is manageable and sustainable.
Jan Tinetti: What are the benefits of starting a food in schools programme for the children in those schools?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Being hungry is an impediment to concentration and to learning. Children themselves told us, during the Education Conversation, that they want the basics, including a free and healthy lunch in school, to ensure that they are able and well and can learn. This prototype starts to ensure that they’re fed and that they have the best chance to succeed. These are just some of the reasons why we’re working with the 20 percent of schools with the highest concentrations of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. The evidence suggests that food insecurity will be a bigger problem for the students in these schools.
Jan Tinetti: What other actions has the Government taken to improve child wellbeing?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s made a significant investment in our children’s and families’ wellbeing, investing over a billion dollars into improving the care system, supporting families, and better care for those children and young people. Reducing child poverty is a key goal of this Government, and $5.5 billion put in through the Families Package and initiatives in the Wellbeing Budget will raise 50,000 to 74,000 children out of poverty. And, of course, we put extra funding into schools that don’t ask parents for donations—something that we know has been a driver of inequality in our school system.
Question No. 7—Transport
7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she stand by all of her statements, policies, and actions?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Yes.
Chris Bishop: Does she stand by her statement, “Treasury is wrong. It looks like they’re just default sceptical of whatever we propose.”, and has she considered altering her default instincts to tax and ban things?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: In answer to the first part, yes, it is Treasury’s role to be sceptical, and I think that’s important.
Chris Bishop: Who made the decisions to alter the recommended programme of investment devised by the Let’s Get Wellington Moving governance group, and do those decisions explain why the second Terrace tunnel and State Highway 1 undergrounding are not part of the final package?
SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to ask his question without an assertion in it at the beginning.
Chris Bishop: Well, sorry, Mr Speaker, what—
SPEAKER: Who made the decision to make the changes.
Chris Bishop: Are you saying that’s an assertion?
SPEAKER: Well, I have not seen any evidence, as part of this question series, that that occurred, so the member could probably add “if any” in there, and he’d get there.
Chris Bishop Who made the decisions to alter the recommended programme of investment devised by the Let’s Get Wellington Moving governance group, if any, and do those decisions explain why the second Terrace tunnel and State Highway 1 undergrounding are not part of the final Let’s Get Wellington Moving package?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask for your advice on this about the relationship to the primary question. It does seem to be a substantial question that’s unrelated to statements that I’ve made.
SPEAKER: Well, I think there’s a—
Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.
SPEAKER: No, I don’t need it—I think there’s certainly a suggestion that there’s a Government policy, or an action of a Government agency involved. The member hasn’t—when I gave him a hand with the question—made an assertion that it had actually happened. It was a question about whether it happened or not, and, if so—I mean, it’s relatively easy for the Minister, I think, to deal with.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The final Let’s Get Wellington Moving Cabinet paper was informed by official advice, cross-party and ministerial consultation, as is the case with all Cabinet decisions. There’s nothing unusual about that. Cabinet made the final decision in order to support the aspirations of Wellingtonians to have a functional public transport, which the previous Government failed to deliver.
Chris Bishop: Is it correct, as the New Zealand Transport Agency said to select committee this morning, that they had no involvement in writing the Cabinet paper relating to the final Let’s Get Wellington Moving package, and, if that is correct, why was the Transport Agency not involved?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It would be highly unusual for the Transport Agency to be involved in writing a Cabinet paper.
SPEAKER: Yes, and there is also a responsibility question which I should’ve picked the member up on, but keep going—I won’t rule it out subsequently, retrospectively.
Chris Bishop: Well, OK—
SPEAKER: It’s not this Minister’s Cabinet paper, is it?
Chris Bishop: Well, the announcement about the Let’s Get Wellington Moving package was a joint announcement by both Ministers.
SPEAKER: But the member asked specifically about the writing of the Cabinet paper, which isn’t this member’s responsibility.
Chris Bishop: Well, I’m not sure that’s correct, but OK. Supplementary—
SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? The member asked about the Cabinet paper, which, my understanding is—because, you know, we have had the Cabinet paper floating around on a number of occasions; it was a paper in the name of Mr Twyford.
Hon Grant Robertson: Shall we just carry on?
SPEAKER: We’ll keep going, shall we?
Chris Bishop: Has she written any letters, in her capacity as Associate Minister of Transport, as well as the Green Party transport spokesperson, in relation to the idea of banning petrol and diesel cars from being imported into New Zealand?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No.
Question No. 8—Police
8. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Police: My question is to the Minister of Police, whom I’d intended to wish a very happy birthday. How many prohibited firearms have been handed in per collection event on average as part of the gun buy-back scheme, and how many prohibited firearms does he expect will be handed in at the remaining 81 collection events currently scheduled?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Police: On behalf of the Minister, I thank that member for his birthday wishes, but he won’t be invited to the party. To the first part of the question—
Hon Members: Aww!
SPEAKER: I do want to remind the member that he is answering on behalf of the Minister of Police, who sometimes has a different view on these matters.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think I was fully in the spirit of my colleague’s feelings on this matter. To the first part of the question, police have advised that, since the buy-back events began six weeks ago, 9,800 firearm owners have handed in more than 15,700 firearms and 58,500 prohibited parts. That means that, on average, it is more than 100 firearms per event. It should be noted, however, that it’s not just the collection events where firearms are making their way into the hands of the police; there are dealer collections; there are permanent firearm modifications, which makes them legal; bulk pickups and station drops as well—they are all channels by which firearms are being collected. To the second part of the question, from the beginning we have said that we don’t know how many firearms there are in circulation, which is why we need a register. We do know there are 14,300 registered military-style semi-automatics. There are an estimated 1.2 million to 1.5 million firearms in circulation, but the vast majority are not prohibited. There are four months to go on the buy-back scheme and the amnesty, and it is early days.
David Seymour: How does the Minister intend to increase the number of firearms collected at each collection event by a factor of 20, which is what will be required, given the credible estimates of numbers out there?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, that member’s version of a credible estimate is his view. The reality is that firearms are being surrendered. Prices being offered are being accepted. Of those 9,800 firearm owners who have surrendered firearms, 40 have challenged the price offered to them in exchange for their firearms. So all the indicators are that the buy-back scheme is going well. The indications from those participating in the large-scale collection events are that the mood is good and people are satisfied with the way they are being treated.
David Seymour: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request response from customs, dated February 2018, showing 136,000 firearms imported in one five-year period alone.
SPEAKER: Fair enough. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. But I will remind the member—I should have pulled him up earlier on his maths—I think it was a factor of five, not 40. But keep going.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
David Seymour: I said 20, but, as a supplementary question, will this Government consider extending the amnesty period past 20 December if the numbers of firearms being handed in at events don’t improve on what they are now?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Again, on behalf of the Minister, no, because all the indications are that the buy-back scheme is going according to plan. Firearms are also being surrendered by way of the amnesty scheme. They are firearms that are not prohibited; they are firearms that have made their way into people’s hands who may not have a licence or are just people who are saying, “I don’t want to have a firearm any more, and I’m not looking for a payment back for it. I just want to surrender it.” So all of those things are happening, and things are going, largely, according to plan.
Ginny Andersen: What reports has the Minister seen about how the buy-back events are being run?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, the buy-back scheme has been described by the Nelson Mail as “the best thing”, and Mr Ian Robinson, who handed in his two firearms—an AK-47 and a pump-action .22 calibre rifle—said, and he was referring to the weapons that he had, “It’s the most barbaric thing on earth. They’re only there to kill people. So the best thing for it is for it to go through the bender.”—that’s the firearms to go through the bender, not him, obviously; he’s not going to the pub. From The Timaru Herald, somebody else, who preferred to remain anonymous, said, “I’ve got some Muslim friends and it’s not something you’d think would happen here.” And about the buy-back, he said, “It’s the right thing to do. It’s the only thing to do.” And The Northland Age described the turnout at the event up there as “a phenomenal response from Northlanders”. Law-abiding firearms owners know that this is the right thing to do, and they are participating accordingly.
Brett Hudson: How many firearms does the Minister believe were made prohibited by the 2019 Arms Act amendments?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, that is, of course, an absurd question because we just don’t know. We know that 14,300 military-style semi-automatics were registered, and we are going through the buy-back scheme—15,800 firearms have been surrendered and paid for as part of that buy-back. But the whole objective of this exercise is to remove dangerous firearms, when they are not needed, to make our communities safer. That member should stop getting lines out of the National Rifle Association playbook and do what’s in the interests of all New Zealanders.
Hon Grant Robertson: In reference to the previous member’s supplementary question, would it be significantly easier to give an accurate assessment on the number of weapons if, for instance, there was a register of weapons?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, well, that is why the Government has foreshadowed that it intends to introduce legislation to provide exactly for that—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Both of you.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —so that the police—and they are the ones who every day are turning up to events where their lives are at risk because they simply don’t know whether some of the people they’re dealing with have firearms or not. A register would help enormously.
Brett Hudson: Did he receive advice from the New Zealand Police that it could be 240,000 or more firearms that are now made illegal?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On—
Brett Hudson: Yes, you did.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —behalf of the Minister—
SPEAKER: Order! Who interjected that? Well, the member’s lost his question.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister seen suggestions that the Government should have gone further in the first firearms amendment bill and included a firearms register in that bill, and, if so, who made that suggestion?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, I understand that it was Judith Collins who had made that suggestion.
Brett Hudson: Is he concerned that on current hand-in numbers, he is likely to see fewer than 50,000 firearms handed in?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not quite sure how meaningful that question is. The whole thing is, we know the number of registered military-style semi-automatics that there are and we’ve now exceeded that number in terms of firearms that have been handed in as part of the collection. We just don’t know how many there might be. We made a best estimate. We took a stab in the dark—no pun intended—with what we had, but when you look at those who are turning up to the events and you look at the throughput of firearms that are being surrendered, as well as those that have been dropped off at police stations, as well as those who are contacting the police for pickups of multiple firearms, as well as those who are surrendering firearms as part of the amnesty, we are very pleased with the progress that is being made.
David Seymour: I seek leave to ask an additional supplementary question for a very specific reason. I think a lot of people in the House—
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member seeks leave to ask another supplementary question. Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is. The member has had four this week.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise this isn’t a normal convention, but the National Party is prepared to transfer one of its supplementaries—
SPEAKER: And the rules are that if the National Party is going to transfer to Mr Seymour, they do it before question time, as they did today—two questions.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I seek leave to transfer one of the remaining supplementary questions the National Party has to the ACT Party.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? No there’s not.
David Seymour: Has the Minister received advice from the police that there may be as many as 240,000 firearms prohibited under April’s legislation?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister I can’t recall that advice, and as I’m answering on behalf, I simply have not seen that advice.
Question No. 9—Education
9. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister of Education: Will student, staff, and Māori representation be guaranteed in the governing arrangements for the new unified vocational education and training system; if so, how?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and I do want to acknowledge the member’s advocacy in this area. The Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill requires that the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology will establish three advisory committees representing staff, students, and Māori, and each of these committees will then elect a member to the governing council of the institute.
Chlöe Swarbrick: How will this ensure that the voices of students and staff around the regions of this country are heard?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The staff and student committees will be elected from students and staff of the institute respectively, and the law will require that each committee consists of people representing a minimum of each of the substantial regional divisions of the institute.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will Māori-Crown relationships be reflected in the oversight of the vocational education reforms more generally?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, absolutely. We heard pretty clearly through the consultation that Māori want to be more involved in the Crown’s work to redesign our education system so that it does better meet the needs of Māori, and that’s the reason that the Government is currently seeking nominations for Te Taumata Aronui, which will be a group that will help us to develop tertiary education policy, including the reform of vocational education, and ensure that Māori community and employer perspectives are better considered.
Question No. 10—Education
10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements, actions, and policies around the reform of vocational education?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, the RoVE bill, states, more than once, “This clause overrides—(a) Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act”, a clause that offers job protection to vulnerable workers?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, in so far as it relates to people who are offered employment in the new institute or in the new arrangements. It’s a relatively common provision that was included in several pieces of legislation passed under the last Government as well, that says that people should not get redundancy where they’re offered—if it’s the clause that I think the member’s referring to, that suggests they shouldn’t be offered redundancy if they’re offered a comparable job.
Dr Shane Reti: If polytechnic subsidiary workers are not offered new jobs in the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, will they have no remedy under Part 6A?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: They’d be made redundant.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that the RoVE bill states that specific parts override “any employment protection provision in any relevant employment agreement.”?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Sorry, can the member repeat the question?
Dr Shane Reti: Sure. Can he confirm that the RoVE bill states that specific parts override “any employment protection provision in any relevant employment agreement.”?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the bit that the member is referring to, I think I addressed in my answer to the last question. These provisions have been used in other legislation as well to ensure that where there is a restructuring and someone is offered the same job—they’re basically offered their job back but under a different employer—then, actually, their employment relationship is, basically, deemed to be continuous.
Hon Grant Robertson: In reference to the previous supplementary question from the member opposite, can the member confirm who voted for and who voted against Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do believe that the members opposite voted against that particular provision in the Employment Relations Act, and that the members on this side of the House, of course, voted in favour of it.
Dr Shane Reti: What are some examples of employment protection provisions that this bill can override for workers who are made redundant?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think I addressed that in my earlier answers.
Question No. 11—Environment
11. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for the Environment: Why has he declined Westpower’s application to construct a run-of-river hydro scheme on the Waitaha River, and is he aware that the Department of Conservation supported it?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: On behalf of Minister, the decision was made in accordance with section 17U(3) and section 17W(1) of the Conservation Act. The Minister carefully considered all relevant material, including submissions and reports, before making the decision. The Minister notes, for the benefit of the member, that the Department of Conservation did not back the proposal, nor did they have the legal authority to decide whether the concession should be approved or declined. In fact, as the record shows, the hearing commissioner who heard submissions on behalf of the Director-General of Conservation recommended that the application be declined. In declining the application, the Minister said, “The area has near pristine levels of natural character and has a general lack of human modification, and I believe the presence of the weir and intake structure above or within Morgan Gorge would significantly change the recreational experience of those who use the area, and diminish the intrinsic value of the area.”
Maureen Pugh: What does he say to West Coast residents, who pay some of the highest electricity prices in the country, that this opportunity to produce clean, renewable, cheaper energy has gone and they will need to continue using coal and gas?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On behalf of the Minister, I would tell the residents of the West Coast that they shouldn’t listen to such ridiculous scaremongering, that this is a Government that is committed to a 100 percent renewable strategy, and I would remind that member we’re talking about a 20 megawatt run-of-river dam. There is currently 3 gigawatts of consented but unbuilt renewable generation in this country.
Maureen Pugh: Has he had any discussion with the Minister of Energy—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member might like to start rephrasing that question.
Maureen Pugh: Has the Minister had any discussion with the Minister of Energy and Resources on the ability for New Zealand to double electricity generation over the next 30 years, as forecast by Transpower, if all of this increased generation is required to have less conservation impact than the Waitaha River proposal?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On behalf of the Minister, I can categorically assure that member that in regard to this decision, I did not have any discussions with the Minister of Energy and Resources. I have, however, had many discussions more broadly around the ambitious and necessary work that this Government is undertaking in terms of 100 percent renewable energy. I will note for the member’s benefit that I did have a conversation today with the Minister of Energy and Resources in preparing for this question.
Hon Grant Robertson: Was it worthwhile?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It’s always a worthwhile conversation but it was not in her capacity as the Minister of Energy and Resources.
Maureen Pugh: How can New Zealand transition to 100 percent renewable electricity if proposals—that, in the words of Westpower chair, Mike Newcombe, “We put up a proposal that ticks all the boxes: renewable, sustainable energy, long-term regional economic development boost, careful environmental stewardship”—are declined?
SPEAKER: Order! Too long.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On behalf of the Minister, yes, we do want more renewables, and that is why this Government has a commitment to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035. The National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation, that was brought in by the last Labour Government but promulgated by National in 2011, does not mean that every application needs to be accepted. I would also note for that member’s benefit that, actually, the economic benefits that the member is talking about are explicitly excluded from the things that the Minister could take into account when making this statutory decision.
