Thursday, 3 August 2023
Volume 770
Sitting date: 3 August 2023
THURSDAY, 3 AUGUST 2023
THURSDAY, 3 AUGUST 2023
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 15 August. In that week, the Estimates debate will conclude with appearances by Ministers in the local government, justice, and transport portfolios. Legislation to be considered during the week include the third reading of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill, the committee stage of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3), the second reading of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill and the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill, and the first reading of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill. Wednesday is scheduled to be a members’ day and there will also be six valedictory statements during the week.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. Amongst the many bills they seek to progress before the House rises for the general election, is it his expectation that the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill will be progressed given the rather strident select committee commentary about that bill?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): As the member indicates, the Government has a busy work programme, with a lot of bills on the list. We will attempt to advance as many of them as we possibly can.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered for presentation. No papers have been delivered for presentation. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill.
SPEAKER: That bill is set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK:
Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction
Human Rights (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Gender Identity or Expression, and Variations of Sex Characteristics) Amendment Bill, introduction
Medicines (Exemption for Authorised Prescribers) Amendment Bill, introduction
Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment
1. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. What updates has she seen on the progress of the Apprenticeship Boost scheme?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m pleased to advise the House that the Government’s Apprenticeship Boost initiative is showing great success. A whopping 60,000 apprentices have been supported, through the scheme, to stay in or take up an apprenticeship since it was introduced in August 2020. The scheme continues to prove its worth, let alone deliver win-win outcomes for Kiwis looking for work, and businesses.
Terisa Ngobi: How does this compare to the Government’s other employment programmes?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Over 11,000 people have been supported into employment, education, or training through Mana in Mahi and the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs’ Community Resilience Programme. That includes 6,123 job seekers supported into work through Mana in Mahi, and 5,085 young people supported through the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs’ Community Resilience Programme, with over 1,700 supported through the latter in the last financial year alone. These are just two examples of targeted supports that are proving successful in getting more people into jobs and keeping them off-benefit.
Terisa Ngobi: How has this scheme helped employers?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Apprenticeship Boost has been paid to nearly 20,000 employers so far, and is a tangible way to build skills and expertise for jobs, as well as fill gaps and shortages in the sector. Apprentices are significant investments for employers, particularly in their first two years. On Tuesday, I visited Done Right Builders Ltd and met their director, Leith Kawana. Leith has employed seven apprentices through Apprenticeship Boost and pays them all above the living wage. He spoke highly of the initiative and asked whether we were keeping it. I said, “Yes.”, but we all know that’s not guaranteed under the “coalition of cuts”.
Terisa Ngobi: What other updates has she seen on employment in the construction sector?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m also pleased to advise the House that around 308,900 people were employed in the construction sector in the June 2023 quarter, up 13,900 people over the year. This is also a broader reflection of the fact that the employment rate reached 69.8 percent during the June 2023 quarter, the highest rate recorded by the household labour force survey since the series began in 1986. Contrary to what the other side of the House thinks, this is a reflection of the fact that our economic plan is working, managed and led by our trusted Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson.
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.
Nicola Willis: What does the Prime Minister say to the mother who wrote to me, appalled to learn that Labour voted against my bill to give flexibility in paid parental leave, saying “The difference in having the flexibility around paid parental leave your bill would have allowed during the early months when we were in and out of Starship would without a doubt have been life changing. This bill would have allowed us to both take leave at the same time and handle the incredibly difficult situation we were in together.”?
SPEAKER: Yeah, the Prime Minister is not responsible for the member’s bill, but you can give an opinion.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Do you want me to respond?
SPEAKER: If you want to.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No.
SPEAKER: Do you have another one?
Nicola Willis: What would the Prime Minister say to the parent I have just quoted, who thinks it was wrong for the Prime Minister’s Government to vote against a bill which would have given parents flexibility about how they arrange their paid parental leave entitlements?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would ask that parent if she is aware that National did not support paid parental leave when it was introduced back in 2002. I would ask that parent if they were aware that Bill English had used his financial veto to vote down Sue Moroney’s bill back in 2015-16 to extend paid parental leave. I would show this House’s track record with regards to who supports parents and who has always pushed for paid parental leave.
Nicola Willis: So is it the Prime Minister’s position that the reason it voted down my bill is that politics is more important to that Government—the politics of talking about National, of talking about Labour, is more important—than making a pragmatic change for parents?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Not at all. In fact, I did say there was some merit to what was proposed by the member who was asking the question. However, it has not been fleshed out enough, and some advice that we received made it unworkable. There is some health evidence that suggests that we should be slightly concerned, including information that we’ve got from the OECD, the World Health Organization, and the Australian Productivity Commission that is supportive of a parent being at home for the full 26 weeks. So it is not politics at all. I’d also remind that member that many of us have had members’ bills in this House, including myself—one of mine was the Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill. It was voted down by the Government of the day—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member is answering on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Shanan Halbert: Do the mahi, get the treats.
Nicola Willis: Is it the Government’s position—
SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m going to say this, and when I’m finished, Shanan Halbert will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Damien Smith: Chuck him out—chuck him out.
SPEAKER: Who was that? Whoever it was can stand, withdraw, and apologise after Mr Halbert.
Damien Smith: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: OK. As I said yesterday, I’m going to put it down to we’re getting close to the election, but that is no excuse for trying to shout down a member who has the right to ask a question. It’s the only time, as the case has been for quite some time, that I expect there to be no interjections. Shanan Halbert.
Shanan Halbert: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Nicola Willis: Is it the Government’s position that OECD and World Health Organization guidelines know better what a parent should do in their personal circumstances as it relates to parental leave than those parents do?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s the Government’s position that we take informed advice from the experts to actually inform our policies. I know that’s not what the other side of the House likes to do, but we certainly do do that.
Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister understand that some parents find themselves in circumstances beyond their control, which mean they can’t spend 26 weeks at home with their children, or they would prefer to spend some of that time with their partner, and why does the Prime Minister think they know better than the parents do?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We absolutely understand on this side of the House the importance of paid parental leave. That’s why we have always been the ones to push for it to occur, and we do not apologise for that.
Nicola Willis: When the Prime Minister said today that consistent at-home presence for the first six months of a baby’s life is actually really important, did the Prime Minister pause to consider all of those families who, for whatever reason, could not or did not make that choice, and is it the Prime Minister’s view that they were not acting in the best interests of their children?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Prime Minister is, of course, mindful of what New Zealand families need. That’s why, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I and everyone on this side of the House have always advocated for paid parental leave for families in New Zealand, unlike that side of the House.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. What reports has he seen on the views of Moody’s rating agency about the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In their annual credit analysis released this week, Moody’s Investors Service has affirmed their view of the New Zealand economy, which has seen them in the past give a local currency credit rating and foreign currency rating of Aaa, with a stable outlook. The report said that the economy has remained resilient in the face of the shocks from the pandemic and then high inflation. It’s reflected in the strong institutions and sustained policy effectiveness of New Zealand, including the Government’s actions to support New Zealanders and the country’s healthy fiscal position compared with that of our peers. We know that many New Zealanders are doing it tough in the face of cost of living pressures and a deteriorating global economic environment. New Zealand is well positioned to face the challenges ahead, with Kiwis in work in record numbers, wages rising, inflation heading in the right direction, and Government debt levels among the lowest in the world.
Ingrid Leary: What else did the report say about the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The agency said it expects the economy to remain resilient to shocks because of its trade openness, diverse and competitive agricultural export base, flexible labour and product markets, high wealth levels, and supported demographics, driven by solid net immigration. The agency said that this is backed by the Government’s strong track record of managing shocks through effective fiscal policy while demonstrating fiscal discipline over the long term.
Ingrid Leary: What did the report says about the Government’s response to economic conditions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has moved to consolidate spending in response to global economic conditions, and Moody’s said it expected this to continue. As I’ve said previously, we will continue to take the hard decisions that are needed while keeping a balanced approach that delivers the strong public services that New Zealanders deserve. Moody’s said the Government’s strong fiscal discipline and comparatively low debt levels mean that the country’s credit metrics are in a good position to respond to any further negative shocks to the economy.
Ingrid Leary: Why is it important to have the endorsement of credit rating agencies?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These ratings are important for ensuring that our cost of borrowing remains as low as is possible. It also gives people more confidence that New Zealand is a good place to invest. Moody’s report is a sign of confidence in our recovery and rebuild and the Government’s actions that have put us in a strong position to support New Zealanders in the here and now and invest in building a stronger, more resilient, and inclusive economy while carefully managing our resources to ensure the long-term sustainability of the economy.
Question No. 4—Finance
4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What update on the fiscal outlook, if any, have Public Service chief executives been informed of at recent meetings reported to have been held with him, and what updated requests for spending restraint, if any, have been directed to those chief executives?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, I met with Public Service chief executives yesterday, as I have done several times in the last three years, as part of the Government’s fiscal sustainability and effectiveness programme, which we announced in Budget 2023 in May. Public Service chief executives are aware of the most recent update of the fiscal outlook, as other New Zealanders are, and the Government accounts for the 11 months to May 2023 that were released in July. The next update will be the pre-election fiscal update, in September. In answer to the second part of the question, public sector chief executives are aware of the need to continue to make efforts to meet the Government’s fiscal rules and return the Government accounts to a more sustainable fiscal position following the significant investments required to deal with the effects of the global pandemic.
Nicola Willis: Is it correct that specific Government agencies, including the New Zealand Transport Agency, were directed to find savings of at least 2 percent?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s fiscal sustainability and effectiveness programme is an ongoing programme. Any decisions that would affect departmental budgets will be dealt with in the same way that all Budget requests and decisions are made, and will be announced when it is appropriate to do so.
Nicola Willis: Is it correct that the finance Minister, at the very last minute, has realised that the pre-election fiscal update will be a complete debacle and so is trying to quickly get decisions into Cabinet minutes to try and paper over the crevasse in the Government accounts?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member clearly wasn’t listening to my primary answer. In the Budget in May, we had $4 billion worth of savings that we found, and we announced our fiscal sustainability and effectiveness programme—page 64 of the Budget documents, for the member’s reference. It is an ongoing programme of work because we are a responsible Government that seeks to make sure that we manage what is in front of us and seeks to make sure that we get a balance between fiscal sustainability and supporting New Zealanders. The only person who should be worried about a fiscal crevasse, to use the member’s words, is the member, who cannot pay for the promises that she is making.
Nicola Willis: Why is it, after six years of spraying New Zealanders’ money around with wild abandon, that he has, at the midnight hour, worked out that perhaps the bureaucracy should tighten its belt, and only now started issuing those directives?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, I repeat the answers that I have given. In Budget 2023, there were $4 billion worth of savings identified. We have an ongoing sustainability and effectiveness programme. I think what we’re seeing here is a member who can see in front of her the fact that she couldn’t pay for the promises that have already been made, and if she hasn’t been keeping up with where the Government accounts are, that’s not our responsibility. She now has to be the one to find some way of repairing the fiscal hole in National’s plans.
Nicola Willis: How big is his hole, and do—[Interruption]
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is not in the public interest, I can assure you!
Nicola Willis: Apologies, Mr Speaker. How big is the New Zealand Government’s financial hole and what credibility will any commitments he makes to fixing it have when in every Budget he has delivered, he has spent more than he said he would six months prior—on average, $600 million more than he promises in his Budget Policy Statements?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated in my primary answer, the latest accounts for the Government were made available to the public in July. They did indicate a softening in the revenue stream for the Government. The finalisation of where that reaches will be in the pre-election fiscal update. But I say to the member: just today, in the questions that I’ve answered already, we’ve noted that Moody’s, one of the most important rating agencies, have given a tick of approval to the economic management of the Government. When I look at the Budgets that we have produced over the last few years, we have struck that balance between supporting New Zealanders and being fiscally disciplined. That is clear in the outcomes we have seen, with some of the lowest public debt in the world, with an economy 6 percent bigger than it was before COVID, and with record low unemployment. We are proud of our record and make sure we look after New Zealanders and look after the books.
Question No. 5—Children
5. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has he made regarding the anniversary of the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Today, I announced the one-year anniversary of the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan. This plan requires the chief executives of Oranga Tamariki, the Police, and the ministries of Education, Social Development, Health, and Justice to work together to achieve better outcomes for the children and young people in care. As well as children’s agencies, many others have contributed to the work, including the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. There’s still a lot more to do, but it’s good to see progress. We know that it’s often not just one agency responsible for supporting tamariki, and others need to step up across the system to better meet these young people’s needs.
Dr Liz Craig: What improvements has this led to for children in the health space?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: A key part of this initiative is ensuring alignment across agencies to make things easier for tamariki and whānau. It’s early days, but we’re getting some outcomes already. For example, the partnership has led to initiatives such as senior social worker liaison roles being introduced at Starship’s acute mental health unit, with the positions to be introduced in Wellington and Canterbury after the successful trial. Te Whatu Ora has also developed a tool to help children in care transition smoothly between healthcare providers.
Dr Liz Craig: What improvements are we seeing for children in the housing space?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We are getting real traction and the impact is being seen in the lives of tamariki. For example, Oranga Tamariki and Kāinga Ora are working together to increase the number of homes available for disabled children who require more intensive support. These homes are being purchased in Christchurch, Wellington, and Ōrewa, with more planned across the motu. Oranga Tamariki is also working with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to deliver new Supported Accommodation Service placements for up to 65 young people with higher and more complex needs. Young people moving out of care in residential settings need additional help and support, which these placements provide.
