Tuesday, 9 May 2023

TUESDAY, 9 MAY 2023

TUESDAY, 9 MAY 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

SPEAKER: Members, in recognition of Rotuman Language Week, I’ve asked Ingrid Leary to say the prayer today in Rotuman.

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

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

PARLIAMENTARY MEMBERSHIP

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand—Dr Elizabeth Kerekere

SPEAKER: Members—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: —under Standing Order 36(1)(c)—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’m on my feet. Members, under Standing Order 36(1)(c), I have been advised by the Green Party that their parliamentary membership has changed and that Dr Elizabeth Kerekere is no longer a member of the Green Party for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly, under Standing Order 35(5), Dr Kerekere is, from 8 May 2023, regarded as an independent member for parliamentary purposes.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 2 to the Prime Minister, 8 March

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): I seek leave to correct an answer to a supplementary question that I gave on Wednesday, 8 March in answer to question No. 2.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In one of my answers to a supplementary question, I said that the number of ram raids had fallen by three-quarters, or 75 percent. Data to the end of February 2023 showed that the number of ram raids had fallen from their peak in August 2022 by two-thirds, or 66 percent. During that same period, the number of individuals committing ram raids fell by 83 percent.

Motions

His Majesty King Charles III—Coronation

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): A further point of order, Mr Speaker. Following a Business Committee discussion, I seek leave to move a motion without notice congratulating His Majesty, following his recent coronation.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That this House congratulate His Majesty the King on the occasion of his coronation.

On 6 May, I was privileged to attend the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III and Queen Camilla at Westminster Abbey. It was a rare and special event. The previous coronation, of Queen Elizabeth II, took place 70 years ago, in 1953. The world is a very different place now to what it was in 1953, and the coronation provided an opportunity to reflect on history as well as to look ahead to the future.

King Charles automatically became the King of New Zealand on 8 September last year, following the death of the late Queen. The coronation was a celebration of his accession to the throne not just of the United Kingdom but as head of State of 15 nations around the world, including our own. Those nations span across three different continents. It was a great source of pride to see New Zealand’s Defence Force personnel marching in the procession and to have New Zealand represented among the guests.

Attending in London and being able to meet personally with the King reinforced to me his genuine interest in our people and his awareness of our place in the world. The King and other members of the royal family have been closely following our recovery from the recent Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, and King Charles’ passion around environmental issues, including climate change, was clearly very evident in our discussions.

King Charles has visited New Zealand 10 times, and he has a strong personal commitment to Aotearoa. The themes he selected for his coronation were youth, diversity, and sustainability—themes which also resonate strongly with New Zealanders.

While not everyone in our nation, or even in this House, shares similar views on the role of the monarchy in a modern society—and public debate will, undoubtedly, continue on that topic—I’m sure that everyone will join with me in congratulating His Majesty on this significant milestone. The coronation was a moment where the King publicly took oaths of service and duty. I know that he takes those oaths seriously and deeply personally. I wish King Charles well in his role, and I send the warmest wishes and congratulations to His Majesty and to the Queen for the lives of service that they have committed to, on behalf of all New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Point of order. Kia ora—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Members, I was informed this morning that all parties had agreed to that by Te Paati Māori. I was subsequently informed by a number of parties that that was not the case. Given that it happened anyway, I have limited ability to address it except Rawiri Waititi will leave the Chamber.

Rawiri Waititi withdrew from the Chamber.

SPEAKER: And Debbie Ngarewa-Packer will leave the Chamber as well.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer withdrew from the Chamber.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): It is a pleasure, on behalf of the National Party, to support this motion congratulating New Zealand’s head of State, His Majesty King Charles III, on his coronation. Like the Prime Minister, last Saturday I had the privilege and honour of attending the King’s coronation in Westminster Abbey, and it was a historic occasion in a very beautiful and ancient building. The coronation reminded me once again of that acknowledgment that New Zealanders so often make after watching a royal event, and that is that no one can do it quite like the British. All of it was spectacular, from the carriages and parades outside the abbey, to the magnificent choristers and flowers inside, and both inside and outside there was a real sense of joy and celebration. But I also agree with the sentiments of the Prince of Wales. Prince William said, “For all that celebrations are magnificent, at the heart of the pageantry is a simple message: service.”

Almost all King Charles’ life has been about service—first, as Britain’s longest-serving Prince of Wales, giving support and strength to his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, but he has been serving Britain and the Commonwealth for a long time. In 1952, at the age of three, he became heir apparent, the next in line to the throne. At 16, he undertook his first official royal duty and he has not stopped serving since. He has been patron or president of more than 800 causes that matter to him, and the coronation also symbolised King Charles’ role as head of the Church of England. His Christian faith is important to him, but the coronation included roles for all major faiths, and that message of religious acceptance and inclusion is so important.

King Charles is also a conservationist, an accomplished artist, a musician, and an equestrian, and I’m sure all these interests will shape his regency. He is a husband, a father, and a grandfather, and he has stepchildren and step-grandchildren. Like with every family everywhere, things don’t always run smoothly, and his family has the added burden of being unrelentingly in the public eye. But throughout it all, his service to his late mother, the Queen, and to Britain and to the Commonwealth, which he now heads, has been unwavering. He has made many visits to New Zealand, and the royal family closely follow events here. I am sure the King understands the significance of the Crown’s relationship with Māori as signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi.

I have said publicly that I believe that at some point New Zealand will become a republic, and, should we step away from the monarchy, it will not be a negative reflection of whoever is on the throne at that time; in fact, it will be a sign of the monarchy’s success in having helped shape the successful, tolerant, open, and independent country that New Zealand is today. But that is not a here and now discussion. Here and now is the celebration of our new King. He is and will continue to be an important presence in all of our lives, and I feel sure he will serve New Zealand, Britain, and the Commonwealth well, as did his mother before him and her father before that.

So, on behalf of the National Party, I offer my warmest and most sincere and heartfelt congratulations to King Charles and to Queen Camilla on their coronations. Long live the King.

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Leave Not Put

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

SPEAKER: We’re in the middle of a debate. The best time to do that is at the end of the debate.

Motions

His Majesty King Charles III—Coronation

Debate resumed.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to stand for the ACT Party to speak to the coronation of our new King, Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor of the United Kingdom.

He was born in Buckingham Palace on 14 November 1948, during the reign of his grandfather George VI, and was aged 74 when crowned King of the United Kingdom and 14 Commonwealth Realms over the weekend. He was three years old when he stood beside his grandmother and his aunt Margaret for his mother’s coronation in 1953.

Our King was home-schooled in Buckingham Palace until just before his eighth birthday, when he was sent to school in West London, the first heir apparent to go to school instead of continuing home-schooling in the palace. He was also sent to school in Scotland—where he described it as being at “Colditz in kilts”—as well as six months studying at Timbertop in Australia. He graduated from school in Berkshire as head boy, and instead of going straight into the armed forces, he went to Trinity College in Cambridge, where he studied archaeology and anthropology, followed by history.

He extended himself further and went to the University College of Wales to study Welsh history and language for a term, the first heir apparent to earn a university degree. He said his schooling taught him a lot about himself, his own abilities and disabilities; it taught him to accept challenges and to take the initiative.

Our King served in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, learning to fly the Chipmunk, and was presented his Royal Air Force wings in 1971. Later, he qualified as a helicopter pilot and joined the naval air squadron. He served with the navy on the guided missile destroyer HMS Norfolk as well as the frigates HMS Minerva and HMS Jupiter, finishing his service in the navy as commander of HMS Bronington, the coastal minehunter.

As King, he succeeds Queen Elizabeth II as the patron of the National Rifle Association of the United Kingdom, and his son Prince William will become the president in his role as Prince of Wales—a tradition that has spanned back to the 1800s.

We’ve had a couple of King Charleses in the past. The rule of King Charles I led to a revolution and the temporary abolition of the monarchy. He was convicted of high treason and beheaded in 1625. King Charles II, son of King Charles I, took the throne in 1660 for 25 years when the monarchy was restored. This King Charles had to rule during the 1665 Great Plague and the 1666 Great Fire of London. The King Charles spaniel is named after him. Then there was the unrecognised King Charles III when, in 1745 and 1746, Charles Edward Stuart led the unsuccessful Jacobite rising, declaring himself King Charles III, but it was never acknowledged officially. He became known instead as Stuart the Pretender or Bonnie Prince Charlie.

I’d like to finish up talking of some of the little-known facts about our official King Charles III. He likes eggs and chose a quiche as a signature dish. He’s a fan of Emmerdale Farm. He’s taken up many causes over the years, and one that he took up was for better equipment for British forces in Iraq. Another was to expand, not restrict, the availability of herbal medicines. He has a tree frog named after him, Prince Charles Magnificent Tree Frog, and The Guardian once reported that he converted his vintage Aston Martin to run on surplus English white wine and whey from the cheese process—biofuel. But it was thought that this could do more harm than good if it was adopted on a wider scale.

King Charles III has spent 71 years preparing for his coronation day. His life experiences have taught him humility, understanding, and tolerance, all while his entire life has been on show to the world. Here to serve instead of being served. ACT welcomes King Charles III to the throne. Long live the King.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): On behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, I would like to extend Charles, Camilla, and their respective families all the very best.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 3

Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Abstentions 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Motion agreed to.

Personal Explanations

Hon Meka Whaitiri

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Mr Speaker, ko te amorangi ki mua, ko te hāpai ō ki muri. Ko te tūturutanga mahi pono o te Māori mana motuhake. He mangōpare amohia o te waka Takitimu. Tihei mauri ora.

Ki a koe e te tuahine, mō tō karakia whakatuwhera, tēnā koe. Ki ngā mema o tēnei Whare e huihui mai nei nā runga i te karanga o te rā, tēnā koutou. Otirā koutou mā, taku hāpai ō, taku whānau, aku hoa, ngā kaitautoko o tēnei tūru, o tēnei kaupapa, koutou kua tae mai ā-tinana nei mai i ngā pito katoa o te motu, koutou mā e mātakitaki ana, ka nui taku aroha ki a koutou katoa e whakamana nei i tēnei rā whakahirahira.

Nei rā te mokopuna a Hineahuone, a Tānenuiarangi, a Hinehau, a Epiha e tū whakaiti nei, tihei mauri ora ki te Whare.

[Mr Speaker, the leader to the fore, the supporters follow. The honest realisation of the unique authority of the Māori people. The elevated hammerhead shark of the Takitimu canoe. The breath of life.

To you, sister, for your opening karakia, greetings and thanks. To the members of this House that have gathered here in answer to the call of the day, greetings. Indeed, to you, my supporters, my family, my friends, the supporters of this seat and this occasion, you who came here in person from all corners of the country, you who are watching, my love is enormous for you that are endorsing this important day.

Here is a grandchild of Hineahuone, Tānuiarangi, Hinehau, and Epiha that humbly stands here. Vitality and wellbeing to this House.]

The decision to cross the floor to join Te Paati Māori was not an easy decision. But, for my whānau and I, it was the right decision. It is time to put our whakapapa first, to return to our people, to serve and work for our people—the calling that comes deep from within my puku.

I come from a long line of pukumahi whānau—hard workers, boots on the ground, salt of the earth whānau. I was raised in the shearing sheds of Te Tairāwhiti and shaped at the freezing works of Whakatū, Hawke’s Bay, where everyone worked hard and played hard. In fact, they called Whakatū the university of life. I was, however, fortunate to go to university—the second in my whānau. My late grandmother instilled in me the teachings of Sir Apirana Ngata: e tipu e rea—to learn the tools of the Pākehā—or, in my case, how Wellington worked so one day I could return home and—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Giving a personal explanation to the House is about something in the House; it’s not a general debate. Ehara tēnei i te wā kia tū ake ki te tuku atu i te reo mihimihi ki ngā mea katoa, kia whakamārama kē he aha te take [This is not the time to stand to acknowledge everyone, but instead to explain the rationale], and I haven’t heard it. I’ll give the member another chance to explain exactly what it is that she is explaining to the House. It’s not about giving a speech.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Mr Speaker, thank you for your guidance. This is my opportunity to explain the decision I’ve made. My decision to return back to the people was based on whakapapa and the calling home—

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: —and I am very pleased to stand in this House to say I have joined a party that enables the voice of wāhine Māori to be heard and not censured in this House. So I stand in support of what we are doing here. It is my opportunity to say that this House and those in this House, when we talk about a 50:50 gender—I want my voice to be heard.

SPEAKER: But now we’re getting into a whole other debate.

Ministerial Statements

Emergency Management—Flooding in Auckland

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): I wish to make a ministerial statement on flooding in Auckland today. The upper North Island is experiencing flooding caused by severe and concentrated rainfall. In Auckland, a state of local emergency has been declared by the mayor. A red severe thunderstorm warning is in place for Northland and Auckland. A line of thunderstorms is tracking across these regions and these are likely to be accompanied by torrential rain. An emergency mobile alert has been sent to the whole of the Auckland region advising people of potential impacts and suggesting they plan travel accordingly. Orange heavy rain warnings are in place for some regions, signalling significant rainfall for some areas over the next few days.

We know that following the severe weather in January and Cyclone Gabrielle, many communities will be concerned, worried, or just completely over it, so we continue to stand alongside them. Whilst the response is being led by local civil defence emergency management (CDEM) groups, the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) has also activated the National Coordination Centre. This means NEMA is working closely with CDEM groups and partner agencies, coordinating requests for information and resources at a national level in support of the locally led response.

I wish to remind everyone listening that this is a potentially dangerous event. Please stay safe and don’t take risks. Heavy rain can cause flooding, coastal inundation, and landslides, especially where the ground is saturated from recent rainfall. Follow the instructions of emergency services and local CDEM groups, and if you feel unsafe at any time, please evacuate to higher ground. Check Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency’s website for road closures before you travel, and drive to the conditions. Please never walk or drive through floodwater and don’t let children play in it. Keep up to date with MetService’s watches and warnings, follow your local CDEM group on their social media accounts, and stay safe out there.

I know that members across this House will join me in expressing our support for the affected communities and thanking everyone involved in the response as this situation unfolds.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do, on behalf of the National Party, indeed join the Minister in sending our best wishes to those who are affected by the developing situation in the upper part of the North Island.

Even as we acknowledge that, other areas of the country continue to seek to recover and rebuild from other severe weather emergency events earlier in this year, including some of the same areas, indeed, that have been hit again today. The updates have been coming in recently so quickly that it is difficult to keep up with them all. There is a measure of uncertainty, therefore, about the situation on the ground, but we can say with certainty that those who have stepped up before have displayed the courage and the community spirit that I’m sure will be replicated again today. In anticipation, and, indeed, acknowledging the works that would already have been done in this space, we thank them, and I’m sure that there is not a member of this House who would not join me in saying that we wish them well. We ask them to be safe for their own sake, even as they put themselves in the line of fire, metaphorically speaking, to support and indeed to save others.

We think of the first responder groups formally designated. We also think of those within the community who group together informally, who step up as individuals to help out their fellow Kiwis in need, and we thank them all.

In addition to the threat to physical life and limb today, we are cognisant as well that there will be a severe mental health toll arising from this event, including and especially where that follows similar events having taken place in similar areas before, and we hope that support will be provided in the days and weeks and months that follow for those who suffer trauma as a result of these repeated events.

My final comment is just to muse—and I don’t put this formally to the Minister today—about the possibility that this House can respond in a legislative way that will enable orders to be made quickly following such events. Of course, that took place recently, with the support of most of Parliament, as put forward by the Government. The National Party supported those moves in urgency because we thought it was the right thing to do to enable quick action to be taken. I think I’m right in saying that these events fall outside the remit, technically speaking, of that legislation, but it may be possible for the response that will be needed in respect of today’s events to be included in that. That’s a discussion for the future, and I don’t make a formal proposal along those lines. But it seems to me that, unfortunately, as a nation, and indeed as a House, these are matters to which we will need to give increasing attention in the years that come, even as we acknowledge that the danger is very much a present one. It is ongoing, and it is also expected to pose further risk today.

So I join with the Minister and, indeed, would encourage anyone to follow the advice that he has given on the public health basis: follow official advice, and do the things necessary to keep yourself and others safe. We will watch with interest and respond as best we can, no doubt as a Parliament as a whole, to the events of today.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in acknowledgment and support of the Minister for Emergency Management’s motion regarding Auckland. Can I first start by acknowledging the situation at Abbey Caves in Northland. It is developing quickly and there may have been changes since I last checked the media, but as a Whangārei boy who has, shall we say, been made to climb through Abbey Caves by his school a few times, I can’t imagine the distress that people will be feeling with severe rain and flooding and one student still in the caves. I think that our thoughts and prayers should be with those people in that situation up at Abbey Caves, just north of Whangārei.

I further acknowledge the situation in Auckland and particularly in the Epsom electorate. I know that there is absolute gridlock in the traffic system, surface flooding in places, and, of course, enormous concern because of the devastation that occurred only three months ago at the end of January, or the beginning of February, when many homes were flooded, many vehicles were lost. In my recent door-knocking, I’ve found that the effects of that continue right up to this day. To then have another flooding event certainly brings about a large amount of trauma.

In the immediacy, the mayor has declared a state of emergency locally for Auckland, delegated his responsibilities to Desley Simpson, the deputy mayor, and I know that Auckland Council will be under very good steerage with Desley. We expect heavy rains to continue, and what’s important is that people stay safe, get home—assuming that their home is not affected—call 111 only if absolutely necessary because there is an immediate risk to people’s life or their property, and take shelter with friends if necessary. I see that there is one shelter out at Te Manawa library in Westgate, but that’s a long way from most Aucklanders. Many people will be relying on friends and family, and there were so many touching examples of friends and family taking each other in in the late January flood. So you may be OK, but there may be people in your street, in your neighbourhood, in your family, in your workplace, or your friendship group, who are in need of shelter and support over the 24 hours to come, or longer if these floods are bad.

I know that, inevitably, this too shall pass and there will be some analysis of why this keeps happening and what can be done about it, and I just make the point that in a recent survey I did, sent to 6,000 households in the Epsom electorate electronically, I got back responses where, of those who were flooded, 55 percent were aware—in fact, actually, 55 percent of respondents; almost two-thirds of those who were flooded—of previous complaints about the performance of stormwater systems in their street. Of those, 35 percent of respondents had previously complained to council.

I know that there will be a lot of people who will make the argument that this is proof that New Zealand must reduce its emissions. Well, it certainly should, but once you break down why people, real people on the ground, are being affected by events like this right now, the overwhelming majority of homes have actually been OK. The whole of the Stonefields development—well designed, well drained—was not affected by flooding. Places in the Epsom electorate and beyond, where there’s been a lot of intensification and not as much investment in upgrading the drainage capacity and especially drain maintenance, are facing real challenges. That is a lesson that while we need to focus on the immediate challenge, we also need to learn from incidents like this and guide our future behaviour and policy making.

In the meantime, I just wish safety for those affected in Abbey Caves, for those who are affected by flooding in Auckland—and for those who are helping each other out, good on you. That is always the best of Auckland and New Zealand. We will get through it, because this too shall pass. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou te Whare. On behalf of the Greens and as our Auckland Central MP, I stand in support of the motion from the Minister for Emergency Management, and I actually have a few questions for him, as I understand this format allows.

But firstly, I just wanted to join with colleagues across the House in acknowledging the unfolding situation and the state of emergency before us, particularly the young person still lost in Northland, and their whānau, their community, and the front-line services who are responding to that unfolding situation.

As other MPs have acknowledged, in times like this we do see what is important. We see what it is that we care about and what we focus on, and that is each other. That is our community. It is those values of compassion and care and concern for each other. To that effect, I think it is really important for all who may be listening today to know that the situation is still unfolding, and as my conversations with MetService and the Auckland emergency management bunker have demonstrated, there is the chance that weather may turn for the worse this evening, so Aucklanders and those up in Northland, those in the North Island, should continue to remain in a state of vigilance to minimise travel where it is possible to stay home but also to be very aware of the potential of slips.

To that effect, I do need to reflect on some of the statements that were put out just now by the leader of the ACT Party about how now may not necessarily be the time to reflect on climate change. As we are staring down and looking at yet another one-in-100-year weather event—the several that have occurred in just this year alone—I think that it is, in fact, a stark reminder of the very, very important responsibility that this House has for facing the scientific reality of climate change and for responding with the emergency and urgency that it requires in mitigation and adaptation. That is our responsibility as the supposed leaders of this country.

I move to those questions to the Minister. Late last night, I received a call from firefighters at the front line, those involved in the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union—particularly those in urban search and rescue—my guys of Pitt Street station. They informed me that with consultation and discussion with their geotechnical teams, and the risk of slips, and the concern about how much water had been absorbed in the ground over the first few months of this year, it would make sense for those at the front line to potentially stand up their heavy rescue team but also to make capacity available for water rescue. I know that they encountered some issues in feeding that up the food chain and trying to get that response, and the standing up of those services and those resources, and that did not occur until after a meeting was held at approximately 10.30 this morning. So, to that effect, my first question to the Minister is just about whether he is confident or comfortable with the flow of communication and the decisions that are being made with regard to, or not with enough regard to, the needs and the points as raised by those on the front line.

The second question was about his confidence with regard to the resourcing that our front-line responders, particularly our firefighters but also our other community and volunteer services, have. I’m aware, for example, that certain trucks that our firefighters are having to respond with in Northland have real limitations on their ability to enter floodwater.

So those two questions, if I may. The first is around the communication with the shop floor and the feeding up of that information to make critical decisions. The second is about the Minister’s confidence in resourcing and the adequate equipment to respond to these supposed one-in-100-year weather events that seem to be continuing to happen.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you to those members who contributed to that. It’s one of the many examples that don’t often get broadcast where the House comes together in full support of our emergency services and those that are working hard on the ground through civil defence and in their own communities. I’ll do my best to address the points that were raised.

I share Mr Penk’s concern about the wellbeing of those that are affected by this. But, of course, we know that mental health consequences from such events don’t always happen immediately and can occur over a long period of time. I want to encourage those that are struggling with this—or, indeed, the previous events—who may find themselves in hardship moving forward to, first of all, contact their GP and seek, of course, the wellbeing support website—Need to talk? 1737 is the place to call for that—and, of course, we will do what we can to support those services to assist those that need it.

In regards to the query about Fire and Emergency, the member knows that that is a matter for the Minister of Internal Affairs, who has oversight responsibility of Fire and Emergency New Zealand. However, I do know that the Minister was in touch with the national commander and that they have assured us that, as is always case whenever urban search and rescue capacity is required, it will be dispatched. There may be a difference of opinion around when the appropriate time is or if, indeed, it is required, but we do continue to have confidence in Fire and Emergency New Zealand. It’s not just the paid staff but the volunteers who step up and serve their community, quite often when they themselves have been affected.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Mr Speaker, if I may, the second question to the Minister was with regard to the resourcing for front-line equipment as well, and whether that is adequate to respond to these crises.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government has increased the funding to Fire and Emergency New Zealand significantly over the last five years. We do know that, particularly after the merger between urban and rural, some deficiencies in utilities and equipment were identified, and that has been steadily addressed, and we will continue to do that.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): As a follow-up—if I may, Mr Speaker—just to that point around greater resourcing deployed to Fire and Emergency New Zealand in particular, the Minister may have heard some concerns, particularly from those on the front lines, as echoed throughout the industrial action at the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union over the past few years, about how that may potentially be filtering down to the front lines. I wonder if the Minister has any of those concerns himself; if so, how it may be that we as a House can go about addressing those potential concerns.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Before I was elected to Parliament, I was a volunteer firefighter myself, and so I have seen significant improvement in the resourcing in that service since this Government came in. I’d like to reiterate the commitment I just made—that that support for the essential services will continue under this Government.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Mr Speaker, respectfully, that wasn’t my question. My question was about how those resources filter down to the front lines. So my question to the Minister: does the Minister feel confident with how those resources that are being granted to that organisation, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, are filtering into the equipment and the front-line staff necessary to respond to these emergencies?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I will give a little bit of leeway. This is not question time or a supplementary question, and I note the member’s time has concluded, but did the Minister want to respond in any way?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): The Government has absolute confidence in Fire and Emergency New Zealand. Time and time again, they have responded at very short notice to assist their communities, and, again, I reiterate the commitment that this Government has to adequately resource and support our fire and emergency personnel. Any operational decisions and specifics around that is a question for them, but we continue to support them in the best way we can.

SPEAKER: OK, and the Minister has two more minutes to respond if he wishes to.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: No.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill

report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill

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

petition of Democracy For Myanmar Working Group New Zealand, and the

petition of Niranjan Herath.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, and I quote, “I think overall there are some New Zealanders who perhaps are not contributing their fair share”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has he considered the Minister of Finance’s pre-Budget statement: “The Treasury has estimated the cost of asset damage from the floods and cyclone at between $9 billion and $14.5 billion, with half of that related to infrastructure owned by central or local government such as roads.”, and, if so, does he think that a higher effective tax rate on super-wealthy New Zealanders could allow Aotearoa to better recover from natural disasters?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the outcomes of our current tax system, which encourages the super-wealthy to accumulate assets such as property and hoard billions to the extent that 311 families in this country hold more wealth than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Labour Party set out its tax policy very clearly at the last election. We’re sticking to that tax policy. We will set out our tax policy for the next election in due course, and then we will stick to that as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, then: “The new Cabinet will be focused on core bread and butter issues like the cost of living, education, health, housing and keeping our communities and businesses safe,”, and, if so, does he agree that a wealth or capital gains tax would enable greater investment in those bread and butter issues?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes—although perhaps slightly less dramatically.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it equitable for mega-rich New Zealanders, who have a combined wealth of $85 billion, to pay less than half the effective tax rate of ordinary New Zealanders, as found in the IRD’s latest tax report?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: New Zealanders can make their own judgments on that. That’s why the research was done, and the report has now been made public.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree that more tax revenue from a wealth or capital gains tax would ensure that Aotearoa had a standard of living that his Government could be proud of?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, it’s a hypothetical question that the member is asking.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s action in securing a gold-standard free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom, unlocking unprecedented access to the UK market. This is expected to boost New Zealand’s goods exports to the UK by over 50 percent and add up to $1 billion to New Zealand’s annual GDP. The UK is New Zealand’s seventh-largest trading partner and a crucial market for some of our key exports such as wine, honey, red meat, and dairy. So this agreement will benefit our economic recovery and help to tackle the rising cost of living for New Zealand families.

Christopher Luxon: Does he take any responsibility for the fact that according to Treasury “the economy is tracking weaker than forecast.”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The New Zealand economy is not immune from the broader economic pressure that is being seen around the globe. I note a number of countries are experiencing a lot of economic pressure at the moment, as the member will be well aware from his recent travels to the UK, although I think he was too busy running down the New Zealand economy, perhaps, to pay any attention to that.

Christopher Luxon: What impact will the weakening economy have on Kiwis—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: More campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime.

Christopher Luxon: —already struggling with mortgage, food, and childcare costs, and why has he ruled out giving them tax relief at the Budget?

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry. Is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods interjecting during a question?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It was.

SPEAKER: It was. This is becoming quite common. Yeah, I’m just wondering if I should escalate it up the ladder a bit. Well, you’ve been warned, so stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: I withdraw and apologise.

Christopher Luxon: Can I ask my question again?

SPEAKER: Yes, please.

Christopher Luxon: What impact will the weakening economy have on Kiwis already struggling with mortgage, food, and childcare costs, and why has he ruled out giving them tax relief at the Budget?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the challenges with tax relief at this point is that it has the potential to be inflationary, thus ensuring that interest rates stay higher for longer and, therefore, potentially meaning families would be worse off.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Will he guarantee that cultural competency is a prerequisite for all senior public appointments in light of his statement on the snubbing of King Tūheitia in London, that “Clearly there’s a reminder here that we can think more carefully about how we do that in the future.”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely stand by the statement that the member just quoted.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Will he recall the High Commissioner for New Zealand to the United Kingdom, who demonstrated a clear lack of cultural understanding in welcoming Kīngi Tūheitia and the New Zealand delegation to London last week?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Christopher Luxon: Does he consider adjusting income tax brackets to be “a major tax change”, or can Kiwis actually finally expect a reduction in their income tax bill at the Budget, now that it’s an election year?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I just addressed that in my last question. Significant tax reductions, at this point, would likely result in higher inflation for longer.

Christopher Luxon: Why has the deficit blown out by $2.5 billion in just the last five months, and why is the Government continuing to spend so much more than it takes in, despite record inflation?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d encourage the member to wait and see what the Budget forecasts are saying. It’s not too long to go now to when the most updated Government finances will be released, but it is fair to say that the Government finances have been affected by the broader economic situation.

Christopher Luxon: Is the only reason he’s flirting with a capital gains tax because he needs more of New Zealanders’ money to fuel his Government’s addiction to spending?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that the member himself, consistently in the first part of his leadership, was arguing for the Government to spend more money, even after the Reserve Bank started hiking the official cash rate. In fact, in between each of the first hikes that the Reserve Bank made to the official cash rate, he made policy announcements indicating the Government should be spending more money.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that, in five years, Government expenditure has increased by 61 percent, 34 percent ahead of inflation, and can he give a measurable example of any Government service that is 34 percent better today than it was five years ago?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I’ll give the member one policy initiative: there are 220,000 children who go to school every day and receive a free and healthy lunch because of the policies introduced by this Government.

Christopher Luxon: Will he rule out introducing a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, or an inheritance tax while he is Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve made very clear commitments that they won’t be in this year’s Budget. Of course, the Labour Party will set out its manifesto around tax for the next election, and, ultimately, New Zealanders will decide.