Question No. 12—Health
12. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress is the Government making on cancer care and control?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Every day, on average, 66 people are diagnosed with cancer. They deserve world-class cancer care, no matter who they are or no matter where they live. Currently, we know that that is not always the case. There are regional variations in the standard of care, and Māori and Pacific people experience poorer outcomes. We won’t address those issues without strong central leadership and action across the full spectrum of cancer control, from screening and prevention to treatment and palliative care. On Sunday, we will be releasing a comprehensive cancer action plan that delivers just that. At the same time, we will be announcing several immediate actions to improve cancer care and control.
Dr Liz Craig: How will the cancer action plan build on the recent announcement of funding for new linear accelerators?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The announcement earlier this month regarding 12 replacement linear accelerators (LINACs) shows clearly this Government’s approach to cancer. By putting LINACs into Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, and Northland for the first time, we are making radiation treatment more accessible and more convenient. I’d also note that the recent announcement from Pharmac that it is looking to fund two new cancer medicines, Kadcyla and Alectinib, will also increase access to cancer treatment.
Dr Liz Craig: So what progress is the Government making in screening for cancers?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Screening programmes save lives by detecting cancers early, improving the chances of successful treatment. Since coming into Government, we have pushed ahead with the roll-out of the National Bowel Screening Programme, which is now operating in eight DHBs, covering 323,000 people aged 60 to 74 years, nationwide. In the last two years, more than 320 New Zealanders have had their bowel cancers detected early, thanks to this important programme, and hundreds more have had potentially cancerous polyps removed. The Government is also committed to progressively increasing the upper age limit for free breast cancer - screening from 70 to 74—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just say that some people regard this as a relatively serious matter, and having fatuous comments across the House doesn’t help.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Just to finish, the Government is also committed to progressively increasing the upper age limit for free breast cancer - screening from 70 to 74.
Bills
Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider that bill, and at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 10 February 2020.
This Government is committed to creating a strong, unified, and sustainable vocational education system in this country. The world of work is changing rapidly and changing significantly, and how New Zealanders learn needs to change and needs to adapt to stay ahead of the significant changes in the way we work. The trends driving the future of work will change the skills that are needed in all jobs. It will see people changing jobs and careers much more frequently over the course of their working lives, and our vocational educational system that we’ve got today is not geared up for this future.
There are four big challenges that we have with our current system. First, we need to address the serious skill shortages that we face across a number of our industries. New Zealand is experiencing persistent and widespread skill shortages that highlight significant imperfections in our vocational education and training system.
Secondly, the vocational education and training system that we have now is far too disjointed and it does not always meet the needs of learners, employers, or our regions. We currently have two separate vocational education and training systems—the system offered through industry training organisations, who primarily support on-the-job training, and the providers who are primarily delivering off-the-job training—and each of them have a different funding system and a different regulatory system to support their activities. People are uncertain about how to begin training or learning, how to progress, and, particularly, how to move between on-the-job and off-the-job training and ensure that their learning is recognised as they do so. The system needs organisations that consider the needs of both the learners and employers at the same time, or otherwise neither those learners nor the employers are getting what they want.
Thirdly, many of our institutes of technology and polytechs are facing big challenges. That is widely known and it’s been widely canvassed. Some of our institutes of technology and polytechs have continued to experience growth and are high-performing institutions, but others have suffered from falling domestic enrolments over recent years.
Fourth—and critically important—employers have told us that the lack of input that they have into the off-the-job learning and training that’s taking place at the moment is frustrating, and it’s meaning that the skills that they need are not being delivered. The industry training organisations (ITOs), of course, were originally conceived of as standard-setting bodies for the whole system, but in reality they don’t have that much ability to influence and shape the off-the-job education and training that is currently being delivered. So even though they represent industry and they bring that industry voice to the table, they have been frustrated that a significant part of what’s delivered through vocational education and training at the moment, they don’t have sufficient influence over.
So this bill will create a unified and cohesive vocational education and training system to help us prepare for the future of the workplace. It establishes a single regulatory framework for vocational education and training, it enables workforce development councils to be established that are going to give industry much greater leadership across the whole of our vocational education and training system, it establishes the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology to provide and support a range of vocational education and training, and it provides for a smooth transition of functions and responsibilities from the systems that we have now to the new system.
The current polytech and industry training systems operate and are funded independently of each other. This dual system, stemming from two different pieces of law, is legislatively and operationally quite complex. The bill’s going to integrate vocational education and work-based training into one piece of law. It’ll create a new single system for all vocational education and training. To do this, it’ll amend the Education Act 1989, including integrating the provisions of the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Act 1992 and then repealing it.
The bill will enable the establishment of workforce development councils by Order in Council to represent one or more industry, and we’ll be working with industry to decide how industry coverage will be grouped together. Those conversations have already started, and people are excited and engaged in those. To have effective vocational education, industry must have a greater say in what people are teaching.
Workforce development councils will get to decide if programmes are fit for purpose, whether they are best delivered on the job, through something like an apprenticeship or an industry traineeship, or whether they’re taught on campus or online or by a combination of those different delivery methods. Unless a programme has the workforce development council’s confidence—effectively, industry’s confidence—it won’t be approved and it won’t get funded. They’ll also provide advice to the Tertiary Education Commission on their funding decisions more generally, and they’ll get to determine the mix of training that’s being delivered to meet the needs of their industries.
Given their powerful oversight role, they will not be directly involved in running apprenticeships or other forms of on-the-job training because instead we’re bringing together on-the-job and off-the-job training to create a seamless system. So as workforce development councils take the place of ITOs, the role of supporting apprentices and other on-job training will move to the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology or other providers, including wānanga and private training establishments. This will create a much tighter connection between these trainees and those who are doing off-job training in the same fields, and it will give them access to a much better range of learning and pastoral support, and we’ll be working with the sector to ensure that we retain existing capability and expertise as these functions transfer across.
Communities value what their institutes of technology and polytechs do, and too many of them are seeing those institutions shrinking or disappearing. We want to make sure that the best of what they’re doing now continues, but we also understand that the financial problems that many of them have mean that they simply cannot continue as they are.
Our Government is committed to ensuring that high-quality vocational education and training is available in all regions, and to do that the majority of vocational education and training provision will be delivered through a single national institute. The bill establishes the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology to provide, arrange, and support a range of workplace, on-campus, and online learning. It will bring together the 16 existing organisations to operate as a unified, sustainable public network of regionally accessible vocational education. It will be a degree-granting provider, and it will offer everything from degrees through to foundational learning. They’ll have a greater ability to create pathways throughout the system. It will have a new focus and a new culture, different from the institutions that are being integrated into it, meaning that all of the regions will be able to share resources, support each other, and share accountability to deliver higher performance.
The bill includes a charter that the institute must give effect to. The charter will ensure that the institute will be responsive to the needs of all regions throughout New Zealand. It ensures that the institute offers a mix of education and training in each region, including on-the-job, face-to-face, and distance delivery, and it ensures that the institute must meet the needs of all learners, in particular those who are under-served by the education system, including Māori, Pacific, and disabled learners. It’s going to develop meaningful partnerships with industry and communities, including hapū, iwi, and Pacific communities.
We know these changes are significant, and we know that they’ll take time. They will mean changing functions of many organisations, which will change the relationship they have with their staff, with their learners, and with their stakeholders. So there are a range of changes that come into force on 1 April 2020. Students and the staff of the polytechs and institutes of technology will transfer to the subsidiaries of the institute on the commencement of that Act. There will then be a transition period until 31 December 2022 to allow time for the functions to transfer to the new organisation at an appropriate time, and, in the meantime, the current system will continue to support learners and to support those who currently work in it.
For work-based training, industry training organisations will become transitional ITOs. They’ll develop transition plans detailing how their activities will transfer to workforce development councils and to providers, to support the providers in the transfer of those responsibilities. This will allow current training arrangements to continue to operate until the time is right for them to transfer.
So, together, these changes introduced through this bill create a unified and cohesive system of vocational education and training that will respond effectively to local needs. The system created by this bill will better serve our economy and all New Zealanders. So I commend this bill to the House.
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start by briefly acknowledging that I cannot be at the graveside just north of Whangarei this afternoon of my friend and colleague Pita Paraone. I say to him, e rangatira, e moe, e moe, e moe ana [my leader, rest, rest, rest in peace].
Today it’s my privilege to lead the National Party fight against these vocational education reforms—reforms that are the most damaging tertiary sector reforms in the past 30 years. Today we fight for the 18,000 learners who will disappear due to these reforms. Today we fight for the 2,310 apprentices who will disappear. Today we fight for the 11 industry training organisations, who will disappear, and today we fight for our 16 polytechnics, who, under these reforms, lose their autonomy and bend their knee to the all-powerful Minister. We fight for them because it truly is all about you.
On one level, I want to actually thank the Minister. On one level, while these are damaging reforms to the tertiary sector, they are useful for an Opposition tertiary education and health spokesman. They provide tools that we will take to 2020 and that the New Zealand public can decide on. There are tools—it’s just a battery of tools across the education portfolio—from the fees-free flop; here now today to the reform of vocational education; in the hands of my very excellent and skilled colleague Nikki Kaye, Tomorrow Schools; and all welded together by the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Dr Parmjeet Parmar.
In response to the Ministers’ introduction, I will talk to four things: job losses, loss of autonomy, the breaking of industry linkages, and assessment of the reforms. Now, the background to the reforms is primarily around polytechnics, and I will use the wider and general context of polytechnics when I say that because there are excellent polytechnics in the North and South Island. In the South Island there is Southern Institute of Technology (SIT), Ara Institute of Canterbury, and Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. In the North Island, Eastern Institute of Technology and UCOL are excellent polytechnics. However, with these exceptions—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Otago’s pretty good.
Dr SHANE RETI: Otago is excellent as well. You’re quite right. However, with these exceptions, the polytechnic sector might be considered as broken. And, you know, there were parts that were broken in our hands too, I acknowledge that. However, there are several reasons why we find ourselves in this situation: falling learner numbers due to a well-performing economy and fewer school leavers, poor leadership from the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), polytechnics can have expensive assets and poor asset utilisation, funding mechanisms that did not support the outcomes we all desire, and dual funding making mechanisms—the Industry Training Fund with STEM funding and TEC with SAC funding of providers.
To address what the Government has said in response to some of these issues, I’d make two points: while polytechnic numbers have gone down, apprentices and learners in the vocational system have gone up in the past five years—polytechnic numbers down, industry learners up, which system is broken? Which system do you think is broken?
The Minister also talks and spends a lot of time in previous Cabinet documents about the dual funding mechanism. What he’s talking about there is industry funding and provider funding through polytechnics. Now, the definition of vocational training excludes degree learning nurses and social workers. So, under these reforms, at any given polytechnic you will have vocationally funded learners and then the degree-level funding—dual systems. So all this does is further support dual funding systems, and take them from outside the polytechnic sector and put dual funding systems inside the polytechnic sector.
I would make the point that industry was not broken; polytechnics, some of them, were broken. What the Minister has done is use 150,000 industry trainees to fix the polytechnic enrolment problem. He even told Skills Active Aotearoa words to that effect. “I took something from the polytechnics”—meaning their autonomy—“and so I had to give them something back”, meaning industry learners. Industry has been horse traded for polytechnics.
I want to talk to job losses. I will stand behind statements I have made that there will be thousands of jobs lost in these reforms. I’ll submit 1,000 to 1,300 in the ITO sector, and at least a further 1,000 in the polytechnic sector. Here is the evidence. First of all, the Minister has already confirmed that there could be significant job losses on Q+A earlier this year. Secondly, the 11 ITOs will be disestablished on 1 April next year and eventually shrunk into four to six workforce development councils. Industry moderators, curriculum developers, and pastoral care experts, they will go. Point three: the 16 polytechnics will be condensed into one mega-polytechnic. What the programme business case tells us around cost savings—page 43, table 13, under “Efficiency benefits”—is this. That’s the code for loss of jobs—efficiency benefits. “Efficiency benefits of $130 million in management team savings”. That’s jobs. That’s the jobs right there: management team savings, $130 million of them. That’s not power savings, it’s not fleet savings, it’s not capital project savings, but management team savings. These are your jobs.
Now, following on from job losses, there is a very, very nasty employment issue in this bill for polytechnic employees. It goes like this: Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act is there to protect vulnerable workers, which in tertiary education are cleaners, food workers, and laundry staff. Now, what Part 6A says is that if you are a vulnerable worker and the business is sold or reconfigured, then the incoming entity has to guarantee your job.
Now, on 1 April, polytechnics become subsidiaries. And this is a reconfiguration that meets that definition. So vulnerable polytechnic workers would have been guaranteed a job in the subsidiaries, except this blinded Labour - New Zealand First Government has written this into the bill. This clause overrides Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. This bill overrides protections for vulnerable polytechnic workers who might lose their jobs on 1 April next year when they form a subsidiary. The “Government of the people”—the “party of the workers”—doesn’t think twice about vulnerable workers when they want to drive through their ideology. Even if you are not a vulnerable worker, you will still be caught up, because every employment contract has to have an employment protection provision for exactly these situations when the business is sold or reconfigured.
Here’s how the bill catches everyone else. This clause overrides any employment protection provision in any relevant employment contract. This bill and this Labour - New Zealand First Government will ride roughshod over the rights of vulnerable workers and every polytechnic employee.
It actually gets worse. This just deals to polytechnic employees at the moment who transition into the subsidiary. In two years’ time those subsidiary workers, if they’re suitable and if there’s a job, transfer into the mega-polytechnic. That’s actually covered as well, because what it says about that transition—and as the Minister answered in oral questions today, if there is no job for you, you will be made redundant. And here’s the spinner if you are, that clause that would have given you those protections is overridden in this bill—Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act. Again, any employment protection provisions are also overwritten.
Where is the Tertiary Education Union on this? Where are they fighting for the union members? Don’t worry, the National Party will fight for workers because it’s all about you. If these guys won’t, we will. We’re the only voice in the job loss space at the moment.
Here is how many people could be affected in each of your polytechnics: small Tai Poutini Polytechnic, 168 headcount; NorthTec, a small size, 319; SIT, a medium size, 624 headcount; and the biggest, Ara in Canterbury, 1,400.
I then want to move on to a loss of autonomy. Under these reforms the voice of local people will be lost. What courses are taught, where, and how will be decided by the workforce development councils—the regional skills mix decided by the workforce development councils. Academic freedom—every polytechnic currently has an academic freedom board, they all get formed into one, and the mega-polytechnic has the only one academic freedom board. Interestingly, they have to give regard to the workforce development councils. Wow, let’s see the academics talk about their bridge of academic freedom in that. Polytechnic governance and community involvement are all breached under this bill. We’ve already talked about cash reserves and capital projects. This bill reduces autonomy for local people.
Industry training: under these reforms 15,000 industry trainers will leave industry and come under the control of the one mega-polytechnic. There are several issues we have with this. What happens to small ITOs like the Hairdressing Industry Training Organisation? Who speaks for them? There’s real risk that their 2,000 to 4,000 learners and apprentices will be swallowed up by big ITOs and their voices will be lost. We fight for those hairdressers, because it’s all about you too.
There are a number of things we could talk about. If we look at the independent assessment, if we look at what the Tertiary Education Commission and what Treasury have said, they have said these reforms will fail. The Minister acknowledges there are 18,000 learners who will be lost in this process—2,310 apprentices will be lost. These reforms will fail.
So today, it’s my privilege to lead the National Party fight against these educational reforms. We will fight for the learners, we will fight for the apprentices, we will fight for the ITOs, and we’ll fight for the polytechnics, who under these reforms lose their autonomy and bend their knee to the all-powerful Minister. We fight for them because it is truly about you. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Education): I stand here proud to be part of this Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. The previous speaker Dr Shane Reti stated that they are fighting for the polytechnics, for our learners, and that they are apparently going to be a voice for the unions—they are going to be a better voice than the Tertiary Education Union, apparently. Let me be clear: if we had continued down National’s approach of doing nothing—doing absolutely nothing—we would have risked losing the polytechnics altogether, some of them. We would have risked that. Over the past two years, this coalition Government has actually put through $100 million because of the non-response from the last National Government. If they had continued being in Government, tinkering around the edges, not actually listening to the polytechnic sector, that is exactly where it would’ve ended.