Dr Liz Craig: So what’s next for the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I want to thank my ministerial colleagues and their officials for their commitment to the kaupapa, but the work has only just begun. Oranga Tamariki is continuing to work on its baseline needs assessments, and we will look at how agencies can work together to address these findings. We will continue to look at what needs to be done in housing, education, and health to meet the needs of young people. When I became the Minister for Children, what I would hear almost every time I visited social workers on the front line was that “We can’t do this alone.” I know we will all continue to work together to support tamariki.
Question No. 6—Finance
6. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: How much money, if any, as a percentage of their departmental budgets, were Public Service chief executives asked to save in meetings this week and last week, and how big is the gap between the forecast OBEGAL for 2023/24 in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2023 and Treasury’s current estimates for OBEGAL, if any?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, as I’ve already indicated in question time today, I met with Public Service chief executives yesterday as part of the Government fiscal sustainability and effectiveness programme, which we announced at Budget 2023 in May. The outcome of work under the programme, in so far as it relates to departmental budgets, is treated the same way as any other Budget meeting and therefore is confidential until such time as it is made public. In answer to the second part of the question, the estimate of the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update remains Treasury’s estimate of OBEGAL. The next update will be at the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) in September.
Brooke van Velden: Can he rule out the Government’s fiscal hole is greater than $10 billion?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the member’s assertion in that question. As I indicated in answers to earlier questions, the latest update of the Government accounts to the end of May indicated a softening in revenue and therefore an extension out in what had been forecast for OBEGAL. The final forecast of where that ends up will not come through until PREFU. What I can rule out, though, for the benefit of the member, is the assertion made by the ACT Party yesterday that they believe that there was a fiscal hole of $27 billion on the basis of those May Crown accounts. That’s because the ACT Party thought that the $2 billion or so that was softer than the Budget was a monthly number. It’s not: it’s the annual number.
Brooke van Velden: Can he confirm that housing Minister Megan Woods has refused to make any savings in her portfolio, and which other Ministers have reacted badly to being asked to make savings?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, that is not true. All Ministers are on board with the Government’s fiscal sustainability and effectiveness programme that we announced in May. However, I would concede this to the member: I’m yet to meet a Minister who’s happy when the Minister of Finance comes knocking on the door.
Nicola Willis: Is it correct that Public Sector agencies have been directed to find 2 percent to 5 percent savings in the next financial year because, somehow, the Government failed to factor in wage settlements?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The answer to the member’s question is no. The member is on pretty thin ice when it comes to that, because I’m not sure that the member has any idea, in her plan, on how she would pay to make sure that we have teachers and nurses and social workers, because the National Party’s plan, as currently unfunded, would have no room for that at all.
Brooke van Velden: After six years of refusing to listen to ACT’s suggestions for reducing wasteful Government spending, has he come around to the fact that it might have been a good idea, just 40 days before the Government’s books are due to be opened?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two answers to the question. We had $4 billion worth of savings in this year’s Budget and a programme to continue to drive efficiency in the Budget that we announced in May. Secondly, I’m not sure I’m going to take advice from the ACT Party given that they couldn’t actually understand the Crown accounts and thought that a figure for 11 months was a figure for one month. I’m not going to take advice from people with that level of economic literacy.
Question No. 7—Housing
7. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Housing: What is the current nationwide median rent according to the MBIE rental bond database, and what has been the increase in the nationwide median rent according to the MBIE rental bond database since October 2017?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: The current nationwide median rent for new tenancies according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment rental bond database, is $570 per week. That’s an increase of $170 from the $400 median rent in October 2017. Stats NZ figures, however, show that the national rent rises in the last year are in line with the longer-term average and are also below the general inflation rate. Unsurprisingly, the way you solve a housing crisis is you build more houses. That’s what this Government is doing, and congratulations to our Minister of Housing, who, along with our Prime Minister, today opened the Te Mātāwai public housing development on Greys Avenue in Auckland. Te Mātāwai is the largest public housing development delivered to date by the Government, with 276 units in total—another example of this Government’s commitment to public housing.
Chris Bishop: Does she accept that the Government’s war on landlords is hurting tenants by driving rents to record highs, and how can she defend a nationwide rent increase of $170 a week in the last six years?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I reject that totally. In fact, this Government has been so good to the average New Zealander that it’s not funny. No longer will renters be thrown out at the whim of a landlord. No longer can landlords just push rental rises on tenants whenever they want to. No longer will they freeze in the cold houses that they froze in in the nine years that the National Party was in Government. Things could never be better for our people at the moment: 13,000 new public houses. In fact, on year, we’ve delivered the most public homes of a Government since the Nash Government in 1950.
Chris Bishop: How does he square his remark just now that things could never be better for average New Zealanders with the fact that the State house waiting list has quintupled under this Government, 6,000 families live in motels, and nearly 500 families are living in cars?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Because we have made huge changes in terms of the housing market. We are building more houses than that previous Government ever did. We are looking after renters. We are looking after our people. We are getting the support of communities. We’ve got a Māori housing strategy. We’ve got a Pacific Island strategy. The previous Government that that member was involved with did absolutely nothing. OK, things could get better faster, but—but—we’re doing pretty good; a lot better than that member could ever do.
Chris Bishop: Has she seen the latest Crockers Tony Alexander Survey that suggests rents will continue to rise over the coming six months as a result of the rising costs associated with being a landlord under this Government, and when will she drop her commitment to the removal of interest deductibility for landlords that she was warned would put pressure on rents?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There’s a number of reasons why we have higher rents, and it’s not just about what the member is talking about. In terms of the survey, 22 percent of surveyed landlords said they were considering selling their rental property in the next six months. Of those considering selling their rental property, 39 percent cited a less profitable asset now that the mortgage interest costs can’t be offset against rental income; 20 percent cited the cost of the new healthy homes standard. The number of rented properties has grown by 3 percent from March 2021 to December 2022. Investors remain active in the market, with a share of 35 percent of purchases. We’re doing pretty well considering what we inherited from that previous Government.
Chris Bishop: How does she expect a young family with a mortgage to cope with hundreds of dollars a week more in interest costs because of the cost of living crisis created by this useless Government?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I would expect that young couple to continue to vote for the Labour Government, and we will ensure that they will be looked after, as we have done over the last few years.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: How?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, do I have to go through it all again? OK. Over 13,000 public homes added since we came into Government. In fact, year on, we’ve delivered the most public homes of any Government since the Nash Government in the 1950s. Over 700 apprentices and 1,500 public homes by the time we left office. Over 700—1 in 7—of the total public housing stock has been added by this document. Get that through your head, Mr Brownlee.
Question No. 8—Health
8. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made about the redevelopment of Nelson Hospital?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Last week, I was proud to announce this Government’s next steps in the major redevelopment of Nelson Hospital. We have committed $73 million for the first tranche of redevelopment. The redevelopment will make the hospital more efficient and effective, with an emergency department which meets Australasian standards, is twice as big, and has medical assessment spaces which allow better patient flow. Enabling works in the redevelopment are due to start mid-next year, and construction in 2026.
Rachel Boyack: What will stage one of Project Whakatupuranga look like?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The funding allows Project Whakatupuranga to immediately begin design for the acute services building—the first stage in a six-phase project, estimated at $1.09 billion, to be carried out over 10 years. The initial funding will enable work to progress on plans for a new acute services and in-patient building, projected to include 255 beds, eight theatres, and a larger emergency department.
Rachel Boyack: Why has the Government committed funding to Nelson Hospital’s redevelopment?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The current hospital is too small, the spaces are poorly configured, and some parts are not up to earthquake standards. The redeveloped hospital will be modern and fit for purpose for patients and their whānau. It will also ensure that Nelson Hospital can provide care should a significant earthquake occur on the Alpine Fault, and will allow us to keep up with the region’s growing and ageing population by helping futureproof the centre of Nelson’s health network, providing accessible, quality health services for the community.
Rachel Boyack: How does the redevelopment of Nelson Hospital fit into the Government’s health infrastructure plan?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The development of Nelson’s hospital is one of 110 health infrastructure projects—worth a total of $7.7 billion—currently being planned and delivered nationwide as part of the programme to rebuild and strengthen New Zealand’s hospitals and health infrastructure. Ensuring our health infrastructure is up to date and fit for purpose means New Zealanders will be able to better access the health services they need.
Question No. 9—Health
9. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Yes, in the context they were made.
Dr Shane Reti: Does she stand by her recent statement about the health system that “We are actually doing alright.”, when on Monday, Waikato Hospital had almost every ambulance in the region parked for up to four hours, waiting to get into the emergency department (ED), leading to St John’s declaring a major incident because of the delays?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes, I do. Overall, we have made phenomenal progress with our health system. I would look at the fact that in priority areas of workforce, we have grown our workforce, with 1,000 more nurses in the health system than there were 18 months ago; we are driving waiting lists down; and with respect to winter pressures, despite the challenges of winter, we are continuing to offer services, with surgical wait-lists coming down despite those pressures.
Dr Shane Reti: Does she stand by her recent statement that the health system is doing all right when Waikato ED was issued with a provisional improvement notice this week because severe staff shortages and unmanageable workloads had made the department critically unsafe?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I take and Te Whatu Ora takes those issues of health and safety incredibly seriously. I understand Te Whatu Ora is responding to that notice. In addition, I would note that the emergency department at Waikato is fully staffed for medical and healthcare assistants and is only four fulltime-equivalents short for nursing, and we continue to make progress on that.
Dr Shane Reti: How are we to test the veracity of that answer when she is unable to report workforce shortages in EDs?
Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a longstanding convention of this House not to call into question the truthfulness of a member.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, Mr Speaker, that was not what Dr Reti did. It’s not unusual—and, indeed, you encourage members through supplementary questions to test the veracity of answers. That is not to suggest that the answer was misleading.
SPEAKER: I’ll check the Hansard when it comes out, but I think Dr Reti said how can he test the veracity. I think that’s OK—you know, there’s a fine line before suggesting that a previous answer, or the Minister, has said something that was not true.
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That is what I have been advised by Te Whatu Ora, but I would also put it to the member that this Government—particularly recently—has done a huge amount to make sure that informative statistics and modelling is available on the issue of the health workforce in a way that it hasn’t been before.
Dr Shane Reti: If the health system is doing all right, how does she explain a letter sent to her on 25 July from concerned ED staff at Palmerston North Hospital, who wrote, “We are practising under crisis standards of care without public acknowledgment that we are doing so, and the moral injury experienced by our staff is no longer episodic, but is a constant state of existence.”, while at the same time communications with union representatives were stating that “National leadership needs to provide us with both the vision and the plan. We don’t really need another site visit.”?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have visited that emergency department, and will continue to do so, to make them know that the Government is concerned around the status of that hospital. I am concerned to see that Te Whatu Ora responds to the report on the culture at Palmerston North Hospital, because that is very important, and I continue to work regularly with unions on these matters.
Question No. 10—Health
10. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does she agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who said yesterday, “I’m not saying that there isn’t more to do with regards to dental treatment and access in New Zealand. That can’t all come down to the welfare system, though. I think the health system and perhaps even ACC need to take a little responsibility there”?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I do agree with Minister Sepuloni that there is always more to do, and this Government has already shown its commitment to improving the oral health of New Zealanders. That’s why in November 2021 it passed the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021 giving the Director-General of Health the power to direct local authorities to fluoridate their water supplies to protect people against tooth decay. That is also why the maximum special needs dental grant for dental treatment increased to $1,000, and it’s why free dental care is available to children and young people up to the age of 18 years.
Ricardo Menéndez March: What else beyond fluoridation, free tooth brushes, and dental grants is Te Whatu Ora doing to improve access to basic dental treatment, including check-ups and cleaning?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As that member is aware, check-ups, routine preventive dental care, is privately provided in New Zealand in the majority of situations for people over the age of 18.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is oral health part of general health, and, if so, is it equitable for New Zealanders to be expected to pay to access essential healthcare like dental?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Oral health is indeed part of general health. That’s why we’ve taken the steps of making sure that our water is fluoridated and of making sure that in constrained financial circumstances have access to the emergency dental grant.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned about oral health outcomes in Aotearoa when one in three adults experience tooth decay and one in ten root decay?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she acknowledge that with 73 percent of New Zealanders avoiding the dentist due to cost, poor oral health may be leading to more severe health issues and more expensive medical interventions, and, if so, what actions is she taking to alleviate those costs?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Government is very concerned about the impact of cost on people’s ability to access care of all sorts. That’s why we’ve removed the $5 co-payment on medicines and why we support free access to dental care for everyone under the age of 18.
Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
11. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What has the Government done to make pricing clearer at supermarkets?
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Today, I have announced new rules that will require grocery retailers like Countdown and PAK’nSAVE to display pricing consistently and clearly by weight, volume, or number, depending on the nature of the items. This will require these retailers to show the cost per kilogram or litre, or, if the items come in small amounts like spices and essences, then it will be 10 grams or by the millilitre.
Hon Phil Twyford: What will be the effect of these new requirements for shoppers?