Christopher Luxon: Why is it that Jacinda Ardern could rule out a capital gains tax as Prime Minister, yet he can’t?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that she did that in the context of a general election campaign.

Christopher Luxon: Why can’t you just stop playing politics and come clean about your plans to tax Kiwis more for his Government’s wasteful addiction to spending?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject the notion that the Speaker is playing politics.

Question No. 3—Cyclone Recovery

3. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister for Cyclone Recovery: What actions is the Government taking to respond to Cyclone Gabrielle?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Cyclone Recovery): Before I start my answer, I do want to acknowledge that many of those affected by Cyclone Gabrielle are the same people affected by the extreme weather events today, and we continue to express our sympathies and we will continue to support them. The Government is continuing to take action to provide certainty and assurance to communities and regions that have been affected by Cyclone Gabrielle. More than $860 million of additional support has been committed so far, including significant investment in our roading and rail network. It also includes $75 million to help small and medium sized businesses in the clean-up from the damage caused by Cyclone Gabrielle. More than 3,500 small businesses have been approved for grants to support their recovery. The Government is supporting our rural communities through more than $73 million in direct cyclone recovery grants and funding, and some 5,084 applications for grants have been approved, totalling $57 million in support so far. We are committed to a locally led, centrally supported response, working with communities to get them back on their feet, and regions back moving, as we move into the recovery and rebuild phases from Cyclone Gabrielle.

Anna Lorck: What is the Government doing to support councils and businesses with silt and debris removal in response to the cyclone?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week, the Government announced the allocation of $102 million to help councils process and dispose of the debris coming from residential properties and to deal with sediment on council land to make it available to the public again. There was also $70 million allocated for commercial properties, adding on to already granted money, including for farmers and growers to help them clean up their land and return to profit. There is also funding for debris and sediment removal from whenua Māori.

Anna Lorck: What recent work has been done to assess properties affected by Cyclone Gabrielle?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We know that this is a significant issue facing communities and we acknowledge the uncertainty and impact that this has on people, and we’re working very hard to provide as much certainty as soon as possible. The cyclone task force is working with councils and insurance companies to assess the risk status of affected areas. Three categories have been settled on, under which the future flood- and landslide-affected properties will be assessed. The intention is to complete assessments for low-risk properties in category one quickly so that people in those homes can settle with their insurance companies and get on with their recovery. Decisions on properties under category two, where community- or property-level interventions will manage future severe weather event risk, and category three, which will identify areas that are not safe to live in because of the unacceptable risk of future flooding and loss of life, will take a little longer. No decisions on properties or communities will be made without comprehensive consultation and engagement with communities, mana whenua, and other stakeholders. This is a stressful time for those waiting to hear about the future of their properties. It is important that we make the right decisions here, and I want to assure people we’re doing all we can to move this process as quickly and effectively as we can.

Anna Lorck: How well placed is New Zealand to deal with the consequences of extreme weather events?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Treasury has estimated the cost of asset damage from the floods and cyclone at between $9 billion and $14.5 billion, with half of that related to infrastructure owned by central or local government, such as roads and rail. This will require significant planning and sequencing of resources over the months and years ahead. But we are committed to supporting those affected through the recovery and rebuild. New Zealand is in a strong financial position to support our people through these challenging times, thanks to our careful management of the Government’s books. The Government’s debt level sits at 19.1 percent of GDP—well below our debt ceiling, and among the lowest in the OECD. We are well placed to deal with the impact of this extreme weather and any other future shocks.

Question No. 8 to Minister

SPEAKER: Before I call question No. 4, it’s come to my attention that there is a typo in question No. 8. It should refer to correspondence with the Ministry of Education, not the Minister of Education. So I’ve asked the member, when we come to question No. 8, that she asks as she submitted, and Speaker’s ruling 180/1 allows that correction to a typo.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes—in particular, the action, through this year’s Budget, to deliver the biggest pay increase in over a decade for Defence Force personnel and to build on this Government’s record investments in upgrading New Zealand’s military capability. We have an obligation to ensure that our soldiers, sailors, and aviators are fairly paid for the critical and often dangerous work that they do, and this Government takes that responsibility very seriously on behalf of all New Zealanders.

David Seymour: What percentage of GDP will be spent on defence as a result of this announcement, and how will that compare with Australia’s recent announcement that they will be going beyond 2 percent of GDP as they respond to the geopolitical realities of the South Pacific?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Our spend on defence—depending on how you measure it—hovers at around 1 percent of GDP. Our Government is very much focused on the capability we need, rather than a spending target. I would have thought that the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers would be more interested in what we are paying for, rather than how much we are paying for it.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that he believes that the New Zealand Defence Force will be able to deliver the level of service expected by Australians for half their budget, and could he explain what magic they’ll be using?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not so much focused on the level of service expected by Australians; I’m focused on the level of service expected by New Zealanders. What they are looking for is a Defence Force that is well resourced and equipped to be able to respond to the challenges in front of them. That includes being able to deploy to natural disasters, as we have seen them doing in recent times very successfully. It means contributing to the international efforts that we do currently contribute to and may wish to contribute to in the future. And it means ensuring that we have the capabilities that we need, such as, for example, for search and surveillance. I note that this Government has invested heavily in ensuring the futureproofing of those capabilities, something that the previous Government, supported by the ACT Party, never did.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement: “If you look at the apprehension rate for people who have undertaken that offending, it’s very high. Police have done a good job of finding those people”, when the apprehension rate in question for retail burglaries was only 19 percent?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I made clear at the time, I wasn’t referring to all burglaries; I was referring particularly to ram raids, because that was the context of the question that was being asked. So, if you look across 1,100 such offences since the beginning of last year, there have been just under 700 prosecutions, just under 300 youth referrals, and there are around 200 that remain under active investigation. I think the police have been doing very good work in following up on that offending and ensuring that those who have been doing it face the consequences for their actions.

David Seymour: So retail burglary offenders getting away with it 81 percent of the time is OK, because that’s not what the Prime Minister was talking about—right?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I didn’t claim that. I do note that the work the police have done in recent years to make it easier for retailers to report retail crime, including shoplifting, does mean that police have a fuller picture now of the true extent of that activity. I think that is a good thing, and police will continue to follow up on it.

David Seymour: Does he still stand by his statement, when there were more than 3,000 aggravated robberies but only 1,300 proceedings taken against offenders last year?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Whether or not a proceeding takes place does not necessarily provide the full picture of the response from police. I do want to note that, under this Government, we have nearly—we’ve nearly got there—1,800 extra police on the beat. And I note that the ACT Party voted against the funding to deliver that.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his 31 January statement that “The new Cabinet will be focused on core bread and butter issues”, and does he believe Stuart Nash, Kiri Allan, and Meka Whaitiri have all been focused on core bread and butter issues?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I absolutely do.

David Seymour: And what about those three Ministers that went missing?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I dealt with all of those at the time.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to support the residential construction sector and increase the supply of housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The residential development construction sector is prone to boom and bust cycles. Following the global financial crisis, the supply of new, affordable housing dropped significantly, which pushed house prices up. To provide some counter-cyclical support, the Government is stepping in to support some build-ready developments by purchasing land or underwriting homes off the plans to reduce risk for developers, which means we can continue to build affordable homes.

Shanan Halbert: How is the Government partnering with developers to continue the delivery of affordable homes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We know that we must build our way out of our current housing crisis, so it is vital that we maintain momentum in the sector as the headwinds grow. To do this, the Government is working with developers to support stalled developments in areas where there is high need for new housing through the Build Ready Development Pathway. Through round one, we’ve supported eight developments across the country, enabling 144 homes in Tauranga, Hastings, and Lower Hutt. A second round which will support more developments opens next week.

Shanan Halbert: What other initiatives does the Government have under way to support the delivery of more affordable homes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is supporting the delivery of thousands of affordable homes across New Zealand through the Government’s underwrite for residential housing. Last week, I opened Ockham Residential’s 117 apartment Aroha development in Avondale. Aroha, Ockham’s fourth development assisted by the Government underwrite for residential housing, KiwiBuild, and our Land for Housing programme, would not have gone ahead without Government intervention. During a downturn, the Government must be an active partner with industry to secure the delivery of affordable homes, not just a spectator, and we’re getting on with the job.

Shanan Halbert: And what else has the Government done to enable the delivery of more affordable homes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The $1 billion Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, part of our $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund, is supporting the delivery of critical infrastructure projects in 28 New Zealand cities and towns. Combined, these projects are expected to enable between 30,000 and 35,000 new homes over the next 10 to 15 years. Funding recipients have overwhelmingly reported being on track with their programmes, with two developments in Waimakariri and Lake Hāwea ahead of schedule with their civil works. I am encouraged to report that across the country there are 71 houses complete, 101 under construction, and 635 having building consents approved.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident that all legislation she is responsible for is working effectively; if not, why not?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The member, of course, will be well aware that that’s a very broad inquiry. As the Minister of Justice, I’m responsible for 155 pieces of legislation. While generally these laws are working effectively, in a portfolio this broad there will always be areas that regularly need to be reviewed and updated. For example, since I became the Minister of Justice, I have passed or introduced legislation that gives police more powers to pursue organised crime, strengthened counter-terrorism regimes, increased community participation in alcohol-licensing decisions, improved access to legal aid, reduced delays in the Family Court, expanded the Māori electoral option, and improved the transparency of the electoral donations regime.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she believe there is a problem with the Official Information Act (OIA) that is leading to the long delays in replies coming from her colleague Willie Jackson’s office for OIA requests, or is it more one of the culture within her Government?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: With respect to the first part, my understanding is that the Hon Willie Jackson is aware that a mistake was made in his office, and it is subsequently being rectified. To the overarching efficacy and efficiency of the OIA scheme, in my mind, the law itself is generally sound, and should the status of the Official Information Act ever change, the Government would be seeking cross-party engagement on any forthcoming changes to the legislation. But what I will say is that this Government has taken a very proactive approach to transparency. In particular, I note that the Government has introduced the proactive release of Cabinet papers—with three-quarters of papers being released within the policy agreed by Cabinet—and introduced the monthly proactive release of ministerial diaries. I also note that, in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, the Government has answered 113,000 written parliamentary questions in the last parliamentary term, compared to 41,500 by the previous National Government in their previous term.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she believe amendments to the Ombudsmen Act are required following her colleague Willie Jackson’s refusal to answer questions from the Ombudsman in a timely fashion, or is the issue more a question of culture within her Government?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she think there’s an issue with the wording of the Official Information Act that allows RNZ to use RNZ tikanga as contributing to the decision not to release a transcript of her speech to that organisation, or would she say that the problem lies with RNZ’s culture?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she believe the waka jumping provisions of the Electoral Act are working effectively, when it appears all it takes for MPs to avoid it is not to send in the right letter?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I do. As the scheme was introduced at the outset, it was always intended to be an opt-in scheme. The legislation is very clear.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What action is the Government taking to ease winter pressure on the health system?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Last week, I announced the Government’s comprehensive plan to ease winter pressure on the health system. This plan is being led by Te Whatu Ora and includes 24 initiatives to help support community care and reduce hospital demand.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How will our new national health system help us deliver this plan?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This winter, a reformed health system is allowing us to identify successful local programmes and scale them across the country, tailoring any healthcare approach to meet unique needs. Resources will be shared across health facilities within a region, with providers working together. Coordination at a national level means the health system is better prepared to respond locally and connect people to share knowledge and deliver services this winter.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Can you tell us some of the specific actions in the plan?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Our plan is focused on a combination of improving access to health services for people closer to where they live, as well as measures that can help manage the demand for hospital-level care over winter. It includes support for pharmacies to treat minor ailments, hospital in the home services, increased access to radiology services in the community, and community rapid response tools to lessen hospital admissions for our most vulnerable people.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How will the plan ease pressure on the health system this winter?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: These initiatives are being driven by Te Whatu Ora to reinforce the message that the care at the right time, at the right place is required. They will deliver health services to people closer to where they live, ultimately alleviating additional pressure on hospitals. It’s important people feel confident they can get the healthcare they need this winter, and I’m fully supporting this plan to deliver it.

Question No. 8—Education

8. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: What information did her staff provide her after question time on 22 February when they informed her of their correspondence with the Ministry of Education about the release of the term 3 attendance data, and when did they first show her their correspondence with the Ministry that was subsequently released to me under the Official Information Act?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): To the first part of the question: my staff verbally informed me after question time on 22 February that members of my staff had been in correspondence with the Ministry of Education regarding the timing of term 3 attendance data release. To the second part of the question: I first saw copies of the correspondence the member is referring to when it came to me for sign-out approval under the Official Information Act. I am aware that the member has been suggesting that information shows that my office inappropriately interfered with the release of term 3 attendance data. While I disagree with that allegation, to provide greater transparency going forward I have written to the Secretary of Education requesting the Ministry of Education consider publishing a forward-looking timeline on when attendance data will be released for each term on their website.

Erica Stanford: How can it be that she said, “I can categorically tell that member that the Ministry of Education is responsible for the data. I have no say over that.” and then still believe that her answers were not misleading, when her staff told her that they did play a part in releasing the data after she made those misleading comments?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because I felt that my answers reflected what I was intending them to mean at the time of the delivery, which is that the Ministry of Education is responsible for the collation and release of the term 3 data.

Erica Stanford: In relation to that answer, how can she miss out the last part of her quote, which says, “I have no say over that.”, and still believe that her questions were not misleading, when her staff told her that they had been in contact with the ministry to delay the release of the term 3 data?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve just said, because I felt my answers reflected what I was intending to mean at the time of delivery, which is that the Ministry of Education is responsible for the collation and release of the term 3 attendance data. Mr Speaker, you wrote to me following a letter from the member regarding information that was provided to her by my office under the Official Information Act. You requested that I make a personal statement to correct my answers to supplementary questions on 22 February, which I have done. You have subsequently written to the member informing her that there was no breach of privilege. I have written to the Ministry of Education asking it to proactively publish when attendance data will be released for each term so this situation doesn’t happen again.

SPEAKER: The problem with bringing the Speaker into the House is that I have to get up and clarify things. I did not ask you to do that; I just set out that if that was the case, then the member can come to correct it. I’ll give the member an extra question.

Erica Stanford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can she explain why she didn’t know that she’d mislead the House until 1 May when the Speaker contacted her, when she signed off an Official Information Act request prior to 11 April containing the very emails showing her staff did delay the release of the term 3 attendance data until after her political announcement?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Firstly, those emails did not show that. I will say that the emails themselves, under the Official Information Act, talked about the data coming forward. Secondly, what I will say to that member is that I stand by what I thought on that particular day, but I stand corrected from advice that was since given to me on 1 May.

Erica Stanford: Can she explain to this House how she doesn’t believe that her staff were deliberately delaying the release of the data, when their email states, “The plan is to release it after the announcement—and that announcement is scheduled for Thursday. So Friday would be the day.”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because at the time, the Ministry of Education was talking about a much later date releasing that data.

Erica Stanford: Did she just believe that the timing of the release of the data at the same time as her political announcement was pure coincidence?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I actually think that the data and the political announcement on the same day was coincidence.

Erica Stanford: Can she assure this House that her office has not played a part in influencing the timing of the release of the attendance data on any other occasion during her time as Minister?

Hon JAN TINETTI: If the member is referring to other data, yes, I can confirm that.

Question No. 9—Defence

9. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcements has he made on Defence Force funding?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Yesterday, I was happy to announce that Budget 2023 will invest $419 million over four years to deliver the biggest pay increase in over a decade to our defence personnel. A number of factors have led to a significant pressure on our Defence Force. These include high rates of staff turnover, as well as an increase in calls on the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) such as responding to Cyclone Gabrielle, training Ukrainian troops in the UK, and surveillance and patrolling in our region. Attracting and retaining more New Zealanders into our defence force means we need to ensure that wages are competitive. This investment helps achieve that. We have a moral obligation, as the Prime Minister has said, to ensure our soldiers, sailors, and aviators are fairly paid for the critical and often dangerous work that they do, and this Government takes that responsibility seriously on behalf of all New Zealanders. In addition to that, I also announced yesterday $328 million for upgrading our Defence Force assets and infrastructure to ensure that we can better work with our partners to meet our commitments here, in the Pacific, and abroad.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will this investment affect pay rates for defence personnel?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: With this investment, the pay of many NZDF personnel, including new recruits and skilled lower-ranked service personnel, will increase by between $4,000 and $15,000 from 1 July. Ninety percent of NZDF personnel will now be paid at, or close to, market rates for comparable roles, and this will go a long way to address attrition issues and make defence a career of choice. This increase is four times greater than any previous defence remuneration boost since 2014.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What will this package provide regarding defence housing?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Many personnel in the NZDF and their families are asked to move between bases to serve, and it’s important that the housing provided is suitable to support them to do their jobs: $85.5 million will go towards the renovation and modernisation of 13 houses at Linton, Ōhākea, and Burnham, and a significant investment of 50 new houses at Waiōuru to continue the Government’s commitment to progress the commercial redress partnership in the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019. Providing housing that is safe, futureproofed, and fit for the needs of personnel at individual camps and bases will ensure that personnel are healthy and well positioned to perform their roles effectively when and where we need them.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What will this package mean for upgrading defence equipment and infrastructure?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It’s important that New Zealand has the personnel and equipment to play our part in supporting global peace and security. That’s why we’re investing $90 million for a new aviation fuelling facility at Ōhākea to support our new P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, and $59 million to extend the life of our two Anzac class frigates through to the mid-2030s. In addition, we’re also investing $93 million to provide world-class communications systems to meet the most recent international interoperability and security standards, and to ensure secure communication with our partners on our frigates and our new Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles. This will allow for the state of the art voice and data transfer on encrypted platforms.

Question No. 10—Health

10. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Why did a mental health patient wait 94 hours in the Auckland Hospital emergency department in late March, and how much has been spent of the $27.45 million announced for crisis mental health services in Budget 2022?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Firstly, the head of the hospital has apologised to these patients, and I agree that this kind of experience for patients is unacceptable. To the first part of that question, I am advised that the patient arrived at a very busy time in the emergency department and for the acute mental health inpatient service. A suitable bed was not available and the patient was not well enough to be discharged at the time. The staff of the hospital searched tirelessly for a bed until they found one. In the meantime, this patient was assessed and treated by staff in a bed in the short-stay unit. To the second part of the question, Budget 2022 included a specialist mental health and addictions services package within which is the delivery of eight community-based alternative crisis services across a mix of small, medium, and large areas of New Zealand. Of the $2.5 million available this year, the estimated spend at 30 June will be $825,000. The commencement of the spend has been slightly delayed, but I am advised that five services are due to begin in June 2023.

Matt Doocey: So is the Minister saying, on one hand, mental health patients are waiting up to 94 hours in emergency departments and, on the other hand, of the $27.5 million announced for crisis mental health services, less than $1 million of that has been spent, and can the Minister tell the House what the connection between those two is?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Well, it’s not for me to tell the House what that member thinks the connection between those two things is, because, of course, it is not clear that that patient would have been suitable to move to a community setting. However, I am clear that those services were part of a budget that spending for that rolled up over time, and those services are due to start in the coming months.

Matt Doocey: How will we ever know whether that patient would have qualified for that crisis mental health service, when the Minister has admitted the Government has failed to spend the money promised on that initiative?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am advised the services will be stood up in June.

Matt Doocey: So how will the service that is going to be stood up in June help a patient that waited for 94 hours in an emergency department, that was described by one health professional as the longest wait time for a mental health patient ever in New Zealand’s emergency department, help that person?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I understand the member’s frustration with that situation and I have also said that it is unacceptable. But that member makes an assumption about the clinical needs of that patient that neither of us are in a position to make.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What advice has the Commerce Commission issued to help reduce costs for Kiwis when shopping?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The Commerce Commission says Kiwis can take steps to avoid retailer credit card fees, and retailers should be more transparent about how consumers can do this. The commission is concerned that many people think they have no option but to pay the surcharge at the end of their transaction. Usually, this is not true. You have the option of inserting or swiping your debit or EFTPOS card rather than using the contactless function, and this should not incur a fee. The Commerce Commission believes consumers should have the informed choice of which payment method best meets their needs and budget, and it is taking action accordingly.

Andrew Bayly: That’s going to solve the cost of living crisis!

SPEAKER: Andrew Bayly will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Andrew Bayly: I withdraw—and apologise.

Naisi Chen: What action has the Commerce Commission taken to support consumers in this matter?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The Commerce Commission is reminding businesses that any surcharges must be clearly disclosed and any reasons for the surcharge must be accurately described, to avoid breaching the Fair Trading Act. It also noted that businesses should contact their payment service provider if they do not clearly understand the costs they are paying. Most importantly, the levels of the surcharges should not be in excess of the costs of accepting the payment.

Naisi Chen: What actions has the commission taken to tackle problematic practices by retailers?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Lots. The commission has published materials to assist merchants who are surcharging to do so appropriately and to ensure consumers know their options. The commission has also written to a number of large merchants, raising concerns about the level of their surcharges. In addition to their work with merchants, the commission has published an open letter to payment service providers to set its expectations that merchants impose surcharges only in a transparent and fair manner.

Naisi Chen: What should Kiwis do when paying at the store if they are concerned about payment surcharges?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Kiwi consumers should expect that their payment options at the terminal are transparent and fair. If it is unclear, they should ask what surcharges are being added to their purchase and whether there are any other payment options with lower or no surcharges. Kiwi consumers can also expect both retailers and their payment service providers to ensure fair and transparent options for payments and should speak up when they have concerns. I am also encouraging retailers and payment providers to follow the commission’s guidance. When this happens, consumers should start to see some surcharges at the checkout reduced—good news for Kiwi shoppers.

Question No. 12—Police

12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer”; if so, why?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement—and quote—“It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer within a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police.” The member has wilfully omitted the second half of my sentence. As Minister—

SPEAKER: Order! You cannot say that; that’s tantamount to saying someone is lying. The Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And I take it the answer’s over—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can I take an extra—

SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an extra two questions.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Yeah, thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she think the 33 percent increase in violent crime makes New Zealanders feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I continue to work as Minister of Police to make sure that our communities are safe in three main areas: by backing our police by having 1,800 extra police officers; by making sure we focus on retail crime by delivering fog cannons and extra security measures; and, thirdly, by addressing youth offending with specific programmes in those areas to make sure we address the underlying drivers of crime.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister think that the 1,800 police are making Kiwis feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Let me be clear: as Minister, I am committed to making New Zealanders feel safe by tackling crime. That is quite different from what the member said in the statement. Oddly, the member appears to be suggesting that New Zealanders feel safer with fewer members of the police on the front line.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she think a 551 percent increase in ram raids makes shopkeepers and their employees feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: One ram raid more is always one ram raid too much. I will continue to work by resourcing our front line adequately, by making sure the retail crime prevention scheme is focused on making sure those measures are in place, and also the backing up of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment scheme which enables retail providers to have access to things like a fog cannon quickly.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she think that a 61 percent increase in gang membership is making New Zealanders feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I continue to make sure that New Zealanders feel safer by making sure our front line are resourced adequately. The 1,800 additional front-line police officers also include 700 police officers specifically dedicated to organised crime, which means operations like Cobalt can continue to deliver outcomes like 35,000 charges specific to gang members and organised crime—far greater than any achieved under previous Governments.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Have ram raids gone up or down since she became Minister?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I couldn’t hear the question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Have ram raids increased or decreased since she became police Minister?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Ram raids increased into August last year and they peaked at 119. That has continued to track down. As I’ve said before, one ram raid is always one ram raid too much. I will continue to make sure we reduce retail crime by making sure our front line is adequately resourced and also by making sure retail owners have the security measures in place they need to keep safe.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific. It was: have ram raids increased or decreased since she has become Minister of Police?

SPEAKER: Well, all right. The Minister did go back to before she was Minister, but, in doing so, I believe it has been addressed.

Dan Rosewarne: Is the Minister aware of any parties that voted against firearms legislation that would’ve made it harder for gangs to get hold of guns?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yes, I am, and I’d like to continue by saying we’re going to work collaboratively right across this House when we have a firearm registry. I’m keen to be talking with members of other parties about how we can make sure we keep firearms out of the hands of those organised criminal groups and enable our legal firearms owners to have a safe and smooth pathway on that basis.

Urgent Debates Declined

Severe Weather Event—Northern Aotearoa New Zealand

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Chlöe Swarbrick seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the severe weather event currently unfolding in northern parts of Aotearoa. The weather is not a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. The application is declined. I would remind members of Speakers’ ruling 198/6, made by successive Speakers going back to 1984, that every statement as an urgent debate application must be authenticated. Applications received without authentication are declined on that ground.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 3 May on the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Offices of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. There are three hours, 45 minutes remaining for this debate.

Standing Orders 356(2) and (3) have been set aside, so there will be no sector-specific debates. Instead, specific Ministers will be available each day to respond to specific portfolios. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Education will be available today to respond to members’ questions.

Time for this debate has been allocated to parties on a proportional basis. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister’s portfolios. The Minister of Justice is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions.

Justice

VANUSHI WALTERS (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair, and it’s a pleasure to kick off this debate on the justice annual review. Before I do, as a member of Parliament for Upper Harbour in Auckland’s north-west, I do also want to acknowledge that there are many people going through what is a very difficult evening, and also to acknowledge our emergency responders, who will no doubt be busy this evening as well.

I do want to thank the committee members for their engagement during the annual review, to thank the clerks, and also to thank Mr Kibblewhite and his team for the robust discussion we had with the Ministry of Justice staff. I want to also recognise that this is a complex area of policy that often does require a careful balance.

We heard through the review process that in April 2022, the ministry created a new sector directorate, and the aim of the directorate is to strengthen the ability of the justice sector to collaborate and align strategy, performance, and investment. The directorate is leading work on a cluster approach to Budget bids. It also supports the justice sector leadership board, which is composed of the leaders of six justice sector agencies and is chaired by the Secretary for Justice.

We heard in the review that in March 2022, the Government established Te Puna Aonui, which is the interdepartmental executive board for the elimination of family violence and sexual violence. The Ministry of Justice hosts Te Puna Aonui and a significant part of its work is to empower and support community groups and providers that are already working toward the goal of eliminating family and sexual violence. We look forward to seeing the outcomes framework for the programme, which will track the achievement of outcomes in June 2023.

In terms of access to justice, we heard how, in Budget 2022, the ministry received funding for appointing more interpreters and to support the engagement of specialists to produce medical reports, mental health assessments, and other information to support the courts. The ministry noted that these additional resources improve access to justice by helping parties to present their cases and tell their stories in court. Also, the Secretary for Justice and the Chief Justice have partnered to support the development of the national strategic framework for improving access to civil justice in New Zealand.

While we did note that there have been some delays in accessing the courts, we discussed with Mr Kibblewhite’s team the Criminal Process Improvement Programme (CPIP), which is a cross-agency effort to reduce the backlog in the criminal justice jurisdiction of the District Court by establishing best-practice court procedures. The programme is led by the judiciary, the Chief District Court Judge chairs its steering committee, and it’s managed by the ministry. In October 2022, several CPIP pilots began in a selection of courts, and the ministry told us about the following cross-agency priorities and initiatives to reduce delays.

Firstly, they told us about the designation of liaison police prosecutors who work with duty lawyers to try to ensure that a meaningful court event takes place on the first day that a person appears in court. They also told us about checking for bail addresses more frequently and checking for multiple addresses to reduce adjournments caused by failure to identify a suitable bail address. They also told us about the focus on providing pre-sentencing reports to courts in a timely manner to avoid adjournments during the sentencing process, and they spoke about the establishment of a sentencing-ready team at the Department of Corrections that works with all parties to a proceeding to ensure that the necessary information has been prepared and is available to the court on the day of sentencing. The ministry also spoke about the goal of the judicially led Te Ao Mārama model for the District Court, which is to take the best practices from therapeutic courts, such as the sexual violence and rangatahi courts and, essentially, deploy them more widely throughout the court system.

So, once again, I would like to thank my colleagues at select committee for robust discussion at select committee, and I do look forward to the continuation of this debate here this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith, just for members’ guidance, if they want to make a longer five-minute presentation with a number of questions, the call is more likely to go to another member. If they want to do it in short blocks of questions, I’m more likely to try and stick with one member to exhaust that member’s questions. So it’s up to members, but that’s how I intend to chair these meetings.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my pleasure to speak on this debate, which is focused on the annual review of the justice ministry and the justice sector more broadly.

The justice ministry spends around $800 million a year on its business and the courts; you’ve got another $2 billion or so on Police and another $2 billion or so on Corrections. Overall, the sector is around $5 billion or $6 billion annually spent to keep us safe.

As we’ve had questions to the Minister of Justice in question time around legislation—and she referred to the fact that she is responsible for, I think, was it, 150 pieces of legislation, roughly; a very large number. So it’s a very broad sector that touches upon the lives of New Zealanders in many ways. Many people, fortunately, don’t have direct dealings with the court and justice process as victims of crime, but there, sadly, are too many, but there are also many people touched, whether it’s police, safety, whether it’s the human rights legislation. Certainly, everybody gets an opportunity to vote for the electoral laws that we’re responsible for. So any Government has to focus on what are the real burning issues that they have to deal with at a particular time. I put it to the Minister and to the Parliament today that there are, I think, four real challenges in the justice sector that I want to talk about today and ask questions of the Minister.

The first is around the very significant increase in violent crime over the past five or six years. Since we’ve had a Labour Government, there’s been a 33 percent increase in violent crime. At the same time, there has been only really one tangible clear target operating under this Government in the justice sector, which is to be a 30 percent reduction in the prison population. I think that all members here, and most New Zealanders, don’t want to see more and more people imprisoned in this country. Prison is not a great place. But most people want to see the prison numbers reflective of what is going on in the community. Are people safer or not? What we’ve seen is violent crime going up, and the number of people in prison going down. The computer says that it doesn’t compute, because what we’re seeing is people being made less safe and an increase in crime.