Just in 2017 alone, this Government put in $53 million, because this is the amount of money that we needed to ensure that our sector, basically, survives. It is indeed laughable that we are in this current debate and we have the previous Government—if I’m to speak just about building and construction, there is a mismatch between the numbers of skilled people that we need and the numbers of skilled people that the last National Government left us with. We came in; the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was pretty clear about the numbers of skilled people in building and construction that we needed: at least 30,000 people. What did the last Government do to ensure that that was addressed? Not enough, because if they had, we wouldn’t have ended up with such a huge mismatch in skills.
This is one of the reasons—one of many reasons—why we are reforming vocational education, to ensure not only that our polytechnics survive but that they are actually really strong. For the previous speaker to say that apparently the regions will no longer have a voice—absolutely untrue. Instead of spreading misinformation, the National Party needs to front up with what their plan is. What is their plan to save the sector that so badly needed to be addressed over nine long years? I am really proud to be working with the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, who is indeed doing a lot—a whole lot—to ensure that we fix the education sector.
Can I just go through some of the things that we’re doing in terms of fixing this educational sector, which the Hon Chris Hipkins is leading. He has a plan to ensure that we build up our schooling and education system. There is actually a split in the vocational education system, but one of the pieces of misinformation that the previous speaker is also spreading—if I can quote from the bill itself, the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, it states in clause 33 of Schedule 1, “Transfer of employees”, and I quote, “(1) On and after the commencement date, every employee of an existing polytechnic becomes an employee (a transferred employee) of the polytechnic’s corresponding NZIST subsidiary on the same terms and conditions that applied to the person immediately before they became an employee of the corresponding NZIST subsidiary.”
As I said, the spreading of misinformation is not at all helpful—because that is all it is: misinformation. It is all set out in the legislation. All of the employees currently will be transferred, on the existing terms and conditions. It is not one where all of these employees, as the previous speaker said, are apparently going to lose their employment.
There are so many challenges that we are facing, but let me address four of the challenges that this legislation will be addressing in terms of the current system. Challenge one: the skills shortages across so many of the sectors. There are persistent and widespread skills shortages across so many industries. Building and construction is just one. Health is another. When we look at mental health workers, yes, we’ve come through with a plan—$1.9 billion we’re investing in mental health—but it will take some time to train up the mental health workers that we need, because we were left with so much need in this space by the previous Government.
The second challenge, which I spoke about just earlier on, is the split in the vocational education system. We currently have two vocational education systems. Industry training organisations—ITOs—support on-the-job training, and providers including polytechnics deliver off-the-job training. We have a type of funding that we would ensure in having—making sure that we have a national system. We’re making sure that we create a unified system with a single regulatory framework, which is what we’re introducing in this legislation.
Challenge number three: there is a lack of industry input, and this is something that I hear, especially when I go out and talk to so many in the building and construction sector. They tell us that some of the skilled people that come through from the off-the-job training are not actually skilled enough with the kinds of skills that they need. They would like—employers, that is—to have more input, and this new system would ensure that they absolutely have more input. We are putting the industry in charge through the workforce development councils to ensure that they have a say and to ensure that there is a better match of the skills that our employers and our industry need.
One of the things that we did in Opposition is we did a lot of work on what’s called the Future of Work. What that particular work told us was that there is automation; there are so many things that are coming through that we need to address. Having a unified system would ensure that we deliver to those who are already in work that need better learning, that need better skills—that they are actually trained. So it’s not just about the young people who are not yet in polytechnics or within our ITOs, this is also about ensuring that we provide training for those who are currently in work but need re-skilling.
One of the things that we also did was we went out and we spoke with people out there in the community; if I’m to refer to some of the meetings that we held out in South Auckland where we actually asked our leaders who are Pacific to give us their ideas on what it is that we need in the new, improved system to ensure that our Pacific learners actually get to better-skilled jobs.
So that was one of the questions we posed: what does success look like and what does success feel like for our Pacific learners? The messages that were coming through from our leaders, from our students, and from our trainers—some of them worked in all of the systems, some worked in ITOs, some worked in polytechnics. We also had student leaders there. They spoke of how they wanted to be involved, they wanted to have a say in the new system. They also spoke of the different journeys that many of them took—that they didn’t just leave high school and go directly to a polytechnic or go directly to training with an ITO. Many of them actually went through a different journey, and they also wanted that to be addressed in the new system.
Many of them also spoke—whether they were trainers or learners within the system—about how they did not feel included in the current system that we had. They wanted their customs, their culture, and they wanted themselves—when they attended our polytechnics, our ITOs—to actually feel part of the system. Many of our learners spoke about how they want their culture, their language, and their traditions to be better connected with, and they want them to be respected, in their learning institutions.
We have done quite a lot of work and I would like to, of course, acknowledge our Minister of Education and all of the work that he has done, because this is actually challenging—to come through and to be landed with not only all of the training needs that we need for Pacific, for Māori, for our ethnic community students, and, actually, to stand up, not to just tinker around the edges, but to say, “Yes, I will address it.”, actually takes a lot of courage. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my privilege to stand in this debate on behalf of my National Party colleagues Sarah Dowie, Hamish Walker, and the Hon Jacqui Dean—the four of us who are geographically located in the deep south—but also to stand on behalf of the hundreds of staff and the thousands of students who attend the Southern Institute of Technology in Invercargill, and the Otago Polytechnic campuses of Dunedin, Cromwell, and Auckland. I must also speak on behalf of the many hundreds, if not thousands of businesses who have tremendous relationships with both of those two iconic organisations—both organisations that are now under material threat, should this bill pass.
I find it incredibly ironic that the Government—whose principal support partner purports to be the “Champion of the regions” prepares to sit idly by while two of the iconic organisations of the regions in Otago and Southland are about to be decimated. I find it quite incredible that they can speak with one voice for the regions, and stand idly by and allow this to occur on its watch. Now, no one is saying that there aren’t significant challenges in the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITP) sector. That’s understood. However, I want to quote the CEO of the Otago Polytechnic who, before these reforms were announced, in an op-ed piece in the Otago Daily Times said that the sector wasn’t broken. If one looks at the academic performance right across the ITP sector, the performance is extremely high. It is rated internationally as very, very good.
Now, financial viability is another matter altogether and, certainly, the Southern Institute of Technology and Otago Polytechnic, to me, are the exemplars of both high performance academically and high performance financially. But that is not the case amongst many of the polytechs further north. One would think that in order to improve things overall, why not look at best practice? At those exemplars, and say whatever Otago and Southland are doing, let’s expect that of the ITP sector? Instead—and here is the one area where I do agree with the Hon Jenny Salesa; she actually said that the previous Government tinkered around the edges. Well, compared with this reform that’s probably an accurate description, because this is a massive sledgehammer to crack a nut—a massive sledge hammer. It is typical of a socialist Government to centralise and take away autonomous regional freedom. What we are talking about, most particularly, is the thing that is fundamental in a democracy: academic freedom.
Now, I want to talk about the practical manifestation of the very, very high quality of connection at the Otago Polytechnic with the business sector. Prior to my becoming an MP, I was the head of a surgical hospital. I relied extremely heavily on the allied health professionals that were being trained and graduating, mostly out of the Otago Polytechnic.
I had occasion to speak to the head of the health science team there, and I said to him, “Look, if you were to ask me whether you were producing the type of graduate that we needed that was fit for the roles that we had, I would have to say, no.” And I was able to explain to him why, while the quality of the teaching was very high and the quality of the graduate was high, there were things that could be done to make it even better. To the polytech’s credit, they not only listened to that feedback but they amended their programme in a nuanced way to ensure that their product was fit for purpose and that their graduates were what the business community and the health sector needed.
I also had a chat with the former CEO of the Southern District Health Board. This is an example of the sort of nimbleness that that type of autonomy and regional governance allows. The CEO went over to the polytech, and said, “Look, we want more nurses, but we don’t want registered nurses, we really need another batch of second-tier nurses, enrolled nurses.” At that time, there wasn’t a training programme for enrolled nurses. They developed that programme, set it up, enrolled students, and graduated them less than two years after that first approach. That’s what nimble looks like. That’s what responsiveness to the community’s need looks like. I fear that when these are being managed from wherever—probably Wellington, at the academic level—then that kind of nimbleness, that connection with the community, that responsiveness to need, not only in the health sector but right across trade training and engineering and design, will be lost; that would be a crying shame.
Now, I want to go to the second really big issue that is facing Otago and Southland, and that is the question of identity. As someone who has worked in the health sector, I know firsthand that the Otago brand is globally recognised. Whether it’s Otago University or Otago Polytechnic, a graduate—particularly in the health faculties of both of those organisations—can take their qualifications anywhere in the world, and that CV and that qualification will be instantly recognised.
Now, I do declare a bit of a family interest in this. I have a daughter who is studying midwifery at the Otago polytech right now. She will graduate, hopefully, at the end of next year, with a Bachelor of Midwifery. She said to me, “Dad, I want the Otago brand on my bachelor certificate. I don’t want to have a certificate from an organisation that sounds like the degree was downloaded from the internet.”—and that’s exactly what students at the polytech think of whatever it’s called: the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology; that is not where they are studying. They are studying at Otago. They’re studying at Ara Institute of Canterbury. They are studying at the Southern Institute of Technology, and they are proud to do so. And that loss of identity, that loss of the iconic Otago brand is concerning everybody in that sector.
And, then, of course, there is the autonomy. Now, the Minister has said that there will be some centralising of certain functions—back-office functions, student records, finance, I.T., and whatever—but that they won’t be in Wellington. Well, that’s fine. The Minister should be telling the regions, right now, where those jobs will go; he’s deafeningly silent on that. Never mind the fact that the resources could well go—and I know that my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith will talk about that in relation to Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology—where will those jobs go? It’s all very well for the Minister to pooh-pooh the fact that Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 is being overridden in this legislation, and not only that but other employee benefits that are set out in employment agreements, the party of the people is going to ride roughshod over employment rights.
Marja Lubeck: Ha, ha! How ironic.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Now, I understand the technical elements of that where there is a transfer of the role from one to another, but the mathematical reality is if there’s going to be a consolidation of those back-office functions, it doesn’t matter where in the country they go, people will be made redundant. They will either be asked to move to wherever, they don’t yet know, or lose their jobs. What this bill says is that their employee protections are being wiped; gone—and they laugh about it.
These former union members laugh about the removal of employee protection. Well, we’ll fight for them. Maybe in the 21st century, the National Party is the party of the people. I can certainly say this party is the champion of the sector, and these polytechs are going to continue to fight for their survival. The Minister saw it, when after initially saying that he wasn’t going anywhere, Tertiary Education Commission weren’t going to go further south than Christchurch, he was forced into meetings in Dunedin and Invercargill, and he heard the voice of the people. I and my colleagues, members Walker, Dowie, and Dean will continue to fight for the South.
MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I start by just acknowledging the loss of a New Zealand First stalwart Pita Paraone, who was buried today, and I acknowledge Dr Reti’s acknowledgment of him earlier, and other members across the House. He was clearly a respected member.
On the Reform of Vocational Education (RoVE) reforms: New Zealand First does support these RoVE reforms. I am here to reassure the member from the South that has just sat down, Michael Woodhouse, as a member also from the South that it’s going to be all right. There is plenty to celebrate, and there is plenty of reassurance—and I’ll go through that in a bit more detail shortly.
But at a national level, the system was broken. I heard the member that just took his seat call the National Party “the champions of the polytechnic sector.” Well, under their watch, students in the polytechnic sector decreased by 40,000 students at a time of massively growing skills shortages. So it is a bit rich to stand up here and claim to be champions of the vocational education sector.
This is a sector that has bled nearly $100 million and required bailouts during the course of this term in Government. There was an urgent need to reassess how we deliver and how we fund our vocational training, and this bill sets out to do exactly that by the creation of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. It does create a coherent and an integrated plan for our polytechnics and our industry training organisations. There has been a plethora of institutions competing against each other; an incredibly inefficient system. And that’s why these reforms have been warmly welcomed by the likes of Business New Zealand—remember them, over the other side of the fence? Remember the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern)? Dairy NZ, desperately concerned about the lack of trainees in their industry; Federated Farmers; all those institutions have supported these reforms, because they are on the coalface—they know exactly what is happening out there on the farms and the factories and the hospitals.
The reason they are supporting this is a feature of these reforms: the workplace development councils. Business will be in the driving seat. They will be asking for the skills that they need, they will be getting them delivered, they will be setting the scene, setting the template, and putting their requirements forward first. They will start this process through the workforce development councils. Businesses will have much more input into what our institutions are delivering in the way of their education.
These will be much more fit for purpose courses, because what we’ve heard, of course, is that we’ve got cohorts of students coming out that have maybe a level 3 in electrical engineering that actually can’t do the job that they are tasked with doing when they get out into the workforce, because there has just been such an incoherence and a lack of consistency across this field.
I do want to address the issue of Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) and the Otago Polytechnic. Of course, these are vitally important institutions in the South—absolutely vital, and it is imperative that we get these forms right. We have listened to those communities, and I certainly have been, and I know my colleague Dr Liz Craig has been. Despite the catastrophising on the other side of the House, we have actually been working constructively with the likes of Phil Kerr, with the likes of Penny Simmons, to make sure that their voices are being heard—not jumping up and down, and Facebook, and causing distress in those communities—actually working through the issues one by one, including in the Minister’s office with a leadership group from Southland, including local mayors, the chamber of commerce, and the like.
They did bring eight specific issues that they wanted addressed. There were issues around whether they could continue to deliver their SIT2LRN, their distance learning: yes. Could they have majority local representation on their subsidiary board? Yes. Could they still retain the ability to attract international students to their campuses? Absolutely yes, and keep their branding. Those were legitimate concerns that were given reassurance. Were their reserves ring-fenced? Yes. Would the regional skills group—that is signalled to have seven or eight people on it—still be able to use their committees that they sit underneath their board? They have 42 different committees that feed into the courses that they put there, with their local committees. Would they still be able to use those and utilise that programme? Yes. Would there be a programme within this two-year period to have an earned autonomy role so higher-performing institutions like Otago, like SIT, could continue to function and have a high degree of local autonomy, and that will be addressed in the charter, and they will be coming through to the select committee to put their case, and it will be a strong case.
Of course, the brand—I disagree, fundamentally, with what Michael Woodhouse just said. I think the danger for the likes of SIT or Otago, if they totally sit outside the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST), is that they end up—OK, all right now, but what happens in five years’ time? What they will be perceived as in Indonesia, or India, is maybe just a regional or a local institution rather than part of a national qualification. It could be seen as a secondary qualification, and that could be incredibly damaging to their long-term prospects. So to sit totally outside the NZIST is totally untenable.
We have seen benefits already. We’ve seen the Minister down there delivering $5 million to Telford to put that back on solid ground. The National Party, apparently the great champion of tertiary vocational education, let that institution almost fall, not once, but twice. They stood aside and allowed it to be pillaged by Lincoln. They had $10 million of reserves. They allowed it to go into Lincoln, and they barely survived that. Then they allowed it to be tied to Taratahi, which was itself listing. If it wasn’t for Minister Hipkins coming in, off his holidays in January, to put an urgent injection of funding in, it would have gone under then. So subsequent to that, the $4.7 million the other day has been incredibly welcome in the South, and will put Telford back to where it belongs: into the jewel of the agricultural training crown.
The other part of that, of course, and why that was allowed to flounder, fundamentally, was that the funding does not meet the cost of delivery, and this is exactly what this reform is designed to do. It costs more to teach a student to shear a sheep than it does to have a hundred accounting students sitting in front of a lecturer. These reforms reflect, and the funding that is intended through these reforms will reflect, more accurately, the cost of delivery, so that our primary sector, particularly—where it is expensive, you do need more one-on-one tuition—will have much better outcomes, because we’ll actually be funding those courses as they should be. Of course, we’ve got the CoVEs within that, the Centres of Vocational Excellence, where the likes of Telford—and I see Kieran McAnulty out there trying to pitch Taratahi, but I’ll certainly, and Liz Craig will certainly be out there pushing for Telford, and the SIT, to have that Centre of Vocational Excellence for agriculture.