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Kiwis will find it easier to compare product prices at the supermarket. Shoppers will no longer have to scratch their heads and get out their calculators to work out which product is best value for money, and they won’t have to get out their magnifying glass either. The unit pricing will need to be shown in a font size of at least 25 percent of the size of the actual price.
Hon Phil Twyford: How will this affect competition in the grocery sector?
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: With shoppers able to compare prices and products more easily, I expect to see an increase in inter-brand competition and I encourage grocery retailers to compete on best value for money, benefiting customers in the long term.
Hon Phil Twyford: When will this take effect?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s a new programme: “Shopping with Duncan”.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I’m very happy to go shopping with Mr Brownlee any time—I’ll take a basket; you can take a trolley. The new requirements are due to come into force at the end of August, but supermarkets will have up to a year to implement the necessary systems. As the major grocery retailers already have the systems in place to display unit pricing, I expect that they will begin following the new rules as soon as they’re able. Online-only retailers will have two years to implement these requirements, as we want to encourage such new and innovative ways to compete.
Question No. 12—Transport
12. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Is he committed to delivering light rail in Auckland and Wellington?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: The Government is committed to building a light rail connection from Auckland City centre to Māngere. In the case of Wellington, as previously indicated, we’re committed to mass rapid transit, with the preferred option being light rail from Wellington Station to Island Bay. This is, of course, subject to further work as part of the ongoing detailed business case. Aucklanders and Wellingtonians want transport networks for their cities that reduce congestion and emissions, and that’s what we’re committed to delivering.
Simeon Brown: Does he agree with Michael Wood, who said in February this year that main works on the Auckland light rail project will begin in 2025, and is he willing to commit to this time frame; if not, why not?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, that is indeed the planned time frame.
Simeon Brown: When will the business case for Let’s Get Wellington Moving be completed, and how much more money will be spent on consultants between now and then?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That piece of work is under way now, and it will be completed as soon as it possibly can be, because it is important that we plan and design, get the engineering reports, and get the seismic work done—the work of those consultants the member refers to. The alternative would be for the member to make it up on the basis of his reckons, or perhaps outsource it to the Belt and Road Initiative.
Simeon Brown: Does he agree with Grant Robertson, who said on 29 June 2022 that he was “as confident as can be” that light rail would go ahead in Wellington, and, if so, on what date, if any, is he “as confident as can be” that construction will begin on this project?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister of Transport, I always find it wise to agree with the Hon Grant Robertson.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree that residents of Wellington and Auckland deserve highquality low-emissions public transport that is comfortable, quiet, fast, and clean, which light rail would provide, and will that be the priority for his Government’s investment?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely agree with the description of what Wellingtonians, Aucklanders, and, indeed, all those who use public transport should expect. What they won’t get is that from the National Party, who plan to cut $1.5 billion out of the public transport budget.
Personal Explanations
Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill—Correction to Answer Given by Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct something that I said a couple of nights ago during the committee stage of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill debate.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: A couple of nights ago, I said that “the actual funds have already been devolved out to Te Matapihi and Arohanui ki te Tāngata.” as part of He Ara Hiki Mauri. What I meant to say is that the decision-making authority over the funding will be devolved out to the parties. The funds will be paid out in due course through usual contracting processes.
Special Debates
Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation—Report of the Regulations Review Committee
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Chairperson of the Regulations Review Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Inquiry into COVID19 Secondary Legislation.
This is the report of the Regulations Review Committee which has been tabled in Parliament, and that report is into the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation. I’d like to—
SPEAKER: Sorry. I’m terribly sorry to interrupt the member, but I would like members to leave quickly and quietly. This is an important debate and I’d like to hear it. I think we’ll reset the clock and we will start this again.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I so move. This is the report of the Regulations Review Committee into the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation.
First off, I would like to thank all the committee members as are listed on page 40 of the report, and the submitters as listed in the report. Particular thanks to Jason McHerron, the barrister who provided advice and substantial assistance in drafting the report. Finally, I’d like to thank the clerk and the officials and advisers of the Regulations Review Committee. We lean very heavily upon them and we are routinely impressed with their diligence and their expertise. We are fortunate to have them.
We would also like to—well, I would certainly like to—acknowledge that this was a very painful time for many people in New Zealand. A very painful time when they felt, in some cases, disunited or excluded. This is time for us to bring people back together, and I believe that the role of the Regulations Review Committee in our report is something that will give people heart.
The role of the committee is that we do not review policy, but we do look at the secondary legislation to see if it is made in accordance with its empowering provision and consistently within constitutional principles. Therefore, it is a very serious report and it is a report that I consider is actually one of the more important reports that we’re going to see on COVID-19, bearing in mind we also have a royal commission as well—so put that to one side.
So when looking at this, I think one of the things that impressed me the most was how poorly some Government ministries and departments actually took the role of providing good secondary legislation, and then complying with the constitutional arrangements seriously. Now, I understand and I think we can all acknowledge that, in many cases, the Ministry of Health, the main agency in this, was under an extreme amount of stress; that they were dealing with a situation that they had not seen before—certainly not in the lifetimes of the director-general or others—and that they were rushing.
The problem—and I’m sure that members, when they wish to read the report, will understand—is that if the secondary legislation is being drafted by ministries themselves rather than Parliamentary Counsel Office, there is often not the expertise in the ministry to be able to draft clearly and within the rules that are expected of legal drafting. That was really clear.
It was also clear that things seemed to not get better but worse as matters went on. When I think to the criticism of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Act—which was actually introduced on 23 November 2021 and had its first, second, and third readings on the same day—that bill received Royal assent two days later on 25 November, and that was actually really almost two years after the full first brunt of the pandemic had hit us. That bill did not go to a select committee. It did not go to the Regulations Review Committee. It was not given the sort of scrutiny that people should expect. I think it would be wrong to say that there was urgency. It was very unfortunate that this happened.
When we look at—commonly known as—the traffic light system that was introduced, it could have taken another week or two or three, or even a month to bring that in. It’s not as though we suddenly found in November 2021 that there was a pandemic. We’re actually near the end of the worst part of it, and I think many people in this House, like myself, have had COVID a few times because, actually, the virus has moved on. It has become more transmittable and less harmful for many people.
The Attorney-General, the Government’s own Attorney-General—or Parliament’s AttorneyGeneral—criticised it at the time by saying it should have been sent to a select committee. He was right, it should have been. It wasn’t. Instead, what we see in that legislation is that it actually referred to—and the regulations coming from it referred to—all sorts of terms that are unknown at law. Terms like “guidance”—that’s not a legal term. Terms like “traffic lights”. Well, traffic lights are known at law as “traffic lights”. It was legislation that might have been drafted by the communications team. It was simply not up to scratch, and nor were the regulations from it.
It would have been better, and that’s really clear from the review in the inquiry—and I have to say, too, we take a very non-political approach in this: not apolitical, non-political; we work across parties. It would have been much better if people who knew how to draft legislation were drafting it—whether it’s that particular Act or if it’s the regulations coming from it. It would have been better if it was less focused on communications rather than actually on the law, because there were instances where people could have been imprisoned under this legislation and the regulations without very clear guidance from the legislation. In other words, very clear words.
In addition to that, we have made some pretty strong statements about the quality of drafting by the Ministry of Health. That is what’s happened: we’ve, over the years, enabled ministries and departments to draft their own regulations for legislation that this Parliament has passed. There’s a big problem with that, apart from the quality of drafting. That big problem is, where does one find it? Because what tends to happen is it’s put on the website of that ministry or that department—or not; it might not be put there. Or if it is, it might be unclear. It might have been put up because the people who put up or upload the information to the website are not necessarily people who understand constitutional law or even the necessity of having it there. Constitutional lawyers are not normally marketers, comms people, or people who know about those sorts of things. They tend to take things quite seriously for a reason.
Then we have, as opposed to that, Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting where its regulations are put on the New Zealand Legislation website. I would suggest that that is a good idea: that all regulations—all secondary legislation—where people can be subjected to rules should be in one place. We already have a website. We already have a place; it’s called legislation.govt.nz. It is freely available to everybody. That’s where it should be, in my opinion, and I think that the committee would be of that view. Because that is one place you should go.
We should not have to have people wondering what the law is as they’re being arrested for breaching it. We know that ignorance of the law is no excuse at law. But if you can’t even find the legislation—the law—that you’re accused of having breached, how could you possibly be found guilty under it? The answer is, I think we’re quite lucky not to have had more court cases on this. Because, frankly, I think if we were not in a pandemic situation, there would have been more cases on this. If the cost of actually bringing cases wasn’t so expensive, we would have had more cases.
So there’s some things that we need to do, and we’ve seen reviews in this—this review has been ongoing, really, for quite some time. But bring ourselves back to this: we should not have regulation without people knowing what it is. Regulation should not be made willy-nilly of whether or not they’re authorised by the primary legislation.
It has to follow a format, and there’s a reason. It’s not because we’re being pernif—I can’t even say it now—it’s not because we’re being difficult about it. It’s actually because this matters. Law matters. Parliament matters. We cannot simply continue down a path of ministries and departments deciding they’ll have the law that they’d quite like, and that’s really going to spin well. Come back to the law. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): One hour for this House to discuss the work of the Regulations Review Committee—my goodness, I am delighted. But this is of course a serious issue that we’re discussing today. I remember in the early days of the lockdown, when one of my sons came up to me and said, “We’re going into lockdown. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?” and I said “Yes.”, and I think that that is the strange experience that many of us have been through these last few years. It’s this collision between what we’ve achieved as a society—the lives that we’ve protected and the people who we have saved by the social contract that we upheld—and the legislation that, in my view, we put in to back up that social contract. But at the same time, there were also so many gritty, personal experiences: people feeling fear and isolation and other people feeling reconnection with the people around them, but a lot of people feeling a real sense of uncertainty.
So it is crucial that we look back. We look back not only at what happened to people personally, but how the legislation came in around that—to my mind—social contract to ensure that we knew how we were going to pave and navigate the way forward.
One of the speeches that I thought best addressed the legal process we went through as we responded to the pandemic was given by the Hon David Parker when he spoke at Victoria University. At the beginning of his address, he put up a PowerPoint slide that showed the comparative mortality rates across countries in the OECD. He said, “It shows us that we’ve had the best result amongst OECD countries in terms of low mortality.”—indeed, also in terms of low hospitalisation rates, and that’s the truth. That was the truth of what we were going through, that was the backdrop to our actions, and that slide remains the backdrop to the conversation that we should be having today. It is absolutely clear that this must be a learning exercise, but let’s not lose that backdrop image: that slide that Minister Parker put in front of us.
In my mind, there is one word that describes what we were doing at the time in addressing the pandemic, and there’s one word that describes what the Regulations Review Committee were doing as we assessed compliance with primary legislation and appropriateness, and it is “balance”. We were attempting to strike a balance, a balance, essentially, between what Minister Parker called the collective rights versus individual liberties. He did speak to the fact that if taken too far, collective rights can actually be used to suppress minorities and individual liberties, but conversely, extreme use of individual liberties, trumping community rights, beget unjust outcomes too. It is about balance, and it’s also about more than the academic balancing of rights. For us, it was also about the practicality of assessing the capacity of our health system.
So before I go into more detailed reflections on the Regulations Review Committee report, I did, like my colleague of the committee, want to thank Jason McHerron, a barrister who did provide his exceptional skills and drafting support to the committee; our sagacious Regulations Review Committee chair, Judith Collins, our prior chair Chris Penk, and members past and present. To say that the COVID orders were a large part of our Regulations Review Committee life, that we were steeped in it in 2020 and 2021, would be an understatement. It was almost everything that we did.
There are many wonderful qualities about the Regulations Review Committee. One of them is that we are very self-aware. On the early pages of the report you’ll find a section titled, “What does the Regulations Review Committee do?” We didn’t want to assume—we didn’t want to assume. We know that a lot of people have interest in our fundamental work, but my view is there’s a line in the report that sums it up: it “assists Parliament to retain control over the content of laws made under delegated powers.” That is it. That’s essentially the nub of what we do. So while it is sometimes difficult for our conversations not to bleed into substantive policy, that is not our work. We look at whether things are lawful or not—that is absolutely key—and whether the procedural rules were carried out in terms of getting us to lawful secondary legislation.
So, looking at some of the big questions that we addressed, one of the substantive questions was: should we have standing legislation that addresses pandemic scenarios such as COVID or should we have bespoke legislation? Now, we weren’t the first Regulations Review Committee to consider this; in fact, the 51st Parliament Regulations Review Committee considered that issue and considered that a tailored response was needed. And, indeed, the High Court in Borrowdale echoed that same sentiment. They said that there comes a point when Parliament ought to pass bespoke legislation because of the democratic nature of our constitution. So they thought it was a constitutionally worthy thing to do—that we should be passing bespoke legislation. Now, in reality, what happened is it was a mix of existing legislation and bespoke legislation that we used in response to COVID, and where our committee landed is that that mix, that hybrid response, is really the ideal. You need to have something in place so you can take immediate actions—which we did—but you also then need to develop a bespoke response.
The second question we addressed was the pace or the passage of primary legislation. The Hon Judith Collins has spoken to this as well, and I think there was discussion across the committee about when you would put something through urgency. Now, it must be the case that there is a time when urgency is appropriate. It’s a process that’s part of our Standing Orders, and the question is: when? Now, to my mind, if you have a scenario where you have a pandemic, where the stakes are high, where lives are at risk, this is one of those scenarios. Certainly, there are comments from the AttorneyGeneral that echoed that as well, some of those were given in his speech at Victoria University.