So the first fundamental question I have to the Minister is: why is the primary focus on reducing the prison population, irrespective of what is going on in the community, even though we are seeing an increase in violent crime? And, indeed, “has the determination to keep people out of prison actually contributed to an increase in violent crime?” is a related question.

The second area that we need to focus on is this whole increase in youth crime that we’ve seen. Everybody is aware of the 550 percent increase in ram raids. They’re aware of the smash and grabs. They’re aware of poor old Michael Hill Jewellers being done on just about every second day, it seems, at a different place around the country. We’ve all been, as members of Parliament—well, certainly those on this side of the House have visited retail operators and seen the fear and frustration and despondency in their eyes, as they’ve had to deal with constant harassment and smash-and-grab activities, and even ram raids, and they don’t feel safe, they don’t feel that their family are safe, and they’re so despondent about how they can actually make a living because they have to pay for all the fixing up and the high insurance bills and all the losses that come with it.

So the broad question in this area that I have for the Minister is: is she actually confident that the money and the legislation that we’re investing and that we’ve employed deal with this rise in youth crime? Is it working? Is it sufficient? My answer to her would be, no. Well, what is she going to do about it? What is she going to do about the fact that most people conclude that there are no consequences? So I’m interested in some initial thoughts from the Minister on that issue, as well, and what she is going to do about that 550 percent rise in ram raids.

I’ll just quickly touch on the other subject. The third big area is the massive delays in the court system, and the long delays to justice that New Zealanders are facing. So one basic stat I’d ask to question is: why has there been a 42 percent increase in prisoners on remand—that is, people in prison before they’re sentenced—because of delays in the system?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Colleagues in the House, first may I first reiterate the sentiment made by my colleague Vanushi Walters and acknowledge the serious event that is occurring in Tāmaki-makau-rau and the outer regions right now. Our thoughts are with them all, as this is the second substantive event in a very short period of time. The collegiality in this House will mean that I know that many people will be concerned for the friends, their families, those businesses, those communities, and those that indeed just suffered immeasurable harm. Ki a mātou nei, ka whiua ōku nei whakaaro, ngā whakaaro o tēnei Whare ki a rātou.

[To us, our thoughts, the thoughts of this House, are thrown to them.]

Turning to some of the substantive questions and queries that have been put down by my colleagues this afternoon, I think—as we do in an ordinary committee of the whole House—what I’ll do is just answer in piecemeal: as you go, I’ll go.

So starting with those three substantive issues that the Hon Paul Goldsmith mentioned just now. The first was with respect to the increase in violent crime and making the clear statement around that 33 percent increase in violent crime. I think there’s probably a range of different things that we’ve been looking at when we are tracking the data for why there is an increase in violent offending, particularly from that period between 2018 and 2023. I am on record as noting the police data has shown a 37 percent increase in the reporting of violent offences. The number of people entering the court for violent offending has also increased by 8 percent since July 2022, although I guess it’s probably useful for this committee to also note that that is still lower than that in 2018.

What we are seeing, and particularly since the introduction of a range of reforms that came in to address family harm in 2018—the commencement in 2019—we introduced a raft of measures in this House to enable those that were victims of violent offending within their domestic situation, their familial situations, to be able to (1) report more easily, (2) we introduced different types of offending, and (3) provided more resource to ensure that family violence and family violent offending is more accounted for.

What we’ve seen is that as the crime rates have lifted, the number of family violence offending has lifted. Clearly—to us, on the evidence that’s been provided to us through the data—one of the very clear drivers is why we are seeing an uplift in that violent offending, offending that hasn’t previously been able to be caught. I am pleased that this House had the foresight to introduce that range of remedies and provide police those powers—of course, alongside other tools—to ensure that we were adequately capturing the harm that is caused in the home.

Turning briefly to youth crime, because there’s an interesting corollary there. Yes, I think it’s very clear that we can see—whether it’s through ram raids or other types of offending—we’ve seen a substantive increase by children and young people when it comes to particular forms of offending. I want to touch on, because the members have touched on that in this House, ram raid incidents began to increase from December 2020 and peaked to date at August 2022.

Something that’s interesting when we start to look at that trajectory, though, of crime is that it’s still lower than when we took office in 2017. What we saw over the past decade is very clear evidence that shows youth offending is tracking downwards over the past 10 years. It continues that downward trajectory until around just after COVID, and then we see that sharp increase. We’re not yet up to those rates where we were in 2017 and prior to then.

One of the questions that the member asked this afternoon was whether or not we could be confident that the investment into some of the programmes and the ways that we are capturing our young people are effective. Well, I guess there’s a couple of ways that we could answer that. One of the less pleasing, in my view, things that I see in the statistical evidence is that we have one of the highest incarceration rates right now for young people and children as a consequence of youth offending.

Secondly, what we see is that where we have trialled programmes such as the Better Pathways Package for young people—which is a significant investment into whole wraparound services for young people based in their communities—we are seeing a peak and then a decline in youth offending in those areas. How do we know that’s the case? Because we’ve got other areas where we haven’t taken those same approaches and we’ve seen an increase.

So I am confident that the measures that we are taking—which provide alternatives away from kiddie kindergrounds for, ultimately, gangs and gang lifestyles and life of harm—or a significant and substantial investment into young people, working with them to realise their potential. We’ve seen a reduction in recidivism rates, we’ve seen a more complete re-entry, we’ve seen a reduction in crime, and we’ve seen much more evidence that highlights that people get back into a different way—a more positive way—of contributing to the community. So I am confident in the ways that we have been trialling and managing ways of dealing with this incredible peak in youth crime post the back of COVID.

On the third issue my colleague raised—it was on court delays—I guess I’ll just make a brief comment there, and then I’ll come back and—let’s just answer as we go through. But a couple of things I’ll note there: that as a justice sector that was funded for multiple appropriations at the last Budget, there were four key priorities for that cluster of those justice agencies: Corrections, Justice, Police, and there’s a few others, including the Serious Fraud Office and Crown Law.

So the four priority areas there were the reduction of delays, a real focus on remand, increasing support to victims, and then one which was more about the internal way that those agencies operated. Most of the remand increase in the last year is due to an inflow of serious cases as opposed to delays—that’s what the evidence is showing us—but I will accept there’s certainly more work to be done there and we’ll engage throughout the course of this.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister Allan, just in response to one statement that you’ve made there in answer to Mr Goldsmith’s question. You referred to the highest incarceration rate of juniors, or youth, is held by New Zealand amongst the world, and I just wonder, please, if you could explain that to me, because we don’t incarcerate our youth; we put them into youth justice facilities. My understanding is that the majority of the youth are walking out the back door while police are still trying to sign over the paperwork at the front door. So if you could just explain that for me, please.

My second question, Minister, is around the “strangulation fund”. In the last Budget allocation, 2022/23 financial year, $3.2 million has been allocated to a “strangulation fund” for supporting the victims of strangulation. But as at 5 April this year, only $369,697 of that $3.2 million fund has been spent. Could you please explain why there is such a shortfall? Thank you.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. With respect to that first question from the honourable member Nicole McKee, first, let me be clear: look, I don’t mean to make any insinuations about global or world data, so I’m not drawing a corollary or a comparison there. What I am, though, stating is that right now we have children and young people who are remanded in custody. The statistics that we have is that currently in New Zealand there’s 1,101. That’s up 37.8 percent.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Less than 18 years old?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Children and young people, so, yes, that’d be 17 years and younger.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. If I may, just in referring to these annual review reports out of the Justice Committee, there are two things that I’d like to discuss in my contributions this afternoon.

The first is around the priorities and targets for the justice sector, as has been raised by the members, particularly the discussion about reducing the prison population by 30 percent, and the second is on the prioritisation of police responses, which obviously there’s been much media commentary on. To that effect, it’ll come as absolutely no surprise to the Minister that I have one area where I think there could be far better policy settings and, therefore, far better outcomes and efficacy to actually have policy in place, which then results in far better investment and far better outcomes for all of it. And that is, of course, in the tweaks that are available to her to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

We have a breakdown from the New Zealand Drug Foundation, which pulls apart the budget, and estimates that we spend approximately four times more money on criminal prohibition of substances than we do on harm- or health-based interventions and approaches. And to give some context to the kinds of outcomes that this results in, we know, for example, based on both police data but also the New Zealand Health Survey data, that we have continued to have increasing seizure of, for example, cannabis crops. Yet cannabis consumption in this country has continued to increase to the effect that we now have 635,000 New Zealanders per year consuming cannabis annually.

Then we also have some of those harm- or health-based interventions, the likes of Te Aro Oranga, which I want to acknowledge the Government—having collaborated on it last term, in particular—expanded, but none the less it’s not available across the whole country. It is, of course, the methamphetamine programme piloted, actually, initially in the final year of the then outgoing National Government, which we have complete and comprehensive data on, showing us that for every dollar invested, we have a $3 to $7 return, which is a 37 percent—if I believe correctly, off the top of my head—reduction in criminal offending.

So, to that effect, I just wanted to reflect on some of the questions that I’ve also asked the Minister through the parliamentary written questions. Here we have, despite those changes to, particularly, section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which, of course, formalised police discretion—we saw that, sure, there has been a decrease in the number of people who are going through the carceral system and ending up interacting with the police as a result, but none the less those numbers and those figures do remain particularly high, particularly when we’re talking about cannabis.

To that effect, I think it would be useful to put on Hansard this afternoon that the number of people convicted of charges relating to possession or use of cannabis alone just last year was 1,111 New Zealanders. Obviously, I think it’s really important to put that in the context, again, of the 635,000 New Zealanders who do consume cannabis annually. We also see, again related to that point around the Government’s prison population aims—that’s in response to my written question 11595, for those following along at home—that 180 New Zealanders were sentenced to imprisonment for cannabis possession alone just last year. So I guess my question to the Minister, in relation to, particularly, the annual reviews here and, as I’ve reflected on, the policy settings which result in the types of investment that we make and therefore the outcomes that we get, is: when do we stop doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

I totally, totally acknowledge the fact that the Government has made some moves. I’ve worked with them very closely on them—the likes of that section 7 police discretion change. I know that the Minister is potentially going to bring up the fact that we had the cannabis referendum. Again, we’ve had this debate many times over, where we had a specific proposed regulatory regime for one substance, and I think what that debate showed us is that the status quo is actually untenable, because even those who were on the opposing side of that referendum were unwilling to say that people should continue to be ushered into the prison system, into the criminal justice system, as a result of that low-level drug consumption in particular.

So my question to the Minister is: when will we see that shift away from this expenditure, which is a waste of money? You know, every single year now, I continue to do these written parliamentary questions which show that we spend the better part of $1 million on sending out cannabis choppers into the skies. We seize more cannabis, yet we continue to have those really high consumption rates. There are far better ways to do this. I know the Minister knows it. So I’m really interested to see and to hear where those priorities may lie, particularly when it comes to the allocation of police resources and time and the opportunity to decrease our prison population.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I thank the member for her questions. Probably a couple things just to note at the outset, which probably colour the way that I’m about to respond. First, as the member’s aware, the Misuse of Drug Act is administered by the Minister of Health, so no doubt she can answer some of those responses there. With respect to responsibilities for the police, you’ll be able to direct your questions to my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen. Remand reduction: whilst not squarely within my portfolio, I think it’s useful just to touch on that, because it is part of the broader justice sector priorities, but she could probably ask a more pointed question to my colleague the Hon Kelvin Davis.

Those things aside, I think, with respect to the discretion that was introduced—the section 7 discretion for those in possession of cannabis—as the member’s rightly noted in this Chamber, as provided by us to you, we’ve seen a substantive reduction in those who have been incarcerated for cannabis possession charges from 2012 through to 2022. In 2012, there were approximately—well, there were 391 people who had been incarcerated for possession of cannabis. That has reduced now to, this year, being down to 180. I note the member’s comments about the broader charges that relate to—but as she is well aware, the outcome of those determinations, when we collectively introduced those laws, was that we would provide those front-line officers with that discretion. And we can see that being exercised with the reduction in cannabis possession offences.

With respect to this annual Budget, it’s suffice to say that there was not a specific stream funded through the justice portfolio dedicated to drug reform. As the member rightly notes, that was an issue that was substantively canvassed between the years 2017 and 2020, which resulted in a referendum, the outcome of which has bound this Government during this term to the work that we will commit to do on that.

The next point I probably think I’d like to make is, however, with respect to the way that we have seen a shift in the way that those that have found themselves within the justice system as a consequence of addiction due to alcohol and drugs. I want to highlight two things. One is that we’re seeing the culture within those courtrooms, as a consequence of Te Ao Mārama and programmes like the alcohol and other drug treatment courts that we have—

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you for acknowledging my work there, bringing that in. Thank you very much.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: It’s very good work. I will—I will acknowledge that because, having sat through those hearings with those people that have participated, Judith Collins—

Hon Judith Collins: Yes, I did, indeed.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: That’s what I’m saying. I’m acknowledging you, so it’s a commendation to you, because I’ve seen the profound impact when I’ve sat through those courts of what it is to deal with those that have needed support and to be dealt with in a way that where the health concerns of the people are at the forefront.

What we’ve seen through those courts, and particularly through the outcomes evaluation and cost-benefit analysis of the Waitākere and Auckland courts in 2019, was relatively large offending reductions within two years of entry when compared with match offenders: 23 percent less likely to re-offend for any offence; 25 percent less likely to be imprisoned as a result of their reoffending. Reoffending and re-incarceration is reduced more for graduates than early exiters, and the cost-benefit ratio average of 1.33 means they’re to break even. But many other potential benefits were not able to be costed. What we are seeing, though, is a really positive outcome in these types of alternative ways of dealing with those that suffer from alcohol, drug, and other addictions and afflictions.

That, I guess, sits at the nexus, or underpins the result that’s been led out by the judiciary with respect to Te Ao Mārama: doing things differently in that court context, bringing community to the table to play a larger role in ensuring reintegration, rehabilitation of those that come through the courts.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ve heard from the Green Party, and it reminded me of the fact that it is the Green Party policy that when somebody has a warrant out for their arrest and they’re on the run, we should not stop paying them benefits. I’d be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that that would be helpful from an overall point of public safety. You’re on the run with a warrant out for your arrest for a violent crime—for murder or a sexual crime, or something like that—but we should still get you your benefit: I’d be interested in the Minister’s view on that.

The Minister did refer to the question of prison population. We did have the benefit of the long-term insights from the Ministry of Justice on the prison population, and it did refer to the fact that the New Zealand prison population was mainly, predominantly, in there for serious violent and sexual offences. Actually, the number of people in New Zealand prisons for drug offences was relatively low in international terms, and falling—and, obviously, for property crime, it was relatively low. The vast majority in prison are in for serious violent and sexual offences.

But there has been a dramatic drop in the prison population from the moment of the entrance of this Government in late 2017 - early 2019, where you will see a 37 percent drop in the sentenced population in our prisons—37 percent. A colossal falling away of people in prison for sentenced offences since 2018, and that is being driven, so the officials said, by—it reflects police and judicial practice and the greater use of community-based sentences.

So the question I have for the Minister is: what does she think has driven that dramatic change, with the change of Government and the 37 percent drop in prisoners, given the fact that the majority of people in New Zealand prisons are there for serious sexual and violent offences? And we know that there has been a 33 percent increase in violent crime since the Government took office in the same period. There’s been a 140 percent increase in serious assaults during the same period, and there’s been a 550 percent increase in ram raids. There has also been a 61 percent increase in gang membership and—I’ll give you one more stat—a 51 percent increase in gun crimes by gang members.

So you’ve got these two things going on: a significant increase in violent crime, which is making people feel afraid in their homes and in their communities and is creating many, many more victims of crime, and, at the same time, we’ve seen this dramatic 37 percent drop in the number of people in prisons because of a direct change in police and judicial practice. What I want to know is what’s driven that change, and my hunch is that it is the single goal that this Government has, which has been to reduce the prison population, irrespective of what’s going on in our communities.

I’d like to get a better sense from the Minister as to what she thinks has driven that change and what responsibility she takes for her Government’s action in that, and whether she takes some responsibility for the overall increase in violent crime that she’s seeing. Obviously, it’s the people who are perpetuating the acts of violence who are primarily responsible, but in terms of overall justice policy, is she concerned at all about those two diverging statistics that we’re seeing? Like I say, we have a 33 percent increase in violent crime, big increases in serious assaults, and a host of other gun crimes and a host of other issues but also, at the same time, from the moment this Government took office, there was a dramatic falling away in the number of people in prison for sentences.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Probably the first thing I would like to state just on record is that—and it goes back to my primary answer when we commenced this debate and discussion this afternoon—police data shows that there has been a 37 percent increase in reporting of violent offending. That’s not what we’re seeing flow through the system in terms of additional uplift in terms of prosecutions, but the reporting has increased. So we look to: why has the reporting increased? I mean, people can make mockery of that, but we’ve invested a lot of money and time and energy into enabling people to be able to report violent crime.

The biggest and most substantive investment in this area, as I discussed at the outset, was with respect to violent offending within the family environment, one of those types of crimes that tends to be—and has gone for far too long—under-reported, and that’s what was coming through from the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. That was one area that was always substantively under-represented. As we’ve seen the level of reporting go up in violent crime, in violent offending, there is a direct correlation with the increase in reporting of family violent crime. So, I guess, just to go back to that start part, that shows that the focus that we’ve had is working, because we are getting further people engaging in reporting areas that have previously been under-reported.

The number of people entering court for violent offences—again, just for the record so that’s correct—has increased by 8 percent since July 2022. If we come over to the decrease in the prison population—because the member’s proposition is that violent offending is going up, violent offenders in prison are going down; that’s the simple proposition that the member has put to this committee. However, the statistics don’t reflect that. Most of the decrease in the prison population is for non-violent offences. Prison population by type of offending: if we look at it, prison population has decreased by 21 percent over the last five years. There’s been a larger decrease in the number of people in prison for non-violent offences—30 percent—than for violent offences over the past five years.

So, I guess, when we are trying to draw apples and oranges, I mean—and this is the challenge that we have, to look at all of those drivers. What is causing the spikes that we’re seeing? Is it substantively worse or better, or what is the corollary from what we saw when we took office? We can see that substantive uplift in reporting and therefore prosecutions in that family violence environment because that was a commitment we as a Government made. We see less violent offenders in prison. There is simply a lack of evidence that prison is the best place for offenders who are less violent, and therefore are there other ways that we as a society can invest in ensuring that those people and those individuals can make a more fulsome contribution, and, if so, then what is the role of the State to enable that? Those are decisions that we have made where we have seen spikes—and I addressed this in the outset as well—particularly around areas like youth crime coming off the back of COVID. We saw those immeasurable jumps. It still doesn’t get us back to where the crime levels were in 2017, but we certainly saw a jump. So we made interventions, like I said, through Better Pathways and others, and we saw that reduction and restabilisation.

So, I guess, what I can assure this House is that unlike the base sum that the member is putting to this House, that there’s more reporting and less violent offenders in the prison—that’s simply not what the evidence is showing us.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I will go back to my first question, and wonder whether you could answer that, about the strangulation fund—$370,000 only having been spent out of $3.2 million as at 5 April. And further to that, the better outcomes for victims package—that had an allocation of $3.5 million in the last Budget allocation, and only $322,643 has been spent as at 31 March 2023. So how come it’s taken nearly a year before any of the large policies were announced to go with that Budget? Thank you, Minister.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, again, to the member. Look, I’ll answer that first question. I slightly missed the second part, so if you could restate that—actually, do you want to do that now, and I’ll respond to the first part?

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): The second part of the question related to the better outcomes for victims package. Why was only $322,643 spent as at the end of March this year out of a $3.5 million package, and why did it take nearly a year after that announcement of $3.5 million for any large policies to be announced in that area?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. Turning to the question now. I apologise to the member that I didn’t answer it when I stood prior on strangulation and non-fatal strangulation. I guess that there’s a couple of ways that I will answer that. Justice had a proportion and allocation of the Budget, and there is, effectively, a very streamlined way of the Ministry of Justice giving effect to the way in which expenditure for that particular appropriation was made, and that was through the legal aid system. That’s a very simple response. The other part of that funding was to the Ministry of Health to provide support and additional training, and to provide ways that could operationalise—or the Ministry of Health could operationalise—being able to provide expert medical and forensic witnesses. So two parts.

To the second part with respect to the Ministry of Health, you’ll have to make your inquiries there, but with respect to the Vote that we’ve received, this funding that came to Justice was made available to support experts attending court as witnesses to ensure judicial processes are leading to high-quality decisions, and that was indeed with the amendments and the package focused around family violence. This is why that additional funding was injected into this area. Of course, the prosecution of those crimes or the provision of health specialists—in simple sum, those need to be directed to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Police.

With respect to the funding for the better outcomes for victims, it was always envisaged that it would be an outcome—so a re-orientating—of the way that the justice system and, therefore, the various agencies that engage with victims—a completely different operating model, as the member will be aware, in our justice system. It’s an adversarial system where the State prosecutes a defendant. The victims in that system are, effectively, not represented, for example, by the Crown—they don’t have their own legal counsel and their experiences are ad hoc.

And I will acknowledge the previous Government for their leadership in appointing the Chief Victims Adviser—that was a good first step. Off the back of those reports and the subsequent inquiry by the Chief Victims Adviser, which, essentially, tasked her and others to come up with the way in which we need to step through: one, we need to trial things within the justice system. It’s made up of many parts—Corrections, Oranga Tamariki, Police, and many other parts there. And so what we needed to do was, one, look at what legislative changes were imminent and immediate that would lead to direct outcomes; now, secondly, look at particular pilots that people like the Chief Victims Adviser, and others as well who are victims’ advocates, had been saying would make a substantive difference to the way that victims could live their lives.

With the appropriations that were made in 2022, of course, it was a different approach for the justice sector. It was a multi-year appropriation, so the intent wasn’t to spend all of the money right away; it was to sit, to do some work, to look, and to make sure that over the course of those four years to which that appropriation applied, the outcomes would start small in terms of investment, because it was about pulling things together so that we could operationalise. As the member’s aware, we’ve made a significant announcement and subsequent investment into not just legislative and trials but also a substantive uplift in the support that victims can receive both through Victim Support and through the Victims Assistance Scheme that are available to victims directly as well. Those trials come into force on 1 June. They will provide a 12-month leeway. And, of course, whilst those trials are in place, we will also be looking at what the other raft of measures will be. So consider this an ongoing commitment by the Government to invest in doing things quite differently for victims, because I think collectively this House would agree that that’s a really important step that needs to be made.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just briefly touching on, actually, a point the member Paul Goldsmith made regarding the warrant-to-arrest sanctions—and it is one of those that has interactions between Ministry of Social Development and Ministry of Justice—the Minister for Social Development and Employment has been on the record as not supporting that benefit sanction. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommended that it ended. I wanted to get the Minister’s perspective on whether she thinks that it has been beneficial to deprive people of income, for those who are receiving a benefit, because they have a warrant to arrest. What outcomes, from a justice perspective, has she seen as a result of that, and whether she believes the sanction actually criminalises people by depriving them of legal ways to provide kai for themselves and their children?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just responding to the Minister’s suggestion that there was more people with less serious offences that were being thrown out of prison, as it were, in the big reduction of prison numbers—not serious offences. I just quote from the long-term study by the justice officials, saying, in terms of the big decrease in the prison population since this Government took over, “the decrease was larger for those serving long sentences than those serving short sentences”. So there was those people serving long sentences.

I suppose the question that I’d raise is that—the Minister has been talking about that prison hasn’t worked effectively, it’s not a great place, it doesn’t work. The point that’s raised by the victims of crimes is: of course. And the purposes in the Sentencing Act are not just to rehabilitate the offenders who have had a violent crime or created a violent crime or created terrible victims of crime; another purpose is to denounce the act—to denounce the act itself. So a lot of people are left staggered, for example, that a young man who was convicted of raping four women ended up with nine months home detention and playing home station.

Now, the Minister can’t comment on a specific case, but she is responsible for the overall sentencing framework that allows those kinds of results. People would rightly ask the question: does the home detention sentence effectively denounce the act so that all the other young men out there understand that this is something that society doesn’t tolerate? And so when she’s talking about whether prison works or not, is she conscious of the role that it has in denouncing the act?

Secondly, in also keeping people safe, in repealing the three-strikes legislation that this Government did, there’s one area that they did in the justice space—the one piece of legislation that they passed in the sentencing area was to say that “we think that our sentences are too long for our worst repeat offenders and therefore we need to shorten those sentences somehow”. That was the conclusion that they draw. But the average number of offences by somebody on a third strike was around 70 offences.

The point I would make is that with every one of those offences, a new victim is created—or multiple victims are created, quite often. So that cycle—going out into prison, going out, creating a new victim, going back—is what we’re trying to avoid. So the other purpose of the prison population is to keep the rest of the community safe from that small group of New Zealanders who perpetrate multiple acts of violence. So the question I have for the Minister is, while she points to all manner of statistics that—

Hon Member: Facts.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —may relate to violent crime—what did she say, “Facts”? The fact is that the survey of crime has shown a 33 percent increase in violent crime.

Now, the Minister says, “Oh, there’s been an overall reduction in crime.” Well, yes. If the police are only doing half the number of roadblocks they had for drunk-driving, there are going to be fewer people convicted of driving drunk. That’s not because there are fewer people driving drunk; it’s because the police are doing fewer tests.

That’s how it works: if you change the rules so that you’re not going to prosecute drug crimes, yes, there’s going to be a fall in prosecution for drug crimes. It doesn’t mean that anything has changed, that the country is safer; it’s just that the police have had a different approach. That’s the point that the justice officials were making: there’s been a change in approach. But every New Zealander who walks down the street and sees the plywood on all the windows from the ram raids—and they’ve seen the 140 percent increase in serious assaults—knows that there is a problem with safety. The question I have for the Minister is: why does she think that that is not something that ordinary New Zealanders should be concerned about?

Now, I’ve only got a little bit of time left, but I did also want to ask the question around why is she still—is it still her policy for this Government to bring in legislation around the Make It 16 campaign, for example, as priority in terms of reducing the voting age, either at general or local government? I’d be keen to get a clear answer on that. Then I’ve got a couple more.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): There was a broad-ranging contribution from my friend there so I’ll try to address it in parts. One of the things that struck me with the contribution was that there seems to be a bit of a disassociation as to what the intent of the justice system is. I acknowledge the member’s contribution that said that part of the purpose of a justice system is rehabilitation, other parts are to denounce behaviours, etc. However, the part that probably made me ponder for a second is: for us, the real purpose is ensuring that there are less victims over time. And so you’ve got to approach that task in two parts. So, one, there is the immediacy: we need to immediately respond to harm and reduce that. We also have to, as good governors—stewards of a system—look to evidence that works. What ultimately reduces recidivism, violent criminal offending? We have to look at interventions that are made. Is it prisons? Do they work? Are they the best outcome to reduce harm in the long run for victims and, therefore, New Zealanders?

What the data shows us—and that’s what we have to look at; not our feelings, not our reckons, but we have to look at data—recidivism rates are higher for people sentenced to prison for violent offending over those people who receive a serious community sentence for violent offending. As a good governor, we have to look at these statistics, because what we are looking at is harm in the long run for New Zealanders. We have to make sure that when we invest or we change tack, it’s because we ultimately want to reduce crime in the long run. And that’s what we are ultimately seeing. We want to ensure that New Zealanders can report more crime and we’re making it easier for them to do so and enable that participation. But as good governors, we have an obligation to ensure that we commence with a hard and firm view on facts and evidence, not just scaremongering and fear.

To that next question from the member, about the Make It 16 campaign: we have introduced and we have made commitments that we will follow through with the local government component of the Make It 16 policy amendments.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Part of the annual review included the Human Rights Commission, where we had a 14 percent increase in the Budget, in the revenue, from 2021 to 2022. And so a simple question for the Minister is: did she recuse herself from the discussion of that increase in the Budget for the Human Rights Commission?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Just very briefly putting the questions regarding the intent of the warrant-to-arrest sanction policy and whether the Minister thinks that meets the goals that she may have in terms of the Government directions, seeing as the Ministry of Social Development is opposed to it?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I apologise, Ricardo. We have no imminent policy decisions to make any amendments with respect to that policy around the benefits and what they receive.

To my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, he may or may not have been aware that in June 2022 I had no ministerial responsibilities for the Ministry of Justice or for the Human Rights Commission.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I agree entirely with the Minister, she wasn’t the Minister of Justice, but she was still in the Cabinet and so it’s still a relevant question. She may or may not choose to answer it, but I still ask the question: did she recuse herself from that increase?

Another question I have is, finally, in terms of the hate speech legislation, how much has been spent on it—the development of the hate speech legislation—and what are the Government’s plans for it currently?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the latter question, that I don’t have right at hand right now but it’s in excess of $800,000 that was spent on the proposals for the hate speech legislation, in pursuit of the advancements of the recommendations from the royal commission. Where that currently sits is that we’ve made a referral to the Law Commission for them to be able to provide advice, based on their expertise in these relative, delicate, and complex legal matters, and therefore that matter now sits with them.