So New Zealand First absolutely support the elevation of vocational training. The schooling system has been geared to take people through to universities. We are refocusing that. The future of work does not look like the past. So we are going to elevate vocational education, prioritise it, get it in front of the kids, and make it available, and attractive, and deliver it well. The New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology will do this. We believe that’s the right mechanism. There is a lot of disruption out there, and this mechanism will deliver educational outcomes for our young people and get them back into the vocations. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Nelson has had an independent polytechnic since 1904. That’s 115 years—115 years of good-quality training, 115 years of local innovation, 115 years of close partnerships with industry, partnerships with the polytech. This Government bill nationalises and robs Nelson of its local institution. It’s a failed think-big strategy, and I challenge any member opposite to tell me where nationalisation and centralisation has resulted in better services for the region. This bill is bad for Nelson, it’s bad for Invercargill, it’s bad for Dunedin, it’s bad for Whangarei and Napier, it is bad for our polytechnic sector. It means a loss of local control. It means a loss of local innovation. It means we lose the good name of our own Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT).
Now, I’ve been concerned from the Minister, who has said, quite publicly, that there are too many centres around New Zealand that are training truck drivers and too many centres around New Zealand that are running other courses. That’s code for taking out of the regions the very courses and training, because I say to members opposite: take the truck driver training out of Nelson, and don’t expect people to be able to go to Auckland or Christchurch or somewhere else to pick up those skills. This is so important to my community. I have one of the smallest State sectors of anywhere in New Zealand. Our two most important institutions in Nelson provided by Government are our polytechnic and our hospital, and both are at risk with this Government’s level of centralisation, underfunding, and poor management.
I challenge members opposite: where is the political mandate? Where’s the political mandate to rip out of Nelson an institution that’s existed for 115 years. I see my colleague from Te Tai Tonga: when did you tell the people of the top of the South that, if you were Government, you were going to take away our polytechnic? I say to other the Labour members, I say to New Zealand First: when did you get the mandate from the public for such a radical reform? In fact, it is exactly the opposite, and I say to the member of New Zealand First Mark Patterson: the coalition agreement says that this Government is going to extend outgrow services, and send out of the centre, regional management of services. This bill does the exact opposite. This bill is a broken promise by New Zealand First and in respect of the coalition agreement.
Here’s the madness of the Government’s justification for this reform. If you look at the polytech sector, last year it had a loss of $70 million; $50 million dollars of that was Unitec, the biggest institution in the country. So why on earth, if the biggest one’s in the most trouble, would you make an even bigger one? If there was a dumber idea, I would struggle to find it. And if it’s such a good idea for polytechs, why isn’t the Government opposite saying, “Oh, we can reduce the back-office functions. We can reduce competition. Let’s not have a Vic, a Canterbury, an Auckland, an Otago, or a Massey university.” Is that next on the Government’s agenda? If we listen to the justification for this bill, all the same arguments would apply to the university sector. Every one of us knows that it is healthy in a democracy to have competition between different tertiary providers, and it’s healthy that there is choice and competition in our polytechnic sector.
Then I want to come to some of the specific issues to my community of Nelson. One hundred and fifteen years ago, the Nelson City Council, with ratepayers’ money, bought the property in Hardy Street for that polytechnic, and today the Government is robbing Nelson of that asset and nationalising that asset into central government. That is wrong. That is flawed. And, equally so, why would we want to punish NMIT, which has been one of the top-performing polytechnics?
Dr Duncan Webb: Think forward!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And I say to Mr Duncan Webb, who’s interjecting, “When did you tell the people of Nelson that you would be robbing them of their polytechnic and nationalising it through this reform?” You dishonestly hid it and now you are taking it away—
Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Dr Smith can’t use words across the House—even saying that the Government is doing something dishonestly is impugning the members on this side of the House, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Just to say that, you know—the interjections across the House—if you don’t want to hear that sort of stuff, don’t engage in it.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They are feeling guilty because never did they tell the population in regional New Zealand that if they voted for Labour, the Greens, or New Zealand First, they’d take away their polytech and nationalise those assets that have been provided in the Nelson community by ratepayers and who have been so successful.
Let’s talk about NMIT’s success. Last year, it had the highest rate of course completion rates of any institution in New Zealand. Last year, NMIT had the highest rate of Māori achievement of any institution in New Zealand. Last year, NMIT had one of the strongest financial performances and had built up reserves of $20 million that are going to be nationalised. My challenge to members opposite is: why are you trying to break an institution that is actually successful? Why are you messing with the success of organisations like the Southern Institute of Technology, of NMIT, and of other successful organisations?
I am also worried about local control. NMIT, like other polytechs around New Zealand, has 100 percent of local board members. How many board members will Nelson Marlborough have on the new institution? Answer: zero. So when I hear these weasel words from the member opposite about this improving the amount of local input, let’s be clear right now that institutions like the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology has 100 percent of its governance locally and, under this reform, they have none.
And here’s my worry about the loss of innovation. I’ve watched as the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology has quickly developed new programmes in aquaculture, new programmes in viticulture, and new programmes in aviation engineering, and it’s created a hub with the chamber of commerce and the economic development agency in our region. Every one of the industries that have been involved in that innovation has said, “If we were part of some big national bureaucracy, we would never have been able to provide the innovation and those sorts of programmes so quickly.”
Here’s my challenge for the next Government speaker: why will you give no reassurance to my community about the number of jobs and the number of courses? I very specifically asked the Minister whether he would assure the Nelson Marlborough community that there will be no loss of courses. The Minister was silent. When I asked the Minister whether he could assure the hundreds of staff at NMIT that there would be no job losses, he was silent. And when I asked him whether there would be any loss of the $6 million a year earned in international students, the Minister was silent and said that he could provide no reassurances. Why should a community like Nelson Marlborough that has a successful institute put up with this bill and this reform when there is such a vacuum of assurances on the issues that matter?
I also want to draw to the House’s attention the number of organisations that say this reform of centralisation will not work. I’ve read a lot of Cabinet papers in my day. I have never read a Treasury paper that is so negative, that is so risky, and that is so fail driven as what we have in respect of this reform. Even the Government’s own Tertiary Education Commission says that this reform will not work. And, if I had to take the rest of the afternoon to be able to quote all of the business leaders that have been critical of this reform—it is ideology over common sense. It is centralisation that will not work. This is a reform that is a failure for the Government.
Could I just clarify—I think there is a problem with the clock.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): There is a problem with the clock, and it wasn’t caused by you suggesting you could speak for the rest of the afternoon! It was inadvertently stopped, and we’re just clarifying the time you stopped. Roland advises me that you started at 3.45 p.m., so you should be finished at 3.55 p.m.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Could you just clarify as to the length of time that I have left?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): One minute more.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Speaker, it was an error in the systems of the House and not mine.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s right. That’s correct.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I wish to conclude with: some of the House would know of John Palmer. He was the chairman of Air New Zealand and has a track record of working in senior governance roles for Governments on both sides of the House. I quote him: “The idea of centralising the whole of New Zealand’s polytechs into one bureaucracy is wrong in principle and on so many fronts. It assumes that putting failing institutions together with successful ones will make everything better. This centralisation is bad for education, it’s bad for business, it’s bad for innovation, and it is a nonsense as a business strategy.” The Government ignoring those sorts of very strong criticisms of this reform reinforces that it is ideology over common sense. It is a disaster for regional New Zealand. National will do everything to fight these reforms. The only way to stop these reforms is to change the Government.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to hopefully bring some calm and sense to this debate. I’d like to address a few of the points that have been raised by the National Party Opposition, if they’d like to listen to them. The first is that the Hon Nick Smith challenged the next Government speaker—I’m only in confidence and supply, but I’ll do my best—to answer the question about the number of jobs and the number of courses that will be lost or, in the inverse, gained. I’d like to state to that member of the National Party, the member for Nelson, that even under the status quo we simply could not predict the number of jobs and the number of courses to be available in Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology or in any of the polytechs around the country under business as usual.
The point of this development, as the speaker has asked for, is to hear from the voices of those who are currently involved in vocational education when we get this through the select committee process. I myself have made it incredibly, incredibly pertinent to the Minister that the point is that we have to get this right and we have to make sure that we get the best outcomes, particularly for regional New Zealand, which is predominantly going to be affected by this. So there are no guarantees about the changes that will be made here, and if the National Party does come up with some good ideas here and chooses to collaborate, as opposed to opposing for the sake of it, then I would say that we would love to collaborate with them on it.
Something needed to happen here. We’ve known this for a really, really long time. The Hon Michael Woodhouse in his contributions spoke to a piece written by Phil Ker, who heads up Otago Polytechnic, about a piece that he wrote in the ODT, the Otago Daily Times. He spoke to the fact that there are certain explanations for why there is falling enrolment and he stated that that is per lower birth rates and a stronger economy, but he also, importantly, noted what the Hon Michael Woodhouse failed to state, that the former National Party Government ran down the sector almost irreversibly.
So my question is: what would the National Party do here to ensure that those failing regional institutions had the support required and that regional New Zealanders seeking to get their education had the opportunity to do so? Because they simply had allowed for the running down of the sector to the extent that courses were an exodus in droves out of some parts of regional New Zealand that were left to flounder. So I’d really like to call out some of the fear-mongering and the misinformation that has occurred under the guise of contributions to this debate by the Opposition, because, quite frankly, it’s just super unconstructive. But worse than that, it really whips up fear in regional New Zealand and it does not help to progress us as a country. Instead, it actually really only serves to divide us. There are so many more opportunities to get on with this and to collaborate and to get it right.
On the point of jobs, which the National Party has banged on about in relation to this bill, they’ve continued to speak to how this bill will override Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. I must say, it’s the first time that I’ve ever heard the National Party speaking on behalf of vulnerable workers. But the reason that that is presently included in this legislation—[Interruption]—if I can read from the legislation itself, which I would recommend as some reading material for the members currently heckling me. If you refer to Schedule 1, clause 33 on “Transfer of employees”, clause 33(1) says: “On and off the commencement date, every employee of an existing polytechnic becomes an employee (a transferred employee) of the polytechnic’s corresponding NZIST subsidiary”. Moving further along, in subclause (2) of clause 33, it states: “For the purposes of every enactment, law, determination, contract, and agreement relating to the employment of the transferred employee—(a) the employment agreement of that employee is to be treated as unbroken; and (b) the employee’s period of service with the existing polytechnic, and every other period of service of that employee that is recognised by the polytechnic as continuous service”—
Dr Shane Reti: Oh, you’re going to stop there.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Continuing on to address more of the National Party’s unfortunate—
Dr Shane Reti: Cherry-picking.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —misinformation being put forward here, I want to refer to the point of academic freedom, which is being raised by a number of speakers, including Dr Shane Reti, who’s presently yelling. That is section 222E in clause 49 confirming “Academic freedom of NZIST”. And if I may read again from the legislation itself, notably for those members of the public who are listening today. This is actually what the legislation says and therefore what it will do. Subsection 1 says, “It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to NZIST that NZIST’s academic freedom is to be preserved”—but wait; more than that—“and enhanced” In subsection 2 it refers to “For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to NZIST, means—(a) the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas, and to state controversial or unpopular opinions;” As supposed proponents of freedom of speech, you’d expect the National Party to be supporting this.
Referring to the points that have been raised about supposedly protecting staff and students, the National Party’s protecting staff and students! I really, really want to check the historical record on this, because what members of the public may not know, who might be listening today, is that it was former National Party Minister the Hon Steven Joyce who removed staff and student representation from tertiary and polytech councils. And then, last year when this Government sought to reinstate that staff and student representation, the National Party opposed it. But worse than that, they opposed it in Opposition to the majority of submitters to the select committee. And when they removed it in the first place, they did so, ignoring the majority of submitters to that select committee. So I’m really fascinated here about this new-found light in the darkness that National is following about hearing staff and students.
I would implore National Party members of the Education and Workforce Committee to listen to the submissions at the select committee, and I would extend the challenge to them that if there is an opportunity here to get cross-partisan support and to actually do something meaningful, without this useless bickering back and forward, I would really love to see them on board with that, because, oh my lord, we could do with some more of that in this bizarre, weird, and wonderful place.
With regard to the point about the regions that the National Party have continued to bang on about, berating the champions of the regions, New Zealand First, my colleagues, including the honourable member Mark Patterson, my mate on the Education and Workforce Committee. I want to refer again not to some bizarre op-ed that a National Party member has decided to write in their local paper, but again to the law itself as drafted. Section 222B in clause 49 refers to functions of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST). For members who are looking confused, that is on page 17. There are copies of it on the Table in front of you. Section 222B states, and I quote, that their role is “(b) to be responsive to and to meet the needs of the regions of New Zealand and their learners, industries, employers, and communities by utilising NZIST’s national network of tertiary education programmes and activities:” And lo and behold there are even more things that NZIST has to be accountable to: requiring that they are consulting with their community.
There have been ongoing discussions by all members in this Government, and I would hope—
Simeon Brown: You’re not in Government; you’re in confidence and supply.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —constructive conversations. I am in confidence and supply. Thanks for noticing, Simeon Brown. That means that I can oppose the Government, but here I am choosing to support them because we believe they’re doing the right thing, where you left polytechs to flounder.
So with regard to the point on autonomy, I’d like to note that both myself and Mark Patterson from New Zealand First have spoken extensively to Phil Ker from Otago Polytechnic and to Penny Simmons from the Southern Institute of Technology. We have found that there has been some really unnecessary fear-mongering from the Opposition when, instead, there is actually a real deep appetite from those leaders of those outstanding institutions to work with the Government to get meaningful outcomes here across the country.
What they are looking for is a system of earned autonomy. To clarify what that means, for members of the Opposition, this is about learning from those institutions that are doing things well and ensuring that we help those who aren’t. If the National Party is so worried about the notion of access to a high-quality tertiary education in the regions, and that supposedly constitutes socialism, oh God forbid; the sky just might be falling in. The Greens are proud to support this legislation.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to always follow my colleague from the Green Party. But I’d like to rise in opposition to the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to make a few comments in regards to what member Chlöe Swarbrick just said. The comment there was around “earned responsibility”—to be able to earn their ability to be able to manage their own region. That’s essentially what the Government is saying here. Regions will be able to earn the right to be able to look after their region, make decisions for their region, and be able to—
Dr Shane Reti: Permission.
SIMEON BROWN: Permission. That’s right, Shane Reti. It’s about permission to be able to continue doing what they do well for their regions. I fail to understand how the member can continue to push that this is about the regions. This is about the regions. Well, why are we closing down and shutting down the regional polytechs up and down our country? If this is about doing the—
Chlöe Swarbrick: We’re not shutting anything down.
SIMEON BROWN: —best for our regions—oh, and they say “We’re not”. Well, in two years’ time there will be a New Zealand institute of skills and training and all the subsidiaries will be gone—all gone. That’s what happens under this piece of legislation, if you actually read it, Mark Patterson.
I’d like to discuss a few aspects of this bill and the reasons that we oppose it. Firstly, I’d like to also talk about the cost—the cost of these reforms which are being proposed. The figures that I will refer to come from the Reform of Vocational Education: Programme Business Case. I didn’t write this. Shane Reti didn’t write this. No one in the National Party wrote this. This came from the Tertiary Education Commission and was asked for by the Minister. I’d like to just point out the absolute cost that this is going to be for New Zealanders. Firstly, the establishment cost of up to $400 million—$400 million. That’s twice the amount of money which they have put aside from the failed fees-free scheme—the $197 million which came from that. Four hundred million dollars—that’s more than twice. So fees-free has to fail twice for this policy to actually be able to be implemented.
But that’s just the establishment cost of this. There is an overall increase in the cost of running the vocational sector of $50 million per annum, and the cost-benefit analysis says that the costs will be greater than the benefits by three to one. The overall costs of running the sector, of these reforms, will be between $686 million and $1.08 billion, and the potential savings are between $224 million to $368 million. Now, when we talk about cost-benefit analysis, normally we think the benefits outweigh the costs, but here we’re talking about something where the costs will outweigh the benefits by three to one. There are some savings, which I referred to, but there is still a big unknown which the Minister will not answer the question on: the unknown costs of the IT changes and the new IT set-ups which will be required under this. The Minister will not release the numbers and will not give us those numbers. So that cost-benefit analysis could become even worse, potentially four to one or five to one, once those figures are released.