Another big area of question for us was: what should sit within primary legislation and what is more appropriate in secondary legislation? This really takes us back to the objectives of the Regulations Review Committee, where we are attempting to help Parliament retain control of the content of legislation. Now, this is really a balancing act, and I think the committee’s view was that, for the most part, the balance was set right. Possibly the traffic lights framework was one that we had more of a discussion about. Some people, as I’ve been speaking to them about this issue, have used the analogy of sort of having to build the train as you’re going, or build the plane as you’re going. That’s not the analogy that I would use; I would see it as expanding the arena for decision making to allow our decision makers to be more nimble as they face the challenges that they need to on the ground.
Another question the committee frequently engaged with is: what are the appropriate guard rails that should be put around legislation like this? For the most part, the committee agreed that the guard rails were appropriate. An area of interest for me was the function of the courts, which I see as being fundamental in terms of one of the key guard rails. What we of course found as some of the decisions or the orders were challenged was that they can be invalidated by the senior courts if they are either contrary to the empowering provision—so they’re what’s called ultra vires, or outside that power—or if they breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I’d note here that there’s express requirement in the primary legislation for compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and so that allows the challenging of secondary legislation. The only way you can have secondary legislation which breaches is if within the primary legislation it allowed for that secondary legislation to breach.
The Hon Judith Collins also made the point about accessibility, and I certainly think it’s an ongoing issue that the committee has raised. I wholeheartedly agree, which is a good place for me to end my remarks, but also just to say that this is a project that’s in the works and which the committee gets fairly regular updates on. So we will be shifting to a space that only when the legislation is public in that space is it lawful, and I think that’s absolutely as it should be. So thank you once again for the opportunity to take these 10 minutes to speak on the important role of the Regulations Review Committee. I would encourage members of the public to read our report. Thank you.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Mālō e lelei. New Zealanders can sometimes be a bit shy about talking about constitutional matters, seeing them as the preserve of constitutional lawyers and learned university professors and judges. It was only as a member of the Regulations Review Committee this term that I’ve really fully appreciated its role as a really important constitutional safeguard. It’s one of the checks and balances in our parliamentary democracy on the power of the executive. It exercises, as Vanushi Walters has noted, that we are very self-aware, but I just think it is useful to explain what the committee does.
So in terms of lawmaking, it scrutinises the powers in bills that are proposed to be given to the executive to make secondary legislation. So what’s secondary legislation? Law that is made by someone other than Parliament under a power that Parliament has given. It could be regulations, orders, rules, or notices, and it’s often the detail of implementation of legislation. So it scrutinises those powers and draws any that are inappropriate to the attention of the specialist subject select committee which is considering that bill.
It also looks, in relation to secondary legislation, at whether it’s in accord with the general objects and intent of the Act under which it’s made. The Standing Orders of this House, at Standing Order 327, set out the grounds where a regulation may not be appropriate: because it can trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, or it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of powers which the legislation has conferred. So it ensures, particularly in response to complaints which members of the public can make about particular regulations, that they have been developed and are being implemented appropriately, in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Act.
So it is a very significant committee, and I acknowledge the former chair Chris Penk, the current chair, the Hon Judith Collins, and the considerable wisdom of legislative counsel, who provide, along with the committee secretariat, enormous support to the committee’s work.
This review was important. As others have noted, we had great help from barrister Jason McHerron, and also Professor Dean Knight, Professor Andrew Geddis, and others from Victoria University and Otago University, in terms of their submissions.
So far, COVID has led to the deaths of nearly 7 million people—confirmed deaths—worldwide, and the actual numbers are likely to be much higher. I endorse the comments that Vanushi Walters made about the fact that New Zealand’s response to the health emergency of COVID was rapid, it was effective, and it was very successful in keeping New Zealanders safe.
The Government did rely on the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 and the Health Act 1956, and the powers in those Acts initially. Then, after two months, it passed special legislation like the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. As others have noted, that legislation was passed under urgency. There was no select committee process. There was a need for speed, but the committee in its report differentiated those pieces of legislation where speed was needed with the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) legislation, which was passed in a day and which, potentially, really should have gone to select committee to allow more detailed consideration.
One of the other points that the committee made when it was reviewing the orders—and I think we considered over 200 orders—was the constitutional principles that law must be clear and certain and that it must distinguish between what is mandatory and what is merely recommended, and, here, words really matter. The committee has provided advice to Ministers and agencies about the importance of words like “may” and “must”. It must be consistent with human rights, the power to make law as opposed to the power to apply it must be authorised, and any exemptions and criteria for them must be precisely described.
One of the things that is also recommended in the review report is that as well as the royal commission of inquiry, there should be a separate consideration by Government agencies to look at the specific lessons learnt to assist in future emergencies with the drafting of secondary legislation and these orders and notices, in addition to the royal commission. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker—and also on behalf of my fellow Regulations Review Committee members who are here, and past and present members. It was very interesting sitting on the Regulations Review Committee and being one of the non-lawyers on it. It’s opened my eyes to a lot of understanding of what goes on behind the scenes. With the Regulations Review Committee being around secondary legislation, which we pass on to our other organisations to write, we would expect them to understand what they are supposed to be doing.
Now, I would like to thank Jason McHerron, our barrister, but most of all, I’d like to thank our staff, who were able to help us through all this. But the biggest thing is these policies are being written so that people can follow the rules and regulations that have been set upon them. But if you can’t find them, if you can’t understand them, what are you going to do?
We’re very fortunate that most people did abide by these, because they wanted to keep New Zealand safe. But we still created too much pain, and as we were saying in respect of the inquiry, there was no opportunity to scrutinise amendments made to powers to the secondary legislation and the COVID-19 response vaccination legislation prior to its entrenchment. Now, this caused a lot of pain for a lot of people. The thing is, we should have been able to be realistic and have an option for people to choose—vaccination or test. But we didn’t; we went down that one avenue, and we could not have free and frank discussion through the select committee process and hear from other people. That is a sad reality. We understand that when there is urgency, we do need to pass it, but we’ve also got to take into mind that we are doing this for the New Zealand people, and if the New Zealand people feel they are not being heard, then we have upset New Zealand people.
Now, when all this came through, and as the Hon Eugenie Sage said, it’s around words. Words, I have discovered, can easily be misconstrued, and this is the most important thing. For myself, who is dyslexic, I can easily misconstrue things, can easily mispronounce things, and it might seem funny to some people, but it’s not, because if we have the wrong terminology, you have major misunderstandings, and we found this in the law, in terms of what is mandated and what is merely recommended. You know, when we use words such as “must” for matters of mandating, or “may” for matters around permits, or “should”, or “shall”, or “recommendations”—you know these are the factors when it comes to different walks of life and different people’s understandings: it has to be clear and it has to be precise. The thing is, because we weren’t clear and precise, this has caused so much pain.
We were concerned also, as the ACT Party, around the “Henry VIII” provisions that we bring forward. But we have come up with 11 recommendations, and we hope for the future, in the Regulations Review Committee, that we do not cause this pain that we have through some of this legislation and these misunderstandings. The biggest thing of all is that most New Zealanders wouldn’t even know that they can find these rules and regulations, and they wouldn’t know how to look them up. But we also stated that we did have a problem around the Ministry of Health, and we also understand they were under a lot of pressure. However, if you were told once, if were told twice, if you were told three times, or more, you should be able to learn from those mistakes, because that is what we hope we would teach our children—that, you know, you get a few chances.
We understood the constraints they had, but we could have done better, like everybody else, if we had been able to listen to people through the select committee process that was missed out, so that we didn’t cause that pain. And, as we said, we could have had some great ideas, and, included in that, we could have had vaccinations or tests. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this particular inquiry. I want to start my remarks by saying thank you and showing appreciation to the Regulations Review Committee, which is chaired by the Hon Judith Collins, and I thank the previous chair, Chris Penk. I know from my colleagues on this side of the House who have been fortunate enough to be on the Regulations Review Committee that it’s something they feel very passionate about and it’s something that we often hear about from them.
On the one hand, it seems like an awfully long time ago that this pandemic broke out, and yet on the other hand, it just seems like yesterday. I think if we cast our mind back to that time in early 2020, when we were—via our television screens, mainly—looking at how the rest of the world was coping with what seemed to be going to turn into a global pandemic. It seemed frightening and just unreal to us on this side of the world, but, nevertheless, these were the images and this was the information that we were dealing with. We were watching the spread and the mayhem overseas, and it became very, very clear that a fundamental strategic decision had to be made in relation to our inevitable experience of this pandemic.
As we watched every country grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, it was very clear that some responses were not necessarily what we thought would happen. Some responses seemed to be somewhat chaotic. There clearly wasn’t an exemplar out there that showed us what a playbook would look like; it was clearly going to be up to us to define our own rules. When the country faces a significant crisis, be it a war or be it any kind of natural disaster—in this case, a pandemic—the Government does have to move very quickly. As my colleague Vanushi Walters previously talked about, those were the circumstances that we found ourselves in. We did do a good job, and I don’t think that’s something we should lose sight of.
We had a fantastic response to COVID-19. We had fewer cases, we had fewer hospitalisations, we certainly had fewer deaths than many other countries in the world, and we maintained economic resilience at the same time. So it was a world-leading response. But that is not to deny the fact that it also had a huge impact on people. One of the reasons why that happened is when we look at population measures and the normal distribution of what we need to do as a population, it often impacts on the individual. That’s just what happens, but that’s not to minimise it.
So although the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was necessarily and properly passed under urgency and, as we’ve heard, because the stakes were high and because lives were at risk—so it was a scenario worthy of that—there was a social licence that held for some time. But we also adopted a number of suggestions from those legal experts, who have been named today and thanked, and from the Opposition, including to immediately put the Act to a select committee for scrutiny via its inquiry function. But it’s now critical that we compile what we learnt so that should this ever happen again, we’ve taken those lessons and we’ve made good use of them.
What the report found was that there was an appropriate balance, and I think several people have talked about balance, and that clearly was the aim, although the vaccination legislation perhaps should have been stand-alone legislation and the traffic light regime probably should have been primary legislation as well with that precise sort of detail set out in secondary legislation.
Parliament, including the Regulations Review Committee, was also found to have capably performed its role in scrutinising that emergency legislation, and the use of an existing select committee rather than setting up a new one was found to be preferable. It’s true, as my colleague Toni Severin mentioned, that some of the legislation was difficult to navigate, particularly the protection framework order, and people’s tolerance can be tested when things aren’t as clear as they possibly can be. So that’s an important thing for us to learn.
So in summary, I’d just like to again thank the Regulations Review Committee for all the insight they’ve garnered through this process and through this inquiry. I welcome other speakers to make additional comments.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s important that we’re having this debate today because this situation was one unlike we have ever experienced in living memory, and I think it’s important to reflect on the unprecedented impositions that were placed on people’s lives through this period. Of course, that was in response to a global pandemic that no one knew quite what it was going to be like or how bad it might be. We had some estimates but, of course, a response was needed, and, indeed, the Government did respond. I think most New Zealanders were quite prepared to accept a level of action in that very initial phase just because there was so little certainty around what the situation might evolve to become. But, as time progressed, there became an increasing level of concern, less certainty, and increasing frustration, and I think some of those aspects were noted in this report, where there were a number of challenges identified that could have been managed better.
There were some aspects that were done well, and I do want to acknowledge that, but when we look back at this sort of a situation, it’s really critical that we take the lessons that can help any potential future situation be handled better, more efficiently, and with less impact upon the New Zealand population. In this situation, there were a number of areas where that impact bore through. Of course, we had a very low death rate initially, a low number of cases initially. As the response progressed and the rules changed, that evolved as well, obviously to the point where now we still see a regular number of cases and deaths as a result of COVID-19. But life is, effectively, back to normal in terms of the impositions that have been brought about.
However, throughout that period, those impositions had a massive impact. I think that’s one of the key lessons that we need to keep in mind. I note the previous speaker Dr Tracey McLellan’s comments that this does seem in one regard a long time ago, but, actually, for many people it is still very fresh in their minds because not only was it the risk of COVID-19 but, in many cases, that risk was outweighed by the reality of the direct impositions they faced in their lives, and that may have manifested in any number of ways. For example, not being able to see family members, ageing family members; the inability to attend funerals—some of those aspects that were highlighted. Of course, then, there was the business impact as well, and we’ve seen many businesses fail off the back of this.
Just one of the aspects I wanted to touch on that I thought really highlighted the lack of clarity was around the issues raised relating to some of the jargon or the terms. I think it’s important that the use of the word “jargon” here has been used by the Regulations Review Committee because that does actually reflect better the terms that were outlined. In this example, I’m referring to the contrast between a “close contact” and a “casual contact”, where people were left wondering what that actually meant and how that would play out in their daily lives for their families, their communities, their businesses, and, indeed, across the country. It was those sorts of things that led to a level of concern within the community that whilst the initial response had been swift in terms of making some meaningful changes to try and reduce the impact on the country, actually, we ended up in a situation where the potential of that impact was significantly outweighed by the reality of the cost, the toll that it took on communities, families, and businesses across the country.