There was one other matter that you asked and it’s just slipped—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Human Rights Commission.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Human Rights Commission—oh, yes, the Human Rights Commission. Yes, no, as I stated prior, I had no responsibilities for the Human Rights Commission in June 2022.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the electoral law side of the equation, is it still the Minister of Justice’s view that the one person, one vote principle that we have is still in place across all general and council elections, given the passage of the Canterbury Regional Council bill, which clearly moves away from that principle? The question’s relevant, as the Minister of Justice, because the Ministry of Justice ultimately gave the advice on the compatibility of that and also the Rotorua bill with the human rights legislation, which is against discrimination based on race.

On the Rotoroa bill, the Ministry of Justice came to the conclusion that it breached the human rights provision because that bill would have given greater voting rights to one ethnic group. And then—rather strangely, in my view; inexplicably, in my view—it came to the opposite conclusion for the Canterbury bill, which, clearly, by giving Ngāi Tahu the right to appoint two councillors as well as vote in the election for all the other councillors, it gives that group far greater weight than other Cantabrians. But the Ministry of Justice came to the opposite view.

So my question to the Minister is: has she asked the ministry what it was thinking and how it reconciles those two opposite conclusions drawn?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I’m sure that the member would be relatively familiar with the nature of these discussions, given I’m sure that they would have been in-depth discussions that that member would have been a part of when making the decision to introduce this particular form of voting, in structuring the initial Canterbury Regional Council bill that provided for local body representation and for those two permanent seats of the Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. So I’m sure that he’s well adept at these discussions. I’m sure he would have been heavily engaged in reaching the determination that the then Government did.

That said, for our own consideration, what we did do—and, probably, in my mind, the Attorney-General is the person that ultimately has to determine whether or not something is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, with respect to the Canterbury Regional Council, for reasons—as it was said there, while there appeared to be a distinction on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, it was found this distinction did not cause disadvantage to one or more classes of individuals, due to there being no comparable group with similar status in Canterbury. It went on to acknowledge the previous National Government’s prior legislation that this bill was built on.

With respect to the Rotorua District Council representation agreements, as you rightly point out, the Attorney-General considered this local bill to be inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It went on to say that it would create a difference in voting weight between those that were on the Māori roll and those that were on the general roll, which is not the same for the Canterbury Regional Council, as the member would be aware because you would have been heavily engaged in those discussions in your previous time in Government.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, our time with the Minister of Justice has ended. Thank you. The Minister of Health is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions.

Health

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Chairperson of the Health Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to lead off the debate for the annual review 2021 for health. As chair of the Health Committee, I’d first like to take just a couple of moments to thank the clerks attached to the Health Committee, thank all of the officials who worked for and with the Health Committee, and to the members of the committee for all of the mahi that goes into the annual review period.

During the course of this annual review, we, like other select committees, held a hearing with the then Minister of Health to cover the overarching issues in the sector, and we thank the Minister for the chance to discuss the results of those appropriations. We also held individual hearings with 12 particular agencies within that health sector.

We were reminded during the course of this annual review that there had been, in fact, significant changes to the structure of the health sector during the period under annual review. On 1 July 2022, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022 gave effect to a fundamental reform of the health and disability system. The 20 district health boards—DHBs—and the Health Promotion Agency were disestablished, and two new agencies, Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora, were established. The functions of the Health Promotion Agency have also been incorporated into Te Whatu Ora.

As part of this review process, when we heard from the Ministry of Health, in particular—the Ministry of Health, as a little bit of background, sets out the direction and policy for the health system, it advises the Government on funding and system settings, regulates the health system, and monitors health outcomes—the Auditor-General assessed many of those functions and found that the system, in general, was working at a good level. It assessed the ministry’s management control environment. It assessed its financial information and supporting systems and controls environment, and the performance information and supporting systems controls environments. All of those were found to be working good.

It did make some recommendations for improvements, as to be expected, with regards to procurement: in particular with regards to information technology and with regards to inventory management. The Auditor-General also recommended that it was appropriate, at least, for the ministry to consider ways in which the health system would measure its performance following these significant health reforms. Indeed, we heard that several mechanisms had been introduced to understand whether the system was heading in the intended direction. Te Pae Tata Interim New Zealand Health Plan is one such example, as were other mechanisms, including the ministerial advisory committee, who work outside, independently, who review the whole system and the processes of the reforms to ensure that the system is heading in the right direction.

Other structural changes were made; in particular, the Public Health Agency—within the ministry—which is responsible for operation of public health policy strategy and intelligence, and which, essentially, brought together the previously 12 public health units. We also spoke about the fact that one of the challenges with public and population health is that it actually could take many, many years to see the fruits of those labours and to see the outcomes that are sought. But we were informed during the course of this review that the focus on determining the social determinants of health, such as housing and education, and working with partner agencies was an absolute priority of this group.

We also note that the response to COVID-19 offered some really good models of work, particularly with Māori, with Pasifika, and with other vulnerable communities. We asked during this review process to be assured that the ministry and the agencies were acknowledging that and had learnt those lessons and were inculcating those lessons into future work, which they assured us that they were.

Workforce planning came up. The director-general identified it as a really critical issue, and said that it was the number one priority across the system, and gave us several examples of initiatives that were being utilised to help in that area.

We also heard about the 16 mental health infrastructure projects that had been undertaken, the trend that New Zealanders were living longer than ever before, and the fact that the gap had been narrowed, but not by enough, between Māori and non-Māori.

So, with that said, the Health Committee recommends that the annual review for health 2021 be accepted.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today, and I want to thank the work of the Health Committee for their diligent work in the review. And I note, in future, the process that the select committee is part of—that of the democratic governance of our health system—should be hugely simplified by the reduced number of agencies that report to them, and clearer performance monitoring that has been outlined by the chair of the committee.

The year referred to under review is the financial year 2021 to 2022. If I reflect on that period, having lived through it, I’d say that must be one of the biggest years for our health system in so many ways. The year started with the Delta outbreak in Auckland. It was followed by the biggest ever health mobilisation in the form of the vaccine campaign—the vaccination roll-out. It included the widespread transmission of the novel infectious agent Omicron in February and going into winter. All of these were sources of disruption for our health system, and, as the committee will be aware, some of the consequences of that are still in our health system. However, despite it all, the amazing people that work in our health system managed to achieve the lowest death rate of any country coming out of COVID restrictions that had similar processes to us. So, yes, it was, at many times, in many ways, a tough year, but also the achievements are ones to be proud of.

It was also, as has been noted, the first year of transition to the new health structures, and the new entities were stood up. But, of course, as all members of this House will be aware, the process of setting up the transition to a new health system is not complete just with the legal existence of the entities and the passage of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. And that work is work that is ongoing from July 2022 to today and beyond. It was the year we took the historic step of recognising Te Tiriti in our health system structures. It was a year of phenomenal service-level innovation, as has been pointed out by the chair of the Health Committee, in terms of much more by Māori, for Māori in the context of an emergency health response, and by Pacific, for Pacific services as well—all achievements that we want to continue to build on.

The new health entities enable us to tackle some of the long-term challenges that our health system faces, as well as tackle some of the consequences of the pandemic response. I’ll leave my remarks there and welcome questions from colleagues.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to all of those who did their work around the annual reviews and replied to questions and did their very best to get us the information that we require to sign off these annual reviews, and the accountability that we have to the New Zealand public to say that we held the Government and held the officers to account as appropriate and as is required in the annual review process.

I have a sequence of questions, and when they’re not a yes/no answer, I’ll have a little bit of narrative behind them so that the Minister can either write it down or check with officials to make it easy to reply. Then I’m hoping to have a riposte back to whatever the answers may be. My first question, then, looking at the year in review, is: what was the total consolidated debt across all district health boards (DHBs) in their last financial year, and did the Government subsequently absorb that debt? So it’s a question around the total consolidated debt for DHBs before they ceased existence.

The second question is: which of the tagged contingencies in Budget 2022 have been drawn down, and by how much? Now, there were a number of contingencies. Some of them, most of them, had, in fact, multimillion-dollar contingencies in Budget 2022 that also came into effect during the year in question. They generally required a business case and a sign off by the Minister of Finance, and significant Treasury involvement. So I am interested to know which of those tagged contingencies have been drawn down and by how much—that’s question two.

My third question talks back to consultants and contractors—areas that we’ve been concerned about—and asks: across the whole DHB sector, how many consultants and contractors were there? Now, we know that a review was done—I think Jim Green led it, actually—afterwards, around about October as I recall, looking at how many contractors and consultants there were in this sector, what they called the “contingent workforce”, but it only focused on those in the Ministry of Health. We’re interested: how many consultants and contractors were there across the whole sector? And we know, we’ve heard figures that maybe there’s 200 PR people, that the vast majority were in the Ministry of Health, some in Health New Zealand now, but just looking back beyond just the Ministry of Health would be useful. As far as we can tell from that review, there were maybe a thousand in the contingent workforce, but what is that total figure? That’s question three.

Question four asks whether the Minister will release the independent inquiry into Te Hiringa Hauora vaccination campaign, “That’s Us”, that occurred on her watch and under her delegation that resulted in resignations and significant funds being put at risk. Now, this was a vaccination campaign where there were allegations that by the time the campaign got under way, the vaccination need of the target Māori audience had reduced substantially. And there were also allegations of conflict of interest of significant stakeholders inside Te Hiringa Hauora employing family and boyfriends/girlfriends of family, and a range of other things. An inquiry was held, and there was no accountability and no follow up to that inquiry. So my question to the Minister, question four, is: whether she will release the results of that independent inquiry. I think we can’t just leave that out there and say “Oh, a couple of million dollars, it was all just whatever” when there are significant allegations to address.

Question five is more specific and it was partly addressed on Q + A this Sunday, but the Minister has said that there is no midwifery crisis, in written parliamentary question 29465 (2022) and then went on to say when asked “Are midwifery services coping in the regions that have maternity and midwifery shortages?”, “Yes.”—29466. I wanted to reflect on that, whether that is a correct statement over the period of time that we’re looking at under this review. That’s question five.

Question six starts by asking: over the year, did the wait-list for those waiting more than four months to see a first specialist increase or decrease? So the target and the promise for a first specialist assessment has been four months, and it’s a simple question: over the year in review, did the first specialist assessment waiting list increase or decrease?

Madam Chair, I think I’ll sit here. I have four other questions, but I can see I’m coming to this point in time. So I might conclude here and, hopefully, come back for another session, please.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to point to the report from the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists that details the amount that people are spending to access dental care, and the petition that they have launched. So I wanted to get an understanding as to whether the Minister had done any work or her ministry had done any work at looking at expanding free dental care for those over 18, and, if not, I guess I want to get her reflections around the state of access to dental care in Aotearoa.

Another point that I wanted to ask was regarding the migrant workforce in the health sector and whether she was confident that migrants coming in to fill roles in the healthcare sector could be guaranteed that they could be in areas where they pay at least the median wage, and whether that was something that she had certainty upon. And then whether, for those that may not have pathways to residency that may still be working there, whether she has concerns that that may affect retention rates as well.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I thank the member for those questions, and the earlier member Dr Shane Reti as well. Some of the first set of questions are quite technical in nature, so we’re just making sure that we have the correct data to inform our response on those.

With respect to dental care, it is an incredibly important area for one’s health, and a priority area for action for this Government. My belief with so many areas of health is that prevention is better than cure, and that’s why this Government moved recently to enable greater action to fluoridate water supplies. We know that that halves the rate of dental caries for young children. We’ve done that by enabling taking the politics out of this debate, which was one that was subject to misinformation, and by enabling the Director-General of Health to make directives to fluoridate water supplies when that is supported by good evidence.

With respect to the matter that the member raised around extending State-funded subsidised dental care, there is no work under way to extend that at the at the moment, but I understand that that is an important need for people, and especially when there are pressures on the cost of living.

The earlier question about migrants and their role in the health system—firstly, one of the great pleasures of being a healthcare worker is working in a multicultural workplace where there are workers with experiences from around the world and experiences of diverse health systems. There is a lot we can learn from our migrant health workforce. The member will be aware that there has been, coming out of COVID, an immigration rebalance, and health workers have been a priority in that, and that now we have over 40 roles on the green list with a fast track to residency, securing their ability to stay in New Zealand in return for the service they give in our health system.

I am aware that there are some parts of the health sector where an exception has been made for the wage requirements, and that is in aged residential care. The Minister of Immigration has the ability to periodically review that over time, so that the industry has a pathway to be able to raise wages over time. But the alternative, which was the huge pressure on the aged residential care workforce when migration was interrupted, would have led to there not being able to be a workforce sourced in those areas. So that is how that particular issue is addressed.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. What an important day to debate the annual reviews for Vote Health, and I think nothing typifies Labour’s absolute failure in mental health more than the news on the weekend that a mental health patient had waited 94 hours in the emergency department (ED). One doctor reported that it was the longest wait in the history of emergency departments in New Zealand for a mental health patient.

Let’s be very clear: the Health and Disability Commissioner has called on this Labour Government for a plan. Who would have thought that six years later, after $1.9 billion, we’re getting a record for how long a mental health patient will stay in an emergency department? Why this is important is because, as we heard today from the Minister herself, $27.5 million was announced a year ago, in Budget 2022. As of the end of March, no money of that $27.5 million had been spent to date, and, in the Minister’s answer in question time today, potentially only about $800,000 will be spent by the end of the financial year. That is the important context of the last 12 months of mental health in New Zealand under Labour: no plan and things going backwards. Where did that $1.9 billion go?

What’s interesting is that in the annual review for the Ministry of Health, when we look at question 162 about full-time vacancy rates, I would say that the biggest barrier to timely mental health and addiction support in New Zealand today is our mental health and addictions workforce crisis, which this Government has had its head in the sand over. It has failed to accept the crisis, but it has done little to actually stop the exodus out of our health system.

When you look at question 162 for the fulltime-equivalent vacancy rate for psychiatrists, in June 2021 it was 33.9. In June 2022—because that is the period we’re covering in today’s debate—it was 76.3. In the last year of this annual review debate under focus today, vacancy rates in psychiatry have increased 125 percent. That is why people are sitting in the ED department for 94 hours. That is why vulnerable Kiwis are sitting on waiting lists. That is why vulnerable Kiwis and their families cannot get the access to the care that they need.

Look at the discipline of psychology for this annual review. The full-time vacancy rate for June 2021 to June 2022 has increased from 72 fulltime-equivalents to 114.9, an increase of 58 percent.

Registered nurses for mental health: the vacancy rate is 212 for the same period. At the end of this period we’re reviewing, it is 407—a 91 percent increase in vacancies—and we wonder why people are leaving under the stress of covering multiple roles that are vacant.

This is the pressure on our mental health workforce, so I want to hear from the Minister today what has gone so wrong. When they announced $1.9 billion for mental health—and, let’s be frank, last Budget, they announced another $100 million for workforce pressures. So now we’re up to $2 billion, but the vacancy rates are increasing.

There is no plan. The Health and Disability Commissioner said on the weekend that they wanted to see a plan. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, in its first, damning report in 2021, said that there was no plan. Why is there no comprehensive plan for the mental health workforce crisis in New Zealand? That is the biggest barrier to timely mental health and addiction support in New Zealand.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to pick up some further questions with question seven, if I may please, and that question talks to the surgical waiting list and asks: over the year in question, did the surgical wait-list for those waiting longer than the promised four months for their surgery increase or decrease?

Question eight I’d like to ask the Minister is: how does she explain the 31-day faster cancer treatment times being some of the worst, if not the worst, figures reported at annual review by Bay of Plenty, Northland, Nelson-Marlborough, Lakes, and Wairarapa? How do we explain that very important faster cancer treatment time—the 31-day faster cancer treatment time—being some of the very worst ever reported? That’s question eight.

Question nine is: have emergency department wait times to target increased or decreased over the past year—the year in review?

Question 10: why did health officials not progress a collaboration with Kaweka developers opposite Hawke’s Bay Hospital to co-develop linear accelerators? This looks like it was making progress through the district health board (DHB), and then more recently they’re reporting that it has been, as they say, completely kiboshed, is what the report was—what’s that?—four, five, maybe six days ago. I’m interested, and I’m sure the people of Hawke’s Bay are interested, to know what happened with that collaboration over the year in review that led to that conclusion. That’s question 10.

Question 11: what hospitals have had water leaks, sewage leaks, or black mould identified as problematic in hospital buildings? Now, I have a particular interest in this because Northland Base Hospital in 2021, as referred to in written parliamentary question (WPQ) 41177, had a leak which was a sewage leak in the main stack. And when we checked its progress, it was well later in 2022—so almost a year later, WPQ 40832—where the statement is “I am advised the initial leak has now been contained however further leaks have been discovered and are being remediated.” So just in that hospital alone, we have sewage for what has now been for a year. I’m interested to know about water leaks, sewage leaks, or black mould. And we know, of course, some of the leaks in the emergency department in Waikato, but that’s a little bit outside the scope of what we’re looking for in this annual review, but which other hospitals had similar concerns.

Question 12 is more general: can the Minister name any health metrics for Māori—Māori health measures—that have improved over the year in question?

Question 13: did she receive any communications on the impact of any potential Australian announcements of New Zealanders being given residence and the impact of that on our health workforce, and, if so, what was that impact?

Question 14: are answers to written parliamentary questions correct that in the first three months of establishment of the Māori Health Authority, there was no financial budget—a multimillion-dollar entity had no financial budget for the first three months of its existence—if that is correct, how do we explain that?

Question 15: the Minister in one of her replies described opening the green list for health workforce. The question would have to be—because we would contend that was horribly late; that the letter from Keriana Brooking 18 months to two years previously pointed out, on behalf of all DHBs, the importance of opening those immigration settings. And so my question would be: did she actively lobby the Minister of Immigration during the year in review to more quickly open up the day one fast-track to residency for nurses?

Question 16 is: why was the cancer target removed for the first half of the year in question; why was it not one of the 12 health indicators front and centre as a measure of the health system?

And the last question I have—question 17—is: did those 12 health indicators, which were collaborated with the Health Quality and Safety Commission (HQSC), only last for six months before the HQSC was removed from the project and a completely new set of health metrics brought into place? Those are the questions I have.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I understand, in a year where we have had the challenges of a pandemic, that many New Zealanders would have come out of the year under review with all of that disruption, and their mental health would have been under pressure. But I want to assure the committee that our mental health system has never been stronger. The Access and Choice Programme that is the cornerstone of the Budget 2019 mental health roll-out is really hitting its straps, and now over half of New Zealanders are enrolled in a general practice, and they can walk in and, often on the day, get mental health support in terms of their health issues and also coaching on how to address other mental health wellbeing issues. That service—we designed it intentionally to address some of the equity gaps we know exist with mental health, and I am proud to say that, rather than being set up in the ways of many other services, this service is actually being used more by Māori and Pacific than you would expect as a proportion of population, because we’ve set it up with their needs in mind.

In addition, the Government is taking action on the wider influences of wellbeing through the Mana Ake programme and the Piki programme that is being rolled out in many parts of the country. We are taking more innovative approaches, using telehealth more or mental health apps, which we know brings in people into the mental health system who might feel that an in-person consultation was too confronting for them. So this is another way in, and it’s more convenient.

We have set up the structures within Government to be able to coordinate with other social agencies because we know mental health issues also touch on policing issues, they also touch on housing issues, and, often, people in need of mental health support also require support from other Government agencies, including the Ministry of Social Development.

In addition, the work we are doing on our mental health workforce is paying off, and this is what happens when a Government shows leadership rather than brushing things under the carpet as has been done in the past. When you show leadership, work in this area becomes more desirable and that’s why, for the first time that I can remember, the psychiatry training programme is oversubscribed. We are training more psychologists than ever—and, yes, there is a mental health workforce plan. It is being redeveloped by the new agencies as well. But we are well on the way, in mental health, to building the workforce of the future.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just wanted to take a slightly different track, and elucidate for the many listeners and viewers today the issue we had at the Health Committee about hearing the annual reviews, because I think it’s actually reflective of the reform in Pae Ora. What I mean by that, with the health restructure, is that normally the annual reviews—and I’m sure Dr Shane Reti will agree with me—are an important time for the Opposition to ask questions of the organisations and entities and hold them to account. Normally, at that select committee, when there was a district health board (DHB) structure, the chief executives and teams of maybe up to six, eight, or 10 of those leadership teams would attend so that they could answer every question in detail.

The issue we had this time is, of course, when each DHB turned up, there was only one or two health professionals who could answer very little of the questions. So, in fact, the reason why some of the reports are—well, in fact, to be honest, the reason why we haven’t even received some information from the DHBs, and the ones we did when we wanted to drill down into the issues deeper, we had representatives from those entities who weren’t over the issues.

Why I think this is reflective of what we’re going to experience going forward for the annual review process in Parliament, but also the experience of the public and constitute MPs, is that now that we have this mega-entity, there is, in fact, going to be no people who can answer questions on the ground. As a constituent MP, when I have an issue about one of my constituents who needs better healthcare, I used to be able to go to the DHB CEO; I can’t do that any more—in fact, I’m given a generic email address to go to customer inquiries and fight my way through that bureaucratic process. That’s what our experience was on the select committee. I’m not sure how select committee members are going to be able to drill down to health issues in their region, when we’ll have people who won’t understand where Rangiora is and they won’t be able to understand the pressures of North Canterbury.

So it is going to be interesting to ask the Minister to take a call today and explain to us how Health New Zealand is going to be able to respond better than they did during the annual reviews that we experienced in the Health Committee.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I can address some of the questions posed by Dr Reti. So, firstly, question one: the unaudited deficit was $378 million across all district health boards, which is $172 million favourable to budget. The final audited result is still to come because of evaluations about the impact of Holidays Act liabilities on that number.

The Te Whatu Ora Budget 2022 contingencies for operation expenditure that have been drawn down to date are $742 million. Te Whatu Ora inherited, at July 2022, as a new agency, 1,100 contingent workers, and that is reduced to 850 at the end of March.

The question about consultancy, I can tell the member that the person concerned is no longer an employee at the health agency where they were working, and also that the review is under consideration for release, at the moment, by officials.

With respect to question six about first specialist appointments: over 2021-22, they increased during the COVID period but now we are seeing an increase reflecting improving access to care. Of course, the member knows we continue to work very hard on those figures.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are further questions I would like to ask. The first would be question 18: why does the Health New Zealand website currently state that nursing wages and salaries in New Zealand are comparable to Australia, and does the Minister agree with that?

Question 19: I want to look back over leaked documents we had in the year in review from the Bay of Plenty District Health Board (DHB), and it was signed on behalf of every single senior medical officer (SMO), every single specialist, and they made a number of points. Two of them were particularly pertinent. One of them was about haemodialysis patients where the specialist was saying patients say to them they would rather die than travel to Hamilton for their haemodialysis. Now, I do believe there may have been some improvement in that situation with new seats at Waikato DHB, but that was a very serious statement to make. But it was followed up by the SMOs at Bay of Plenty DHB, which was what I think was as serious a statement. That is, that people who had been waiting for management of bowel cancer, who were curative at the time, had waited so long that they became palliative. That’s a very serious statement for surgeons and for medical people to make, and I think there is some response required as to how we address that. It’s just that one DHB—and I did allude to it—with the 31-day cancer treatment times.

I think the other question I’d ask the Minister, because she did talk about holiday pay as being one of the factors why the accounts are unaudited—this is getting to be a long period of time now; we’re almost coming up for a year, and the accounts are still unaudited. And I don’t know what the statutory requirement is, but that must be pushing the envelope. But what I would ask her is: the home-care and support workers legislation concludes on 30 June; how much has been put aside or will be appropriated, and what is the size of redoing that 30 June home-care and support workers’ pay equity legislation? My understanding is it’s a big number. So my question is: what is that number, and how has the Minister taken that into account?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I spot amongst some of the member’s questions some that also feature in my written parliamentary question list, so I can reassure the member that, no, I have not had any conversations about the impact of New Zealanders’ new residency rights in Australia on the New Zealand health system.

The member mentioned the faster cancer waiting-times performance metric, and my comment to the member about that is this is a metric where I think it’s really important to dig into the detail of what it means. So the metric applies to people who have quite a high probability of cancer at the time that they are first seen—so people with visible bumps, or growths in some cases. So what that means is these are the people who are likely to have the worst outcomes from their cancer treatment. They reflect probably a fraction—maybe 20 percent—of the people’s situation who have cancer at the time of their diagnosis. And it is desirable that the majority of people—in fact, it would be great if it was all people—had their cancer diagnosed at an earlier stage, because that’s when you get the best outcomes for them. So that particular target applies to those who have the worst prognosis, and so I caution the member about taking that as an indication of cancer services overall, because if we were to optimise our system for that indicator, we would not be using one that would really drive the best outcomes for all of the people with cancer that we seek to look after.

I think an important thing to remember about the year under review is, around the world, cancer services were disrupted significantly, and we saw challenges in cancer system performance all around the world. And in some international comparisons, the New Zealand system really shone, because of the work that our cancer agency was able to do in a joined-up system, making sure that a similar approach to clinical care was taken by clinicians all around the country, making sure that best practice was shared in terms of how you address COVID in these really complex clinical settings. And in some ways, that’s an indicator of the type of joined-up system and fast action we can take when we’re in an emergency situation that is enabled by the health reforms that were brought in.

A few other measures I can tidy up for the member now. The first three months of the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora—they were yet to have their appropriations transferred at that stage, and so that is the situation for them in the first three months of the current financial year.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): When I go out door-knocking and talking to Kiwis, a comment I receive often is “It feels like the Government is taking more of our money, the Government is spending more of our money, and yet we don’t feel like we’re getting any added benefit from it.” I want to look at the core Crown expenses of health. In 2018, the Government was spending around $17 billion on the healthcare system; in 2022, it was $28 billion. We’ve seen health spending increase by around 60 percent in four years, and yet it feels like our healthcare system has gone backwards. We have seen wait times increase for surgeries, for the emergency departments, for dental care. We have more and more people waiting longer for their CT scans and their MRI scans. How is it possible that this Government is spending more and more money and yet people feel like our healthcare system is moving to being Third World? What added value are we getting for all of this increased spending, and is it good enough?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I can reply to the question about home and care support workers that this is a negotiation that is currently ongoing, so, for obvious reasons, we won’t be stating the amount that has been put aside for any settlement there.

In terms of the black mould discovered in Middlemore in the year under review, the cladding has been replaced to the sewerage system joints to stop further leaking. There was a historical problem with leaky buildings, and that work has been completed in 2021.

With respect to Ms van Velden’s questions, I see the matter very differently. I reflect on the time I worked in the health system, which was a time during the global financial crisis where, essentially, there was a policy of austerity for the health system; where we didn’t get our regular uplifts in terms of wages in the health system; where we didn’t get increase in spending for medicines, so our purchasing power for lifesaving treatments decreased; where there wasn’t investment in capital expenditure—some years, zero; absolutely zero. You think about the size of the capital that we own, and to put nothing aside for health system capital is absolute malpractice on the part of that Government that her party supported. So we have had to play catch-up in terms of raising wages, which we have done—nursing wages are up 34 percent under this Government for graduate nurses; over 40 percent for senior nurses, and we’ve made progress across a range of other vital clinicians in terms of addressing their very legitimate claims for pay. Medicines budgets have gone up, and that is what is giving people Trikafta and Spinraza and treatment for HIV and preventing HIV, for multiple forms of blood cancer. That Pharmac budget under our time has increased 43 percent, and that is having a very real impact on the lives of New Zealanders that those medicines are saving.

When we came into Government, we had to reverse the effect of that austerity on our health system, and it would take time at the best of times—and then there was a pandemic. So we’ve backed our health system through that pandemic, we have backed our workers and kept them safe where around the world over a hundred thousand healthcare workers died in COVID—we didn’t have that experience here in New Zealand. I accept there is much more to do, but I heartily reject the austerity in our health system. That was the policy of the last Government.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on the Minister’s comments. We’re talking about $11 billion of increased expenditure over four years. The Minister has talked about small increases to the pharmaceutical budget, some increases for the pay of nurses, we’ve talked a little bit about an increase due to COVID, but during COVID, the expenditure was sitting around $20 billion to $23 billion. We’re talking about $28 billion last year. Where is that money going? It’s not going to the nurses’ increased funding. It’s not going to increases in pharmaceutical budgets. What added value are we getting from that money?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I think the member’s question has been addressed. I’ll turn to the early comment about comparable salary with Australia, seeing we’re on the topic of nurses’ salaries, which have been put up by this Government and part of the interim pay equity payment that was made just a couple of months ago to nurses who work in Te Whatu Ora brought those base pay rates. To be clear, that is what we are talking about: the base pay that you get for working a regular week in New Zealand to be on par with New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland. Subsequent to that, in April, Queensland raised its pay rates so that they are ahead of New Zealand and other states now.

But all of us, New Zealand and the Australian states, stay in ongoing pay negotiations. So while I am sure that those numbers will bounce around from time to time, we are in a much better position than we were before, where we had a major gap between New Zealand and Australia. So it’s a very important lever to making nursing an attractive profession to go into and to stay in and for other people to come from overseas.

In addition, not just in Te Whatu Ora but in the funded sector, we’ve implemented pay parity for nurses. So now we are halfway through a process of rolling out pay parity, whereby those nurses, who work in roles, say, in aged residential care, and Māori and Pacific providers, have an avenue for their pay to be increased. That’s a $200 million commitment that we’re rolling out there.

It’s very easy to say that we need to do things about workforce, but the Government has been doing that work for some time to raise these pay rates and show that we really do value these important workers.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of points that the Minister has raised; she’s made the point—or tried to make the point—that there were some years when there was no capital expenditure. Can she identify those years then, please?

Secondly, she’s wanted to take some issue with the 31-day cancer treatment target. Can she explain, then, why it’s one of the Health New Zealand performance measures that are reported every quarter? If it wasn’t so good, as we’re raising the question, why is it now a health performance measure?