The Minister keeps talking about the cost of doing nothing. Well, I’d like to point out that while the cost of the deficits may be $70 million, and Nick Smith mentioned earlier that $50 million of that comes from Unitec’s current deficit, what we don’t hear from the Minister is the fact that we are losing about $70 million every single year through the fact that visa applications for student visas are being delayed—$70 million of lost income to our institutes of technology and polytechnics sector because Immigration New Zealand is delaying the processing of those visas. That’s happening under this Government, and that’s costing $70 million—the exact same amount of money that the deficits were in the last financial year. That’s a point that our polytech sector—money that they’re losing out on and money that taxpayers are having to fund because the Government won’t actually solve the problems in the Immigration New Zealand area that need to be focused on.
I’d also like to talk about the risk that these changes are putting on New Zealanders and on apprenticeships and traineeships up and down New Zealand. The figures, which are, again, in the programme business case, indicate that we will lose 18,000 trainees—18,000 trainees—and 2,300 fewer apprenticeships—2,300 fewer apprenticeships. At a time when Jenny Salesa, in her speech, says we need 30,000 people in construction, we’re going to be saying no, we’re going to disrupt the sector, and we’re going to say goodbye to 18,000 traineeships and 2,300 fewer apprenticeships.
Dr Shane Reti: Their data.
SIMEON BROWN: And that’s right, Shane Reti: that comes, again, from the programme business case. I didn’t make up those numbers. Shane Reti didn’t make up those numbers. The National Party didn’t make up those numbers. They came from the Tertiary Education Commission in advice to the Minister.
Thirdly, the regions are being undermined by these changes. These changes will strip assets away from the polytech sector: $58 million of cash reserves—that’s $58 million of cash reserves, according to last year’s financial statements from the polytech sector—will be stripped away under these changes and controlled by the New Zealand institute of skills and training, which will be controlled by the Minister—$58 million.
Mark Patterson: Are you in the meetings?
SIMEON BROWN: And for the benefit of Mark Patterson, who is interjecting on the other side, $4.4 million in the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) will disappear.
Mark Patterson: Ring-fenced.
SIMEON BROWN: Ring-fenced, he says, but it won’t be SIT who’ll be controlling that money; it’ll be the Minister and the Secretary for Education which gets to make decisions. There is a removal of decision making from local regions. They won’t, under this bill, be able to have any control over their assets, over their courses; workforce development councils will be in charge of that. The academic freedom point, which Chlöe Swarbrick seemed to spend a lot of time talking about, forgets the fact that the workforce development councils will have a huge amount of responsibility over the courses and will be signing off, effectively, on the courses which the New Zealand institute of skills and training will be delivering.
I’d like to finish on a note a little bit closer to home, and that is the Manukau Institute of Technology. It’s in my patch. I live in Pakuranga—that’s my electorate—and the Manukau Institute of Technology serves my area. We’ve heard a lot about successful polytechs in this debate. We’ve heard about the Southern Institute of Technology, Otago Polytechnic; we’ve heard about the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. And yes, I do acknowledge that the Manukau Institute of Technology has had some deficits over recent times, but, again, it is a fundamental part of the South and East Auckland community. It was formed in 1970 and it plays an important role in the skills and the training of young people in South and East Auckland.
Under these changes, that will be gone. Under these changes, there will be no more Manukau Institute of Technology which will deliver for the region of South and East Auckland. We will see people who have pride in that institution, as I think the point made by Michael Woodhouse that his daughter—she’s studying at Otago Polytechnic. She’s studying midwifery at Otago Polytechnic. That qualification has value because of the name on the certificate, and that value is being taken away because the name will be taken away by these changes. I say the same thing to the young people in South and East Auckland who are proud of the Manukau Institute of Technology, and they will also have that taken away from them.
The National Party at the next election will be proposing policy where we will be retaining the industry; we’ll retain training and the opportunity to provide apprenticeships where it belongs. They know best around that. We’ll be ensuring true regional representation in our polytech sector. The National Party has a clear plan, and we will continue to deliver for New Zealanders, and we will be taking these changes to the election. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We oppose this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call is a split call—I call Jo Luxton.
JO LUXTON (Labour): I’m really, really excited to stand here and take a call in support of the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, because what this piece of legislation will do is it will deliver a unified and cohesive regional education system. But what is even more exciting about this piece of legislation is that it is going to improve things so much more for the students. I want to tell you a bit of a story about that, but I’ll come to that a bit later on.
First of all, I just want to bring up a couple of things that the previous speaker, Simeon Brown, mentioned. He said that National had a clear plan.
Marja Lubeck: Yeah, what is it?
JO LUXTON: Exactly—what is it? We didn’t hear what their plan would be. They’re only just keen to stand there and take the mickey out of what I think is a great piece of legislation. He also said that we’re going to be shutting down all the polytechnics, so I’m a little confused by that. Is the member saying that all polytechs are going to be shut and that the students will have to go to one place, or—he didn’t quite explain himself. But anyway, I don’t want to waste any of my time talking about that previous member.
What I want to talk about is that what we’ve got is a Minister—and I’ve said this about other Ministers in this Government—that’s really prepared to make the hard decisions, and hard decisions have to be made in order to promote progress, which is what this piece of legislation is going to do. The amount of times I’ve had conversations with employers who’ve come out and said, “You know, we get people that come out of polytechs, universities”—wherever they mean—“but they actually don’t have the skills that we require for their job. They’re not coming out with the skills that we need.” And then we’re also hearing that from students and I just want to read a bit of a story, a bit of an email that was sent to me, if Madam Speaker will indulge me and allow me to read this.
I’m not going to mention names and I’m not going to mention places where this student studied, but, “I did two diplomas in arts and media, specialising in digital design and photography at [X campus] that would lead to a final year of a degree in motion design at another campus in another town, only to discover that my qualifications were outdated and that I needed to be taught a more specialised but deeper selection of skills. So I managed to complete the degree—oh, but I had no choice, I had to repeat level 6 at [X place] before doing the final year of its degree.”
So just think about that young person who was led to believe they would have the right skills and knowledge needed to continue their study at a different place only to find out that what they had been studying was outdated and no good. They therefore had to repeat. “I managed to complete the degree after two years at [X place] and was assured that I had the right skill set and knowledge to get employment in the film and television industries, especially in the careers that I wanted to do, only to be rejected every time I applied for jobs in that sector. So I wanted to continue upskilling with my technical skills and got accepted into doing graduate study and film after being led in that direction, only to discover that I still didn’t have the right skills and knowledge that is expected both in the course of study and the film and the television industries.”
So he goes on to tell me a bit more about what happened, but actually this young man has spent five years studying and actually gained nothing yet, because every time he’s studied and then moved perhaps to a different place of study there has been no continuity for him from where he started to where he finished. So the system is absolutely broken and what this piece of legislation will mean is that nobody else will have to go through this type of situation. This young man, he’s not even going to be eligible for student allowance because his entitlement will have run out because he’s been studying for too long. How is that possibly fair? How is it possibly enabling him to make a contribution to society in the career—his chosen career; his passion—when he can’t even finish his study, because every time he goes to upskill or change, nothing is going to work because there is no continuity in that?
And we just heard them talk before about regional skills and how they’re going to be cut in the regions, but actually there’s going to be regional skill leadership groups. They’re going to work across the regions, identify local skills, and, yes, they’re going to ensure that education will meet those regional needs.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity. I’m taking this call to oppose this bill, the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. This is a bad bill and that’s the reason why we’re opposing this bill. This bill is going to do a lot of damage. The member who was speaking before me, Jo Luxton, said that they didn’t hear what our plan was, so I just want to make it very clear that our plan is to reverse the changes that this bill will make—to reverse the damage that this bill will do, because we know that there is going to be a huge amount of damage done to our regions. There will be a huge amount of damage done to a lot of jobs that these polytechs provide. And, of course, we heard about how they give so much importance to regions.
Yeah, for me it’s quite a mixed message, because on one side they have this big funding that is allocated to the Hon Shane Jones to support regions, but then this bill shows the reality. So that big funding to the New Zealand First Party, we fully understand because Labour is stuck in the middle—that’s in between the New Zealand First Party and the Green Party. So they have to look after the New Zealand First Party, they have to look after the Green Party, so that Budget is just to make them look good. But this is the reality of the Labour Party: they don’t care about regions. In so many other areas, we are wanting to give control to our communities, but in this legislation we are going in the opposite direction.
What is interesting in this is that Treasury, the Tertiary Education Commission, and the industry have been quite vocal that this is not going to deliver what the Minister of Education believes it is going to. Still, the Minister looks quite determined to go ahead with the changes that the Minister wants to make. So in the select committee process I really hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to sincerely listen to what submitters will say. And I hope that all these people, those who have been against this, will come to the select committee process to submit, because I don’t want them to feel that they have already done their job and the Minister has not bothered to listen to them, so there is no point coming to the select committee process. So I would really like to get this message out to people that are directly affected with this legislation to come and speak to the select committee as well.
If we look at our education industry, it’s a very interesting and attractive education industry because we offer some courses which are quite unique and we know that education supports our export economy. We should be exporting it like so many other developed countries, but for some reason this Government has sent such a wrong message that polytechs have been suffering. We know that that is one of the causes. We know that is one of the causes, so the Minister, instead of addressing those root causes, is trying to look like he’s doing something, so he came up with this idea of doing a merger. So the Minister—this Government themselves they created this problem. They created the suffering for polytechnics and now they want to look like they are doing something.
So as we have seen in so many media reports—I could have actually brought a big pile of media reports. This is from Wintec. It says, “Wintec battles student visa delays.” And it says this: “Delays in processing student visas could cost the tertiary education sector millions of dollars, a polytech boss says.” Then there is another headline which says, “Student visa delays financially impacting tertiary institutions.” It says, “A tertiary institute is describing visa delays for hundreds of prospective international students as a crisis.”—as a crisis. That is why, because of this, these polytechnics—as I said, this is one of the reasons why polytechnics have been suffering. And another headline says, “Polytechs claims $70m in losses over visa delays”. These are our local news headlines but when we look at some overseas headlines this headline says, “Study visa troubles in New Zealand.” So actually this kind of headline in overseas media sends out a very wrong signal from New Zealand, because as soon as people see this they won’t be interested in even applying to come here to study.
It’s really important that we keep giving out that positive message about our education industry and about New Zealand being welcoming. We know that the New Zealand First Party doesn’t like immigrants, they don’t like foreign students, so I can clearly see why this Government, the Labour Party, has decided to come up with this legislation instead of resolving one of the problems that is causing that big suffering to polytechs. So polytechs know what is needed at the regional level. They should be able to provide that training. They should be able to run that; not the central government here. So we do not support this legislation. Thank you.
MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It’s normally a real pleasure to follow on from the previous speaker, Parmjeet Parmar, in a debate. However, after the inspirational sentence that “Our plan is to keep things the way they are.”, I sort of nodded off a little bit and I’ve missed most of what was said after that, so I’ll have to find my inspiration from the previous speakers.
Let’s think about Shane Reti. Shane Reti provided us the best-ever Tui ad, or maybe I should just get the T-shirt that says “National is asking ‘Where are the unions?’ ”. I have no idea where that came from; that was totally left field when it was actually a National Government that rode roughshod over workers’ employment rights over the last nine years. Did we ever hear the sentence “Where are the unions?” when they removed people’s tea and meal breaks? Did they ever say “Where are the unions?” when they refused to give teachers their fair pay increases? Did we ever hear “Where are the unions?” when they cut out film workers from their human right to collective bargaining?
Did we ever hear “Where are the unions?” when they dragged Kristine Bartlett through the courts—
Lawrence Yule: Come back to the bill.
MARJA LUBECK: —to try and prevent care and support workers to get equal pay? And you’re absolutely right there—I should be coming back to the bill.
But I think this fake outrage about what this bill is doing is absolutely showing that it’s obviously a really good piece of legislation, and I’d like to commend the Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, on bringing it to the House, because this Government is doing the hard yards. We are tackling New Zealand’s long-term challenges, and we are not afraid to do that piece of mahi. We are fixing the problems that we inherited when we came into office, and I just mentioned some of those before. Those problems have built up over many previous Governments, and they were ignored by the last Government. So what we’re doing here, as the Minister mentioned, is we’re building a strong, unified, sustainable system for our vocational education and training, one that meets the needs of the students, the employers, and the regions.
Now, there was another mention made of the international students and how important it was to keep doing these international student applications. Well, how is it even sustainable to build a whole industry based on getting students from overseas to come in? We are actually looking at that problem that’s been created and trying to make something that is absolutely sustainable. That’s why I’m so excited to stand here and take a call on this Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill.
We are tackling these long-term challenges of skills shortages, and there’s an absolute mismatch between the training that’s provided and the needs of the employers out there. So with this bill, we are delivering a new vocational education system, because what we need to do is we need to increase the number of people in trade training as well as plugging those nationwide skill shortages that we’re seeing. It’s really important, because the system that we have that I talked about before is not consistent or sustainable because we have critical skills shortages all over the country.
The Minister mentioned the dual system that we have at the moment, which is complex. It doesn’t work and it doesn’t always meet the needs of those learners, employers, and regions. Almost every vocational area has duplication of programmes and qualifications, and that comes not only with a huge cost but they’re actually delivering the same outcome.
We heard an example from my friend and colleague Jo Luxton before. She talked about someone who’s spending five years of their life studying hard, putting in that good work, and then coming out basically with nothing, because, basically, nothing matches up. This is one of the examples that we heard as well, from the Minister. Apparently, there are 19 different qualifications offered to become a truck driver. Qualifications need to be consistent and they need to be portable, because employers need to be reassured that regardless of where in New Zealand someone got their learning, the standard of skill will be the same, and at the moment, it is not. There’s no consistency.
So the changes this bill proposes will result in more options for education and training in the regions, and the competition that we’re seeing at the moment is just not sustainable. What the competition has done—and we heard it from the Minister before—is that some of the polytechs have suffered from falling enrolments, and that, in turn, has left some of the regions and some of the learners behind. It’s not good enough to point to this one or that one and say “Well, they’re actually doing good.”, or “This one has been around for a very, very long time, and so we shouldn’t touch it.” It’s that competitive aspect that has driven everyone down.
I saw it on breakfast TV this morning, when Paula Bennett and our Minister Chris Hipkins were in a debate on this. Paula Bennett was asked “How would National actually sort this problem?” and the response was “Oh, you know, we love a bit of competition.”, and the member Nick Smith repeated that as well—“Oh, we love our competition.” Well, it’s that bit of competition that has seen those big challenges for the polytechnics. It’s that bit of competition that has eroded their sustainability.
So it was during those nine years of neglect that National, basically, stood back. Like we’ve heard, they just tinkered around the edges, they had no real solutions, and they were sitting by, watching those polytechnics struggling. They watched the 40 percent decline in enrolments—40 percent less people are enrolling. They watched the skill shortages, they watched the thousands of job losses, and, eventually, it was this Government that had to basically step in and spend $100 million on bailouts—$100 million—because those polytechs were struggling.
National has no new ideas. It’s all a bit too hard, and the best they can come up with is “Our plan is to roll back whatever you guys are doing, and we’d like things to stay the way they are now.” Over nine years, we have seen National ignoring the social issues. We’ve seen them ignoring all the long-term challenges. They’ve allowed vocational education, trade training, and on-the-job training to, basically, just drift.
So these are the long-term challenges that this Government is committed to fixing. We are doing that over a transition period. It’s happening over several years—
Simeon Brown: Two years.
MARJA LUBECK: —so it’s very predictable. I don’t know where the member Simeon Brown got the fact from that in two years’ time we’re closing all the polytechs. Like Jo Luxton said, I don’t know how that would work. This is happening over several years and it’s very predictable.
We know the changes are significant, so we’re taking our time, and any changes will be carefully worked through. In the meantime, as the Minister has clearly pointed out, the current system will continue to be supported as business as usual. Learners can keep learning, employers can keep hiring and training, and it’s basically, as I said, business as usual. The outrageous scaremongering is really—yeah, unusual.
Jo Luxton: Ridiculous.
MARJA LUBECK: Ridiculous. We are making sure that the vocational education system that we have is ready for the future, because people in the future will need to change their jobs and their careers more frequently over their working lives. So unless you’re going to make the whole educational system fit for purpose, we are just going to see those problems that we’ve seen over the last nine years more and more exacerbated—not under our watch.