So it is really critical that we look back at how we might have been able to do that better, and some of those questions, as well, which have been alluded to by other speakers, around the speed at which Parliament progressed the primary legislation under urgency, obviously then leading to secondary legislation - making powers being significantly relied upon in terms of the response. That, I think, is an area that we need to look at, and I hope that the Government will consider that in the context of the current process as well, where they continue to push legislation through with very little scrutiny. I think we need to really be mindful of the impact, and this highlights for me that what we do here has such an impact in the real world and we must always try to do it better, so it’s encouraging to see recommendations suggesting those improvements that could be made. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this very serious matter, the special debate on the Regulations Review Committee’s report on the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation. Now, I was a member of the Regulations Review Committee and spent a happy six months there—as the report will state—looking into a number of issues in relation to secondary legislation, but also partly the issues raised in this report. So I do know that even though I left the committee in February, they were, even in the last Parliament, looking at the COVID19 Secondary Legislation to make sure that it was doing the job that it was meant to do.
I think just for the record, it’s probably worth stating the function of the Regulations Review Committee, because I think even some in the House, and myself before I was a member of that committee, may not be sure of exactly what its function is. But it basically—everything that is a regulation or part of secondary legislation is within the ambit of responsibility of the Regulations Review committee. The Regulations Review Committee does not look at policy; it just looks at the intent. So it’s very much a committee that helps to assist the Parliament, really, fulfil its constitutional obligations, that the laws that are passed, and the ambit of secondary legislation is in fact what is enacted by whoever the decision maker is, in relation to the particular piece of secondary legislation.
So in many cases that may be a Minister, it may be a Government agency, but it is an important check and balance on our democracy, and it’s a very collegial, enjoyable committee to be a part of, and it’s nice to see members of the committee here today in the House.
The Regulations Review Committee was especially important during periods of emergency, and we’ve seen the important work that the Regulations Review Committee did during the Christchurch earthquake, and the recommendations that were made following that major emergency and huge event, actually informed the work of this report. We’ve also seen, of course, the important work that was done during COVID-19. So I want to acknowledge the work that the committee did, and also for New Zealanders that are watching this debate, the huge impact that the pandemic had on our lives. Also, additionally, the huge impact that the response to the pandemic had on all of our lives. No one needs to be convinced of that. We all remember that time and it was immense.
So the very good work and this very good report that the Regulations Review Committee has done into those decisions is very helpful in ensuring that when we undoubtedly and unfortunately, but inevitably, face another emergency, that we have the best systems in place possible to ensure that we are responding to them in the best possible way. It is worth, I think, acknowledging that the response, and I think it has been touched on by other members of the House, did save lives. I think—I was looking at the Otago academic Michael Baker, estimating that around 10,000 lives were saved in New Zealand due to the restrictions put in place, and the way that COVID-19 was managed by the Government.
I don’t underestimate how difficult those decisions were, but they did save lives, and it just shows you that these types of decisions are not easy. They’re often complicated. They have to rely on existing powers, and existing legislation, and sometimes create new powers, and new either primary or secondary legislation. It is complex, but it’s very important to have that scrutiny of it too.
I think it’s also important—other members have noted this—there is a royal commission that has been announced into COVID-19, which, in addition to this report, will hopefully give a more holistic perspective on New Zealand’s response to the pandemic. That was announced on 5 December 2022. I think the intention of it is not only to look at the work that was done in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, but also inform future work for future pandemics. Of course, we hope this is a once in a lifetime event, but it would be naive to not prepare for the fact that it—that we may face future pandemics in the future. So that royal commission, I understand, is considering evidence and will conclude mid-2024, which seems a considerable amount of time but, as you can see from this report, there is a considerable amount of stuff to go through.
Just in the time I have remaining, I just wanted to touch on a few of the recommendations made by the Regulations Review Committee in this report. There were a number of aspects that were touched on, and a number of recommendations made. When there was improvements that needed to be made, the Regulations Review Committee informed Ministers of that, and hopefully that indeed strengthened practice, and these are all laid out in the reports. In the interest of time I won’t go through them all, but I commend the work of the committee to the House.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to this inquiry that the Regulations Review Committee has made into the secondary legislation for COVID-19. This was a huge event for New Zealand and for many New Zealanders, and had a really big impact in different ways on people. It’s been really important for this committee to undertake this inquiry and to have a look at the process that was undertaken.
I’m going to go through some of the report, but I’ll first just briefly outline what it is. So the report was taking a big picture look at the secondary legislation that was made to deal with COVID-19, and asked: was it consistent with principles for good legislative design, were there grounds for the Regulations Review Committee to draw the secondary legislation to the special attention of the House of Representatives under Standing Order 327, how well did the secondary legislation follow the principles that the Regulations Review Committee established in 2016 for emergency legislation, and do those principles need to be updated?
So the Regulations Review Committee—just to explain it—scrutinise all secondary legislation, and the powers in bills to make that secondary legislation. It’s part of the committee’s job to check that those with delegated powers to make legislation use them in the way Parliament has intended. This function is constitutionally significant. It assists Parliament to retain control over the content of laws made under delegated powers. During periods of emergency, such as with COVID-19, secondary legislation is used to manage extraordinary circumstances and may adversely affect the rights and freedoms that we usually enjoy. So it’s important that there are safeguards to ensure those rights are kept in balance with the other work that emergency laws need to do. It does not examine the policy behind secondary legislation, but it instead looks at whether that secondary legislation was made in accordance with the empowering provisions, and consistently with constitutional principles.
So if I turn to particular concerns that were raised, which was on page 28 of the report, it says identified concerns were: unauthorised sub-delegation of the power to make secondary legislation; unauthorised retrospectivity; legislation that was drafted as guidance rather than rules; instrument titles that did not identify the instrument’s COVID19 purpose; whether “Henry VIII” provisions in empowering legislation were necessary; the quality of drafting of section 70 of the Health Act orders and inadequacies in publication of historical instruments; lack of certainty and clarity in secondary legislation including in relation to the Protection Framework Order; measures being implemented in secondary legislation that would be more suitable for parliamentary enactment, such as the Protection Framework Order; latent/inactive provisions in the Protection Framework Order; the stated purpose of secondary legislation not matching its actual purpose; the need for clarity in identifying whether people are affected by secondary legislation; secondary legislation containing potentially unjustified limits on human rights; vagueness in the framing of infringement offences—for an infringement offence to be appropriate, the offence must be one that involves actions or omissions that can be assessed as a straightforward question of fact—open-ended time frames for legislation that has a significant effect on personal rights and liberties; overly complicated definitions and requirements; impossibility of compliance with requirements.
So quite a list there. I’ll turn to some of the comments made by some submissions in relation to the Protection Framework Order. Associate Professor Dean Knight of Victoria University of Wellington submitted that the pandemic had sometimes necessitated swift and expedited decisions through delegation of flexible emergency powers. However, he submitted that the vaccinations regime did not justify this approach.
The Human Rights Commission submitted that the Protection Framework Order was not easily understood without reference to detailed guidance published by the Government. Moreover, significant aspects of its content were inaccessible under this guidance.
Caitlin Rutherford, Gretchen Keer-Keer, and Professor Geddis submitted that measures forcing businesses to close and rules permitting people to go places only if vaccinated were more appropriate for primary legislation, not secondary legislation. They thought that the accountability mechanisms for secondary legislation do not make up for the lack of open debate and scrutiny through the parliamentary law-making process. This undermines the legitimacy and transparency of the law, as New Zealand had been living under the pandemic response for more than two years. After that time, they submitted, there was arguably less need for the legal response to COVID-19 to be quickly decided and imposed by the executive branch.
Dr Knight submitted that Parliament failed to feel the heat for legislative design, key policy settings and rights implications, nor was the design of the framework given the necessary time to breathe or evolve in light of feedback and concerns. This was because the key policy settings and details were not available to inform democratic debates about the virtue or otherwise of the regime.
Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Kia orana. Meitaki maata, Madam Speaker. It is great to take the last call, as the MP for Takanini, in the special debate on the Regulations Review Committee’s report on the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation. It’s good to see you, Mr Speaker, come into the House. When it comes to COVID-19, first of all I just want to say a huge thankyou to the committee for their inquiry and also their report, and also for laying out what in particular the committee do and the terms of reference for the inquiry itself—a huge thankyou to the committee members there. When it comes to COVID-19, I always like to take the opportunity to again thank you, our awesome primary and community providers—the hard-working nurses, doctors, healthcare assistants, pharmacists, kaiāwhina, secondary care healthcare professionals, and also our essential workers, who risked getting infected when they were out there during this time, taking care of our community at large. So a huge meitaki maata to you all as well.
I remember when COVID-19 was spreading throughout the globe, on the TV and through our medical groups we were quite anxious in South Auckland. As a GP during that time, we were coming out of the measles pandemic that happened during the 201819 period. When we first heard of the measles case in the South Island, we knew that if that came up to Auckland, it would go straight through to South Auckland and then connect to the Pacific Islands, which was the case. So, when it came to COVID-19, we were also scared, because this was a new virus happening. We knew the vulnerabilities, the areas and pockets of our community that were getting affected largely. So we pushed our local MPs at that time to make sure that the Government was going to put in legislation or some sort of regulation to make it easier for us on the ground to do the work, to do the mahi to protect our community. We wanted the Government to act decisively and early, and that’s what we got—was to go hard and to go early from that Government.
We all know that, being a new virus that was spreading, we were only learning of what countries were going through themselves. When it comes to grappling with COVID-19, again, we all hear from colleagues across the House, there was no playbook or rulebook on how to manage this. And, again, we were learning from our colleagues across the different countries across the globe. And it was our biggest health challenge. We remember the Spanish flu that happened in the early 1900s. We remember the swine flu; again, that happened just over 10 years ago. I was working at Middlemore Hospital. When you talk to other people, whether it be Dr Reti from Northland, having worked there in Rāwene Hospital, our vulnerable communities across Aotearoa, we just want to make sure that everyone is protected and that there is legislation fit for purpose to do the job. When we look at the Health Act, in many ways it was focused on quarantining. It needed some more work in terms of making sure that the framework was targeted at COVID, hence why we needed this new legislation, and therefore we got the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.
We can look back and look at the cases that had COVID-19, the measures that were put in to protect our whānau. I remember our maraes getting on board, the many Pacific-Māori providers, whether it be in Manurewa, Papakura Marae getting their kaiāwhina and workforce involved, making it targeted for people. We can look back and say, “Hey, we did a good job.” And we can hold an inquiry to make sure that we can do an even better job if it was to happen again. But it is getting prepared for that. We look at the recommendations from the committee. We’ve heard, from a few points that have been raised, the balance between primary and secondary legislation. Yes, there was some appropriate balance between that. But we do look at the vaccination Act: that could have had its own legislation and making sure that that was solid. We look at the traffic light regime: that could have been put into primary legislation to make sure that, in the secondary legislation, there was only active orders there—so making primary legislation more substantial in that regard.
So, across the House, I’d like to say a huge thankyou to the committee members for their report on this inquiry, and I thank everyone that’s been involved. I commend this report to the House.
Motion agreed to.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill.
Estimates Debate
In Committee
Debate resumed from 2 August on the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia orana, members. The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio, so there will be no sector-specific debates. All Votes are available for debate, but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolios only. The Government has indicated that today we have the Minister for Children, the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister’s portfolios.
This debate expires after 11 hours, at which point questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the Schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2023/24) Estimates Bill. There are four hours and 29 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand Labour has one hour, 47 minutes remaining. The New Zealand National Party has one hour, 33 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 30 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 31 minutes remaining. Te Paati Māori has 11 minutes remaining. Dr Elizabeth Kerekere has six minutes remaining, and the Hon Meka Whaitiri has six minutes remaining.
The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriation. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the Votes is available on the Table.
The question, once again, is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 20232024 stand part of the Schedules. Members, we start with the Minister for Children. The Minister is available from 3.50 p.m. until 4.20 p.m.
Children
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. As the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, it’s my pleasure to lead off the debate for Vote Children for the 2023-24 Estimates.
The Hon Kelvin Davis appeared before the select committee to discuss the Vote. I want to thank the Minister for attending this session and I want to thank the chief executive officers and the officials for appearing and responding to written and oral questions. And I also wish to thank our select committee clerks and also the select committee itself for the hard work that we do during this time.
Oranga Tamariki, the Ministry for Children, was established in November 2017 to make the existing care and protection system more centred and focused on prevention and early intervention. The Minister for Children is responsible for the whole Vote except for one appropriation relating to the Crown response to the royal commission of inquiry to abuse in care. Oranga Tamariki administers the Vote. Total funding sought for the Vote in 2023-24 is $1.54 billion. The main appropriation in the Vote is the multi-category appropriation: investing in children and young people. The appropriation has $1.46 billion allocated for it, which is up on the previous year.
Vote Oranga Tamariki included seven new policy initiatives in 2023-24. The Minister was asked what factors had contributed to the increase in youth offending despite a 63 percent decline over the last decade being noted. The Minister said that ram raids received a disproportionate amount of media attention and pointed out that they comprise 0.38 percent of crime. The Minister added that many youth offenders had experienced a great amount of trauma in their lives. He said the offending arose from a combination of factors which the Government was working to address through several Ministers.