The third point, she sort of liked to attribute everything to COVID. Without doubt, it’s had impact, and I’m not saying that it hasn’t. Of course it has. But what I’d say is if we look back at the metrics before COVID even arrived, how were surgical wait-lists doing then? How were first specialist assessments doing, and emergency department wait times? They weren’t doing so good, even before COVID hit our shores. So while I accept it’s been a contributor, I’m not prepared to say, “Oh, this is all a COVID responsibility”. And if you talk with people like John Bonning, who was spokesperson for the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine out of Waikato, and he was very clear: “This is not a COVID blip”. So while I accept it’s been a contributor, I do not accept that it’s totally responsible.

What I also just wanted to talk to, then, was during this period in review, the Canterbury gynaecology referral pathways—which were created in December 2021, and said that they would not accept gynaecology referrals unless they needed to be seen within four weeks. That is, unless they had a degree of urgency within four weeks. That went in place on 1 December 2021—was due to be reviewed December 2022. At that time, it was reviewed and they’ve now stayed in place, and I’ve received a number of emails and communications from women in the Canterbury region saying, “Why do we have to be that urgent to get on to the gynaecology referral pathway?” So maybe the Minister could talk to that as well. Thank you.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Noa‘ia, Madam Chair, fạiȧkse‘ea. Minister, I just want to say thank you for answering some of our questions. You’ve already answered a couple of mine. I do have two just to target, but I appreciate the work that’s been done in terms of the mental health Access and Choice programme, especially what you’ve mentioned about our Māori, Pacific, vulnerable, and youth-specific programmes that target these groups.

I just want to focus on the public health and the winter preparedness. I know there’s work in progress being done on workforce, waiting lists, but also on the winter preparedness plan as well. When it comes to these public health initiatives, we want to make sure that equity is one of those things—inequities in our community, whether it be flu, respiratory syncytial virus, COVID19, the various initiatives that we’re doing in the sector to help our communities. So that’s one question: what initiatives are up to plan?

Number two is also in the year in question, about the COVID-19 response and what lessons has the ministry, the sector learnt. Again, I want to point out to the many providers that have done great work, whether it be primary care or secondary care, in order to vaccinate, treat, and manage those with COVID-19 and those with comorbidities as well—the hard work from the sector in protecting our community. So what lessons have been learnt during that time? Thank you.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I thank the member for his question. When I think about the winter plans that we’ve seen during just this term of Government, there’s been successive improvements in every one and a strong focus on hospital management in the winter of 2020 and 2021, and, essentially, an emergency plan much like was part of any pandemic or flu plan, that wards would be shut down and hand care suspended in order to make space for an anticipated large volume of patients. In the end, because of the COVID response and subsequent vaccination response, those worst-case scenarios never eventuated, but it is certainly the case that there were disruptions in the system, and planned care in particular suffered as a result and we are catching up from that.

This year, the stand-up of the new health entities enables a much more sophisticated approach to winter, making sure that we respond as a whole system, not as 20 different silos. That enables us to look at areas where there’s been fantastic local innovation and disseminate that innovation across the system.

I visited an excellent service run by the pharmacists in Upper Hutt, the same ones that did mine and the Prime Minister’s COVID vaccination, and they run a minor ailment service there. Children with skin infections, scabies, or lice, and children with fever can get treatment direct from the pharmacy. There’s a GP available in support if that’s necessary, but it’s usually not, because these pharmacists are very experienced. It’s just one example of the way we’re working to make care more equitable, to make sure that care is delivered near your home so it’s convenient, and to make sure that all of our professionals are working at the top of their scope rather than having to jump through hoops through the system, which ultimately doesn’t respect them and is inconvenient for patients.

I do want to speak about some of the lessons learnt, and for that member, I know, the Delta outbreak was particularly impactful on his community. I think there were considerable lessons learnt by our public health teams in terms of how to work with community, how better to build trust when you’re talking about illnesses, infectious diseases that are stigmatised, and when there is a lot of public interest in in those things. I could list a number of things, a number of innovations, which we are lucky to continue to benefit from. We have excellent contact-tracing infrastructure and that means that we are responding rapidly to things like measles cases in a way we haven’t been able to before, all underpinned by state of the art technology that we developed for COVID. We have the tools of community mobilisation that we built up during COVID, and we’re much more keen to use those to have communities mobilising themselves around their vaccination needs, knowing that harder-to-reach communities are more likely to come forward when they see familiar faces in trusted spaces.

We have a much more sophisticated technology for our recall for immunisations and we’re much more able to target our resources—for example, we know exactly where we need to be in terms of getting the measles vaccine out in Auckland at the moment. All our hospitals’ ventilation has been upgraded. We have expanded ICU capacity. Every ICU I go to looks like they have new facilities where they are able to take care of more patients and safely with safe ventilation there, which is good for COVID but good for the long-term resilience of our health system. We have tools in epidemiology like whole genome sequencing and waste-water epidemiology. That means whatever infectious diseases threats come our way, we are much better able to respond and we have an experience and knowledge of health at our border that will help us be able to deal with any international threats in the future.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Fair to say, I think, as a parent, one of your worst nightmares would be realising that your child had or was developing an eating disorder. What we’ve seen under Labour since 2017-18 is that when they came into office, 49 percent of young people who needed eating disorder treatment were seen in the first three weeks. By the end of 2021-22, that had dropped down to 24 percent—a decrease of 51 percent of the number of young people who are accessing lifesaving eating disorder treatment in the first three weeks. And of course when that access is constrained, it’s clearly obvious what’s going to happen, and we can see that in the statistics, with hospitalisations for eating disorders over that same period increasing from 542 to 802—an increase of 47 percent. So the number of young people being seen under the five years of Labour go down 50 percent, and the number of young people who have to pitch up to hospital to get a level of care increases by 50 percent.

Despite the $1.9 billion announced for mental health, funding into eating disorders has been quite static, at about $8 million. Now, the Minister, I’m sure, will get up and say that, in the last Budget, they announced a few million dollars for eating disorders, but after what we learnt today about their announcement for crisis services, and people waiting in the emergency department for 94 hours—the longest in the history of New Zealand—who would actually have faith that this Government spends the money that they announce? Because time and time again, we find out that money is still sitting there while the need increases.

So my question is to the Minister. When you speak to the eating disorder sector, they are calling for an independent review—that’s what they want. They say investment is good, but they don’t even know, themselves, where you’d put that investment—until you’ve had an independent review that would inform an eating disorder strategy in New Zealand and then a subsequent investment strategy. When we’ve asked the last health Minister, Andrew Little, he’s refused. He’s said no. An independent review, that’s not going to happen under his watch. He did not listen to the eating disorder sector. So I’m asking the Minister today if she could get up and say whether she supports the eating disorder sector’s call for an independent review into the lack of access and services for our young people who are suffering from eating disorders today.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I am returning to an earlier question about emergency departments and also to the issue of the winter plan, because those two issues about acute demand in our system are related. In that area, we have a focus on keeping people out of the emergency department, and we’ve talked previously about community initiatives to enable GPs, pharmacists, and others to do more. We can also improve the flow within the emergency department. This includes making sure that telehealth services are better available, and also, sometimes, we can provide virtual care as well. These options, some of them, have been piloted at Middlemore emergency department, and are being rolled out in other places.

I think, in relation to the last question on eating disorders, if I look across the mental health system generally, there has been a considerable number of reviews and pieces of work done around what the appropriate way of structuring our mental health system is. I think it’s important to get on with it and keep growing the services that we have rolled out both through the 2019 funding and 2020.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, our time with the Minister of Health has ended. The Minister of Education is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions.

Education

IBRAHIM OMER (Acting Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to kick off this annual review debate as the acting chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. I’d also like to thank the staff and the clerks and the officials who prepared the reports.

The Education and Workforce Committee has conducted the 2021-22 annual review of the following entities: the Ministry of Education, the Education Review Office, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the Tertiary Education Union, the Tertiary Education Commission, Education New Zealand, Education Payroll Ltd, and the Network for Learning Ltd. Alongside the annual reviews, we have also considered the reports of the Ombudsman on the Minister of Education’s compliance with the Official Information Act 1982.

We met with the Minister of Education and officials to discuss the 2021-2022 annual reviews of the education sector. The topics covered in the hearing with the Minister were the effects of COVID19 on the education sector, the emergency readiness of schools, school attendance, the Ministry of Education restructuring, student achievements in literacy and numeracy, and Te Pūkenga.

Now, I do not have the time to summarise and comment on everything covered in that report but I would like to highlight some. In regards to Te Pūkenga, the Minister acknowledged her disappointment at the initial slow progress of Te Pūkenga. However, she noted that she was feeling more confident and much more happy with the recent progress. The Minister also noted that the Eastern Institute of Technology is very pleased, for example, with Te Pūkenga, having a nationwide entity supporting them throughout the flood-recovery efforts, which is going to make a big difference.

Attendance officers and attendance services: during COVID-19, the ministry started collecting weekly attendance data, rather than doing it by term. The Minister noted that attendance data collection is mandatory for schools, but it is not common knowledge, and said that more work is needed to be done on attendance data. The Minister also spoke about the new registered attendance officers and attendance service introduced into schools. More than two-thirds of this service are school-based; the remainder are NGO- and iwi-led. The select committee welcomed these changes to the design of the attendance services.

Pay parity for early childhood education (ECE): the ministry officials acknowledged that ECE teachers are often paid less than their counterparts in kindergarten. We looked at the pay parity scheme. The aim is to close the gap and have access to more funding, if agreed, to pay teachers in line with the kindergarten collective agreement. The ministry informed the committee that 54 percent of ECE centres had opted in—predominantly the larger centres. A pay parity advisory group had been set up to provide advice on the funding model.

In regard to Māori and Pasifika participation rates in ECE, it is 62 percent and 65 percent, respectively, and the nationwide average is 76 percent. The ministry noted that wider access to childcare subsidies would lessen the financial barriers to participation in ECE for Māori and Pasifika children. It also noted that the more effective ECE climate also helped.

Like I said in my introductory remarks, the list is long. But I will just leave it here and I look forward to the rest of the contributions and the debates for the rest of this afternoon. Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll start off this debate on the topic of staffing allocations, and I’ve got around about five questions. So I’ll give these all to the Minister in one go and let her answer afterwards, if she’s able to.

I guess my first question to the Minister is: what is the total value of the inquiry time funding that is allocated to kāhui ako for the 2022 period? The reason that I’m asking that—I’m sure the Minister is aware of where this is heading—is that in her recent announcement to give schools some staffing allocation to the value of $130 million, or about 320 teachers, I believe, in two years’ time, I’m keen to see what the difference is between these two numbers.

The reason that I’m asking—and there are a number of other questions I want to ask the Minister around this—is that there is a plan to disestablish the inquiry time, and it’s been signalled in the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) agreement. Communications from the NZEI to its members recently said, “For financial reasons, the Ministry of Education insisted that it is essential for them to disestablish inquiry time.”, and “To be clear,” it was the bargaining team’s preference for the “inquiry time to remain.” I want to ask the Minister: were these financial reasons that the NZEI speaks about the financial reasons for finding $130 million to fund the 320 teachers in two years’ time in an attempt to reduce class sizes? Because what this seems to be is a sleight of hand, switching out one staffing allocation for another.

My next question to the Minister is: how does she explain it to a principal in the middle of the North Island who contacted me to say that in two years’ time, he will gain 0.2 of a teacher, but lose 0.15 of a teacher for his inquiry time allocation through kāhui ako for his 330 children?

My third question to the Minister is: of the 1,942 intermediate and primary schools, 999 of those have fewer than 175 students. In her recent announcement, those schools with fewer than 175 students will not be eligible for any of the additional staffing allocations she announced, yet many of those schools, if they’re in a kāhui ako, will be eligible for the inquiry time. So my question to the Minister is: how many of those 999 schools that do not get any allocation from her latest announcement will lose out and be worse off because they lose their inquiry time allocation in what seems to be a switching of one staffing fund for another?

Those are the questions that I have around the switching of the inquiry time for what seems to be her latest announcement. So the questions were: what is the total value, how does she explain it to the principal who’s going to be only 0.5 percent of a teacher better off, were the financial reasons the NZEI spoke about the fact that she needed to find that money for her latest announcement, and how many of the 999 schools with less than 175 students will actually be worse off because they don’t qualify for anything under her announcement, and yet they lose out under the inquiry time.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): So inquiry time is worked out where a school’s guaranteed minimum formula staffing or assured staffing is greater than 10 full-time teacher equivalents (FTTE). We calculate the inquiry time by dividing the school staffing by 10 and multiplying that result by 0.06 to give an annual FTTE allocation. That will be how you work that out, and that’s available on the website if the member would like to go and check that out.

Erica Stanford: The total values?

Hon JAN TINETTI: So the—well, I’m just saying that the member can go and check that out on the website.

Reducing class sizes, and the announcement around that—it was very clear at the time when that announcement was made that this is not related to the current bargaining rounds at all. So we have heard the stressors that teachers are under, and we announced—which was probably, well, I believe the more important part of the announcement was the ministerial advisory group. We had to back that up with an announcement as well. And so that announcement was made. But it is very separate to bargaining. Reduction of class sizes should never come into bargaining; it should always fit separately. But we do have to have that oversight at the ministerial advisory group level, which will let us look at all areas of the system, not just one part in isolation. However, we did make that announcement because we do know that the year 4 to 8 staffing entitlement does sit as a bit of an anomaly to the rest of the system. So we do know that it is very likely that a ministerial advisory group will come up with some sort of recommendation in that area. So we were able to lean into that in the first instance.

There is no settlement yet, so what the member is relating to and referring to as far as what was being bargained in the settlement does not exist. There is no settlement. And as far as that is concerned, as Minister—and I have said this time and time again—I cannot comment on that because we are in the middle of good-faith bargaining happening and I will not lean in any further other than making high-level statements around them.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): The NZ Educational Institute (NZEI) was at pains, Minister, to explain that, in fact, the loss of the inquiry time was nothing to do with the offer and the negotiations. So, in fact, the Minister can talk about it because it has nothing to do with the pay and conditions of the staff, and it’s actually said to its members, “It is outside that; we just noted it in our summary agreement.” but it has nothing to do with the actual bargaining.

So it sounds like the ministry has told NZEI that they are going to disestablish the inquiry time, but in fact it has nothing to do with the actual bargaining. That’s what the NZEI has said to its members—I’ve got a copy of it in my hand. So the question that she hasn’t answered remains is: if—and when, I should say, because it looks like it’s happening—the inquiry time is being disestablished, what are the calculations that she has made of the 999 schools that have less than 175 students that will not gain anything from her recent announcement but will lose inquiry time?

Finally, I think the question that wasn’t answered, which is very important—which the Minister can point me to calculations on websites—but in terms of the 2022 Budget year, what was the total value in millions of the inquiry time funding? So that relates to that financial year. What was the total value, in millions, of the inquiry time funding?

Now, the Minister can say, “This is how it’s worked out” and point me to a website, but I’m asking her directly—with all her officials behind her—what is the total value in millions of the inquiry time funding allocated to kāhui ako for the 2022 year. She’s explained how it’s all worked out and I can go to a website and look how it’s worked out, but the fact is there’s no mention anywhere on that website of the total allocation in millions, and that’s what I’m asking her with all the officials behind her.

I’ll move on while she gets advice on it: learning support coordinators (LSCs). The sector has been asking why the roll-outs stopped, and I guess my question to the Minister is: there was the first tranche rolled out and then in the 2022 year there was no further roll-out. Now, schools have been upset about this because the evidence has shown that schools with learning support coordinators do end up being allocated more learning support funding, and the schools that missed out in the first roll-out—which I think the previous Minister did indicate was rather shambolic and not done on need at all because some schools who were higher-decile, or even were State integrated schools, got LSCs and lower-decile schools didn’t get them at all.

So my question to the Minister is: why did the roll-out stop after the first tranche, and why was nothing allocated in that financial year?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I thank the member for questions about learning support coordinators, because this is an area that I’m absolutely passionate about. As I’ve been quite publicly saying for a couple of years now, part of the reason for the slower roll-out has absolutely been about the fact that we need to make certain that they are making a difference—and not just anecdotally—to the sector, and part of that has been around the three tranches of evaluation that did cover off different areas and do absolutely point to the difference that they are making.

So it backed up what we were hearing anecdotally. It has been signalled within the Highest Needs Review; you can see that when you are reading in the Highest Needs Review about the changes in the system that we want to see to make certain that all learners are experiencing success within our system. While it might not say “learning support coordinators” specifically, you can definitely see where the role sits within the results of that review. As far as future roll-outs are concerned, that is subject to future Budgets.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. Given the dramatic increase in youth crime in terms of ram raids and the amount of children—very young children—that we’re seeing involved in those, given the number of unenrolled children who aren’t enrolled in school at all, which is, I think, sitting around 7,500 at the moment. And also, I suppose given the very high unjustified absence rate and very high chronic truancy rate that the Minister is well aware of, I know, my question to her is: in the last financial year, what was done in terms of alternative education? What additional funding, what outcomes were gained from alternative education? What improvements did she see?

My question to her around alternative education is: does she think that the Government’s efforts in the last 12 months, or in that period, made a difference in that sector? And has she heard anything to the opposite to suggest that alternative education, in fact, is creating more harm than it is doing any good?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Another area that I’m absolutely passionate about because I believe that the education system needs to be inclusive of alternative education. And just on that, my officials know that I absolutely hate the words “alternative education” because it makes it sound like it sits outside the system, and we need to make certain that it is part of the system and that young people who do have alternative education as their preferred way of providing their learning pathways feel like they’re very much part of the system and don’t see themselves as failures.

So in Budget 2022, we did have an increase into the alternative education—basically their operational grant—just like schools, and that will mirror going forward, or that’s what we had said at the time. The intention was for that to mirror what schools’ increase would be. We’ve also re-signed, in the alternative education space, the contracts for delivery. They were re-signed at the end of 2022.

I know personally that there are some absolute pockets of excellence in this space. I have visited many of them, where I’m seeing absolutely outstanding results and young people who are highly engaged in their learning. It has turned their life around, and they are experiencing way stronger outcomes than they have ever experienced in the past and feeling good about themselves as learners.

So I’ve just been told that it was a 2.75 percent increase in 2022, and that equates to $2.25 million over the five years. So that’s quite a significant increase when you’re talking about the numbers of young people that are in there. But I do acknowledge that there’s more to do in this space. Again, I feel that we see too many times where people position alternative education as outside the system, and we need to always position it as part of the system so that young people feel like they are being included and that they’re, as I said, not seeing themselves as failures.

So, again, it’s subject to future Budgets. We do have an ideal state that we have developed—and Cabinet has agreed upon that ideal state. That preceded me, but we’re constantly looking at that about how we can bring forward that work. I also do a lot of work with the national boards in this area. I’ve presented to and talked with conferences—the alternative education conferences—to make certain that we are keeping in contact with those people that are doing that very, very important work of really working with some of our hardest-to-reach young people.

But as I said, I have seen some amazing results in this area, and I strongly believe that we are well on the path of making certain that we’re getting the answers right for all our young people.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just moving on to staffing issues in the secondary sector. To the Minister, I guess the question is: what have been the plans in the last financial year to address the critical staffing shortages in secondary schools? I’m particularly concerned because in 2010, the University of Auckland were training 350 secondary school teachers; last year, that was 165; I hear that this year it’s about 130. Waikato in 2010, 225; last year, 160. Victoria in 2010, 245; last year, 85. The Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand and secondary school principals across the country are screaming out because they cannot get staff in any areas, not just in those usual hard to staff areas of science and maths but actually they can’t find physical education teachers, English teachers, and they are very, very worried that this year but also next year it is going to get much, much worse.

So my question to the Minister is: what planning was done to address this? What do the numbers that she knows about look like this year in terms of the overall numbers that are training and need to be training? Or she could give last year’s figures if she likes. But what is the planning that the ministry have done to improve this and what plans has she got going forward?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Firstly, I’d just like to say that the Ministry of Education’s forecasting and how they project teacher numbers shows that as a system we’re not too badly off. We know that there are shortages, but the shortages are often in locations or in subject areas. Like in the primary system, for example, we have the number of teachers there because we’ve had that bubble that have moved through the school. But it’s around the location of where people might want to move to. So we do have to do some work around that.

But what I will say is that in September 2022 we invested an additional $24 million over three years to fund initiatives to grow teacher supply. This additional investment boosted our total teacher supply spend to $64 million in 2022-23. This was used to provide funding to test new approaches to reaching new sources of potential teachers, including funding 100 places in a school-embedded initial teacher education programme. This is something that principals had been advocating and lobbying for. The Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand had been talking to us about that for quite some time. That has proven to be very, very popular. In fact, I’ve had a number of principals who have been involved in that, who have come back to me and said that this is a game-changer for them. They see that it is something that we might be able to expand upon, and those are discussions that we are having in that—how we can grow some of these programmes.

That was also used to expand successful teacher programmes which have experienced strong demand, such as increasing the number of Te Huawhiti Career Changer scholarships from 85 to 185 and expanding the BeTTER Jobs Programme, which was previously the Beginning Teacher Vacancy Support, which I have to say that in my previous role that was something that I took advantage of as well, and it does make a difference to the numbers of teachers that you are able to recruit and sustain. That was the big part of that particular part of the programme is that teachers didn’t just do a year and move on somewhere else; they actually stayed with us. I think that that’s something that many of our principals are really appreciating as well.

But I think the big part of this is that we can’t just do it from our internal pipeline. We have to make certain that we’re looking to overseas recruitment as well, and in the short term—we have to grow our pipeline for the long term as well—looking to overseas recruitment. So the money was used to support overseas teachers’ recruitment and making it easier to move to New Zealand. And we had—I think it was as of April, might have been March—over 1,700 visas approved for either work visas or residence visas for teachers. Not all taking up jobs at this stage, but we have had them that have come through the borders since the borders have opened. So that has been a big part of it.

What I do also want to point out in this space is that two weeks ago I was with the union presidents and vice-presidents in Washington at the International Summit of the Teaching Profession. We are absolutely not alone in this issue. In fact, we’re probably one of the better-off jurisdictions that were at that particular summit. What I found really interesting in that was that as union heads and as the Minister, we were able to get together with those other countries to talk about possible solutions going forward. They were very much looking at our solutions just as much as we were looking at theirs, so we need to put into context that this is a global issue and it’s something that isn’t going to go away overnight, but we have definitely used that funding to make a difference in the short term while we’re planning out what we’re going to be doing in the longer term.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break in the House, and this debate will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Right, members. We resume. We have 35 minutes left for this debate.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): There was a question from Ms Stanford before the break, asking about the total value of inquiry time in 2022. That is $20 million per year. As far as anything else is concerned, I cannot discuss inquiry time, because unlike what the member said, it is part of bargaining.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. This Government has overseen incredible increases in the cost of early childhood education (ECE) fees. We set the highest fees in the OECD countries. This is having significant economic impact on women—and on businesses, with regard to skill shortages. And we all know that women coming back late into the workforce impacts upon their confidence, their KiwiSaver amounts, and the salaries they come back into.

I’d like the Minister of Education to let us know: of the 54 percent of the sector who have opted into the pay parity—and we know they are mainly larger centres—what modelling has been done on how much that pay parity has been subsidised by increases in fees? Also, can the Minister, given that all the consultation with the ECE sector that carried on in 2022 and the options that were worked up for pay parity funding from that consultation—will the Minister give an absolute and categorical ruling out of removing the 20 hours of free ECE for age three and over? Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll begin my contribution by first of all acknowledging all of our teachers, who are on the front line supporting our children to be the best that they can be in our school situations. My question relates to the ongoing strikes that are happening. It’s been with us for quite some time, the issues, and teachers have continued to highlight over this week—but also previous months as well—about the agreement and how it is still falling far below inflationary costs. So my question to the Minister of Education is: where is this at, at this particular point? What is the block, and what does she see as the strategy for moving forward to make sure that teachers feel supported to do the work that they need to do? I do want to acknowledge the Minister’s vast experience as being a former school principal as well, so I know that she gets it, but I think this House needs some clarity as to where this is at and what the blockages are and what we can do as a House to support moving those blockages out of the way.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Minister, in that it relates, of course, to the 2021-21 appropriations year.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes, it does, because collective bargaining was part of those appropriations as well, so it does relate to that year. There’s not a lot that I can say, other than the fact that at this point in time, there is an offer that is out with New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa for both their kindergarten and their primary teachers. They are looking to take that to ratification from their members, so we will know more this week. Post Primary Teachers’ Association are in the middle of facilitated bargaining with the Ministry of Education, and that’s about as much as what I can say.

I will say, though, that I am surprised that industrial action is continuing at this point in time, because we are in a process, and, as the member knows, facilitated bargaining is part of our industrial processes in this country. We have to work through that process and that’s really important. It is a process that I as Minister—and even before that time, as a union advocate—take really, really seriously. So I really look forward to some positive outcomes that will come out of that. I think that I’m waiting to see what will happen this week as far as the ratification of the other agreements are concerned.

Oh, sorry, Mr Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Carry on, the honourable Minister.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Sorry, I did mean to address the questions there. I am waiting to see if there is modelling around the subsidy, the fees. I will come back to the member on that. But I also would like to let the member know that there are absolutely no plans to take the 20 free hours away.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wonder if the Minister could tell us about the modelling that has been undertaken for the pay parity, and how many early childhood education centres will be worse off by achieving pay parity through impacting other aspects of provision and operations? What vulnerability for under-twos provision has been exposed by that modelling? And also if any disincentives for employing additional inexperienced teachers and teachers in training if a weighted average of all teachers’ salaries is used?

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Minister, 50 percent of students did not fully attend school in term 4, 2022, and 62 percent of Māori students were not attending school in term 4, 2022—20 percent of which were labelled as chronically absent. What is an acceptable full attendance rate for the Minister by Māori attendance, and when does the Minister consider that such a rate would be achieved?

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on that initial question, my understanding is that there are different issues with our area schools as opposed to what’s happening in our secondary schools, and I wonder if the Minister could give us a sense of which set of issues is closer to meeting the satisfaction of the sector.

And my second follow-up sort of question is around the early childhood education wider questions that have been canvassed around the House: how will early childhood teachers be better off if early childhood centres opt in to those pay bumps, and what would that mean for the cost of living crisis that many of our early childhood teachers are under? Thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): A couple of questions there, or three questions to go through. I just wanted to go back to that first one from Ms Simmonds there. We don’t have the numbers of early childhood education (ECE) fees that are not regulated outside of the 20 hours’ free ECE. They have not been monitored since 2015, those fees, so we can all probably have a discussion around that.

We are doing some work at the moment and are out for consultation around the pay parity, and we’re looking at exactly that. We don’t want to incentivise one way of employing younger teachers, for example, and that’s exactly why we’re going out for that consultation around having a better way of delivering pay parity with our centres. It’s really important that we get the sector input into this, and it’s really important that we don’t do to the sector but that we’re working with the sector in that respect, which is why we’re going out for that consultation.

There has been a model that has been shown to them. I’m not actually going to presuppose that that’s the model that we’ll actually even end up with. It is a starting place for our early childhood sector to be able to look at—and I’m just going to jump there and come over to that one around the pay parity at the same time, and I’ll come back to the attendance one.

So the pay parity: we know that when people are paid more, it’s going to make a difference, not just to that person but it’s generations that it makes a difference to. It’s not just the worker who’s in the centre; it’s their children and it’s their whānau, and so that is why it is absolutely important that we get this right and that we do deliver in this area. So that’s exactly why we’re going out for consultation on the best model for pay parity.

You’ve asked about what’s going to make a difference. Again, I know that we all want to have this conversation, but there are principles of good faith in bargaining, and I know that sometimes other people that are involved in that will lean into that space and talk about that and even talk about it in the media. I’m not going to break those principles of good faith. I think that that’s something that I hold to very dearly, but I’m always open to having those parties talk to me.

So I’m very open to having those parties talk to me, and I’m also very open, if you have heard something as a member, to you feeding that information back to me, as well. I think that’s really important that we keep those communications, because you will all have people coming to you who are teachers that will all have certain ideas. I’m very open to listening to those and hearing them, just as I was open when I was in the sector to having pathways to be able to let people know what the issues were. I think that’s really important. So, please, I encourage the member: if you’ve got some ideas, please be in contact and we can have those discussions.

Coming back to attendance, and around there, I want to see every young person attending school every single day—that’s the bottom line—but we have set targets. We’ve set targets of getting up to that 70 percent, and then getting up to 75 percent of regular attendance. Do I think the measure is absolutely perfect? No, I don’t, because it’s inclusive of medical absence, as well.

We know that our Māori students have probably some of the highest figures there. Now, there’s possibly a wider issue there that we need to be investigating as well about what the schooling system is doing to meet the needs of Māori. We need to be absolutely looking into that, and when I say “we”, I’m talking about all of us, and that’s all of the schools, etc., as well. But we want to make certain that people feel like they belong in the schooling system and that they are engaged in the schooling system, and to do that they have to be proud of their sense of identity within the system, too. That goes for all our cultures in this country, but particularly our mana whenua.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): The Minister is expecting the early childhood education sector to give feedback within three weeks without having access to the pay parity working group calculator and, therefore, without being able to work out the actual figures for their individual centres. How does the Minister see that that’s going to be reasonable consultation for the sector?

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister. I just wonder if we could have just a brief update on how you think the curriculum refresh is going, and maybe what the cost is to date, the projected cost by the time it has been fully rolled out, and how many fulltimeequivalent staff are working on the refresh, and how long have they been working on it?