People will need to change jobs and careers more frequently, as I said, so we need a system that will give New Zealanders better opportunities to reskill and keep training. So by making sure our vocational education system is ready for the future, we are looking ahead by 30 years, and not just three. We are better aligning education with the skills needed by employers. That will support the businesses and it will support the economy but also it will support the overall wellbeing of our communities, and that is something that goes really to the heart of our Government.
So I guess, on an ending note, I would just like to say that this Government knows that there is a lot to do. The problems will take some time to sort out, but we’re taking our time to sort it out. We’re making progress, but it is about a balanced approach. We’re playing catch up in a lot of the areas, and we know it’s going to take more than one term, but under the leadership of our brilliant Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, we are getting on with that work. We are doing the mahi, and it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, and I do so out of complete disdain for this piece of legislation, I’d have to say right at the beginning. This is a terrible bill, a terrible move, and it will be a terrible outcome for vocational training and educational training in New Zealand.
You see, the problem here is we haven’t done the problem definition properly. The problem definition is we’ve got 150,000 people in trade training and other training across New Zealand, we’ve said we’ve got a few polytechs that are losing a whole lot of money—
Hon Andrew Little: Most—most polytechs.
LAWRENCE YULE: Not most. No, actually—not most.
Hon Andrew Little: All but three.
LAWRENCE YULE: No, that’s incorrect, Mr Little. All except five, actually. They are losing money—they are losing $72 million a year—so the best thing to do is put everything together and, somehow, that will be better: some huge, central monolith that’s going to change all this and fix it all.
For those members on the other side that may be worried and think this model’s going to be great, I ask them to look at the DHB model. This model will end up being very similar to the DHBs, and where are we with the DHBs? They had a $520 million deficit in the last financial year—$520 million—and yet we’re restructuring and changing the whole polytech and training sector to deal with a $70 million deficit.
I want to congratulate my colleagues and friends Dr Shane Reti and Simeon Brown for the light they have shone on this particular piece of reform right throughout New Zealand. To be honest, without their efforts, we wouldn’t understand the detail of what is coming forward in this bill. In my view, this is a very risky set of reforms, and probably the most dangerous reforms that we’ve seen in education in the last 30 years.
I want to come to my own region. This is why I’m particularly unhappy about this. Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) is one of those ones that the Hon Andrew Little refers to. It’s an outstanding success. Every year, it has grown student numbers. In 2018, there were 4,122 full-time students—over 10,000 students enrolled in total, some of them part-time; some of them full-time. Every single year that number has grown.
Dr Shane Reti: Good polytechnic.
LAWRENCE YULE: It is a great Polytechnic. It has assets worth $150 million. And guess what, Madam Speaker, and to members on the other side—guess what? It has no debt. No debt, and, better than that, it has $28 million of cash or short-term reserves sitting in the account. So that is a great result. It doesn’t get better. I just want to say this: every single year, the Eastern Institute of Technology, even though it amalgamated with Tairāwhiti Polytechnic, has run a surplus—every single year. It has 600 staff, and 200 of those, approximately, are non-teaching staff.
Importantly—importantly—it’s important to remember that the land at EIT in Taradale today was gifted was gifted by the Hetley family to the people of Hawke’s Bay—gifted. And where’s it going—where’s it going? It’s going to the Government in some huge great big pot in the middle. If you ask the Hetley family today what they think about this, they would be appalled.
Hon Member: Just like corporate raiders.
LAWRENCE YULE: It is corporate raid. That’s exactly what it is: taking land that was gifted to the people of Hawke’s Bay to put in a central pot.
The members that are yelling out won’t know this, because they won’t have done the research, but the councils in Hawke’s Bay—and the Hon Meka Whaitiri may know this—gave EIT $150,000 between them for five years—that’s $750,000—to support the local polytech to gain ground, get credibility, and succeed. That is community money, because it’s a community asset, that has now just disappeared, whoof, disappeared into thin air and off to some big monolith in Wellington.
I also want to talk about some of the nimbleness that my friend and colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse said before. EIT is a fundamental player in developing the regional sports centre in Hawke’s Bay. Without them, it wouldn’t have happened. It has just made a contribution to a centre of excellence at the sports park in Hastings. Do members on the other side seriously think, after two years, when this is all one big monolith, that somehow those sorts of things are going to be made available to my people? I guarantee not, and they won’t care.
Also, in Hastings, EIT—in my own electorate; not far from the Hon Meka Whaitiri’s office—just developed a campus. It’s chocker, and it’s not big enough. They need to make it bigger. Why is that? Because the courses and the community outreach are so successful. Do you seriously think that some Wellington-based bureaucracy is going to allow that level of nimbleness or innovation?
Let’s not gild the lily. This is actually a covert operation going on here. The subsidiary entries that are talked about in this bill are nothing more than a charade to get us to the point where it can all be put together. Members of this House need to recognise, whether it’s Southern Institute of Technology (SIT), EIT, or the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT), those names will disappear. This will become the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. All the locals, all the local knowledge, and all the brand value—gone; disappeared off the face of this Earth.
These are two-year subsidiaries. The reserves are going to be consolidated. In Hawke’s Bay, $28 million is going to be consolidated into the national centre—$28 million, built about by success, operational efficiency, and good governance goes into the centre. And then they say, “Oh, you can have those reserves back for local projects or regional things that are significant but only after you’ve reached a set limit. I wrote set limit questions to the Minister. He came back: that hasn’t been determined. So for those communities around New Zealand that have been pacified by the fact they can keep their reserves, it is highly likely that most of those reserves will be used up in the reorganisation costs of this proposal.
Then we talk about staff transfer. That’s been talked about today. The staff are being transferred from the current entities to the subsidiaries. When you transfer the staff from the current entities to the subsidiaries, they may feel some comfort. But go and look on page 70, Schedule 4, new Schedule 23, clause 5(4). It says that when the next stage happens, those same staff have no guarantee or protection of employment. And why is that important—why is that important? Because these reforms estimate in back house operations the entity is going to save $134 million of money annually.
Dr Shane Reti: Where from?
LAWRENCE YULE: Where from? How do you do that? As Dr Reti says, how do you do that? What you do is you cut staff—you cut staff. I’m sad to say—and the Hon Stuart Nash has left the room now—but what happens: they are management savings. So the people in Hawke’s Bay that have got good jobs, actually, and they’re highly competent and well qualified, they go. A number of them will go. You cannot get management savings without getting rid of some people in the change that occurs after two years. It’s $130 million worth of savings, so if everybody says today, “Oh, look, don’t worry about it. There’s a clause.”, look what happens in year two.
This is just smashing everything. I strongly oppose it. So, to this side of the House, there are some wonderful models in New Zealand—EIT, SIT, NMIT—there are $72 million worth of losses on the polytechs in New Zealand—$72 million—of which $50 million relates to Wintec. Well, guess what, the Hon Andrew Little and other members? Why don’t you go and sort Wintec? Sort them out and leave us alone.
If you look at the papers, Treasury and the Tertiary Education Commission both say this is a bad and very risky thing to do. The Minister has been asked about assurances of job losses, he’s been asked around course losses, and he’s been asked about fee-paying students—all of which he hasn’t answered. I am standing up here for the people of Hawke’s Bay that I represent. The other members—the members of the Government—are saying nothing. The MP for Napier is silent. But this is a tough call, and it’s the wrong call, and we will re-open EIT as a local entity.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the next speaker, could I just ask the member who’s just resumed his seat: he should know that he doesn’t refer to the absence of a member. He was on a bit of a roll on behalf of his electorate, so I didn’t interrupt him. But please don’t refer to—
Lawrence Yule: Apologies.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. Also, we know that the Speaker made a new ruling about the use of the word “you”, but the way that you used it, Mr Yule, was not consistent with this. So perhaps over the recess you and the Hon Mark Mitchell could practise giving speeches without that term in it. That would be a good help.
JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s very fortuitous to follow behind that speaker, Lawrence Yule, as I can give him some assurance from his area because I have here in my position a letter, written today, actually, from all of his mayors—one, two, three, four, five Hawke’s Bay mayors—who actually say in this letter, “We understand the reform is necessary as elements of the sector need addressing.” Wow. The member over there was really concerned about the reserves, and the mayors go on to say, “We have taken comfort in the assurance that the cash reserves held by EIT will remain for the region and the current funding will stay so the current services will be maintained.” So I hope that member has some assurance that his mayors have been consulted. I also suggest in the recess, Madam Speaker, that that member goes and talks to his mayors about this particular piece of legislation.
We’ve heard so much here in this debate, and I believe, from my perspective, that much of this has been wrong from the Opposition and that they need some help actually interpreting the bill. I know it does take an extended reading age of about 16 to comprehend, and I’m willing to help in that area. People do need some help with that. But what I’m excited about with this is that this bill is another part of what this Government is doing to tackle the long-term problems that are facing this country. We are fixing the problems, and we are up for challenge of fixing those problems and the mess that’s accumulated over many years.
Now, we heard it called out, and I was probably one of those people who interjected and said, “What is your plan?”, because we heard about National’s plan many times. We heard Dr Parmjeet Parmar say, “Well, we’ve got a plan. We’re just going to get rid of this.” Actually, I thought about that, and I thought long and hard about it, and I thought, so, what did National do? If we got rid of this, what would that look like then? So let’s go back a bit. If we took up the previous Government’s approach of doing nothing with this sector, that would have risked our polytechs altogether. That previous speaker certainly would have concerns about the Eastern Institute of Technology, because we wouldn’t have been able to sustain them and the polytechs as a country. Contrary to what was being said on that side of the House, we have been forced to bail out several polytechs over the last couple of years because nothing was done in that sector—$100 million has been spent over that time to bail them out. That was something that has forced our hand to step in and help those polytechs out. Something had to be done.
The scaremongering that we’re hearing from the other side does have the potential to hurt the sector. That’s why it is really important that we tell the truth of how important this sector is into the future of New Zealand. This was a rather interesting comment that was made by the Hon Dr Smith. He said he challenged—he challenged—
Hon Andrew Little: He never made sense with his comments.
JAN TINETTI: Oh, the Hon Andrew Little, listen to this, it’s what he challenged us to do. He challenged us to tell him where centralisation in education has ever been any good. Last time I looked we had a really good centralised schooling network within this country, which is a critical part of our education system. So it follows that we could centralise education and be really strong. I challenge Dr Smith to actually tell us what’s wrong with centralisation of the schooling sector, because, to my mind and what I know is it has worked incredibly well.
We’ve heard about identity. We heard some really big stories here this afternoon about identity. We’ve heard from the Hon Michael Woodhouse that this was just going to take away the identity of those polytechs and they wouldn’t have those names on the certificates. Well, we actually heard from our colleagues—Mark Patterson from New Zealand First who has worked with our colleagues Liz Craig and Chlöe Swarbrick from the Greens—that they’ve met with those people from those different polytechs. They’ve had working groups to make sure that their concerns are being heard and they’re looking—I have to say that I have heard that the outcomes of those meetings have been really positive, because I too have a vested interest. I have nieces and nephews at the Southern Institute of Technology, and I too have that vested interest, but I’m absolutely in favour of what’s happening here, and very much reassured with what is happening in this sector for those particular polytechs.
But I am looking forward in engaging with those different polytechs in the select committee process. I’m really excited about hearing from them. Dr Parmar said that she hoped that they would be making those submissions; so do I. I hope we hear from lots of people from all different sides of this debate. That way that’s the select committee doing its job and listening and all ears open to what’s actually happening and what people are wanting, including those mayors in the Hawke’s Bay.
This particular bill is a really good piece of legislation. As I said, it is tackling those long-term challenges. We do have a skills shortage, and it’s really across a lot of sectors. We haven’t had a training component that has been wholly responsive to that skills shortage. This is about actually addressing that, bringing that together and finding out what is really important in those particular regions, where we need to see where the skills shortages are.
It wasn’t that long ago that I met with some people from the clothing manufacturing industry. In fact, one of those particular clothing manufacturers was a large New Zealand company based in Invercargill. They were telling me of the fact that they have a really huge shortage of machinists. There used to be a qualification here that was delivered through our polytechs that machinists were trained through the polytech system, but it has been a long time since that has been actually delivered in the polytech systems anywhere in this country because competition has forced those polytechs to stop offering that course any longer. That is the issue with competition in the regional polytechs. That was what was hurting our regions, was that competition couldn’t actually be responsive to what the needs were in the sector. The reason that they couldn’t offer is because they weren’t getting the enrolments at the level that they needed to sustain the courses. So they might have only got 12 people who were actually enrolled in those courses, but that wasn’t enough for those particular polytechs to run it in isolation. So a national polytech would actually help a course like that—a more specialised course.
They did go on to tell me that fashion industry was something that a lot of the polytechs offered throughout the country, that there would be 250 people—around about that—that would be enrolled in that particular course, and that was because people were excited about going into the fashion industry, but there would be less than five jobs nationally that would come up from that. There is a real mismatch in those figures, and that’s exactly the sort of story that we are trying to address and the skills shortage that we are trying to address in this country.
We’ve talked here this afternoon, and I won’t go into it in any great length, about the split in vocational education systems that we have had up until this point and the disconnect between the two. Each has had its own type of funding, and there has been this disconnect where industry and the polytech trainings have kind of really not been working together in that particular space and industry has felt disconnected from both sorts of training. This unified system will create one unified regulatory framework which is essential to building those skills within the sector.
I can see that I’m running out of time. I had so much more to say. I started with a blank page and ended the day with lots of notes that I made from people’s writing on there. We are proud to be a Government that’s building a New Zealand we are proud of. I am so proud to be the last speaker in this first reading of this debate and very, very proud to commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 60
New Zealand Labour 45; New Zealand First 8; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 7.
Noes 54
New Zealand National 52; Act New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a first time.
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 61, Noes 54.
Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I presume a Minister’s about to move the reporting of it.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Madam Speaker, I—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You’ll be moving the bill.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: With some assistance [Receives paper from Clerk]. I move, That the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 10 February 2020.
Motion agreed to.
Estimates Debate
In Committee
Debate resumed from 28 August.
Justice Sector (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): There are 4 hours and 26 minutes remaining in the debate. When we were last considering the bill, the committee was debating the justice sector. The question is that Vote Attorney-General, Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, Vote Justice, Vote Parliamentary Counsel, Vote Police, and Vote Serious Fraud stand part of the Schedules. The Hon Tim Macindoe had the call and has 2 minutes and 15 seconds remaining in his speech.
Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. It was a bit frustrating to be interrupted last night when the committee rose to report progress, as I was in the middle of highlighting a very serious constitutional concern that was raised by National members but not responded to appropriately by the Attorney-General during the Justice Committee’s Estimates hearing following the 2019 Budget. At the time of the hearing, the Hon Amy Adams was the shadow Attorney-General, so she led the charge for our side during the Estimates hearing. I was present on that occasion, and soon afterwards I was appointed to succeed her in that role, when she announced her intention to retire at the next general election.
It’s important to understand the chronology of events and the actions and public statements of senior Ministers that led to the Hon Amy Adams’ questions to the Attorney-General. If the committee will indulge me for just a moment, I’ll recap that first matter, which arose in the week leading up to this year’s Budget, during which Opposition members gained easy and completely lawful access to Budget information via a search engine on Treasury’s website.
Without any evidential foundation and for purely political reasons, senior Ministers, including the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as one of the nation’s top public servants, quickly responded with false and very serious allegations of illegal behaviour, and the matter was referred to the police for investigation. Nevertheless, Mr Peters, as usual, without having any understanding of the issue or knowing anything about internet technology or cyber-security, had crowed to media—who delight in his every utterance, no matter how fatuous they are—that he knew exactly what had gone on and there would be grave consequences for the Opposition. Well, once again, he was talking nonsense merely to keep himself in the spotlight, and he demonstrated his total ignorance of what had transpired. This was confirmed soon afterwards, when the police confirmed that nothing illegal or worthy of their consideration had occurred.
During the justice Estimates hearing, Opposition members provided ample opportunities for the Attorney-General to condemn the fact that both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had made serious, fatuous allegations of criminal behaviour, as senior members of the executive, without having any evidence to support those actions. Quite simply, they had botched the management of the 2019 Budget and they were desperately seeking a smokescreen to cover their own incompetence.