We also asked how Oranga Tamariki planned to reduce youth offending. The Minister explained that a number of new programmes are targeting recidivist youth offenders, including Kotahi te Whakaaro, which provides a wraparound response for youth offenders aged under 14. About 73 percent of youth referred to this programme had not reoffended.
We asked how Oranga Tamariki supports children under the age of 14 who are caught breaking the law. We heard it now uses the Kotahi te Whakaaro approach to involve the wider family as well.
We asked how iwi and Māori service providers would be supported by Budget 2023. The Minister explained that the Future Direction Action Plan allows Oranga Tamariki to build working agreements with iwi and Māori service providers.
We asked what Oranga Tamariki is doing to reduce physical harm to children by their caregivers and noted it is redesigning the complaints system with non-governmental organisation VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai so that people who had experience of being in care could give direct feedback on the system.
We asked what improvements Oranga Tamariki had made to its care and protection residences. Oranga Tamariki told us it has set the goal of making its care and protection residences a therapeutic place for children to stay in. This included making buildings safer for children.
We asked what programmes were in Budget 2023 to upskill current social workers and train new social workers. The Minister said that Oranga Tamariki is focused on implementing more iwi-led practice for social workers. Te Puāwai, which commenced in January 2023, is a programme that aims to create a wellbeing-focused practice framework for social workers. Whānau who receive help from their social workers also noted a positive difference in their practice.
We covered a lot of ground during our investigation and the Estimates hearing was undertaken over a good long hour of time. I wish to acknowledge the Minister for the time that he spent in the chair. Thank you.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to thank Angie Warren-Clark as chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee. I do have quite a few points to make, but in the interests of time, I’ll probably just race through them, so my apologies now if some of what I say is a bit disjointed.
But this does continue to be a significant time of change for Oranga Tamariki. I think it’s appropriate that we start by acknowledging the many staff who work for Oranga Tamariki. We’ll be the first to admit that we don’t get everything right all the time—or they will be the first to admit they don’t get everything right—but there are a lot of great people doing their best to make sure that our most vulnerable children, their needs are met.
Transforming an organisation of this size isn’t easy and there are a number of challenges, and they have been highlighted recently in the media, but change is happening. There have been wellpublicised events in youth justice residences, and we are taking a comprehensive look about how to address those issues. We are starting to see results of the hard work over the last just under two years that the future direction plan has been in place, so I’d like to run through a few highlights. This year, Oranga Tamariki has supported nine enabling community prototypes to redesign and reimagine what care looks like for tamariki in those particular communities. That means that partners lead the design, the development, and implementation of the models. We’re making sure that those models are bespoke to the communities that they come from. We believe that communities know what is best and they set the pace and they are the decision makers.
It’s important to remember that Oranga Tamariki supports around 50,000 children in the community, supports them to ensure they stay out of care. I think that’s very important. We now have the lowest number of children and young people entering care since 2004, and we have the lowest number of children in care since 2010. In the last four years, the number of tamariki in care has reduced by over a quarter, by over 25 percent, and that, again, is a huge achievement. Of the children that do come into care, 78 percent of them are now being placed within whānau and within their own communities.
Over the past few years, Oranga Tamariki has continued to embed the direction to only use uplifts where there are no other options available to keep children safe, and the use of this section of the Act has significantly reduced from 1,395 in 2018 to just 430 in 2022.
Oranga Tamariki continues to make fundamental changes in its approach to social work practice to better meet the needs of children and families, and to allow social workers to work in complementary ways to new iwi-, Māori-, and community-led approaches. Iwi and Māori organisations received $155 million last year; that was up from just $55 million in 2017. As I said, less than two years ago, in September of 2021, the future direction plan was launched. It sets a clear direction for the ministry and it charts a multi-year path to shift the approach, the operating model, and the practice of Oranga Tamariki to be truly tamariki- and whānau-centred.
As I have mentioned, one of the key planks of the future direction plan is the enabling communities to work, and, to keep things short, that’s about communities making the decisions in how they care for their young people. An example is the launch of Te Ara Mātua in Hawke’s Bay in April. It’s a Ngāti Kahungunu - led approach to support and provide care for tamariki that are living in Hawke’s Bay. Again, it’s about putting resources and decision making in the hands of communities so that they can lead the change and the solutions for their tamariki and whānau. Te Ara Mātua aims to provide services and support to keep tamariki and their whānau out of the Oranga Tamariki system and return those tamariki currently in the system to the protection of whānau, hapū, and iwi.
Another initiative driving the organisation’s change is the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan, and I just spent a bit of time at question time describing some of the highlights from the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan, which is one year old. I’ll leave it there for now.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I welcome the opportunity to engage with the Minister in this. It’s a really important area, and it’s been a tough few years, I think it’s worth acknowledging.
I want to pick up on, possibly predictably, VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai’s calls to different parties around the promises that we’ve committed to and explore in a little bit more detail some of those and the Government actions and sense of time frame on it. The first thing they noted is that we’ve promised to take care of young people in care and make sure that they all have what they need, and yet many are experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness and that’s happening far too often.
Today in question time the Minister noted that, through the plan, there are 65 new placements that are being put in place and homes being built, particularly for disabled young children. I’m interested to know, in terms of those places, actually, what percentage of need is being met now? When does the Minister expect every young person coming out of care or in care to have appropriate housing? Is there a sense of time frame around that?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): I thank the member for the question. It is very important.
As part of the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan, we’ve done a number of deep dives, which is, I guess, “bureau-speak” for doing a needs analysis of what we actually have in it. First of all, I’m surprised that these deep dives, these needs analyses haven’t been done before. What it has shown is that there are massive gaps in the provision of support for our young people, in particular those who are transitioning from care into the community.
In terms of housing in particular, the deep dive there highlighted, I think, that over the next couple of years there are about 5,000 young people who will be transitioning out of care, but there are only about 150 beds to cater for those numbers. Now, that’s over a number of years that those young people will be transitioning from care into the community. Some of them may go back to their caregivers, some may go home, but many want to be independent and they want to be able to flat and live with friends.
So what we’ve done is got the baseline, and, now that we know the extent of the problem, that’s where we have to work to address it. I’m sorry that I can’t give a definitive date to meet that extreme need—you know, that need of those 5,000 people over the next few years.
The most important message, I guess, is that now we know the extent of the problem, it’s time to address it. It’s just a pity it’s taken so long to actually quantify the extent of the need.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I also want to echo what the Minister was saying in terms of surprise that this work and that detailed work hasn’t been done already. I remember when the National Party was last in Government and were making reforms that that was supposedly a central focus. So it is quite shocking to me and I suspect reflects a lot of our young people’s sense of frustration and concern that not enough has been done. They’ve heard the rhetoric for so long and maybe, hopefully, now are just starting to see the results. So I look forward to when we see that mapped out and also assume that speeding up the public housing provision and the possibility of rent controls may be something the Minister might want to advocate for in terms of ensuring those young people who are wanting to be independent can do so realistically in our economic settings.
I’m also interested in terms of the second promise where we all said that we would make sure young people in our care have safety and stability in their life, and they note that they’re not being provided yet with that stability when they enter care and caregivers aren’t consistently assessed before they’re placed with them, and they’re not being kept safe when they’re in care, particularly in residences, and we’ve had quite a lot of conversation about that. But I’m interested to know, in terms of that assessment as well as the transition into care, how many social workers there are and what there caseloads are. I know that training is going in but we know that historically the caseloads have been well above—three times above at one point—international best practice.
I’m really interested to know if we’re making progress on that, because if we’re going to have this system for a little while, then we need to make sure that the staff are able to build those relationships and support those young people.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): I thank the member for her question. One of the things we found out in the development of the Future Direction Plan was that the caseloads were way too high, but, secondly, that measuring actual numbers of cases is probably not the best measure, and it’s more a measure of workload, because one case may take up a huge amount of time and resources for a single social worker. So what Oranga Tamariki is doing through the Future Direction Plan is looking to improve the workload—have a look at the workloads of social workers, not just count the number of cases. Somebody might have a couple of dozen cases that have less work than someone who’s got half a dozen cases. So the workload is probably more important to address than the exact numbers of caseload.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, it’s noted that in terms of investing in children and young people, under the Estimates here, there’s an increase of some $65.475 million, taking it up to a total budget of $1,462,000. It’s also noted, Minister, that there’s a decrease in the capital expenditure from $83 million to $48.6 million. Minister, you’ll be well versed with the fact that it’s just been reported before this committee, in the Estimates report, that, in relation to youth justice facilities, you spoke about the potential of intergenerational effects of incarcerating youth, and the abuse that has historically occurred in youth justice facilities. You expressed concern about the potential for those same patterns of incarceration and abuse to reoccur. Minister, you’ve committed, in recent weeks, for an additional two youth justice residences to be built. That’s in addition to the five that are there. Noting the decrease in capital expenditure, as I said, from $83 million to $48.6 million, how is that going to be funded under this Estimate Vote?
Further to that, Minister, there is a concern that is noted in terms of the partner-provided services. The purchasing power of Oranga Tamariki for partner-provided services—there’s been an increase in that, but it’s also noted that there’s been a specific decrease in certain parts of social service providers. Could the Minister give clarity around who those social service providers are in terms of the decrease in the Budget?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): OK. First of all, just to correct the member’s assertion, Oranga Tamariki hasn’t committed to building two youth justice residences. So, for example, in South Auckland, there is Korowai Manaaki. It is a youth justice residence. It has, probably, five units, which—I don’t like the term “unit” because it sounds very prison-esque; they’re more like dormitories. What we are suggesting is that we build another dormitory there, or dormitorylike block or unit at a current youth justice residence. Now, the issue here is that regardless of the age of a young person entering a youth justice residence, or regarding the needs—the needs—more importantly, of a young person entering a youth justice residence, there is no continuum of care. In other words, it is a one-size-fits-all situation for those young people.
What we are saying is, in particular, now that 17- and 18-year-olds are residing in youth justice residences, we need to make sure, first of all, that the physical facilities are appropriate for those young people, but, more importantly, that the model of care is more important for those young people. Regardless of their age or their needs, there needs to be a continuum of care. Some have lower needs; some have higher needs. So all Oranga Tamariki is saying is that there will be another dormitory-like unit built, probably at Korowai Manaaki, and that will probably cater to have 20 beds in it, and another facility in the South Island, probably in Christchurch, which would have 10 beds. They are there to cater for the higher level needs of young people. So I just need to clarify: Oranga Tamariki is not building new youth justice residences. Oranga Tamariki is looking to build two dormitory-like units in already existing youth justice residences.
KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to go to reports from the Independent Children’s Monitor. They don’t seem to improve each time we appear before you. I just want to clarify some data that has come about in the latest Independent Children’s Monitor, 2021-22.
It found that Oranga Tamariki made 45 percent of their “no further action” decisions were incorrect. Out of 137 reports of concern for tamariki in care, they found that 62 of these “no further action” decisions were incorrect. Does that mean that we are not looking into these reports of concern well enough, that we’re not taking the care and the time that we need to, when we’re finding that those “no further action” decisions were incorrect? Are we putting our young people in further danger by not assessing these reports of concern correctly?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): That’s a good question. We need to make sure that, when assessments are made, they are accurate and the needs of the young people are being met.
One of the benefits of iwi-led and community-led involvement is we’re now starting to hear that they wish to—just because there is a case reported and it is deemed to have “no further action required”, those iwi and those communities are saying, “That is still a whānau within our community that we want to have on our radar and that we would like to do further work with them.”
I do take the member’s point: that we need to make sure that, in those cases, they are assessed properly, but it’s also positive, looking towards the future, that iwi are now saying that even if there is deemed to be “no further action required”, they still want to be able to work with those whānau just follow up and to have ongoing involvement to make sure that they are getting the support that they need.
KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just further to that, in the same report it showed that 32 percent of tamariki were placed with caregivers for full assessments of the caregiver and their household, or a provisional approval was completed—32 percent, Minister. Is that good enough, that only 32 percent of tamariki were placed with caregivers before a full assessment was made, and does this include when they’re going back to whānau, hapū, or iwi whether these assessments were made, or are those different assessments?
HARETE HIPANGO (National): I’m going to repeat the question that I asked, which is the second part of my first question. It’s noted that there’s been a considerable increase for Oranga Tamariki to maintain its purchasing power of its partner-provided services, some $15.6 million increase. It’s also noted that there’s an almost $25.5 million increase for the initiative Transforming the Care System. However, that is offset, Minister, by a reduction in funding of $8 million for supporting social service providers. Could the Minister clarify who those social services who are going to be at a loss of the $8 million funding are, and who are those being targeted for the purchasing power of its partner-provided services with that additional $15 million increase? Who’s benefiting in the community, and who’s not?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): OK. In the interests of time, sorry, I’d just like to address Karen Chhour’s questions first; there are only six minutes and I just wanted a few more questions to come out. So in terms of the “no further action” and the numbers that you said, action was still taken as part of the social work plan in most cases, and these were individually followed up. In terms of the safety checks, initial checks such as police checks and home checks are routinely completed prior to the full assessment. In terms of Harete Hipango’s response to her question—so Oranga Tamariki, in 2022, undertook a review of provider funding to ensure funding is aligned with its strategic direction. Oranga Tamariki made initial proposals to change funding contracts with 187 provider organisations nationally. After feedback from communities and from the providers, changes were made to the funding of 132 providers, revolving around 35 million providers in the 2022-23 year. Decisions were made on a case-by-case basis considering tamariki and whānau needs, and followed feedback and proposals from providers and the community.
KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. In the case of short time left, I’ll try and get a couple of questions in at the same time. The reason I’m asking these questions is because we’re constantly hearing that the number of children in care has gone down, and I’m concerned that actually they’re not safe, and that we’re not actually investigating things properly. So in the same report it said the trend of number of reports of concern being assessed within 20 working days, as required by Oranga Tamariki policy, in 2019, 41 percent were done within the 20 working days, and it’s just kept dropping year after year. So now in 2021 to 2022, it’s only at 22 percent, Minister—22 percent meet that time frame.
Also looking at reviewing support plans, there’s been a decrease in the number of caregiver support plans being reviewed following allegations of abuse or neglect relating to a child or young person who’s being looked after by a caregiver. Last year, the review took place and it was 62 percent of cases, and this year it’s only 43 percent of cases. Are we actually making sure that our young people are safe?
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to hear from the Minister that there’s a reduction of 25 percent of children in care, and that 78 percent of those children in care are placed with whānau and in their community. Also good to hear there were $55 million invested in iwi Māori partnerships. So my question, in terms of going forward, is: how is Oranga Tamariki planning to further partner with iwi and Māori organisations to deliver services to tamariki, rangatahi, and their whānau through to 2023-2024 appropriations?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you, and I would like to thank the member for the questions. In terms of working with communities, it is the big drive. We know that communities have been asking for the ability to care for the needs of their young people. They have the solutions within themselves, and we have nine prototypes already up and running, and there are another 10 partnerships with communities around the country. I feel it’s really important that we continue to expand the numbers of partnerships and the prototypes that are recurring around the country, because there are skills that they have. I spoke a bit about what’s happening in Ngāti Kahungunu, and of course up in Kaitaia we have TE ATATŪ, it is called—it’s not to be confused with Te Atatū in West Auckland, but that’s the name of the programme where basically iwi are making the call in a number of areas, and we’re starting to see really good results on that.
KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ve heard recently that you were very happy—sorry, I’ve lost my page—with the housing and working with other organisations. But there’s a concern that, actually, there are still children staying in motels and the average stay is about four nights. But we also have one poor rangitahi that stayed for two years in a motel, in emergency care, waiting for a place to be. So do we know what number, right now, of children in the care of Oranga Tamariki are staying in emergency housing right now?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Look, first of all, just to dispel a myth that these kids are left to their own devices in a motel. Now, I don’t think that there’s many—I’m sorry, I’ll have to come back to the member with the exact numbers—but when they are, on very rare occasions, in emergency housing, they do have full-time caregivers, social workers, or community providers with them, making sure that their needs are being met. Sometimes, sadly, that sort of situation is the safest place for them to be.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, the time has come for the Minister to leave the chair. Thank you, Minister.
Oceans and Fisheries
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We now have the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries available from 4.20 to 4.40.
ANGELA ROBERTS (Deputy Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call as we look at the Estimates for fisheries. I’m taking this call on behalf of Steph Lewis, who is the usual chair of the Primary Production Committee.
Fisheries, as always, is of great interest to all New Zealanders, and it’s a significant part of our Government activities. And, of course, the appropriations sought for fisheries was a total of $102.5 million, which is a drop, of course, of 41.4 percent from the estimated actual expenditure of $175 million in 2022-23. We had some interesting discussions. We heard from the Minister about some of the challenges that we have around the sustainability of commercial fishing. We heard about significant strategic endeavours, such as the Draft Fisheries Industry Transformation Plan, and the innovations and the technology that is going to be able to help us to build a more sustainable commercial fishing fleet.
We had asked about whether the Budget proposed any funding that would help to minimise bycatch—a critical part of the sustainability of our commercial fishery—and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) told us at that point that $5 million had actually been tagged in the Budget for the industry transformation plan and this could be used to support technologies such as those that would help to reduce the bycatch. We heard about the way that MPI have been encouraging the seafood sector to take more advantage of the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures programme—the “SFFF”—which can help them with overcoming those capital hurdles that they have about making that investment in order to make sure that they are sustainable.
We also heard about the significant piece of work that is the roll-out of cameras on boats. We heard—because every boat is different—about the technicalities of rolling out this technology so that it would be effective and actually support our fishers to be transparent and accountable and show that they have a really great sustainable fishery. And that’s really important as we go to the world and we remind the world that we’ve got some really, really great primary industry stories and produce. We heard about the complexities and that there were some bugs in the system, but it was great to see the pilot really teaching everybody the best way to deliver this, and it’s great to see that those roll-outs are actually happening on boats now, and a really great way to hear about the support for the sector.
We heard about the potential for the growth of aquaculture—again, as we are looking for a sustainable catch in the future, hearing about what the industry is doing to show leadership and how MPI are doing their best to support that. They referred to the aquaculture strategy implementation plan, and we heard about projects such as the open-ocean salmon farm in Cook Strait—again Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures. There were obviously some really good examples of the challenges that are facing fisheries and how the sector and Government have been working to get through those wicked problems. It is going to be very good to hear more from the Minister as we interrogate the Estimates for this year.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you to the member Angela Roberts for that overview of our time in select committee. I thought it would just be useful if I touched on a couple of things that have happened since the hearing at select committee.
One of those is, of course, that cameras on boats went live on Tuesday, 1 August. This is a really good news story in terms of the information that we can gather from those cameras will very much help with our understanding of what’s going on out there in the oceans. Of course, the first cameras that have gone live have been prioritised to areas where there are marine mammals. We are expecting another 70 to go live by the end of the year, and, overall, 300 boats will have those cameras operational. I was very fortunate to visit one of these boats the other day and to see the cameras in action—they’re in action on the deck—and you can see what’s going on when you’re inside the boat.
We’ve also had a lot of feedback on the draft Fisheries Industry Transformation Plan. That final one will be released very soon.
Today, some of you may have heard that we have introduced the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. That’s really trying to deal with some of the activity that goes on, in particular on the high seas, that’s illegal. I’ve been continuing to work with the Minister of Conservation on both SEMP—the South-East Marine Protection Forum—and the Hauraki Gulf as well. I’ll leave it there, and I look forward to your questions.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for the opportunity to discuss the very issues that are salient to the fisheries industry. I’m cognisant of the short time afforded to me so I’ll be succinct in my questions if I can be.
From 2019 to 2025 was the length of the period assigned for the cameras on boats roll-out. You’ve said that, to use your words, some went live. What’s the number that went live? I am interested in the disparities between the coastal commercial fishery’s reality and fleet and the deep-water fleet, and where these cameras have been rolled out. Is it the coastal commercial sector or is it afforded to the deep-sea fleet?
There are a couple of notable points that I think we need to canvass. What current technology are you aware of, as the Minister, beyond cork lines, lead lines, and knotless technology that’s in the industry? As you can appreciate, the coastal commercial fleet is concerned about bycatch and how this technology is going to be rolled out over the next four years given that the fisheries amendment bill was recently passed. So how will this data sharing be utilised in terms of helping with the roll out of further technology and in what industry? Is it the coastal commercial or deep-sea fleet?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): In terms of the cameras that have gone live as of Tuesday, there are 23 boats, 23 vessels. There are numerous cameras on those different boats and it is the inshore fleet. The rationale for this is, of course, that those boats are smaller than what we’ve got in the deep water and it’s often difficult to get observers on those boats. The area that’s been prioritised is the west of the North Island because of the Māui dolphin habitat.
In terms of other technology, the data sharing will help with all of the different management that goes on in the fisheries in terms of setting the catch limits and the like, and working out what fish are being discarded or not being discarded. It will help with the overall management.
In terms of other technology, I’m not sure if the member was just referring to the camera technology, which, of course, is using AI as well, but there are things in development and things that are being used at the moment, like hook pods. I have one in my office if the member’s interested in seeing one. These are contraptions that go over the sharp end of the hook and they are released when the hooks are at a depth where a seabird can longer dive.
Of course, there are other issues like the actual nets—that’s not quite the right word. There is the precision seafood harvesting as well, so those are a still a trawl but it’s a much longer net and it allows smaller fish to get out. So there’s lots happening in the technology but there is more to do.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Seeing as we’ve started on the issue of onboard cameras, I want to continue that theme just a little bit. The Minister made much in her introductory comments about the installation and going live of just 23 boats so far, and that she hoped that there would be more before the end of the year. But at select committee, we were told that in September 2020, the Government announced that it would fund the roll-out of on-board cameras to about 345 inshore fishing vessels by 2024. But in the Minister’s press release of just a few days ago, she now talks about there being 300—just 300; so the number has dropped significantly—by 2025.
I’m keen to know from the Minister what have been the hurdles that have been in the way that have slowed this process down for nearly six years. The decision to install onboard cameras was actually made by the previous National Government more than six years ago, and yet this Government has been incredibly slow to get this process going, with only 23 boats with live cameras effective from today. So if the Minister can give some detail as to why it has taken so long, what have been the problems, and what have been the handbrakes. I’m particularly interested to know what the political handbrakes were that occurred that have delayed the implementation of this policy for so long.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you. So the member at first referred to the 345 and asked why I’m mentioning 300. The answer is it was an estimate at that time, and the fleet has declined over that time. As I said before, we’re interested in these smaller inshore vessels for the cameras.
These cameras—of course, it’s been the Labour Government that’s put the money into the Budget, and it’s a $68 million programme for this roll-out, and has used Spark as the main technology provider in the process, and has gone from the proof of concept some years ago, that didn’t use AI, to now these cameras that have gone live—the 23 that do use AI. So that makes many different savings back in Wellington at head office, and provides more useful data as well.
As the member will appreciate, new technology, particularly technology that has to float on a boat in the ocean, is difficult. It has happened, it is working, this is a very good news story. There’ll be 70 more by the end of the year and 300 in total.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and can I congratulate the Minister for the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill introduced today.
I’d like to turn to the issue of bycatch, because we’ve got leatherback turtles which are critically endangered. They’re on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List. There are as few as a thousand nesting females left. They’re expected to go extinct in 20 to 30 years unless the natural survival rate increases. Yet there are no measures for mitigation to prevent the deaths of leatherback turtles—prevent them from being hooked on lines. They’re particularly vulnerable on the north-east coast of the North Island, and 58 turtles were observed to have been caught. When they’re caught, the mortality rates are quite high. So there is nothing that requires the fishery to be closed. New Zealand has killed three times the number of turtles that in Hawaii would require the fishery to be closed. In the Solomon Islands, you’ve got rangers moving turtle eggs to try and ensure the survival of the species.
Does the $5 million that the Minister’s referred to provide for any measures to avoid turtle bycatch? Does it provide for any policy work to protect leatherback turtles and any mitigation measures that will be compulsory on boats?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Well, in terms of the leatherback turtles, I do want to acknowledge the impacts of climate change and that we will see other issues like this as time progresses. They are coming south as water temperatures have changed. We have changed some regulations around circle hooks to try and diminish the impacts on those leatherback turtles.
The member mentioned the $5 million that I think the member said the Minister had mentioned. I don’t think I have mentioned $5 million, but Angela Roberts did and I think that particular $5 million was in relation to implementing the fisheries industry transformation plan. And so, probably not so much of a specific bycatch issue, but I acknowledge that there’s obviously a lot of work to continue to do on bycatch matters.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The fundamental purpose of Fisheries New Zealand is, of course, to manage fisheries resources for the benefit of all New Zealanders and for us as a society, and that, by definition, involves them managing stocks and monitoring and checking on sustainability levels. A quota management system provides for the management of some 642 different stocks. So my question to the Minister is that in terms of the October sustainability round this year, just seven inshore stocks, two deep-water stocks, one change of fishing year, and three deemed value adjustments have been completed.
I’m keen to know from the Minister: is she concerned at the low number of stocks for which amended sustainability measures are proposed and have been measured, and what is her plan to ensure that actually a more robust and in-depth analysis is conducted by Fisheries New Zealand to actually monitor, manage, and maintain the 642-odd stocks with just such a small number being currently monitored by Fisheries New Zealand?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you to the Hon Scott Simpson for that question. Just going back to the earlier question and my answer on the cameras on boats and the 300 and 345 number, I mention, again, the 300 bid, and, of course, that’s up to 300 as well, because we don’t know exactly how many vessels will be in the fleet.
On to his question about the quota management system and the sustainability rounds and the number of stocks. Of course, the Ministry of Fisheries has a good science team and contracts out to other scientists, and it has about $22 million in its budget for science per annum. Those officials and scientists work out which of the stocks to do a sustainability round on and based on what they’re seeing in the fishery.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, to go back to bycatch and the reality there, and all the concerns that we all have with bycatch, talking about set nets versus long lines in a coastal, commercial sense—what technologies are afforded to the sector currently? And what technologies does the Minister envisage on the back of the full roll-out of the cameras—and we don’t know when that will be; the proof of concept to 2025, so it’s a six-year elapsed period of time. What technology is she aware of that will alleviate that reality, because if you’re a mid-water fisherman—i.e., thinking of yellow-eyed mullet, but your target species is kahawai—how do they alleviate the bycatch in that reality, when they’re both in the same pressure zone in the ocean, and 50 more fish in that scenario would see that fisherman caught into a prosecutorial reality, if it’s bycatch? So what technology exists today in the set-net arena, not the long-line arena, that will afford a fisherman in that space alleviation of bycatch? What technology exists today that you’re aware of?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I return to the issue of fish stocks. There’s been a recent realisation by scientists that the orange roughy stock assessment for parts of the Chatham Rise is not reliable. It doesn’t show the actual health of the stocks. We’re talking about a fish; it’s like eating your grandmother, eating orange roughy—they can live to be 200 years old. Because of that, they’ve got quite a slow reproductive rate, and they’re also really difficult to manage.