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. This question is around our kura kaupapa and our wharekura. I do want to acknowledge the pay bump within kōhanga reo—that was very significant for many of our teachers, so I do want to acknowledge the work done there. There have been calls within kura kaupapa for greater autonomy. I wonder if the Minister of Education has heard of or has any reflections of a Harvard report which points to that when you give indigenous peoples more autonomy, rangatiratanga, that they do better, that when we have control over our own resources and our own destinies—if I can put it that way—that they do better. This is what kura kaupapa are calling for in terms of the latest Waitangi Tribunal hearings that are happening at the moment. What is the Minister doing to ensure that greater autonomy for our kura kaupapa, our kura, our iwi, and our wharekura?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I’ll start there, because, again, there’s not a lot I can say because it is in front of the tribunal at the moment, but what I can say is that, certainly, the kōhanga reo board worked very closely with the Ministry of Education to reach their aspirations for their mokopuna and tamariki. I met a kaiako from a kōhanga reo in the Waikato on Saturday night who was absolutely fizzing about the pay increase that she was going to get. Again, it goes back to the pay parity conversation that we’ve just had before of the difference that it’s not only going to make in her life but her four tamariki as well. It’s going to change their outcomes and what they’re doing. So I’m so excited about that piece of work, and I’m so excited about the changes that it’s going to make in their lives. As far as kura kaupapa, I will let that work through in the tribunal, but I am a huge advocate of Māori medium and huge advocate for our young people to go through that pathway, because I’ve seen firsthand the difference that it makes to those young people.

The curriculum refresh: I haven’t got the numbers—and I will get them—of staffing involved there, but the spend to date up to 2022-23 across all costs, just from 2022-23 to 31 March, is $5,825, 558, that I’ve got in front of me. If that’s not quite correct, I will correct that with you—I’ll get that from my officials at the back—but I will say that it is progressing really well. While it’s been a very stressful time for our teachers, and particularly stressful, there is a lot of excitement about the changes that the curriculum is making and the refreshes it is making to them in their settings and what it will mean for their understanding of how to teach curriculum. You, like me, will know that we do have a world-leading curriculum in this country, but it has been one that sometimes has meant inconsistency across the country. What teachers are very excited about in this refresh is that it’s giving them a clearer idea of what to teach and when to teach it. Teachers throughout, teachers that I’ve interacted with over the years but even new people that I’m interacting with out in schools, are saying it will make a difference.

However, I was very aware of the work pressures that our teaching workforce are under, which is why I’ve extended out the year now for it to be gazetted and mandated that they have to be teaching the new curriculum refresh, apart from literacy and mathematics. We know that we have to get that right, and so we have not changed the time lines around that all, but it gives our schools another year to get it implemented, to get it right, which they really do appreciate.

I also say, and the member might appreciate this having come out of the secondary system, that my professional advisory group, when I first took over the NCEA change programme, were very adamant that we had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the curriculum in front of the NCEA programme. We know that NCEA has been driving the curriculum in those senior areas of the school, and the people that are on my professional advisory group are principals and teachers, and highly regarded teachers, who said it would be really good for the curriculum to be driving the teaching and learning rather than the assessment to be driving the teaching and learning. So that is one of the other reasons why I looked to extend that date out at the other end, so that we have that opportunity to try and get the two aligned better than what they are currently.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Up until 2017, the NCEA level 2 achievement rates for Māori had risen 18 percent to 75 percent—Māori 18-year-olds who had NCEA level 2. They have since dropped to 72 percent. What’s the main strategy, Minister, that you have to make sure that you reverse that trend?

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. Turning now to the tertiary education sector and vocational education: Te Pūkenga, the mega-merger of 16 Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITPs) and nine industry training organisations, in 2021 had a revenue of $1.17 billion. Te Pūkenga were forecasting in 2022 a $58 million deficit, then they reforecast to a $110 million deficit, then they reforecast to a $63 million deficit that was premised on the sale of assets and, in particular, two pieces of land which the Minister would have to have signed off for that to have occurred. Can the Minister inform us what the actual deficit is for Te Pūkenga for 2022?

Can the Minister also tell us whether the $8 million of savings that were identified in head office were achieved, whether all ITPs across the network that were required to make a 3 percent saving achieved that saving, and what the deficit actually was for Te Pūkenga for 2022?

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister could give us some detail in terms of her reflections of last winter and the winter plans that were advocated for on behalf of the ministry, in terms of COVID and other winter respiratory illnesses. And given that reflection, what would she advocate putting in place today to get that support?

Some of the things that I’m hearing from teachers and from school communities is that it is having an impact on teachers being able to do their jobs, because when teachers get sick they can’t be at work. People may have moved on from COVID, but COVID hasn’t moved on from us. So a bit of a looking back in terms of what was in place, there’s been quite a lot of movement in the COVID settings. So what does it mean moving forward? Thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): For Ms Simmonds, I’m just getting some figures for you, so I’ll come back to that.

In part of the COVID settings and what has happened in this space, can I first acknowledge how tough it has been for our schools—all our education settings, but particularly our early childhood centres and our schools. I think that most people in this House would know that kids are very good at sharing, and that includes COVID and winter illnesses as well. It has not been easy and it has not been easy for our teachers, but we have put out air monitors and air purifiers into schools.

Now, I also know that this is hard for people to hear, but the research—and it’s very strong research—shows that the best way of keeping the air clear is by opening windows. Now, I know again that people are going to say, “But winter’s coming.” I taught in South London winter, and I can tell you that I wouldn’t have taught in my year 7 and 8 classroom in the afternoons in the middle of winter without my windows open. There are wet socks and year 7 and 8 smells that we had to deal with, and I know that you can deal with the fact of how cold it is. There are other ways to deal with that, but it is really important that people understand that that is the research.

Having said that, I hear what people are saying and those are things that we continue to support schools with. We’ll continue to monitor the situation. We continue to give advice; the ministry will continue to give advice through their Te Mahau to individual schools that want that support, and where the best settings for those individual areas are. Because not everybody’s going to need them at the same time. Just because of the way that we’re dealing with COVID at the moment, you’ll have one school where it might be a little bit more prevalent, and so the advice was that school or that setting is going to be different to the one down the road that doesn’t have any cases in it whatsoever at that point in time.

But it’s just to be really mindful of that public health advice. Appropriate mask wearing is still an appropriate method to help minimise the spread, and just keep mindful of what’s happening at your school, and your setting, at that particular point in time.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Just regarding the Minister of Education’s answer earlier about the inquiry time not being part of the NZEI negotiations, the NZEI have written to a number of principals, saying, “Regarding the removal of inquiry time, members should note the following: The removal of inquiry time is a Ministry action that they notified us about during the course of negotiations. Because of the way inquiry time is provided to schools, it is not necessary for our team to agree to this action in order for the Ministry to implement it. Inquiry time is not a feature of the Primary Teachers’ Collective Agreement but it is instead a staffing allocation provided for in the [Ministry of Education] Order 2022.” So my question still remains: of the 999 schools who are at less than 175 students, how many of those will lose out staffing allocations because of the removal of the inquiry time?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): That might be the case, but it is part of bargaining this time, and so therefore I can’t actually talk about it. But I can tell the member Erica Stanford that if I get different advice, I will make certain that she gets that information back to her, and I will give her that guarantee. I have been told that it is part of bargaining, and, while it is sitting as part of bargaining, as the Minister, I will not break good-faith principles. But, as I said, if I hear different and get different advice after this session, I will make certain that the member gets that.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): The Te Pūkenga—the mega-merged 16 polytechnics and nine industry training organisations—the Tertiary Education Commission and the Auditor-General have consistently expressed their concerns about the financial performance of Te Pūkenga, and the lack of an operating model for long-term viability of Te Pūkenga. The long-term operating model will determine what Te Pūkenga delivers, where it delivers it, what assets, infrastructure, and capabilities it needs to deliver it. Where has the Minister got to in terms of her discussions with Te Pūkenga about the operating model, their ability to forecast their surplus or deficit?

Te Pūkenga premised their budget with a 10 percent growth in domestic students; it has been a 10 percent reduction in 2022, and a further 10 percent reduction in 2023. What monitoring is the Minister doing of Te Pūkenga and where is its financial forecasting at the moment in terms of its deficit?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Te Pūkenga continues to be monitored through the Tertiary Education Commission. There are clear expectations that I have given—and even last week when I had a meeting with the chief executive (CE) and the chair of the board—that the operating model and the organisation is to be prioritised; I have said that. I am happy with the progress that has been made since the new CE and the board has had some new members on it, what has been made since that time. We have an executive leadership that are in place. There have been key appointments that have been made. But I have made it clear that we need to see that progress and see it through to the nth degree, the end—and I am satisfied that we are getting there and that the progress is being made, and we can see it and everybody can see it because we can see the achievements that they have had to date, as I’ve said, with the key appointments that have been made and some of the direction that has been given out.

Can I go back to the early childhood education consultation: it’s high level, how to shape the funding to better align the funding to salaries, so we cannot build the calculator until we have the wages and funding data in place. So it’s at a high-level stage at this point in time, and that’s why the calculator can’t be there.

The budget—there is $120 million for the full programme, and that’s the NCEA and the Curriculum Refresh, and we have spent $30 million to date. But remember this is a programme that’s based over a number of years. There are 40 staff on the curriculum change programme that are currently employed doing that work at this point in time.

Mātauranga Māori is being built into every aspect of what we’re doing in the NCEA achievement, particularly in the NCEA Change Programme. It’s really important in the curriculum refresh that we are building a truly bicultural curriculum that is addressing those young people that have not been achieving well over time.

So there is also professional learning and development that’s really focusing in on cultural capacity that we’re delivering to staff members and teachers throughout the country.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I remind members, just before I take the next call, that we are considering, in this debate, the financial statements of the Government for the year ended 30 June 2022. Any questions that fall outside the period of the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill time period does not need to be addressed by the Minister in the chair.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I just wanted to also address the question about Te Pūkenga’s deficit for 2022. That’s something that hasn’t been finalised at this point in time, or at least it’s not public at this point in time, so I am unable to give that information.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Te Pūkenga is an entity that, as I said before, forecast a $58 million deficit, then reforecast a $110 million deficit, then a $63 million deficit. The Tertiary Education Commission received the draft results for Te Pūkenga in February of this year. The Minister herself would have to sign off any sale of land assets for Te Pūkenga, therefore the Minister must know that draft figure at the very least—

Hon Grant Robertson: She doesn’t have to give it.

PENNY SIMMONDS: —and the Minister—no. Well, can the Minister confirm whether she doesn’t want to or is not able to give the deficit?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): At this point in time, I’m unable to give that deficit. It’s not been made public but I’m also unable to give it.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in relation to the NCEA level 2 question that I asked earlier that has not been responded to—perhaps because of your comment, Madam Chair. Can the Minister please point to the relevant appropriation within the 2022 accounts that actually drive towards reversing the trend, the falling trend, downward trend of Māori 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2 equivalent?

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Just a quick question: I was wondering if the Minister could tell us what the job description of the 82 attendance officers that she announced on 21 February this year is, and what their duties are expected to be.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Can the Minister confirm whether it’s a statutory obligation for Te Pūkenga to have lodged their annual report with the Minister at the beginning of May and if they lodged it at that time, and what an indicative deficit for Te Pūkenga for 2022 is if she can’t give the final figure?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I just want to address the attendance officers. The attendance officers’ job description—although I haven’t got it right in front of me, but, broadly speaking, the 82 attendance officers that we announced are working with young people, or working to increase attendance in young people, who are at risk of falling into that chronic stage of non-attending. These are generally the moderate non-attenders at this stage. There are two parts to their job descriptions, so while it’s not a heavy focus on the caseload, that certainly could be part of it. So I have heard that there are some people agitated that there’s no caseload component; that’s not right, and I’ve asked officials to clarify that with Attendance Service throughout the country as well that that could be part of it. But, really, what we’re looking at is around working with schools to develop their plans and identifying the resources that they need to bring those levels of attendance up. I’m all for early intervention in the attendance space, but I think that sometimes we leave it to the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, and I really believe that we need to get in sooner. But I also know that the Attendance Service and those that are working really well in this space are the experts in this area and that they’ve already made connections and that they already have relationships with the families and many of the young people too—because they might have come across them through their siblings as well. So we need to look at their expertise in this area to be able to turn some of the issues around that we’re seeing in the attendance space.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the committee report progress.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2022/23 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the Estimates and capital injection for the 2023/24 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

This is an annual event for the House. It concerns the appropriations for our three Offices of Parliament: the Controller and Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. As is described in the motion that I’ve just moved, it sets out alterations for the year that we’re in now for inclusion in the Supplementary Estimates bill and sets out the main appropriations that will be included in the main appropriation bill that I will introduce on Budget day. The reason we do it this way round is to emphasise the independence of these Offices of Parliament from the executive.

The proposals in the address have been examined by the Officers of Parliament Committee, which has the Speaker as its chairperson. I want to thank all members of the committee for their careful consideration of these matters, which they did with some advice available to them from Treasury officials. The committee’s report explains the issues behind the numbers proposed in the address, and I’ve no doubt that other members of the committee may choose to address some of those matters in their contributions in the debate.

All three Offices of Parliament are reporting an increasingly complex, changing, and demanding environment that puts additional pressure upon resources. The Auditor-General is facing larger-than-usual deficits over the next three years, which the committee informs us is due to increasing audit complexity—mostly relating to COVID-19—pressure on auditors’ capacity and availability, and audit costs rising faster than audit fees while Audit New Zealand works to increase its staffing. The committee therefore have agreed that a non-recoverable capital injection, totalling $16 million over three years, of $2 million in this financial year, $7 million in the next, and the remainder in the following year are appropriate. Audit delays because of COVID-19 and higher staff turnover are an issue. The committee has told us that the Auditor-General is addressing these issues with approaches that include raising fees and seeking greater financial efficiencies.

COVID-19 also continues to have a significant impact on the work of the Ombudsman, whose responsibilities have expanded in recent years, including the managed isolation and quarantine facilities, the protected disclosure Act investigations, and enhanced oversight of Oranga Tamariki. Legislation that has just come into force has also expanded the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to cover providers of care and custody under Oranga Tamariki. The Ombudsman has welcomed this change, though it will increase work for the office. The Ombudsman’s also forecasting an increase in complaints driven by Cyclone Gabrielle and flooding in 2023. Again, as similar with the Auditor-General, retaining trained staff and experienced staff is also an issue, and the committee tells us that they support a one-off targeted payment for high-performing staff.

Issues around staffing were also raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who faces a growing need to source external, legal, and scientific advice as well. The Parliamentary Commissioner has not sought an increase to his appropriation in this Budget round, though he foresees a need for additional funding in a Budget round in the near future.

The three Officers of Parliament continue to provide excellent work on behalf of New Zealanders and make a strong contribution to our democracy. I want to reiterate that it is my job here today to move this. This is the report of the Officers of Parliament Committee. They make their decision independent of the executive, but we need to do it now, tonight, so that it gets into the Budget processes that start next week. So, on that basis, I commend this motion to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. I just note that the motion includes the words “of expenses”, which the Minister did leave out on the fourth line.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to follow the Hon Grant Robertson in speaking to the alterations of the 2022-23 appropriations for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. And at the risk of repeating almost word for word what the Hon Grant Robertson has already said, yes, the Officers of Parliament Committee did examine and receive submissions from each Officer detailing, in their words, the proposed alterations to the 2022-23 appropriations, but also their budgets, their draft budgets for 2023-24 and out-years. We did receive advice, and thank you to Treasury officials who came to the committee on three separate occasions and provided advice by way of answers to questions and also offered their expertise and assistance with the committee.

We did recommend to the House, and do recommend that the House commend these alterations, essentially, which have been already outlined to the House and also—so alterations and Estimates—to the Governor-General for inclusion in the main appropriation bill for the coming financial year or, as it may be, in the appropriation bill dealing with the Supplementary Estimates for the current financial year.

So turning first to the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, I will focus my comments on their draft Budget request, and a couple of comments on the context by which these requests were made. The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, as is common with so many other Government agencies, were disrupted by COVID-19, and the Auditor-General’s work programme was significantly impacted by COVID-19 restrictions. As well as that, there has consequently been an increase in public expenditure and also in the complexity of audits as a result of the pandemic, alongside that, for them, issues such as staff turnover have caused audit delays, and also they acknowledge inefficiencies in Audit New Zealand. So there are a number of deficits which Audit New Zealand and the Controller and Auditor-General are facing. And so the proposal by the Auditor-General is to increase audit fees at the rate of 8 percent per annum across all sectors and contract cycles until 2025-26 when increases will reduce, then, to 5 percent per year.

I was particularly concerned and I did ask the question around how that increase in audit fees will impact on local government, because all of us in this House are aware of cost pressures on everyone but also on local government. However, it is what it is and that is the proposal that was put forward to us and, perhaps, we might not like an increase in audit fees—in particular, for smaller councils—but, none the less, we feel compelled to support that.

Turning to the Office of the Ombudsmen, I won’t go into the budget transfer, I don’t have time. However, I will note for the Office of the Ombudsmen that part of the response to COVID-19 included the establishment of managed isolation and quarantine facilities throughout the country. These facilities now fall within the Ombudsman’s Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment oversight role. This of course consequently imposes a cost and timeliness. The Office of the Ombudsmen also seeks additional resources to maintain remuneration levels. He too, or the office as well, is experiencing a period of wage growth and the need to be competitive in today’s job market.

Turning finally and briefly to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton told us that, no, he didn’t want a budget increase, which is laudable and, quite frankly, Simon Upton is a commissioner—the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—who works within his budget and works well and produces good works. None the less, he did signal to the committee, and therefore to the Crown, that he would in future be seeking a budget expansion. Again, the committee supported this request, as do I.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party today to speak to the motion and the Estimates for Officers of Parliament. It’s a great day for the ACT Party in the sense that we’re now the third-biggest party and we get to speak in advance of other parties, so that’s good.

So in terms of the three areas that we’re discussing, the Auditor-General is forecasting serious deficits in the future years—$8.5 million in 2022-23; $9.1 million in 2023-24. So this requires significant action by the House. We agree with the recommendation to increase funding. So for 2023-24, there will be an increase from $30 million to $38 million. Central and local government spend more time on audits. We have $170 billion worth of public money annually that has to be audited. The Office of the Auditor-General needs to be strengthened as Government prepares its agencies. It includes schools and local governments consistently that failed to deliver on public trust, and the ability of the Government to deliver basic public services has been eroded.

Also, in 2021-22, the highest number of discretionary reports were published by the Auditor-General in its history. These publications included working on the cost of living payments, water services reforms, the central COVID-19 response, the city rail project—in which the Government learnt a lot, from the Auditor-General, which it didn’t know—and the Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme. It is vital and important that the Government programmes are being held to account by the Auditor-General.

Similarly, the Ombudsman is under pressure, and the recommendation to increase appropriations in 2023-24 will go from $45 million to $54 million. Dealing with increasing numbers of Official Information Act complaints has been occurring in the era of what we were told was the most transparent Government ever. Over the 2021-22 year, we now have set a new record for expenditure, and it’s up 31 percent on the year before. These include silly things like Mr Willie Jackson’s saga over the trend of human errors when his office should have been not blaming process but blaming the Minister himself; the Stuart Nash emails; and the latest saga, which we find out today, from the Minister of Education is that the attendance figures—when asked why they didn’t want to reveal them, they just didn’t want to release them. So this is the sort of stuff that has to be stopped by funding these organisations to do their job absolutely proper.

We note that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) is not asking for much at all, and as my colleague said, $3.9 million to go to $4.3 million a year, which, considering the insights and leadership of the PCE, is good value and shows considerable financial discipline from the PCE that other agencies can learn from and should emulate. We don’t always agree with what comes out of there, but even though it does make sense, it’s an important intellectual contribution to New Zealand’s environmental and climate policy, and it seems to be the agency that can do it most effectively. It is regarded as a credible and independent agency unlike any other commission. And Simon Upton has been reappointed to another five-year term, and it’s very pleasing he will get to continue to guide the agency, so $4 million is very small for such an influential agency.

So this expenditure has risen because of lack of Government transparency, lack of ability to cost up its projects properly, and it’s called on extra resource from these agencies at a time when we have a cost of living crisis. So we’re especially interested in supporting this tonight. Next year may be different, but it’s important that the Government recognises that this is not just a set of agencies that can be used; it is a set of agencies that have real teeth and will hold them accountable in the future.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and take a call on the appropriations for the Offices of Parliament, which includes, as others have covered: Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE). And these three—just for people who kind of don’t get their heads around Offices of Parliament and what these agencies do—are central parts in our system of scrutiny and accountability of Government to make sure that Government is using money wisely. They provide advice through the Vote Audit in terms of select committees to enable Parliament to do its job, as well as auditing in detail the agencies. They also provide advice—the Ombudsman—around legal accountability for Government agencies, and Ministers, indeed, about whether they are doing their job according to the law. And, of course, PCE has oversight around the environmental protections and standards across the country.

And because some of their findings may be uncomfortable to Governments—and I’m not talking about this Government; I’m talking about Governments generally—the possibility always exists that Governments could choose to run down their funding to lessen scrutiny and accountability. The funding for these agencies, the decisions about it, go to a committee that’s chaired by the Speaker and includes every party in this House. And as you’ll see tonight, they came to consensus around the funding of these organisations. I think it’s one of those really important moments to note, of our Parliament collectively standing by the importance of scrutiny. I look forward to the day when the funding for our Parliament also goes to that committee, because if we believe in the concept of scrutiny and the importance of de-politicising that, then I believe that the funding for this place should also go to that committee on the same principle.

We don’t want to see that situation—just one other point about taking it out of the normal Budget process; the importance for me is I wouldn’t want to see this being put up against, you know, funding for nurses or teachers and there being a trade-off because scrutiny is not a publicly appealing idea. You talk Ombudsman, most people have no idea what the Ombudsman does—sorry, Justice! But that is the reality—and most people have no idea about the audit process either. But it’s absolutely essential to the checks and balances of power. So it’s great that we avoid that trade-off.

So this—and this has been canvassed a little bit, so I’ll go over it fairly quickly—will deliver an increase in funding for the Auditor-General, because they have been experiencing significant funding pressures in the impact of COVID. Delays and audits kind of creating a backlog, an increase in the requirement for audits with new funding streams coming on board to deal with the impacts of COVID and the challenges we’re all facing, and the complexity of those audits as well. At the same time, they’ve been experiencing a real pressure on auditors’ capacity and availability, which has meant that more audits have needed to be contracted out to the private sector, which has an additional cost to it. So audit costs have increased faster than fees. So it was an agreement that we would cover that.

Also, the Ombudsman has had increased roles around the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which is really important; and included roles in managed isolation and quarantine and ensuring safety of people; protected disclosures; oversight of Oranga Tamariki—quite controversially, we didn’t support that but we do support them being able to do the work that they’ve been given well; and projected complaints related to the cyclone.

And then PCE, who didn’t request an increase but it is noting they will be in the future, because they’re really struggling in terms of the increased complexity of the environmental regulatory system and the struggle to get the right qualified people. Really, really important work. Good to have Parliament’s commitment to the continuation of this work.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The proposed address is available on the Table of the House. The question is, That the address be adopted.

Address agreed to.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Speaker; thank you for your advice. I seek leave to correct an answer to a supplementary question that I gave in answer to question No. 8 today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon JAN TINETTI: In my answer to supplementary question No. 5 of question No. 8, I said that I did think it was a coincidence. I misinterpreted the question, and have since read the Hansard. I would like to correct my answer to: no, the information has been released under the Official Information Act that shows that it wasn’t a coincidence.

Bills

Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I present a legislative statement on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

Hon Member: Hurrah!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: An excellent committee. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 24 August 2023, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill will amend the Social Workers Registration Legislation Act 2019—no surprises there—to extend the experience pathway for social workers’ registration from 28 February 2024 to 28 February 2028. This would be an extension of the current practice for four years. Again, no surprises there.

Social workers play a critical and mana-enhancing role in their communities. They provide much-needed support for some of our most vulnerable people and whānau. In recent years, more so than ever, social workers have been critical to supporting New Zealanders through tough times—for example, through the COVID-19 response and in the weather events earlier this year.

As a Government, we want to ensure that the social work workforce is supported and empowered to meet the needs of those they work alongside. We passed the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill in 2019, which required every practising social worker to register with the Social Workers Registration Board under the Social Workers Registration Act 2003. Prior to February 2021, registration was voluntary for people working as social workers. The change was about giving greater protection for some of our most vulnerable people and increasing competency in the social work sector.

To be eligible for registration, applicants must have a prescribed qualification. However, section 13 of the 2003 Act provides an alternative pathway to registration for people with extensive practical experience. The Social Workers Registration Board uses the following assessment criteria for registration through the experience pathway: that the applicant has enough practical experience to compensate for not having a prescribed qualification, usually around 10 to 15 years; that they have demonstrable competence to practise as a social worker; and that they have competence in working with Māori and ethnic and cultural groups more broadly. All applicants for registration must also pass the fit and proper person test to practise as a social worker. This provides the basis for determining the safety of social workers to practise.

Currently, this experience pathway is set to expire on 28 February 2024. This delayed repeal date was intended to support the social work sector to transition from voluntary to mandatory registration by allowing unregistered social workers time to either complete a prescribed qualification or to apply to register under section 13. Initially, this date was set based on a view that a qualification would provide the main mechanism for professionalisation of the workforce and an assumption that there would be sufficient workforce supply.

Since then, there have been several significant shifts in the operating environment for social workers, which contributed to the Government bringing this bill to extend the pathway. COVID-19 has exacerbated need amongst some communities, creating an increased demand for social work services which cannot be met by the current workforce. Social worker vacancies are growing nationally. Indicative data from the Social Worker Registration Board’s Annual Social Work Workforce Survey 2022 suggests an estimated shortfall of around 700 social workers. This bill will therefore ensure that by retaining an experienced pathway to registration, we don’t limit the pipeline for social workers into the workforce.

On top of this, the Government recently announced a pay equity extension for social workers in the Government-funded sector, and it’s estimated to lift the pay of around 5,000 employees and will help to correct disparities in access to professional development between Government and NGO employees. It also removes some of the cost barriers of maintaining registration. The extension includes payment for annual practising certificates, professional development, and supervision costs. We know that these costs can prohibit a social worker’s ability to maintain their mandatory annual practising certificate. The pay equity extension is likely to create an incentive for people doing substantially similar work to social workers to apply for higher-paying social worker roles, which they need to become registered for.

We heard directly from social service organisations that the pay equity settlement will be a major change for them and that they believe people working in the social sector who meet registration requirements may now register formally as social workers as a result of this.

Delaying the removal of the experience pathway will therefore support the social sector to transition to this major shift in its operating environment. Another important shift is that there has been an increase in recognition of the importance of indigenous knowledge in the social sector more broadly to reflect the range of communities they serve. The Social Workers Registration Board has made changes to the experience pathway in recent years to ensure that it is more culturally responsive and inclusive of kaupapa Māori approaches, and we’ve seen the number of Māori registering through the experience pathway increase since 2020.

We have heard from sector representatives—the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association—that they support an extension of the experience pathway in order to ensure that tangata whenua kaimahi, and iwi and social services have the opportunity to register as social workers, and there is more time to further consider indigenous knowledge and practices in social work training before the experience pathway is repealed.

It’s also important to note that the experience pathway to social work registration has shown to be a useful mechanism for social worker registration without diminishing the safety or competency of the workforce. There is no evidence to suggest that experienced social workers without a prescribed qualification, who otherwise meet the registration requirements, are less safe or competent than academically qualified social workers.

The Social Workers Registration Board and social work sector partners have identified that there’s likely to be a long-term place for vocational pathways to social worker registration, but more work is needed to explore what future pathways need to look like. They are also working with education sector and social work sector partners on improving the accessibility of social worker registration, training, and qualifications. Delaying the repeal of section 13 will enable this work to be further developed before the experience pathway is removed.

Social workers provide an essential front-line service to individuals, whānau, and communities. Having a social work workforce that is responsive to increasingly complex and diverse needs is crucial. This bill ensures that the experience pathway can continue for a further four years so that we do not exacerbate workforce shortages in the coming years, can leverage benefits of the pay equity settlement, and enable better recognition of indigenous knowledge and experience in the workforce.

I want to acknowledge the social work representatives who reached out to the Government in support of this extension and advocated for their workforce. I want to end by thanking all of the social workers for doing the mahi. You undertake difficult and challenging work with people who are often highly vulnerable, and this is an incredibly valuable service for our communities. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, the Minister resuming his seat, for outlining some of the intent behind the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill, but what was clearly lacking in it was the explanation of why a four-year extension is required.

So I just want to take members of the House, and those who are following the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill debate, back a bit, because improvements in social work have been something that has crossed over Governments of both persuasions over the years; in effect, starting back in 2003, when the legislation was first put in. It’s all around ensuring the safety of the public and enhancing the professionalism of social workers, and then, during National’s time, when Anne Tolley was the Minister in charge, it then moved towards mandatory registration. So it has been a long time in coming. The legislation introduced by Anne Tolley was introduced in 2017 and it passed in 2019. But I want to bring back to the House some of the reasons why this mandatory registration was seen to be so important, because that is a big part of my questioning around why it is an extension of four years.

We do know that social workers across New Zealand work in health, work in justice, work in education, work in social services and child protection—they work with some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders, and the work they do is just so critical. So part of the move to make social workers’ registration mandatory was recognising that it was about lifting the skills and the professionalism of the sector. Actually, having spoken at the Social Service Providers Aotearoa conference last week, the common feedback is just the level of complexity that New Zealanders are presenting with now, and I think that reinforces why that requirement is for mandatory registration. Increasingly, social workers are dealing with children, young people, adults, and families with complex high needs. That was identified when the legislation was introduced in 2017. I think that if you roll forward from there, over the last couple of years, and now what we’re seeing in recent months—and this is currently being faced by some parts of the country today—are weather events that are providing even greater challenges.