The Attorney-General was invited repeatedly, during the Estimates hearings, to acknowledge the inappropriateness of Ministers and Crown entities, when carrying out their legal functions, making serious allegations of criminal behaviour without an appropriate evidential basis. But he was left dancing on the head of a pin in his refusal to do so, even though that is what his role demands. Now, that is a very serious issue, and it alarmed National members of the committee that the Attorney-General ducked and dived for more than 10 minutes but repeatedly refused to condemn what had occurred, despite that clearly being his responsibility. The point was made that Ministers and Crown entities should adhere to a clear threshold, backed up by solid evidence, before making allegations of criminal behaviour and requiring the police to commence a criminal investigation.
On our side of the House, we absolutely believe that it is vital for Crown Law, and the Attorney-General as the primary legal officer, to ensure that the Crown conducts itself carefully and prudently, and that before choosing to refer matters to the police, they should seek expert legal advice. As was subsequently demonstrated when the report into the Budget documents issue was released, that clearly didn’t happen. It’s a further matter of considerable concern that the Attorney-General, again, failed to condemn that reckless and irresponsible referral to the police when, subsequently, that long-awaited report into the matter confirmed that no illegal or inappropriate action had been committed in the all too easy access of Budget documents.
That wasn’t the only significant matter of concern to Opposition members of the committee during our Estimates hearing, because the Attorney-General was also asked for his view of ministerial meddling in Crown prosecutions and the role that the Attorney-General should play in such instances. Specifically, he was asked if he considered it appropriate for the Associate Minister of Transport, firstly, to have made public comments about a New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) prosecution, in which Mr Jones had criticised NZTA’s carrying out of the prosecution by referring to Filipino witnesses being used by NZTA as “pimps” to acquire information; and, secondly, to have had discussions with the chief executive of NZTA on that matter while the agency’s prosecution was under way.
But again, instead of asserting the importance of his role as the Crown’s principal legal officer and his expectation that the Crown and its Ministers would carry out their legal functions appropriately and to the highest standards, the Attorney-General refused to give a straight answer and suggested it would depend on the timing of those comments and to whom they were made. But it was a matter of public record that the comments had been made by Mr Jones to the media, and published by the media, while the investigation and prosecution were under way and continuing. These were very serious matters for the Attorney-General to answer, and it is deeply to be regretted that he failed to rise above a political defence of his senior ministerial colleagues, who had all behaved so inappropriately in both instances. One can only hope that he has reflected on both of those matters since the Estimates hearing and will expect higher standards of his colleagues and, by virtue of the important functions of his office, of himself in the future.
In the time remaining, I want to switch my focus to the issue that was debated last night by the Minister of Justice and the Opposition spokesperson for justice, before I spoke in the debate, in respect of the lack of a Budget allocation this year for the roll-out of alcohol and other drug treatment courts in New Zealand. The Minister was at his angry best in responding to Mr Mitchell’s criticism of the lack of commitment and funding for alcohol and other drug treatment courts, but he failed to explain why this year’s Budget made no allocation of funding beyond the expiry of the two pilot courts of that nature that were set up by the last National Government—and those pilots conclude at the end of June next year.
I was encouraged to hear the Minister express his support for such courts, which have been shown to be so effective internationally in tackling the underlying causes of crime and reducing recidivism. But instead of frothing at the mouth as he volleyed and thundered last night, what the Minister should have done was confirm that funding will be made as widely available as possible. We’re waiting for it with open arms in Hamilton, where we have a formation committee fully behind the project and waiting to go. I ask the Minister to make sure the Budget funding is there very soon.
Debate interrupted.
Voting
Correction—Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Could the vote for the Green Party on the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, first reading, be corrected from eight votes in favour to seven votes in favour?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So you’re seeking leave to do so?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is there any objection? There is none. I will advise the Speaker that the Green’s vote on the previous bill will be corrected from eight to seven.
Estimates Debate
In Committee
Debate resumed.
Justice Sector (continued)
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a great privilege to be able to talk about the great work being done under Vote Justice. What I really like about being able to speak on this issue is it really demonstrates how this Government is, in fact, tackling the long-term issues facing New Zealand. Vote Justice is such a good one to use as an example for that, because it really looks at, particularly, those areas that are really difficult problems for New Zealand to confront, like family violence and sexual violence.
Focusing on breaking the cycle of offending is so important to be able to get into that space and make some real changes for New Zealanders. We know some things: if we tackle offenders there’ll be less offending and less reoffending, if there’s less reoffending there will be fewer victims of crime, and if there are fewer victims of crime then we are able to better support those victims of crime and stop that cycle of reoffending—which is the real difference that this Government is driving. It’s really good to see that under Budget 2019, there are a range of votes that contributed to, really, bringing together a wide range of different organisations to be able to target family and sexual violence. From previously working in this space—it was incredibly disparate; there were different groups with different funding that weren’t able to collaborate and get together. By bringing this together, under this Government, we’ve seen a far greater sense of information sharing that really saves lives.
As a former official, who looked into family violence death reviews in New Zealand, one of the outstanding factors that we’ve seen in the past is that lives have been lost in New Zealand because there was an inability for Government agencies and NGOs to work together and collaborate to share information that, in real-time, can actually save lives. That’s where initiatives under this Government have enabled us to address those silos and bring information together, and in real-time, share information that will enable those lives to be saved and be so much better. Facts are important, so let’s bring those into the debate. In New Zealand, $4 billion to $7 billion is the estimated cost of family violence to New Zealanders in a year, so it is so vital that we put that investment in there. We’ve seen over $320 million invested in that space, which is so good to see. We know that there are a million New Zealanders affected by family and sexual violence, and of that 300,000 are children.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry to interrupt the member, but we did agree that family violence would be debated—because it is cross-agency, it would be debated as a whole in the social services and community sector. So you’re just slightly ahead of yourself.
GINNY ANDERSEN: Apologies, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, anyway. So the other area that was very interesting to learn about through Vote Justice was also the good work being done in the area of drug use in New Zealand. In particular, the issue of methamphetamine was raised in that space. When the Minister spoke to the committee, he acknowledged the fact that it’s important that we do take a balanced approach in New Zealand; that’s exactly what we’re doing: taking a balanced approach. So it’s important to acknowledge that if there is manufacture, and if there are areas of cultivation and manufacture, that those are prosecuted. But it’s just as important to acknowledge those underlying factors that go into ongoing drug use, and that those are treated as a health issue. That’s incredibly important. They are also tightly tied to mental health, another area that is working so well—much better—in New Zealand under this Government.
So when we look at some of the programmes that are funded to address this issue, a really good example of being able to take a balanced approach is Te Ara Oranga, which has been funded for $4 million. Te Ara Oranga works in Northland, and that’s that example of looking at those that are manufacturing and prosecuting, in that aspect, but for those who are using—to be able to separate that out and be able to provide drug treatment, to provide wraparound services, to break that cycle of reoffending. That makes this Government so much different from the past one, because it is tackling those long-term issues. It’s breaking that cycle and identifying those issues that are generating crime, which will mean a long-term change. We know that these are big issues. We know that these are difficult issues, but that is not deterring this Government from tackling them and making sure we make a real long-term change in these areas.
One of the things that is really important in that space is how much we see police collaborating with communities to tackle meth use. That is a great area to see that we are driving real change in. It’s been a privilege to be able to speak on this area, and it shows I’m proud to be part of a Government that is delivering real, long-term change for New Zealand.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to contrast the Government’s claims of the year of delivery, with the broken promises and the incompetence that has occurred in the justice portfolio area. Can we, firstly, start with the big justice reforms that we were promised by the Government nearly two years ago? Whether it’s been three-strikes, whether it’s been a whole series of bills, the Government has actually been extending sentences—not the big reform that was proposed. Then we’ve got the taskforce that’s been set up for justice reform, of which the wheels have fallen off with the resignations of Warren Young and Jarrod Gilbert. Such is the embarrassment and the lack of delivery. Even if we look at the inquiry that the Government has done into children’s care in State institutions, we’ve just had the resignation of former Governor-General Anand Satyanand—just another example of the shemozzle that has become Government policy in the area of justice.
I have to highlight the failures in corrections, because they have become an international embarrassment for New Zealand. We have the worst offender ever in New Zealand history, a man charged with the death of 51 people; we have the Prime Minister lecturing the world on how we need to use modern technology to shut down the spread of hate, we have the man writing letters around the world trying to infect and expand the terrorism, and we are yet to have explanations from the Government as to how that occurred. We even have Government members of the Justice Committee preventing an inquiry into how that letter occurred.
Todd Muller: Really?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And they call themselves—I say to my colleague—the most open, transparent Government ever, and they’re blocking the Justice Committee from getting to the bottom of that basic failure. Here’s the one that really amuses me, and I’d love to get an explanation from members opposite: Kelvin Davis campaigned for six long years, on the evil of double-bunking in prisons. My colleagues will remember the campaign that he ran, and now he’s got a bill before Parliament that—you know what?—makes double-bunking easier. What a contradiction. What a double standard that has come in that area.
Then I particularly want to challenge the Minister around the very serious issue of electoral law. He is the first Minister of Justice to ignore the convention that electoral law changes should be developed on a cross-party basis. In fact, if you look at the last Government—a very good record, and I pay compliments to former justice Ministers Simon Power and Amy Adams, who went to great length. But it’s worse than that: this Minister has been dishonest in the way in which he has promoted electoral changes. He puts a press release out saying that we’re going to introduce same-day enrolment in voting, but conveniently ignores telling the public that that means the vote count will be delayed by 10 days. It was sneaky, it was wrong, and the Minister owes this House an explanation.
I also want to challenge the Government about its policy in respect of referendum, because it is all about politics and nothing to do with principle. I’d love the Minister in the chair to say whether he agrees with the New Zealand First Party that you can’t trust Parliament, and only Cabinet can decide on the referendum. I point out to the committee that in the many referendum that we’ve had at election time—every single one of them—the wording has been determined by Parliament. It is outrageous what the Government is doing to manipulate the 2020 election. This is a desperate coalition that will stoop to whatever level is required to try and ensure their re-election. It is a disgraceful approach for a country that has such a proud democratic tradition. I challenge the Minister to actually raise the standards, live up to the heritage of the brave people recognised on the walls of this Parliament, and respect the democratic traditions of this country.
Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the great ironies of the ongoing hyperbole of Nick Smith is that on the one hand he champions democracy and on the other hand opposes the ability for the ordinary person to have access to vote on election day. He’s in favour of keeping the structural barriers that currently exist to prevent people who have not made it on to the electoral roll to actually vote on election day. So let’s just call a spade a spade.
When we became Government in 2017, the country faced some huge endemic issues from nine years of neglect under that previous National Government. What we did was we committed to building a strong economy and we also committed to introducing, alongside that, a values-based approach to governing: compassion, kindness, fairness—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s very interesting—
Hon CLARE CURRAN: —those things that the National—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Member, Order!
Hon CLARE CURRAN: —Party scoff and laugh about—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order! Order! The member should be debating the Estimates before us. Now, it’s not about a strong economy; it’s about Vote Justice, Vote Corrections, and Vote Police. And when I call “Order!”, the member stops speaking.
Hon CLARE CURRAN: Point of order, Madam Chair. When the—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): A point of order, the Hon Clare Curran.
Hon CLARE CURRAN: The Opposition was shouting so loud, I couldn’t hear the Chair, and I apologise. I would have stopped immediately. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You may continue, but focus on the vote in front of us.
Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yeah, so—
Hon Members: She hasn’t read it.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s not helpful.
Hon CLARE CURRAN: —one of the things that we needed to do was to look at new ways of measuring success, which is why we’re focused on wellbeing. One of the incredibly important parts of a wellbeing approach is—and this goes to Vote Corrections in the justice Estimates—to focus on offenders and offenders’ mental health, access to drug and alcohol treatment, the overrepresentation of Māori in the justice system, successful reintegration, and our high imprisonment rate compared with other jurisdictions.
So between 2002 and 2018, the prison population trended upwards. From 2013—and, you know, get this: former National Government—to 2018, it spiked rapidly, placing huge pressure on the prison system. One of the goals of this Government was to reduce that prison population by 30 percent over the next 15 years. That’s a significant thing to do and it requires a lot of measures.
So the focus on wellbeing is genuine and necessary, given the fact that 91 percent of prisoners have a mental health or substance abuse issue. Investing heavily in ensuring that prisoners have got access to appropriate mental health and substance treatment programmes is about successful rehabilitation, which is about reducing the prison population. That is what success looks like.
So what are we doing? This is the High Impact Innovation Programme, which is aimed at finding ways to: reduce the prison population, remand triage, support for defendants to apply for electronic monitoring, more home detention, and parole-ready strategies—that’s the high impact innovation programme. Along with that: $128 million for mental health and addiction, to enable an extra 2,300 offenders with mild to moderate needs to receive mental health support.
Nearly 42 percent of the prison population is Māori, although they make up 15 percent of New Zealand’s population. So what we’re doing is focusing on improving the work with Māori; completing a new strategy with the aim of building stronger partnerships with iwi and strengthening its cultural capability. What does success look like? Lowering the population of Māori in prisons, and support for victims—I could go on and on. I absolutely commend this to the House.
BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on part of the Estimates. Vote Police is where I want to go. The member who just resumed her seat, Clare Curran, talked about mental health and how important it is, and she talked about the justice sector. Well, here we go: what has this Government done? Well, the mental health nurses have been removed from the Counties Manukau watch-house, under their watch. The mental health worker ride-alongs with police appear to be going nowhere fast, under their watch. And New Zealand Police have just reported a sharp uptick in the number of incidents reported that involve mental health issues. So it appears that to this Government, wellbeing is a slogan and not a delivery.
But I want to mainly focus on Vote Police and the Budget appropriation for the firearms buy-back. The Government set aside, under Vote Police, $168 million, and then ACC chipped in another $40 million to make a total of $208 million. Just before I talk about how we quizzed the commissioner and the Minister in Estimates hearings, the breakdown of that is that $190 million of the full $208 million is on the buy-back, and the $18 million remaining is for running the buy-back operations.
I’ll just make a note, because there’s been some recent commentary in the media: police are doing an outstanding job of running the operation itself. I get feedback that officers in the buy-back events are very courteous and very professional. It is worthy of note that they are conducting themselves well. There are many people turning up who don’t necessarily want to be there, but they are being treated properly.
It is the buy-back scheme itself that is turning into a complete fiasco. It started prior to Estimates—but it certainly started at Estimates. We quizzed the Minister as to how they had arrived at the buy-back scheme they wish to fund to an extent of $190 million, and particularly what advice they had received around that; extremely disappointing, and this is the first opportunity to report this to the House. The Minister sought not to answer any questions about that detail at all. He sought to use the excuse that the KPMG report was a report between KPMG and the Police Commissioner, not the Minister; seeking to hide behind section 16 of the Policing Act that says that politicians in Government don’t get involved in operational police matters. Well, here’s the fact: the Estimates are Government appropriation—the Minister is responsible for those moneys, what they are to be spent on, and what they are supposed to achieve. He refused to give us the information that we deserved and we’re entitled to receive at the Estimates hearing.
By some good fortune—rather than good management—a few weeks ago, we finally received a copy of that report, and it wasn’t redacted. We finally got the answers that the Minister could have and should have given us at the Estimates hearing. They confirmed what we suspected: that the Government had prioritised pinching pennies over public safety. The experts to KPMG clearly stated that if the buy-back scheme was a retail price with no discounting, they would get greater compliance—admittedly, at a higher cost, but they’d get greater compliance. Of the three headline options that they talked about, the Government chose the one that they said would have the least compliance and the lowest cost. They chose to save a few pennies in the Budget, and they knew that would come at the expense of public safety, because they had been told. On 2 April 2019, the police advised the Government how many now prohibited firearms they estimated there to be in the country. And just because of events today in question time, in answer to a supplementary question on question No. 8, the recipients of that document include both the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice.