So there is a need for social workers—full stop. I accept the fact that there is a challenge in terms of the supply of social workers but also we must hold fast to continuing to increase the skills and professionalism. One of the things that was enabled by the mandatory registration process is ongoing development, and I want to also acknowledge the Social Workers Registration Board. They did significant work at the time when the kind of registration deadline approached, and that was 2021.

The law was introduced in 2017, it was passed in 2019, then the voluntary registration expired and became mandatory in 2021, and then there was the experience pathway available up until 2024, and so I haven’t heard a sufficient argument yet in terms of why there is an extension of four years. I have some suspicions. One of the suspicions one of my colleagues, perhaps, wouldn’t be surprised about, and that is the state of vocational education and the massive reform that’s under way. I wonder if that’s had an impact. I wonder if that’s been a contributing factor in terms of those not taking that pathway for the qualification route. So I might keep my suspicion for another day on that way—my colleague Penny Simmonds is nodding.

But while we always accepted that the experience pathway is a valid and important pathway, I’m not sure why—even if it did require an extension—it needs to be for four years. That’s a very long time from now, and I think there are still multiple challenges that aren’t addressed by this legislation. The pay equity, I think, will be a significant step, but it does feel as if it’s taking for ever, and I know that for those who are working in the sector—I think about some that I met with just last week—they are tired and they are feeling very under pressure.

One of the things that is adding extra pressure is the ongoing red tape and bureaucracy that the current Government is imposing upon them, and so I wondered if part of the conversation, instead of just pushing out the deadline for this pathway for four years, would be to actually look at some of the things that get in the way. It was a shocking figure: 55 percent of social workers’ time is spent doing admin—55 percent. Now, if I think about it, and I’m picturing a whole range of faces of social workers that I know in my electorate and across those that I come into contact with in my portfolio responsibilities—man, they provide magic. They do magic in their communities. To spend 55 percent of their time doing admin does seem quite a waste.

But, anyway, this pathway being extended for four years is, I think, concerning. I wonder if some of it is just another element of non-delivery where the Government didn’t get on and do what they needed to do, and that may well have been to encourage and support more to take the academic route or to look at a more vocationally based, blended training model for apprenticeships, which we know work so well in other areas.

Instead, what we have is the request of the Government to extend it for four years, and it says, basically, that it’s because of the pay equity settlement, of which we have no idea. Does that mean the pay equity settlement will be four years away? Goodness, I hope not. It’s only at stage four of 10 stages, so four years does seem a long way away.

The social worker workforce supply and demand pressures—the comment in the statement from the Minister was that it’s been exacerbated by COVID-19. I think it’s fair to say that it existed before COVID-19. It’s not necessarily a new problem, and even if you said, “OK, it’s exacerbated by COVID-19.”, then maybe the logical extension would be for two years. But, again, the extension that the Government want to put through today is four years. The other one is this—and I do want to acknowledge the work that kaimahi do around the country, but I wouldn’t have thought that it was a new issue in terms of ensuring equitable pathways for kaimahi to be registered social workers.

So, again, it seems as if this issue has been blown up a bit. It was an issue when the legislation was introduced in 2017. Part of having the experience pathway in place was to absolutely recognise the people that have worked in our communities not just for 10 or 15 years but for 20, 30, 40 years, in many cases, and to make sure that through the mandatory registration we didn’t lose them from the social work profession.

But it is important also that part of that mandatory registration is having all social workers having to meet appropriate standards and undertake ongoing professional development as part of renewing their annual practising certificate. So it’s not just kind of getting to the line; it’s actually making sure that the social workers are supported, and, as I’ve said before, given the complexity that many of the social workers are increasingly facing, I think that those elements are incredibly important.

So I do think the four-year extension case hasn’t been put to the Parliament today. We will be supporting this legislation, with reservations, and the other obvious reservation—which we will get to—is: why on earth, yet again, is Labour ramming through another piece of legislation with a shortened report-back? If the extension is for four years and the deadline for this expires in 2024, why is it that they insist on ramming it through and doing it without the full process?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. The Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill is something that I have been really delighted to read. It’s a very short bill, and it just changes the date, as we’ve heard from the member the Hon Louise Upston, who has resumed her seat. It gives an extra four years for the ability to apply under section 13 using experience.

Now, the reason I’m delighted to stand and speak to this bill is that, no, I’m not a social worker, but I have spent a large proportion of my work life working alongside social workers, and what I can say is that there is a number of extraordinary practitioners out there who do not hold qualifications. They do not hold qualifications, yet their work is lifesaving, their work is incredibly professional, and their work is absolutely strength-based and empathetic, and the thing about that is that it is also safe practice. So I’m really delighted that this pathway remains for another four years.

It’s actually quite a difficult process to become qualified in this manner, and, in fact, I have helped and supported and mentored a number of people into this pathway, and it has taken them up to two years to do that, to gather the evidence. So I am delighted that we have a four-year window for this.

I just want to very quickly say, as well, today we have got some really nasty adverse weather events happening. We’ll have our emergency services in there on the front line—I acknowledge that—but after that, it will be our social workers who are in those homes. It will be our social workers who are there in the community, in the emergency accommodation, and all of the places that they need to be in order to help and support our community. So with that very short speech, I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support, but with reservations, of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. Just to be very clear: the bill is seeking to delay that repeal of the experience pathway as a means of registering to have a qualification prescribed by the Social Workers Registration Board; repealing that to a further four years, to 2028. The current law allows for that experience pathway, and it’s not an unusual thing to have that recognition of prior learning being given the recognition that it should have. The bill is seeking to have that four-year extension, which my colleague has questioned the need for it being quite that far.

So the National Party actually introduced the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill in August 2017. It was particularly important in that it did the following: made the registration for social work compulsory, protected the use of the title “social worker”, and ensured that social workers were competent and fit to practise. It was entirely appropriate for those matters to be introduced in that bill, because, as Dr Webb said earlier, our social workers are often working with the most vulnerable New Zealanders, and it’s absolutely important that those vulnerable people are kept safe. It’s not unusual when a profession is going through a transition period of going from unregulated to regulated to have that ability to recognise the experience of workers in that industry who may not have undertaken a formal qualification.

I do at this point want to acknowledge all our social workers, whether they are formally and academically qualified or have had their registration recognised by the board because of the experience that they have amassed over many years. So I want to acknowledge those social workers and I want to acknowledge the challenges and the emotional toll that their work has on them.

I also want to acknowledge those in the tertiary sector who teach the social worker qualifications. Many of these qualifications are in the vocational education sector. I want to comment a little on the thoughts of my colleague the Hon Louise Upston, who was concerned that some of the upheaval in the vocational education sector may well be impacting on the numbers that are being taken into those training programmes. So I acknowledge the anxiety that many of those tutors might be feeling in those social worker qualifications now.

The other point that the Hon Louise Upston made was that 55 percent of social workers’ time is doing admin. I’m almost certain that social workers with a passion for working with the most vulnerable, with helping people, do not have an equal amount of passion for doing administration. So that is something that I am sure must be weighing heavily on a number of social workers.

I think of Awarua Whanau Services, who I visited last week, who do wonderful work in Southland, and I want to acknowledge them. They have, of course, nurses and midwives and other health workers, but they also have a number of social workers who are under considerable stress and pressure at the moment. Many of their comments aligned with that fact that we just talked about before, of 55 percent of their time being spent on admin.

So I’m very pleased that the Hon Duncan Webb outlined how the process is undertaken for social workers to get their registration recognised through the experience pathway, and that it is in no way inferior to a pathway of a formal qualification. For anyone who might be listening, it is quite a formal process: portfolios have to be submitted; the story of the pathway of the social worker; how they got into social work; their relevant employment history, and, often, that is of a really significant period and often actually predating when there were formal qualifications; and any other qualifications that they might hold—and I’m aware that many of them might hold ancillary qualifications, but qualifications that, none the less, are very important to the work that they do. I think of things like level 2, 3, and 4 in Te Ara Reo Māori—qualifications that many social workers have undertaken. They must have details of professional development they have done, and also be able to demonstrate that they have the competence to work in the social work field. So it is not a simple process; it’s a very complex process, and one which if they are recognised as gaining the experience pathway to being a registered social worker, that they have demonstrated considerable skills, experience, knowledge, and ability. So I just want to reinforce what the Hon Duncan Webb said about the importance of that pathway.

So this extension really is largely—as I can see it—in part due to the Government’s inability to make progress in that pay equity settlement. So it’s of real concern that the length of extension that is being asked for is four years. When we have a look at the Public Service Commission website on the pay equity settlement, it’s currently at the stage of data cross-checking, which is the fourth stage of 10 stages. So, unless the next six stages are incredibly quick, it does assume that that process has a long way to go. So I assume what the Government is looking for is a safety net of a time frame through this legislation. I’d have to say that four years is probably pushing things, really, further than, I’m sure, a number of social workers would want to see. Look, it’s not unusual in that sort of transition phase of a vocation or a profession becoming more regulated, to have a period where those with experience are being recognised. But another four years seems an extraordinarily long period, and given that most social workers now would be coming to the registration process through having a qualification, it does really beg the question of why the Government feel that they need to give themselves this length of time.

The other thing that is of concern—and the Hon Louise Upston commented on it as well—is: given the legislation goes through until 2024 now, the extension is for four years to 2028, why on earth ram it through with a shortened consultation period? Why not take the full consultation period and why not give respect to this vocation, this profession of social workers, to have a full consultation period, rather than trying to ram it through, given the time periods that we are looking at, 2024 and being taken out to 2028?

So we are supporting this at this first reading. We are supporting it with reservations. In doing so, though, we acknowledge the wonderful work that our social workers do out in the community—both those who are formally, academically qualified, but also those who have gone through the experience pathway. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Social workers play a mana-enhancing role within our communities. They play a transformational role within many families in our communities, and they are so necessary and continue to be necessary.

Now, in my adult years working with young people, I’ve experienced and worked alongside social workers in places like school classrooms and in my home or, at other times, in police cells—sadly, in prison cells, at times, as well—as well as down the streets, and in other parts of our society. Social workers have had to step in and work and walk alongside me and young people that we have been working with. For me, it’s seeing the crucial and the important role they play, and therefore we need to get this piece of legislation through to ensure that we can extend this piece of work, that we can ensure we have good social workers working within our communities.

It’s around enhancing the professionalism. It’s enhancing the safety, not only for the social workers but for those they are working with, and for those within their communities. This is important legislation. I just want to say thank you to the social workers throughout Aotearoa New Zealand, who do such a coalface piece of work in terms of supporting our most vulnerable. I commend this bill to the House.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand on behalf of ACT and speak to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. When I first read this, I was a little bit concerned. It appeared that we’re just kicking the can down the road because we can’t meet an obligation by a certain time frame. People have known that this time frame has been coming and we’ve known that this was going to be repealed in 2024 for quite a while, and it just feels that the Government has not come to the party to make sure that we have filled this gap in the time frame that they wanted—especially seeing as, since 2021, the requirement was made that it was compulsory to be registered with the Social Workers Registration Board.

So we knew this was going to cause an issue for people who were working within the industry from 2021, who didn’t have a formal qualification, and who were working with life experience—which is on board with the educational process but, unfortunately, now you are required to register with the board and you must have this qualification. And so going through this experience pathway seems like quite a convoluted process. It can take a very long time, from what I’ve heard. Sometimes they can get quite far through the process and can be denied anyway, and then may have to go through the education sector to become qualified.

My concern is that according to—well, how I see it is, since 2021, these people haven’t been able to work within the sector, in social work practice. So that’s two years already. And then we’re going to extend this out to 2024, so we could have people that have not worked within the sector for up to six years. Things change very quickly within the sector. I spoke at a panel last week, the social workers’ panel. The concern is that social work practice has got quite bureaucratic-al. There’s a lot of processes to follow, and now a lot of red tape, and it’s quite complicated. Unless you know what you’re doing, you can actually get yourself into quite a bit of a pickle. They’re spending a lot of time doing paperwork and doing admin, rather than actually doing their jobs. The admin side may be something that social workers who haven’t practised for four or five years may not have the knowledge of, and they may need to go through their educational sector to build up their skills.

I’m glad that we’ve been doing the pay equity within the social services sector, because these people do amazing jobs. They’re out there and they’re in our communities, and they’re dealing with, sometimes, the most vulnerable people within our communities. But they’re also dealing with some of the most volatile situations, where they can walk into quite dangerous environments and have to have the skills to know how to cope with that and how to de-escalate situations and how to work with families and with children and with the sector, and make sure that they’re following all these complex rules in the background as well. So I feel we need to be making sure that they’ve had this option.

But there comes a time where kicking the can down the road isn’t actually going to make much of a difference. Is the education sector ready to take on board the new people wanting to go through the social worker qualifications, and, if not, is that something we also need to acknowledge—that this may be a problem, that we’re not set up within the educational sector to bring on the 700 shortfall of social workers, and that by just looking at having these experience pathways coming in isn’t actually going to fill the gap of the 700 shortage? I’m not quite sure it will.

The prices to actually go through this experience pathway are quite high. I was looking, and you’re looking at around $3,500, and that’s a lot of money coming out of someone’s pocket to go through a process where there’s actually no guarantee that you’re going to get to the end of that process and have this qualification. So the educational sector pathway deal we need to be promoting a bit more, upskilling people a bit more. In the modern era of where social work has gone—because it may not be the same as it was 10 years ago—are we actually making sure that these people are prepared and ready and we’re not setting them up to fail, going into an industry that they may not be able to cope with now?

We have gone through some of the hardest times in the last few years, where families have been through turmoil times. We have communities now where mental health services are not available, and social workers are going into situations that sometimes could be quite dangerous for them, could be quite dangerous for the people working alongside them. And we need to support the whole sector. In the education system, we have children that just aren’t coping anymore; that are socially behind about three or four years. In the health sector, we’ve got people that can’t find a bed and that can’t find a home. And these social workers are actually going further than what they had been for quite a while. So we need to make sure that they do have the skills to cope with these new issues that have come forward. And with the floods that are happening in the Hawke’s Bay and Auckland and Northland, and just the devastation that we’ve seen over the last few years, this sector really needs to be backed a lot more than what they have.

The four years just seems a long time to push this along. I’m looking forward to hearing from the select committee and hearing from the sector as to why we’re looking at the four years, and hearing from the sector about why this has become an issue and why it’s taken so long for some of these people to actually go through the experience pathway. What were the barriers? What’s going to change now that’s going to make a difference, that those barriers aren’t actually there anymore? And are there other things that we need to actually be looking at and hear from the social sector to hear what the problems actually are to getting registered through that experience pathway?

ACT will support this bill, with reservations, but I’m really looking forward to hearing from the sector and hearing from the people that were working on the ground, have had years of experience, but haven’t gone through that experience pathway. I’d like to know why they haven’t done that and why this will make a difference for them to do that in the future. So thank you, Madam Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill, which, in effect, will delay the repeal of the experience pathway for social worker registrations for four years until 2028. As has been canvassed, this pathway has existed since 2003 and it was meant to be repealed in February next year. I guess it’s worth noting that this pathway was intended to provide people who have experience in relevant social work practice—for them to become registered. It’s important to note that there has been a huge range of benefits to this pathway in that it also has created the conditions for about 25 percent of people coming in being Māori, and increasing the number of Māori social workers that we have, where the community has given really, really strong feedback.

As somebody who, prior to being an MP, acted as a field educator training incoming social workers—and shout-out to the students from Unitec and Massey University—I can see why this pathway is really important, because we would have registered social workers who would often come to my previous workplace of Auckland Action Against Poverty, who themselves had very little relevant knowledge of how, for example, Work and Income worked, and yet we have members of our community working not necessarily as registered social workers but who had a depth of knowledge and experience in doing advocacy for members of their communities, who actually could become incredibly competent registered social workers, yet there was no pathway for them to be recognised prior to this. Sometimes, re-entering university was simply not a feasible option for them.

I take the point that previous members have made regarding some of the challenges in the sector. Those are all really worthwhile challenges for us to throw at the Government, regarding pay, regarding just general uptake of social workers, the social workers themselves feeling valued, and the cost of entering this experience pathway. But I think, at the core, what this bill is aiming to do is to protect a pathway that has had benefits, and I do also look forward to submitters then being able to unpack what else there is that we need to do to ensure that this pathway maintains its relevancy and that it continues being fit for purpose, acknowledging that it would now be 20 years old in terms of, for example, the requirements that we ask people and the sort of criteria that we set for people coming into that pathway.

But it is important that we do build a valued, well-paid, and resourced social worker workforce, because they’re key to ensuring that our communities are able to access their legal entitlements, to support them feeling connected, and that we have a diverse workforce as well so that our migrant communities, our Pacific and Māori communities, feel like they can access support in a way that is culturally competent. So we look forward to the submissions from the public, and the Green Party will be supporting this bill.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this legislation.

I just want to say a couple of things. Social workers are hugely important and to work with some of the most vulnerable people in our community—and I know we’ve got a couple of social workers in the House whose experience and knowledge will speak directly to this—it’s really important that we support them in their work by ensuring that they are safe to practise, and that’s the whole point of registration in the first place.

However, in saying that, we all know lots of people who have worked in the social work field, very competent, compassionate, and capable people, who, for one reason or another, have not gone through a formal education process but have all the skills and hallmarks of good social work practice to their core and have this opportunity through the experience pathway to then become recognised as a registered social worker. We should provide them with that opportunity, because it is important for us to have competent social workers and it is important for us to grow the pool of social workers.

However, in saying that, at the same time we are sending a very strong message that this experience pathway will at some point no longer be available and we really want to encourage people to take the opportunity that our institutions can provide in terms of that skill set and those qualifications. They are a hugely valuable workforce to us, and I can’t say more so than in recent times when we as a country have gone through some very difficult times. I support this bill to the House.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Tēnā tātou katoa i te pō nei. E te Māngai, koutou ko ngā ruahine, ruanuku, rua rangatahi, o tēnei Whare ataahua, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to all of us tonight. To the Speaker, and also the sage-like ladies, the enlightened men, and enlightened youth of this beautiful House, greetings to all of us.]

It gives me great pleasure to speak briefly to the first reading of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. I’m reminded of a great man called Taina Pohatu, who used to spend many days in the Māngere campus of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, down there at Canning Crescent, just around the corner from the KFC, who was a doyen of social worker methodology and pedagogy; someone who was a real visionary in the Māori education space around social work.

I acknowledge that the social workers that I’ve met are huge contributors to our hapori, to our communities, and that good social workers generate very positive outcomes in health, especially mental health, family health, whānau health. People like my wife’s niece, Jannica Clark, and her colleagues in Hamilton West—actually down there on Collingwood Street—working in tough situations like Melville, Bader, and, my personal favourite, Fairfield.

The bill extends the time of the experience pathway as a means of registering for the Social Workers Registration Board, and the delay is sought for four years. I acknowledge the comments made about the need for this. Some of you might recall that the National Party, Te Rōpū Nāhinara, introduced the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill way back in 2017—different time and place. So we support this bill—tautoko. E tautoko ana te Rōpū Nāhinara i tēnei pire [The National Party supports this bill] at this first reading.

Now, the experience pathway requires the board to be satisfied of an individual’s experience and whether it’s sufficient, instead of having a recognised qualification. The main criteria, of course: the story of one’s pathway into social work—and some people have quite an intrepid journey into social work, through sports, some through culture, some through addiction. They get there with those experiences, and take those experiences with them, and are able to actively engage and listen to those people that they seek to help—their employment history and herstory, other qualifications held, and competence.

Retaining the experience pathway, in my view, allows for the continued demand—high demand for social work—to be better met for the kaimahi that are working in this space, and credentialises those who have the clear work experience, and, actually, the life experience, in order to help those people in need, to help those people that need that tautoko, and to practise as officially registered social workers.

Clearly, and my colleagues may have socialised this, the issue that we have is that the context of the proposed delay is that we’ve got an ongoing challenge to make progress in the pay equity settlement. Reading through the Public Service Commission’s website, there is an implication that the work required to sort this matter will not be completed in the foreseeable future. So there is some mahi to be done, there is some mahi to address those outstanding pay equity issues, but it’s one that I look forward—ultimately—to closure around.

There probably aren’t enough good social workers out there, given the great demand for kaimahi hauora, but we agree that a delay of four years seems safe, and, more importantly, gives the Government time to address the settlement issues that remain outstanding. I want to take my pōtae off. Ka tangohia taku pōtae ki a [I take my hat off to] Taina Pohatu me tōna momo—Taina Pohatu and those members of his ilk in the academic and practice professions of social work. Tēnā tātou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Tangi Utikere—five-minute call.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take what will be a brief call on this bill. I want to add to the chorus in acknowledging the work that social workers do in communities all around this country. I certainly do not disagree with any of the comments and contributions that members have made in the House this evening in that regard.

This amendment bill is about ensuring that there is some certainty for those who have a pathway to registration for social work based on the experience route. Sure, there are opportunities for qualifications to be gained—that is one particular way in which a professional in this field may gain registration; ensuring that there is some certainty within the experience pathway is another. It’s interesting to note that the things that are taken into account are largely based around experience—for many, that’s many, many years working in the sector as a social worker—but also that they’re able to demonstrate some competence. So it’s not just about the number of years that a social worker may have been in the job or doing the role but ensuring that they maintain competence as a practitioner but also ensuring that the whole various range of different cultural competencies are there as well.

This is a bill that is not about lowering the bar; it is about ensuring that there is certainty for a period of four years to those who currently have a route to registration within the social work field, that being experience. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my time in the hospital system, social workers were a crucial part of the team, and what their role was was to work with patients and their whānau, who were often in very difficult circumstances, and connect them through to the services that they needed, but also to make sure that they had a safe place to return to when we discharged them home.

But it’s also crucial, given the important role they play in people’s lives, that social workers have the relevant training and experience. And this is why the Government passed the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill in 2019, which required everyone practising as a social worker to register with the Social Workers Registration Board. But it also recognised that there was a number of people practising as social workers in the community who, while they didn’t have the relevant academic qualifications, had had experience over a number of years. And so, basically, what this bill also recognised was the need for something like the experience pathway, which was in the original Social Workers Registration Act. And so that was retained for a period of time, which would allow people in this situation to register with the Social Workers Registration Board based on their experience.

But as we’ve heard in the House tonight, the experience pathway is due to be repealed on 28 February 2024, and what this bill will do is extend that for another four years so that people in this situation have that pathway available to them for that period. So it’s a very simple bill, but it’s an important bill, and I’m happy to commend it to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora, thank you. I’m the last to take a call for the National Party on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill at the first reading. My colleague the Hon Louise Upston has expressed that the National Party does support this bill, although there’s some reservation. That reservation is associated with the timing or the timeliness where the process is being expedited to take it through to select committee, and being opened up for public comment with scrutiny but being delayed in terms of the repeal being extended out by four years from 28 February 2024 to 2028.

The commentary or the debate that’s been expressed in the House this evening—there’s a sense of rationale for that around pay parity issues for social workers. On that point, I want to do a shout-out to our social workers in Aotearoa New Zealand. I’ve had the distinct privilege, in some years past in my life, of having served alongside a number of social workers in the days when we worked together in Child, Youth and Family Service. That was back in Whanganui, and I’m going to do a shout-out—because I often correlate relationships back to bills that I have the privilege of standing and speaking to, addressing the House and the public on—to social workers back home in Whanganui. Tasi Sua, who was probably the longest-serving social worker in the history of Whanganui social work. Tasi has probably given a good 40 years of dedicated service in this space, and he’s well-known in the community for the good work that he has done intergenerationally. Shout out also to Christina Gush. Christina and I, we started out together—where it just happened to be in my former life as a lawyer—working in Child, Youth and Family Service. I taught the legal component to the social work bachelor’s programme back in Whanganui, and this bill, in part, is looking at the importance of social worker competency and registration. And that’s for those who went through the institutions of a Bachelor of Social Work or social work diplomas. So I worked with social workers in that space, and we had that journey of experience towards their registration as social workers.

This bill is addressing an alternative in terms of experience pathway for those social workers who come from life practice and experience of not having gone through the bachelor or the diploma or the formal tertiary education institution system for that training. And so it’s very important that there is that avenue, particularly when our nation is in crisis mode with all the fallout that, effectively, social workers are having to pick up the pieces and try and band-aid or mend. And so with this bill, as has been heard in the debates before the House, there is that formal pathway, but this is recognising those social workers registered by way of an alternative experience pathway meeting or satisfying competency and requirements that are assessed by the Social Workers Registration Board. And again, the chair of that board is Shannon Pakura. Shannon was the chief social worker of Child, Youth and Family Service in the days when I served in the office back in Whanganui. Shannon whakapapas to Whanganui too, relationships. And importantly, Shannon has taken her vast lifetime of commitment and service as a social worker, as a former chief social worker with the organisation now known as Oranga Tamariki, and, applying her skill, her analysis, her experience, and her service in that role of chair of the Social Workers Registration Board.

The National Party does support this bill. We value social workers and the valued work and commitment that they give to our people and our communities of Aotearoa. But it seems that the reason that this bill—in terms of the experience pathway that has been extended out for another four years, is because the Government has been a bit slow on the pace in picking up and addressing the pay parity issue to value our social workers. That’s been done now, but it’s not happening quickly enough. Like everything else, slow on delivery. Where there’s value, there needs to be recognition, and the timeliness of that.

So the issue that the National Party has is we value our social workers and valued them to the extent and the point of not dragging and delaying necessary matters that need to be put before this Government and passed into law. So, also on a final note and commentary, I did a little bit of research and I saw that on 21 March this year, which was World Social Work Day, the Social Workers Registration Board published its findings of a 2022 workforce survey. And that survey identified that the biggest challenge for the sector is recruitment and retention. Thus, the importance of the experience pathway where there haven’t been enough social workers go through that formal institutionalised tertiary level - type training. And that the other challenge is followed closely by pay parity.

So the point is the National Party supports this, but, the Government: get on and deliver. Stop dragging the chains on this. Value the people who need to be valued, most importantly, for the contributions that are being made, particularly at this time when Aotearoa New Zealand is in a state of crisis. The National Party commends the bill to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour): Noa’ia e te Mana Whakawā. It’s always a privilege to speak in this House, but particularly on this bill, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill, because, I am a registered social worker and I know what it’s like to be a social worker, to manage social workers—and I know what it’s like.

So, before I get on to that, I want to acknowledge the weather event in Auckland, and as the Labour list MP based in Papakura, I want to thank the Papakura Marae, who have opened up their door to accept people in tonight. So, please, do go out to Papakura.

Social work is a calling, and I want to thank everyone that has chosen social work to be their calling, and, if you think about social work, I want to invite those who are interested in social work to, please, enter into social work. In 2003, the legislation came in. I was a youth justice manager in Ōtāhuhu at the time, and it took me four years to register. And that’s how long it takes for someone in the field to think about registration, to fit it within their workplace, and to support others to do that. So one of the reasons why I registered as the manager was to encourage social workers to register. The year 2025 is when the Social Workers Registration Board will put in their review of the Act, so having an extension to 2028 makes sense, because if they make recommendations from the review of the social workers registration, then we can take these four years into account.

I would love to speak about the work carried out by social workers, but I think we’ve heard enough from the House today. But I just want to say to social workers who could be probation officers, who could be working at Oranga Tamariki, who could be at the hospital, and who could serve the community and its most vulnerable people, thank you for what you do in the community.

This bill is an important one, and I commend the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill to the House. Mālō.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Instruction to Social Services and Community Committee

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I move that the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 24 August 2023, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill needs to be passed by 27 February 2024 to avoid the experience pathway being repealed. Having the experience pathway unavailable, even if only for a short period, may create confusion for the sector at a time of significant change. Completing the select committee process before the 2023 election will reduce the risk of a delay by allowing the bill’s second and third readings to be ready to be progressed once the House begins sitting following the formation of the 54th New Zealand Parliament.

The bill proposes a single change to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Act 2019 to delay the repeal of section 13 of the Social Workers Registration Act 2003 from 27 February 2024 to 28 February 2028. This change continues existing practice for four more years and will enable the sector to respond to significant changes in their operating environment, including the Government’s extension of the social worker pay equity settlement that provides a financial incentive for social workers to become registered through the experience pathway, the social worker workforce supply and demand pressures that have been exacerbated by COVID-19 and increasing recognition of the value of indigenous practice in social work, and ensuring equitable pathways into the social work profession.

The Ministry of Social Development has worked closely with the Social Workers Registration Board and engaged with the social work sector to inform the developments of the bill. There is sector support for a temporary extension of the experience pathway to enable the social sector to adapt to significant changes in its operating environment. The low complexity of this change, as well as the sector support for the proposal, makes the slightly shorter select committee process appropriate.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Here we are again. Here we are: same Minister, different bill, still a shortened report back. And I’m fascinated, because the Minister who’s just resumed her seat, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan—who is not the Minister in charge of the bill; the Deputy Prime Minister is—just said that the sector is happy with this temporary delay, and the temporary delay is for four years. So if a temporary delay is for four years, why is it that we are rushing yet another piece of legislation through, cutting back the time that the public have to submit, and, instead of having a six-month process, we’ve got 3½? Oh, there’s a simple thing; it’s called an election in the middle, and they’re panicking that they won’t get the legislation through in time for the deadline.

Well, how long has the Minister known that this extension was going to be done? An extension of four years is definitely not temporary. So I think the Minister needs to get her time line sorted out because, yet again, we’re in this House debating a shortened report back of a Minister that is so arrogant she doesn’t give the public the chance they are due to submit on legislation. Honestly, I’ve done this speech more times than not with Minister Sepuloni when she’s introducing a piece of legislation that she doesn’t think the public should have the fair length of time to debate. I think that’s disgraceful. I think it’s absolutely disgraceful. So is it a temporary delay and is temporary four years?

Hon Mark Mitchell: New democracy.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That’s kind of interesting. And it was interesting because at the start of this term in Parliament, I really thought with the first time ever that there was a majority party in Government, they would be careful—they would be careful and care for the public’s involvement in our democratic processes. But, no. Riding roughshod yet again over the consultation process, over the process of legislation that I used to be proud of, but, under these guys, I am definitely not, because, yet again, Carmel Sepuloni, who is now also the Deputy Prime Minister, is jamming a piece of legislation through with a shortened report back.

And why is that? Well, the Minister said it needs to be done by 20-something of February, because the date at the moment expires in March 2024 and they want to extend it to March 2028. So yet another good example of non-delivery. But if the legislation needs to be passed by February, why didn’t they start this process earlier? Because they would have known. Why did they not start it earlier? Or, also, why don’t they just allow the consultation process and the public submission to occur at the normal time frame, which would mean, yes, there’s an election in the middle, but Parliaments, when they’ve changed Government or not, have managed to deal with deadlines in a mature way without taking the time off the public?

But I think it’s pretty clear this is a Minister for Social Development and Employment that actually doesn’t care about the public; doesn’t care about those that work with social workers. Why is it that yet again we’re here in a shortened report back because, oh, the Government just didn’t get themselves organised—the Minister’s disorganised and doesn’t care about the public having their say? What is it? A temporary delay; temporary delay of four years. But yet who is it—

Hon Member: A personal, nasty speech.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —that gets the time shaved off? It’s the public. No, it’s not a nasty speech. A nasty thing to do is the Deputy Prime Minister removing the opportunity of the public of New Zealand to have their say on legislation. It wouldn’t have taken much—wouldn’t have taken much—to allow four months, five months, six months. No, that’s a normal process. But, no; instead we take shortcuts. The Labour Government wants to take shortcuts, take the time off the New Zealand public, ram a piece of legislation through—don’t allow the full accountability or scrutiny, yet again. Yes, it’s boring. It’s boring to do this, but it is totally and absolutely irresponsible.

I call on the Government to actually show some respect for the New Zealand public, to organise themselves. Do things when you’re meant to, deliver for once, and don’t ride roughshod over the New Zealand public by shortcutting your process at their cost.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Yeah, I have to kind of follow on from that. Time and time again, we’ve seen processes just being trodden over. Whether it’s under urgency or it’s shortened report-back times, it’s not allowing the public time to have their say. And, in this bill in particular, it’s not allowing the social sector to come along and have their say. This could affect them quite severely, and this is a really important decision we have to make. They work in such an important sector and deserve to have their voices heard. And I’m actually very, very frustrated that we’ve got all these bills being shortened—the time frame that we actually get to listen to the people. Isn’t that our job? Our job is to represent the people. Our job is to represent those that we might be affecting by changing laws. And so how are we supposed to understand what those effects are going to be, if we don’t listen to the sectors?

Hon Peeni Henare: You just said you’re well connected to the sector.

KAREN CHHOUR: Yeah, I would like to listen to what the sectors have to say, and I would like to give them enough time within that shortened time frame to be able to have their say. We have all these convoluted processes that keep getting trodden over, and Labour doesn’t seem to want to represent the people that they say—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! That’s enough back and forward across the House.

KAREN CHHOUR: We need to be able to follow proper process so that we can make good law, so we don’t end up back here amending the law again and kicking the can down the road again. The social work sector deserves better, social workers deserve better, and New Zealanders deserve better. So we need to stop doing this, and we need to stop changing the processes, and follow proper process.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 24 August 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill

Second Reading

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I present a legislative statement on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I move, That the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill be now read a second time.

Protecting our migrant workers from exploitation is a priority for our Government. The contribution of migrant workers to the New Zealand economy must be valued and, equally, their vulnerabilities must be addressed. The Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill strengthens our immigration and employment system by introducing a fit for purpose offence and penalty regime to protect migrant workers in New Zealand. As immigration continues to ramp up and we have more migrant workers on the ground helping our economy across different sectors, it is important that we put in place the right measures to protect them from exploitation.

Last term, this Government announced a coordinated end-to-end package of legislative policy and operational changes to reduce migrant exploitation in New Zealand. We’ve already made great progress, with initiatives like new reporting tools, the migrant exploitation protection visa, and an education and information pilot being rolled out so far. This bill builds on this work to further protect migrant workers from exploitative employers in New Zealand.

The Education and Workforce Committee finished its consideration of the bill and reported back to the House on 20 March. The committee voted by a majority for the bill to be passed, and it recommended minor changes that have been incorporated to improve the clarity of drafting. They do not substantially change the bill. I thank the Education and Workforce Committee for their work and robust select committee process while considering this bill. I would also like to thank the individuals and organisations who made submissions on the bill for their time, their expertise, and their engagement. Of the 44 written submissions, 35 supported the bill either as it was reported to the Education and Workforce Committee or in principle. Community Law’s submission to the select committee noted the importance of our suite of initiatives, including this bill, to prevent, expose, and investigate exploitation. They regularly see clients who don’t even get their minimum employment entitlements or who have their immigration status used against them. I was heartened to see the need for further work in this area be acknowledged so broadly across the submissions.

There are three key parts to this bill that I want to touch on. Firstly, we need to stop exploitation from occurring at any level. That’s especially important in stopping the most serious examples of exploitation we’ve seen in this country. This bill creates a penalty regime that will allow immigration officers to address low-level, non-compliant employer behaviour that is linked to migrant exploitation. Currently, immigration officers do not have any mechanisms outside of criminal prosecution to address low-level, non-compliant employer behaviour. Criminal prosecution is a time-consuming, expensive, and inefficient response for such low-level offences. Introducing infringement offences will ensure that even lower-level offending, like refusing to provide employment documentation, can be dealt with before it becomes more serious. Immigration New Zealand has estimated that it would issue between 500 and 1,000 infringement notices to non-compliant employers per year under this new infringement regime.

Secondly, we need to ensure that our immigration officers have the tools to verify that employers are complying with their obligations. This is about levelling the playing field so that employers who are trying hard to meet their commitments to migrant workers don’t get undercut or disadvantaged. Once the bill commences, designated and authorised immigration officers will be able to request employment documents from employers about migrant workers whose visas they have supported. Only employers who have supported a visa application can be required to supply documents, and the documentation can only be about those who have been supported on that visa, not other employees that an employer may have. The documents that can be requested are clearly stated in the provision—specifically, documents that an employer is already legally required to hold or can otherwise be expected to hold. It only applies to pre-existing documents and cannot be used to obtain a new statement or compel an employer to answer questions. These records would allow immigration officers to assess, for example, whether a migrant worker is being paid the salary stated in the employer-supported visa application.

I want to be very clear: the document production power does not provide a power of entry or a power of search; the robust legislative and operational safeguards are there to prevent this information from being used to target overstayers or other vulnerable migrants. Although immigration officers may exercise the power without reasonable belief of non-compliance, this is justified given that it’s a relatively un-intrusive power intended to enable just the auditing of employer compliance. This is a narrow scope with very carefully designed limitations. Immigration officers must also be designated and authorised to use the power and be issued a warrant of designation by the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). In their New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet of the bill, the Ministry of Justice concluded that the document production power was justified and did not contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The document production power is an important tool for protecting migrant workers because it means that there can be proactive checks to verify that employers are complying with their legal obligations. It supports the overall objective of the bill to deter employers from exploiting migrant workers. We know that migrant worker exploitation is under-reported; we must be proactive.

Thirdly, we need to hold exploitative employers to account. The bill will allow MBIE to publish certain information about employers who have committed immigration offences. Currently, employers who breach their obligations under the Employment Relations Act are published on a stand-down list. This bill will allow immigration offending to also be made public and ensure that the names of employers who breached their obligations under the Immigration Act are made available. The stand-down list is a crucial tool to allow both prospective and current migrant workers to know if an employer is compliant with New Zealand’s employment law. This bill will require employers to respond to requests for information from the labour inspectorate or immigration officers within 10 working days. Currently, there are no specified time frames. We need this to create that level playing field. Immigration officers will, however, have discretion not to impose a fee where there are genuine reasons for delay.

The Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill will also amend the Companies Act to allow the courts to disqualify people who are convicted of migrant exploitation, or of people trafficking, from managing or directing a company. This change will prevent people who have used company structures to exploit others from doing so again in the future. It is only appropriate that we don’t allow people who commit these offences to continue managing companies and employing potentially vulnerable people.

No one stand-alone action will address migrant worker exploitation entirely. But with a suite of measures, including education and awareness raising, the provision of reporting tools for migrant workers, and these new powers and offences, we can prevent exploitation from occurring. We can protect those migrant workers who are subjected to exploitation by providing the tools enabling them to leave the exploitative situation, and we can take enforcement action to deal with employers who continue to choose not to comply with their legal obligations. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I’m not sure that the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be surprised in hearing tonight that the National Party will not be supporting this bill. The bill doesn’t solve the problem that the Minister believes it’s going to solve, and it goes after the wrong people. It was interesting to hear her speech tonight about the coordinated, end-to-end programme, the suite of things that this Government are putting together to try to end migrant exploitation, but the real, difficult, hard, gnarly end of migrant exploitation has not even been touched by this Government. This bill is one of those things that sounds good and it sounds nice and the Minister made all the right noises, but, actually, the real big gnarly things that are actually causing migrant exploitation are not being gone after.

I can tell you that the single biggest thing around migrant exploitation that this Government should be doing is going after wage recycling, because, actually, by forcing up the rate that migrants need to be paid to the median wage, which is now $29.66 an hour, all she’s done, all this Government have done, is mean that migrants are now paying more in terms of wage recycling for the jobs that they were always paying for, and they’re doing this by paying back their employer overseas, in bitcoin or in overseas bank accounts that are difficult to trace. This bill doesn’t go anywhere near addressing that real problem.

What this bill does, and I warned them about this in my very first speech, is it goes after super, super low-level minor infringements that actually are good employers who are trying to do the right thing who might get caught out, because, actually, when you’ve got a really tight labour market and a massive labour force shortage, when companies are trying to do the right thing, but are just trying to jimmy things around to make ends meet—

Angela Roberts: Jimmy things around?

ERICA STANFORD: Oh, so Angela Roberts doesn’t like the words “jimmy things around”. Let me give her an example of an aged-care facility who—we all know that they’re short of aged-care workers and nurses—find that their nurse coming in is going to be late or that they can’t bring in their next nurse because they’re so short, so they ask their migrant nurse or their migrant healthcare worker to work an extra hour. Guess what? Ping, because that’s against the conditions of their visa, which would be pinged under this bill. So in a really tight labour market when people are just trying to make ends meet and actually make sure that they are caring for people, in the case of an aged-care association, they would be pinged under this bill.

I made the point in my first reading speech that we need to be more flexible in these times rather than going after these people who are just trying to do the right thing. I was in a meeting in Wānaka just yesterday talking to the hospitality sector, who said to me, “We are so short-staffed here that we can’t open up our hotel for 100 percent capacity; it’s got to be 65 percent. We’ve got migrant workers working here that could be doing other jobs every now and then to try and make things work, but we can’t do it.” Guess what? Under this bill, they would be pinged for just trying to do the right thing in a tight labour market, which these guys created because they couldn’t get the borders open early enough. They’re going after the very people who are just trying to do the right thing, who have been pinged by this Government because they couldn’t get their act together last year. That is not a good bill.

Where they should have been going, as I have mentioned already, is after the wage recycling.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I just remind the member of Speaker’s ruling 114/5: in a second reading of a bill, the comments or the debate is to be confined to matters contained within the bill and not at length matters which are not provided for in the bill. So, a comment, yes, but half a speech, not so much.

ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, let’s move on then to some of the comments by the submitters in this bill, who were making the very points that I have been making, firstly around flexibility. Business New Zealand have basically said in their submission to us that the broad definition of an offence is just unworkable and stomps over the nature of the employment agreement and mutual agreement between the employee and the employer. An employer commits an offence now by allowing an employee to work in a way not entitled to under the Act—in practice, for example, where the aged-care nurse may be required to cover that extra shift or that extra hour because a colleague is running late. This constitutes now a legal infringement, reducing the flexibility of the workforce in an environment of extreme skill shortages. Removing the ability of workers and employers to meet mutual agreement to ensure critical services and firms can operate will create backlogs and fewer services.

A second thing that was brought up in the select committee process was around the fact that many times migrant workers want to do more than their job that they’re doing. And an example that I can give you, which wasn’t mentioned in select committee but perfectly explains this point, was the cherry orchardist that I spoke to yesterday, who said they’ve employed migrant workers to string out nets. Those migrant workers said, “Hey, we’d really like to do more and learn more about horticulture and work in different parts of the business, and learn more and improve our skills.” And that, again, under this bill, as said by Business New Zealand, will be penalised. So in an environment where we’ve got workers who are here, who are wanting to do more, who are wanting to learn more, this bill penalises them. That was warned about at select committee by Business New Zealand.

Again, the real issue that was complained about in select committee was around the fact that migrant exploitation is rife and is not being investigated. This bill, as I mentioned, goes after people who are just trying to do the right thing. But, in fact, 10 percent of complaints about migrant exploitation at the serious end are actually never looked into. There was a report last year that said there are over a thousand reports about serious migrant exploitation—serious migrant exploitation. Only 10 percent of those were looked into. I want to read this House a text message that I got yesterday from an immigration agent: “Do you remember those exploited workers I told you about? Things with INZ are going super slow and the owner of the business is about to leave New Zealand.” This is just another example of the serious nature we have in this country of serious migrant exploitation that is not investigated.

The worry that was brought up at select committee around this bill was that the focus of the Government is on the wrong people. It’s on low-level people who are just trying to be flexible in their businesses, who actually have said in many surveys that they want to do the right thing, but they just need more education because quite often the number of rules that Immigration New Zealand keep changing is overwhelming. They want to do the right thing, yet the serious end of town are not being investigated, and the worry always was—and it was at select committee, with the submitters—that the focus will now be on the compliance officers, who are desk-based, making phone calls and asking for records when, actually, the serious end of town is not being investigated. There are not boots on the ground. There’s no investigation going into the serious breaches, and we can see that by all of the reports, so that the comments at select committee were very much around: we are going after the wrong people.

These are people who are just trying to be flexible, who are trying to do the right thing, who are sometimes confused by the rules, who just need education. Whereas the people at the serious end, despite what the Minister came out today and said—that there is a suite of policies—there has been nothing. There has been nothing that this Government has put out that shows that they’re going to go after wage recycling—not a single piece of legislation around that, nothing at all. There’s nothing in this bill around wage recycling. And there’s certainly nothing in terms of more boots on the ground and more emphasis on those people who are at the serious end of town.

The other thing that I mentioned in our first reading speech was that we would not support this bill if it didn’t make some changes around the reasonable grounds. There was nothing done at select committee to change that. There is no requirement for a desk-based officer, when they’re requiring documents from an employer, to have any reasonable grounds to ask for those documents. So as we mentioned in our first reading speeches—that the officers will very likely go on fishing expeditions, when many of these companies who’ve had to be accredited have already given all of this information and will have to give it again when they become re-accredited; are now going to be asked for it again, placing massive burdens on them when there are no reasonable grounds for those officers to require those documents—I said that our support would hinge on that. It didn’t change. And we will not be, therefore, voting for this bill.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take this short call on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. The member who just took her seat, Erica Stanford, listed a few reasons why the National Party is not going to support this bill, which is disappointing, because it’s at moments like this that this House needs to come together and address this serious issue. But then, migrant exploitation happened throughout nine years of the National Government. It was happening under their eyes; they haven’t done anything about it, so we are not surprised. However, she tried to underplay these serious offences as low-level offences. Underpaying people is not a minor offence; it’s a serious offence. It’s a crime. Denying people their basic rights such as smoko and lunch breaks is not low level; it’s actually a serious offence and a crime, and these are some of the things that this bill is trying to address.

I could go on and on and on, but it’s quite clear, and I’m sure that some of my friends who will be speaking after me will address some of these points as well. This bill implements legislative changes to help address temporary migrant worker exploitation that were announced in July 2020. The bill proposes to amend the Immigration Act 2009, the Employment Relations Act 2000, and the Companies Act 1993.

In 2018, Cabinet agreed to progress an action item to take serious action on migrant exploitation. This culminated in the temporary migrant worker exploitation review. The exploitation exists on a spectrum. It takes many forms. It’s rampant in our country. It’s happening. It’s ugly, and needs to stop. I believe that this bill is going to play a significant role in doing just that.

I’d actually like to thank the Minister for her hard work in bringing this bill in the House, because this was much-needed legislation. Every day, we see stories in the media where people are severely exploited to the point of people attempting to take their own lives because they don’t see any way out of the issue.

I’d like to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee. Regardless of the member disagreeing or not supporting the bill tonight, as a committee we came together and did good work in scrutinising the bill. The officials, obviously, worked hard to report the bill back to this House. This is a serious issue. This is a very important issue to not only the migrant community but actually to us as a country. It’s a bad image for our country and gives us a bad reputation. It’s important for our businesses as well. So it’s timely legislation. It’s very important, and I commend it to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to contribute in the debate on this bill, but as my colleague Erica Stanford has actually signalled, the National Party will not be supporting this bill. And I have to say, I’m disappointed that we had to get to that position, because there are aspects of the bill that we do actually agree with in the sense that nobody—I don’t think anyone in this House—wants to see migrant workers being exploited. And it is something that we need to do something about.

As Erica Stanford has actually mentioned, it is really disheartening to find out that out of more than a thousand reports relating to allegations of migrant exploitation, only about 108 were investigated by Immigration New Zealand and the inspectorate. And that’s sort of, I guess—who’s good at maths?—less than 10 percent. But instead of actually investigating these complaints where migrant workers have actually laid those complaints to the authorities, we now get to a point where the Government is actually legislating for a law which basically wants Immigration New Zealand to—without necessarily any cause—dig into the financials of a company to find out if there is actually abuse in the system; whether there is in fact exploitation of migrant workers. As I said to start, I don’t think anyone in this Chamber agrees to actually have migrant workers or any workers being exploited, because I find it really abhorrent.

We do also have a process where we have minimum wage settings, we also have when people are applying for visas they have to meet a certain wage criterion for them to be granted visas. But one of the problems that a lot of migrants have—migrant workers actually have—is that when they’re tied to a particular workplace, they can’t often alter or change jobs easily. I mean, that is an aspect of the immigration rules that the Government should perhaps make more flexible so that migrant workers could easily move from, let’s say, an abusive or an exploitative employer to another job that may not be exploiting them or is actually treating them better or paying them better rates, but instead they are tied to an employer.

The bill, basically, removes the requirement of the desk-based officer to have reasonable grounds for suspecting there is a compliance issue, essentially meaning that they can go on a fishing expedition. There are three infringement offences that workplaces can be charged with: if an employer employs a migrant they are not authorised to employ, or if the migrant the employer’s authorised to employ isn’t working in a way in which their visa states they must. And some of the examples that Erica Stanford actually talked about, I have come face to face with some of these issues, with constituents, migrant workers who have actually complained that they would like to increase the hours of work because they wanted to sort of do more study and actually learn about the industry that they’re in and learn the New Zealand way of practices, and they are not entitled to even change the dates that they have because they were given a particular visa for certain days that they actually worked and they couldn’t even change that. And if the employer doesn’t supply requested documents within 10 days. So those are three factors that will actually get the employer pinged and potentially fined up to $100,000, or even jail time for serious offences.

The thing that really sort of bothers me is that—I wasn’t actually part of the select committee, but to read that Zespri New Zealand kiwifruit growers also actually had serious concern about the bill. The line I’m particularly concerned about in their submission was that “This [bill] is contrary to the principles of natural justice and will permit enforcement bodies to make arbitrary requests.” I think that should be something we should be concerned about.

The other one is Business New Zealand, who actually said that “Duplicating the functional roles of the Labour Inspectorate and Immigration NZ without sufficient assurance of resourcing and consistent service delivery from both Departments” is actually worrying. When recently I had a constituent who rang my office to assist them because their temporary work visa was expiring, they had had a job offer for a full-time job in a highly paying managerial position, and they had, in fact, gone through an immigration agent. The company needed to become an accredited employer, which took some time, and they had to do job check. It’s been months. It’s been months, and they still haven’t got their work visa.

The issue is that Immigration New Zealand does not actually have the capacity to even process visas where current workers who are already here working cannot get a work visa to continue working, and here they are on a fishing expedition to ping employers who are having difficulty finding workers. This is a bill that could have actually worked in terms of—you know, in select committee there are things that different parties would actually agree to if they had perhaps worked together better. Perhaps it’s a bill that maybe we could’ve supported, but it did not quite fit that threshold where we can actually support it. I oppose this bill.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. It has been a privilege to be on the select committee that has been shepherding this bill through its processes, the Education and Workforce Committee. I want to thank and acknowledge everyone who did submit on this bill, and those in this select committee from across the parties who did engage in good faith, even though in the end we couldn’t agree.

I think that it’s really clearly a demonstration of where our focus is and where our priorities are. This bill is about the exploitation of workers, so we’re probably starting in a different place from some of the other members in the House. So we’re really proud to be bringing this. This is about looking after our temporary migrant workers who are vulnerable. We need to look after them. We don’t just have a moral imperative, but an economic one. We know how important these workers are to our economy and we need to make sure that we look after them.

Simeon Brown: Get Immigration New Zealand doing their job.

ANGELA ROBERTS: We know that this bill sits within the wider work to combat migrant exploitation, which started with the temporary migrant worker exploitation review. It’s really pleasing to be able to remind the other side of the House, who seem desperately concerned about the capacity for Immigration New Zealand and Employment New Zealand, and remind them that we have increased resources to meet those exact issues that have been raised: $50 million is not exactly nothing.

Simeon Brown: Spending more, but it’s doing worse.

ANGELA ROBERTS: So what we’ve done is that we’ve increased those resources, we have new reporting tools, and we also—obviously somebody hasn’t quite kept up with what’s going on. We do actually have a Migrant Exploitation Protection Work Visa, and so it would be helpful if we were debating a bill in the House that everybody had their facts straight on and kept up with the significant progress we have made in this Government to support our migrant workers in a wide range of ways.

This bill means that we have a more proportionate and efficient enforcement kit for our immigration officers and labour inspectors to deal with low-level offending. This is actually about making sure we can support employers to get it right before things get really out of hand. The penalties and the exploitation are significant. And because of that, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the first reading, ACT supported the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill to select committee to see whether our concerns would be sufficiently addressed and the bill’s unintended or otherwise kind of obvious consequences fixed, and to hear from a wide range of stakeholders—although the total submission list wasn’t particularly sizable in this case. We specifically said migrants deserve a voice and an opportunity to help craft a law that directly affects them, and the select committee is an opportunity for this to take place. Now that this bill has been through the select committee process, ACT is not satisfied that meaningful improvements have been made, and the risks that we identified in the first reading have not been substantially addressed, and we will, therefore, no longer be supporting this bill.

Since the first reading of this bill, there has been a good number of changes to the Government’s immigration policy and instructions, with new pathways opening up and a seeming abandonment of the great reset, which is well overdue. There have also been more cases in the media spotlight recently—or should I say a flashlight at five o’clock in the morning?—and more reports of nefarious, unlicensed immigration advisers charging extortionate amounts of money for things like recovery visas and Accredited Employer Work Visas, which is a perfectly foreseeable consequence of migrants having to get a job offer and their visa tied to their employer, among other factors.

If the accreditation system worked as intended, then a bill of this nature would not be required. It would be unnecessary. And while it is true that some people will always try to break immigration rules, that is a minority, and this legislation is akin to breaking a walnut with a sledgehammer, given the powers it grants immigration officers. Employers go through an accreditation process, which has been well canvassed here this evening, and again when they reapply, though I note the Government has, of course, extended the accreditation period for businesses, which is a good thing, but if that causes a problem and opens up the potential for exploitation, then that’s a policy design issue.

Some of our earlier concerns that I raised in the first reading: granting immigration officials and labour inspectors the power to request documentation from businesses on pretty marginal grounds without reasonable cause is very problematic; further, the 10-day requirement for producing that documentation is unreasonable in the context of natural justice. These broad powers could result in officials overly targeting actually compliant businesses rather than focusing on the problematic ones. This bill unduly extends the power of the State in interfering with businesses—employers—and it almost assumes that businesses are all guilty. And that is a highly disruptive place to start from.

Additionally, I have a concern with the lack of focus and clarity in this bill. As it stands, it could unfairly impact migrant workers themselves. I raised concerns about the consequences for migrants if they report their employers, in the first reading. They could find themselves in a world of trouble. They could wind up being served a DLN, a deportation liability notice. If the goal of this bill is to hold unscrupulous employers accountable by imposing these fines for every unlawfully hired employee breaching rules, that could be a positive outcome. However, the potential repercussions for affected workers must also be considered. How will this infringement regime, which targets the lower end of migrant exploitation, protect migrant workers and encourage whistleblowing?

I’ll also emphasise the question I made in the first reading, because I think it’s still very relevant, which is whether migrants can trust the decision-making ability of Immigration New Zealand (INZ), given that nearly half of the appeals to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal are successful, indicating INZ often makes mistakes—and they’ll admit that themselves—in examining cases. This raises concerns about the reliability and accuracy of their decisions and is certainly not a positive reflection on INZ. Can an agency with such a track record be trusted to use the powers in this bill fairly, or will it become an enormous fishing expedition that makes life hell for business owners?

To address exploitation, ACT has long held the view that the Government should allow migrants the freedom to change jobs easily—if their employment situation becomes untenable—by way of removing the tying of visas to a single employer and job type. We would have also liked to have seen more specific protections for migrants to make it clear that this is not about punishing them. It is important to offer a bridge to a safety net that encourages whistleblowing and supports migrant workers.

So, fundamentally, Government policy itself makes exploitation worse, and we would have liked to have supported this bill or efforts to improve or decrease migrant exploitation. But, ultimately, this bill needs a balance, but all we have, frankly, is Government hypocrisy at its finest. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill second reading. I sat through most of the submissions at the Education and Workforce Committee, and I acknowledge the work of the committee.

The bill, in and of itself, creates a kit of infringements that the Government hopes will do some work to stamp out exploitation, and we made it clear in the first reading that out of the kits, the Government or policy interventions the Government could use, we think—and this is one of the areas, actually, I find myself agreeing with the ACT Party—one of the most effective interventions is to decouple work visas from single employers. But, at the same time, we do acknowledge that there are unscrupulous employers who are getting away with exploiting migrants with little consequences, and so we do think there is worth in exploring a set of infringements to enable employers being held to account, and to discourage this type of behaviour.

One of the key points that we raised during the first reading, which was then echoed by the New Zealand Law Society, as well as the Human Trafficking Research Coalition, was regarding the use of the information collected as part of this kit for the purposes of future visa applications. During the select committee, we were reassured that it could be, in theory, operationalised to prevent this from happening, but we do not think that goes far enough. We do actually think that, ideally, there should be protections in law that guarantees to migrants that whatever information Immigration New Zealand collates won’t be used for the purposes of determining future visa applications. The reason for that is that often exploited migrants are finding themselves breaching their visa conditions as part of the exploitative conditions that they find themselves in and so, by not having those protections, what we are creating is a situation where migrants may not feel confident being part of that whistleblowing process.

We do not think that making changes to the bill that would have enabled and entrenched those protections would have jeopardised the holding of these employers to account, and this is why we do look forward to the committee of the whole House process to explore the Supplementary Order Paper that we’re going to be tabling on that. So our support will continue to be based on the possibility of making these changes and we look forward to future debates to unpack those. Kia ora.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I must admit that I’m a little bit perplexed by the contributions from National Party colleagues this evening. If the law is breached, yes, there is an obligation to ensure that there are tools and architecture to make sure that the law is complied with.

I was then also confused by my colleague Melissa Lee’s contributions where she lamented the non-investigation of certain breaches. However, that’s exactly what this bill is there to address in terms of the production of documents.

I think it is really worrying when there is a dismissive approach to the experience of exploited migrants. It is not simply an academic spectrum; it’s an experience of marginalisation, and if you’ve spoken to migrants who are experiencing cumulative what the Opposition might call lower-end breaches, it is an experience of marginalisation, and we absolutely must do something to address that.

There’s a saying that goes “Don’t confuse justice with the law”. Justice is about fairness; it’s about just outcomes. The law is about the tools that we need to get to those just outcomes, and I think sometimes people believe that if we simply make something illegal, like paying someone less than the minimum wage, then compliance just follows. In truth, there are areas of society by which either their lack of transparency or their architecture leads them away from justice.

So I would like to commend the Minister for introducing this piece of legislation to the law, and it’s a piece of law that recognises part of what I would call the existence of keyhole employers. What I mean by that is that in certain industries where there are cumulative breaches, employers have so much control over a workplace that they can, essentially, close the door and only let you see what they want you to see through that door. The production of documents is really significant here as it does allow the opening of the doors. It is a tool that ensures that we’re working towards fairness, as opposed to just setting up laws that aren’t complied with.

There are other aspects of this bill which also will make it more fair in terms of workers who are facing these abuses that other members have spoken to, so I will not speak to those. I only say that I commend the Minister and the committee again for their work on this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.