In that document, it states that the police believe there could be 240,000 of these firearms in circulation in New Zealand. So far, there have been—just at the beginning of the week—a total of about 104 events, and an average of 117 firearms handed over at each event. Now, the math would say, if there’s not an enormous uptick, that’s fewer than 30,000 firearms that will be collected under the buy-back, that the Government has set aside $208 million for. Even if there is a great uptick—[Time expired]
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It gives me great pleasure to stand here to talk on the justice Estimates, and, like the speaker before me Brett Hudson, I’ll focus on policing aspects. But what I will do is be just slightly more positive. The politicisation of policing is a shame. It’s done by both sides. You’re seeing it there—and, to be fair, Oppositions do it all the time. But when the rubber hits the road, there’s one test we all need to sit, and it’s a test we all sat on 15 March this year, and watched how effective our police are. I, personally, having policed in Christchurch, and, I have to say, knowing well the two officers who were involved in capturing the offender, and knowing the type of police officers they were, I think—and the identity of those officers may never be known publicly, but anyone that does know them will know they’re the sort of police officers that anyone would be very proud to police with, and I’m proud to say I did, as I policed with many of those other Christchurch police officers.
I was lucky enough, this year, to have a trip through the Christchurch justice centre. Look, I’ll give the Opposition credit; that was a fantastic idea after the earthquake, to put all those justice-related departments together, and it works well. So congratulations to whoever’s idea that was. As I walked around the station, I saw a lot of people I knew, a lot of people I’d worked with, and they’re good, experienced people. It gives me no surprise that they reacted so well, to the extent that, not only those two police officers but, actually, when the police and emergency service response to that tragedy was debriefed, not only in New Zealand, but internationally—we had all those experts from United States, and, unfortunately, they are expert at those mass shootings—they all saw how well New Zealand had reacted.
So rather than negativity, can we just take a moment and actually be very grateful at how well-served we are, not only by our police, but justice.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We are getting to the Estimates, aren’t we?
GREG O’CONNOR: That, then, now takes me on to the other part of what really faces us in the future, and every department—we’ve again heard about many of the different initiatives that’ve been brought in. Unfortunately, where we’ve arrived at, we now have a situation where our prisons are full. We’ve reduced it by a thousand, but it may well be that they increase, because, unfortunately, nothing is in isolation. The real issue we have in this country is gangs and methamphetamine. Unless we take a joint approach to that, if we stand and bicker in this House and get the sort of small-mindedness we’ve just seen, then nothing will be done. I will ask the Opposition to actually sit back and think: do they really want to score political points or do they want this country to be actually safer?
I would say that the only way it’s going to become safer is if we can actually sit back and join everything up. It’s not just a matter of, “We’re going to fix this bit and that bit”; we’ve actually got to join everything up. Unless we do something about methamphetamine—methamphetamine is cheaper, and more available than any time it has ever been, which means that everything we’ve done to date has failed. Our prisons: OK, we’re a thousand less than we were, but it’s still far too high—certainly, our imprisonment rates are far too high. Certainly, our Māori imprisonment rates are far too high.
So what we heard during the Estimates this year, from the various departments that came to us—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): At last.
GREG O’CONNOR: Oh, I had to mention the word “Estimates”, did I, Madam Chairperson? I didn’t realise that was the word. I thought it was inherent in everything I was saying. However, I will mention the word “Estimates”. What we did hear is “joined up”. When we heard from corrections, we heard about the different strategies they’re employing, and we heard about one of them in Northland. Again, I sat through the family violence in Christchurch group, where all the different departments were sitting there, and they didn’t leave that meeting until they had a plan to deal with overnight incidents. That’s the type of thing we’re going to have to do, because, again, lying behind even those family violence incidents, lying behind so much of our crime stats—and I’ve had personal involvement in this recently—is methamphetamine, is drugs, and are gangs.
We have 6,500 gang members in this country. That’s the patched members. Forget about how many prospects there are, how many hang arounds, how many associates, or how many founding members. That means—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Could you, sort of, introduce some money into this?
GREG O’CONNOR: —their sphere of intimidation is huge, Madam Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Budget?
GREG O’CONNOR: Madam Chairperson—gang members, Estimates, crime; I don’t believe you could get closer to the subject than mentioning, actually, crime.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, you could. I believe you could.
GREG O’CONNOR: So in the eight seconds left to me, I will say: can we please depoliticise this? Can we please do something in drawing this up? Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s always a difficult task to follow that member Greg O’Connor. If I can commence the debate on Estimates—or rather, resume it—in relation to Vote Justice, Vote Courts, and various other related matters that we considered at the Justice Committee, as our chair, sort of, led us through a process, and various Ministers appeared before us, we, of course, performed the constitutionally important role of scrutinising the Budget and the Estimates that have been made in those various areas.
I’d like to focus on the courts area, which is of particular interest to me. But first just to touch on a couple of other aspects. One is remarkable, really, more for the absence of action and what was not said in the Budget and related documents, than for what was said in it, namely around hate speech. Now, I’m relieved that not much progress appears to have been made on that, and we’ve understood, from talking with various Ministers, that it’s something that the Government is looking into, no doubt at the urging of the Green Party. As I say, I would not encourage them, particularly, to progress matters in the way that some members of the Government might encourage them to do so. So perhaps we give some credit for the fact that that is slowed, or perhaps stalled. Whether by accident or design, that’s a good thing, but I note that there was not much evidence of work having been done on that that is likely to come to fruition any time soon.
As for another matter that has been raised previously as part of the justice programme, and more generally of the Government—the suggestion, indeed the promise, that courts should have their right to issue declarations of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that right to be affirmed, as the courts have claimed it for themselves in any case, and a process set up whereby Parliament would have to respond in some way to such a declaration. It’s with tongue in cheek that I suggest that courts might make a declaration of inconsistency between the rhetoric of the Government and the reality. Of course, they wouldn’t tread on the toes of this House in such a manner, but I’m sure they are tempted, as indeed most New Zealanders would be, considering the justice programme of the Government compared to the before and the after of the promises that were made, and certainly looking at the lack of fulfilment within the most recent Budget and the Estimates hearings thereafter.
Colleagues have touched on the idea of prison numbers reduction. Of course, that’s a good thing in itself, as far as it goes to the extent that that would reflect the need for prisoner numbers. So that’s something that we will carefully continue to monitor on this side of the House—the extent to which criminal offending and public safety needs to be protected, and so the relationship between prison numbers and that must, of course, be appropriate, whether that’s in an upwards or downwards direction.
I’d like to focus, as I say, on the courts portfolio and, more specifically, the alcohol and other drug treatment courts. It’s a matter of record that National supports the concept of the thing, and, in fact, it was in our term of Government that we established these courts, admittedly on a trial basis, and I’d like to give kudos to all those who are involved in their running in the present day, as well as those who were involved in setting them up in the first instance. We know, of course, that currently in Waitakere, near my own electorate, and in Auckland, these are running still on a pilot basis until June 2020. And that’s the extent of the funding that the Government has allocated. Now, it might well be that funding is provided beyond that point at some time, ideally before that time runs out, but we have not seen evidence of that in the Budget. So, with all the earnestness that I can muster, I appeal to the Minister and his Government to make a reality the ongoing operation, at the very least, of the courts that are currently operating, so that those will continue to do the good work that they are doing, beyond June 2020.
We’ve heard from our colleague and friend the Hon Tim Macindoe, with some local advocacy around the desire in Hamilton for an equivalent such court to be set up there. My knowledge of the preparation they’ve been doing in that area suggests to me that that would be a sensible idea. And, again, I would encourage the Minister and his Government to move as swiftly as possible to set up such a facility for the benefit of that community as well as those individuals and their families who would benefit most from it. In the meantime, again, just the need for some extra money; we’ve got a bit from column A, a bit from column B—that is, in justice and courts—to keep these courts running. We need a bit more, and we look forward to it.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Vote Attorney-General, Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, Vote Justice, Vote Parliamentary Counsel, Vote Police, and Vote Serious Fraud be agreed to.
Ayes 60
New Zealand Labour 45; New Zealand First 8; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 7.
Noes 54
New Zealand National 52; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Votes agreed to.
Māori Affairs Sector
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members, we come now to the votes in the Māori affairs sector volume—B.5, Volume 8. The question is that Vote Māori Development and Vote Treaty Negotiations stand part of the Schedules.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and it’s indeed a pleasure to speak in this Estimates debate to traverse the reports of the Māori Affairs Committee for the appropriations in regard to Vote Māori Development and Vote Treaty Negotiations. We also covered a portion of Vote Justice which is the responsibility of the Minister of Te Arawhiti. So if we beg your indulgence, we can cover that appropriation as well.
I’d like to acknowledge the Ministers that appeared before our committee and all of the work that was going on in relation to the various votes that we have here, and it’s good news—it’s very good news. It’s further proof that our Government is tackling the longer-term issues, and nowhere is that more evident than in Vote Māori Development. I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for the sterling work that she’s doing. If we look at the appropriations for Vote Māori Development, there has been close to a 10 percent increase—8 percent, in fact—$374 million appropriation for the 2019-20 year, and a huge increase within the Whānau Ora portion of that appropriation: a 32 percent increase to over $101 million. So those are some hefty, hefty appropriations which are being applied to actually lifting up and raising Māori right across, on so many levels.
I want to just focus on a few; I know I’ve got only a short space of time, but I want to acknowledge the Minister and her focus on housing, through the Papakāinga development and rural housing repairs—very important mahi that’s greatly needed right across, particularly in high-deprivation areas where Māori are. I want to acknowledge the Minister for her work with the housing initiatives around Kāinga Ora and also around our Māori whenua, and we are looking forward to the targeted amendments that will be taking place. These are all part of interlinked initiatives from the whenua, from the kāinga, through housing, through the papakāinga, all about improving the wellbeing of whānau.
That leads into the work that Whānau Ora is doing. There are some massive increases in funding, as I mentioned; a 32 percent increase. There are some fantastic new initiatives, in particular the Paiheretia te Muka Tangata. That programme, when it is rolled out, is about reducing recidivism rates of Māori offenders in prisons, but it is also about ensuring that we look holistically not only at the wellbeing of the inmates but their whānau as well. So those ongoing programmes are very exciting and very welcome initiatives, and it feeds directly into the work of Minister Davis in his corrections area with Hōkai Rangi, the corrections strategy that has been announced to lower the Māori prison population.
There are so many other areas where our Ministers are doing fantastic jobs. Te Whare o te Reo Mauriora: we now have completed, standing proud, our full Māori-Crown strategy in Te Reo Māori, which is powering ahead. There is fantastic work in Māori broadcasting and right across into the Crown’s commitments as well.
If we sweep over to Vote Treaty Negotiations now, I want to acknowledge Minister Little for his sterling work ushering through many, many Treaty settlements. We know we’re entering the tail-end phase of Treaty settlements. They are quite challenging cases, but we know that Ngāpuhi is one that we will—a giant that will be tamed—
Hon Andrew Little: Just around the corner.
RINO TIRIKATENE: Just around this corner, by this Minister. He’s just confirmed it here in the Chamber. Fantastic work in Treaty negotiations—likewise, in the huge amount of work that he’s doing in the marine and coastal area space.
Finally, I want to acknowledge Minister Davis for his work in Te Arawhiti. It is a new division, a new office, a new tari, and it’s doing sterling work in terms of having doubled its resources, focusing on building strong relationships across Government, and it’s all about the Crown-Māori relationships. So with Nanaia in Te Puni Kōkiri focusing on the whānau wellbeing, Minister Davis focusing on Crown-Māori relations, Minister Henare with Whānau Ora, and likewise with Minister Little in Treaty negotiations, the waka is powering very strongly ahead in Māori development. Kia ora tātou.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Madam Chair, the Māori Affairs Committee is so privileged to have such a committed chair such as the member for Te Tai Tonga, Rino Tirikatene. What we can guarantee, when you get in front of the Māori Affairs Committee to talk about the issues that are really important, is that Rino will ensure that a full conversation will be had but, more importantly, that we’re able to focus on the things that will make a difference in the lives of many Māori now.
This Wellbeing Budget has delivered to Māori in ways that will really be a catalyst for the types of opportunities that will see enterprise grow, especially in relation to whenua Māori; that will ensure that the opportunities for young people to go into a pathway of work and employment, long-term employment, is possible; that will ensure that there’s greater protection around the aspirations of our marae, especially in terms of the resilience; and that we’re continuing to strengthen whānau development models where wellbeing is at the centre.
But then there is also the opportunity through this Wellbeing Budget to strengthen the way in which Te Reo Māori and our broadcasting sector can add value to our country’s story and provide real impetus for the way in which we value Te Reo Māori in the public sector and throughout the country.
I really do want to focus on those issues that occupied the minds of the select committee. If we look at the whenua Māori programme and the Budget that contributed towards a targeted set of amendments, legislative amendments that will get landowners over some pretty significant hurdles around succession, the budget is there: strengthen the Māori Land Court and some of the administrative processes, ensuring that we have a mediation pathway through there, ensuring that there’s support on the ground for Māori land owners. That transforms the real emphasis of engaging Māori land owners with their land through this approach.
When we think about and look at the Budget and what we’re doing in the area of housing, there are so many good stories to tell. But it’s not just about a house. It’s actually building the financial capability of whānau so that they can really envisage what a pathway to homeownership could deliver, and, beyond that, what equity in secure homeownership could deliver as well. The conversation has never really been just about buying a house; it’s been about providing security, having the financial literacy skills to be able to secure greater opportunity for whānau.
So we are investing in papakāinga homes; we’re investing in more repairs and maintenance throughout the country. This is making a key difference for, certainly, our kaumātua—warmer homes and the like—and ensuring that Sorted Kāinga Ora, which is a financial literacy programme for whānau, can be rolled out further throughout the country. Now, I was really pleased, because that programme in itself received recognition from Australia as a real practical tool that could support whānau.
In Oranga Marae, which we released down in Rino’s home area of Rehua, we are supporting marae to think about the way in which they can secure funding to upgrade their marae and also to build the resilience. Many of our marae now are being drawn upon for civil defence reasons, and so this funding in itself has been very, very useful.
I want to touch briefly on the extra funding in Whānau Ora, and the Minister himself has set quite a task in front of him to ensure that whānau development becomes core to the way in which communities can evolve and strengthen opportunity. So I’m looking forward to further conversations in that space.
The cadetship training programme—now, here’s a small but useful programme to ensure that young people can be picked up by employers and trained on site, and then employers can actually see how they could perhaps integrate an opportunity of permanent employment. We’ve seen initiatives around riparian planting in communities where the cadetship programme has been used—forestry aligned with Te Uru Rākau—and also companies who have just taken a chance on a young person and given them a shot through the cadetship programme. These are the types of things that really make a difference, alongside the rest of the Budget, that deliver on wellbeing but are primarily focused on outcomes for Māori. The select committee were very vociferous in their questioning of each of the Ministers, and I know that we were quite challenged with some of the probing questions but very pleased to respond to every one of them, because we know that this is a Budget that delivers for Māori.
Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to talk about Whānau Ora and the 2019/20 Budget appropriations under Vote Māori Development. Now, we in Parliament all know that Whānau Ora, as described by Te Puni Kōkiri, “is an inclusive, culturally anchored approach to provide services and opportunities to whānau and families across New Zealand.” It was first implemented by the National-led Government in 2010 and was the brainchild of the Hon Tariana Turia. It has become a very successful model for delivering social services and social investment, with the aim of empowering the whole whānau rather than just focusing on individuals.
Unfortunately, during those years, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and many of the Labour members were not supportive of Whānau Ora, and before both the 2014 and the 2017 elections, they promised that if they became Government, they would review the programme. So when they did finally become Government in 2017, they began that review, and using that review process as an excuse provided no extra funding at all in Budget 2018. Fortunately, when the review was finally concluded in February this year, the findings were positive. As Minister Peeni Henare said, the review “affirms this unique approach is working well for Māori and Pacific families. The findings paint a picture of progress and positive changes for families [and] show [that] Whānau Ora is a successful contemporary indigenous wellbeing initiative, driven by Māori cultural values, working successfully and [that it] could be taken wider.”, and we agree with Minister Henare. The review also said that Whānau Ora creates conditions for that change to become sustainable, although there does need to be more research done, that it had structured accountability in the system, and operates in a transparent manner.
So our side of the House is very pleased that Budget 2019 finally increased the funding for Whānau Ora so that the programme could continue, although I must say we haven’t seen any evidence of that funding actually flowing into the system. However, we still need to make sure that the money is spent wisely and we know that that review was also concerned that Whānau Ora is siloed and that there’s a significant amount of work to do to build the understanding amongst Government departments.
House resumed.
Bill reported with progress.
Report adopted.
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.