The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research did an acoustic survey on the Chatham Rise and it said that the models that we have been using to predict the abundance of orange roughy in a large area east of the South Island were flawed and overly optimistic. Given that orange roughy are one of our most important deep-water species and they’re also a species which scientists have said we know most about, if we can’t get the modelling right for a species like orange roughy, then what is going to be done in terms of this year’s spending programme to actually address those models to make sure that there’s a bigger precautionary buffer in stock assessments and to relook at the whole system of stock assessments—because, of course, orange roughy have got certification under the Marine Stewardship Council. That will potentially be revoked.
The other issue is that we are spending less now on marine fisheries research than we were some years ago. Why hasn’t there been a significant increase in the funding for fisheries research, and what are the obstacles to that?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I do not thank the member the Hon Eugenie Sage for that image of eating your grandmother, but I do take her point about the seriousness of the orange roughy stock, and that of course they can live to such an incredible old age. As the member will know, the orange roughy is part of the sustainability round this time. Consultation on that has now closed. In terms of addressing the models and the further money for the science—there is a limited amount of funding there, and that hasn’t changed.
Going back to Mark Cameron’s question about technology for set-netting in relation to the legislation that was passed last year, the main point with that is that the bycatch has to be reported.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. The plan that has been undertaken by Fisheries New Zealand, the industry transformation plan that is under consideration and input, sets out as their priorities for this transformation plan as being “strengthening environmental performance, improving profitability”, and “supporting people and communities”.
Now, I put it to the Minister that those are essentially “motherhood and apple pie” statements. They are statements that probably are very general, they’re no-brainers, they’re philosophically adopted, I think, probably to achieve a desired outcome. But I’m advised that when Fisheries New Zealand sent out requests for people or invitations for permit holders and quota owners to participate in the consultation process, that their email—which was sent out to permit holder and quota owners—shows that only 51 percent of those were sent emails, and 37 percent of mandated iwi organisations, and only 25 percent of industry and Government organisations even opened the email, let alone went to participate proactively in it.
So I’m interested to know from the Minister, how does she think that the industry transformation plan will be best interpreted by those if people who are intimately involved in the sector don’t even get an opportunity, for one reason or another, to even open the email that provides them with an opportunity to participate?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): All right. While I can’t speak to people’s email-opening habits. I can inform the member that, of course, the industry transformation plan (ITP) had a leadership group, and that was made up of a lot of industry people: Fisheries New Zealand of course, union groups, and an environmental group as well. So there was a very strong industry input into that plan, and that’s really important because it is an industry transformation plan, so of course you need the industry on board with you.
We’ve been very pleased with the engagement with the industry on that plan. Of course, there are some more general ambitions of that plan, but also a lot of specific recommendations and these, I can say, were consulted on. Of course, there will be some amendment in the final ITP, which will be released very soon.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Returning to the issue of bycatch and seabirds—which I know the Minister is concerned about and was talked about briefly at the Primary Production Committee—the national plan of action on seabirds requires an annual report on progress. A key performance indicator in that national plan of action is around the objective of the estimated number of fishing-related mortalities is decreasing towards zero.
So the latest data that we’ve got, and it was in the 2020-21 report, is actually going back to 201617. Given the amount of work that was done last term on the national plan of action on seabirds, is it acceptable for accountability and for tracking purposes that we’re relying on 2016-17 data? Will that be addressed this year? Is there more funding available to get more timely information about how we are tracking against that key objective of seabird bycatch reducing towards zero?
I know there’s been consultation on bycatch and mitigation measures and whether they are compulsory for surface longlines. But has any funding being allocated for projects to reduce the death and bycatch of seabirds from bottom longline vessels, which kill an estimated 2,840 birds annually, and from trawlers, which catch and kill an estimated 8,840 seabirds each year? So we’re killing about 13,000 birds each year.
So what work is being done? What work is being funded? Will that translate for bottom longlines and trawling into improved mitigation?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you for that question about the national plan of action on seabirds. As the member well knows—because she was involved in making it, and I thank her for that work as a previous Minister of Conservation and a strong advocate for seabirds—it has a five-year lifetime and there are different work streams in it. So, as the member noted, there is the work going on to the longline methods at the moment to reduce bycatch. In terms of her question about bottom-line longlines, there has been review of that previously within the life, I’m told, of this national plan of action on seabirds.
With regards to questions around mortality rates, that is an issue that has been brought to my attention by the member, and it is something that may come up in the review of the national plan of action on seabirds in the future, but it’s not in the work programme at the moment.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m keen to quiz the Minister a little bit about the commitment that New Zealand has made at the 2022 United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Canada, towards the end of last year, relating to the goal of protecting 30 percent of New Zealand’s marine environment by the year 2030, commonly referred to as “30 by 30”. I’m interested, initially, to know from the Minister what is her definition of “protected” in terms of the marine space, how does she define that, and what does, in her view, protection look like?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): While we’re on the marine protection theme, does the Minister expect that there will be any progress on the south-east marine protected areas before the election or that there will be legislation in relation to the Hauraki Gulf and Revitalising the Gulf, on establishing the recommended marine protected areas there, plus The Noises?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Noting that marine protection is a matter for the Minister of Conservation in the territorial sea, and for the Minister for the Environment in the exclusive economic zone, but absolutely still committed to that 30 percent by 2030. To the Hon Eugenie Sage’s question about the south-east marine protected area and the Hauraki Gulf—very hopeful that we will be able to make some announcements on both of these matters, but it’s a lot of work that both myself and the Minister of Conservation are working on as hard as we can.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. At select committee, the Minister said—this is in reference to the roll-out of cameras on boats—that, while the pilot indicates that the new technology works in cameras, the company installing it has encountered “a few bugs in the system”. She went on to say that she thought the resolution of these bugs would be a small number of months away. Well, the select committee met, I think, in early July, and I’m wondering: have those bugs now been ironed out; and, if so, how?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Yes, the bugs were certainly ironed out, which is why we had the go-live of the 23 boats on Tuesday.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): How were they ironed out? Maybe the Minister could elucidate as to exactly what the issues were. We’ve been concerned about privacy issues, about the ability to capture data, about what would be filmed and what wouldn’t be filmed, and who would have ownership, and what levels of confidentiality there would be around that information and data.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The list of things that the member just raised are what I would consider to be more policy issues, rather than bugs, and what I was referring to—
Hon Scott Simpson: What’s the definition of “bug” then?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: What’s the definition of “bug”? Noting that I am not in any way a Minister of technology here, the definition of a bug is something in the computer system that needs to be fixed by companies such as Spark, which they have largely done. There may still be a few things that, of course, do need to be ironed out.
In terms of the bigger issues in terms of privacy and what gets viewed and the ownership of that, that’s all been in the policy documents and seems to be largely agreed with industry as well. Of course, those cameras are only turned on when there are fish on board and the people are working there, and the information gets transferred digitally to Fisheries New Zealand and they look at the data they need to look at and nothing else.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for the Minister to debug—I should say, vacate the chair. Thank you, Minister.
Social Development and Employment
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we now have the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The Minister is available from 4.51 p.m. to 5.51 p.m.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the chair of the Social Services Committee, pleasure to lead off the debate for Vote Social Development for 2023-24. This is a huge report, 19-pager: I’m going to whistle-stop through it, so I just want to acknowledge all those who were involved in the questioning and delivering of answers.
Vote Social Development is the largest Vote in Budget 2023, at $42.9 billion. Vote Social Development funds the provision of income support and the administration of associated systems and processes. Benefits or related expense accounts account for $35.9 billion, or 83 percent of the total Vote funding. These appropriations are driven by demand and include superannuation, accommodation, hardship, and disability allowances and the winter energy payment. Seven Ministers have responsibility for the appropriations in the Vote: the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who is in the chair today—thank you, Madam—and the Ministers for Disability Issues, Revenue, Veterans, Youth, and Seniors. We heard from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni as well as the Ministers of Disability, Youth, and Seniors. Of note is the $24.45 billion allocated under supporting tangata whaikaha Māori and disabled people within the Vote.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, excuse me, Ms Warren-Clark. Apparently your microphone is not working. Would you mind moving along one, and we’ll allocate the time accordingly?
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Would you like me to start again?
Hon Scott Simpson: No.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: No! Ha, ha—how rude! Is that better? Oh yes, that’s better. All righty.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The House has missed a lot, I’m sure, but carry on.
Terisa Ngobi: Start again.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I think I should start again. The biggest spend—OK. I want to thank the Ministers for attending these sessions and thank all the CEOs etc. Te Pae Tawhiti is a business transformation for the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). The Minister described the business transformation programme, Te Pae Tawhiti, as possibly the most ambitious of its kind in the public service. It is a nine-year programme; the goal is to transform MSD’s systems and services to ensure that clients are treated with dignity and respect.
We spoke about the Total Incomes annual report. The report found that total incomes after housing costs for people receiving a main benefit are 48 percent higher than at the end of 2017. The Minister noted that those on the lowest incomes have fallen behind over the last three decades, and said that there had been no honest attempt to try and catch that up. The Minister pointed out that the Government has increased the minimum wage each year since 2017 and extended the access criteria for special needs grants and recoverable assistance payments to low income workers as well.
She noted that the Budget 2023 proposed funding of $18.67 million for childcare assistance was a 9 percent increase. The Minister also told us that the income threshold for eligibility to receive the childcare and Out of School and Recreation payments had increased, as it not had changed since 2010. They helped to cover the cost of childcare and after school care or holiday programs. She said that the new threshold reflects where it would have been had it continued to lift from 2010. Vote Social Development seeks $266 million dollars for special needs grants, and $372 million for the Recoverable Assistance appropriation.
The Minister told us that fees increases were to recognise the additional pressures that low income households have faced during COVID-19. The Minister told us that the maximum accommodation supplement was also increased in 2018 and she said that there were concerns that this would affect the rental market and the cost of housing, but this had not been the case. We referred to a number of statistics related to beneficiary numbers and projections: the Minister noted that the percentage of people who have exited the benefit and have returned within one year was 48 percent. The Minister also noticed that despite challenges from COVID-19, the cost of living and weather events, New Zealand’s labour market is faring well and unemployment rate is at a near-record low. My time is suddenly gone, so—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll give you another minute for the time that we had to cut you off, so carry on.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister noted that three years after the 2008 global financial crisis, 12.3 percent of the working age population was receiving a benefit, in comparison to 11.1 percent today. We also heard a total of 6,000-plus beneficiary sanctions were issued during the March 2023 quarter. The Minister said that benefit sanctions are issued as a last resort, and that MSD and its clients have obligations to one another.
In 2021-22, 25,218 people moved from the benefit into employment. We asked the Minister what MSD’s most effective interventions are, and what its top priorities in terms of supporting people into work were. The Minister noted Mana in Mahi, employment placement or assistance initiatives, the Training Incentive Allowances, youth services, and job search assistance. There is more to say, but I do recommend that the appropriations for the year ending 30 June for the Vote Social Development be accepted.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Like in many other countries, economic conditions are beginning to change, with inflation and predictions of a rise in unemployment between now and 2025. But the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is here for our communities, helping New Zealanders to be safe, strong, and independent, and carrying out the mahi needed to ensure our welfare system treats New Zealanders with dignity and respect.
We’ve made record investments in main benefits, increased Working for Families, and improved access to childcare assistance. As a result of these actions, there has been a drop in children in food insecure households from 24.1 percent in 2012-13 to 12.5 percent in 2021-22, an increase in afterhousing incomes for those on benefits by on average 43 percent in real terms since 2018, and we have 77,000 fewer children in poverty using the after-housing costs measure.
As a result of our changes, approximately 356,000 individuals, families, and whānau will be on average $118 per week better off, compared to 2017. This includes 109,000 families with children better off by an average of $190 per week, when compared to 2017. This aligns with reductions we are seeing in child poverty and food insecurity as well.
One of the best ways we can help New Zealanders longer term is through employment, which is why Budget 2023 boosted investment across some of MSD’s most successful employment and training programmes. The Training Incentive Allowance has been permanently reinstated for sole parents, disabled people, and those with health conditions to undertake higher-level training or study. The Mayors Taskforce for Jobs and Auckland Council’s Ngā Puna Pūkenga partnership have received another two years of funding. We’ve also invested in the expansion of several hugely successful programmes, including Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi, and driver licence training—yes, travel is one of the most common barriers to getting a job. Oranga Mahi has been funded for another two years, supporting New Zealanders with disabilities and other health conditions into work. And the early response, redeployment support, and rapid return-to-work programmes will continue helping those who have lost their jobs get back into work quickly.
Together with core MSD employment services, these programmes have helped more than 100,000 people into work over the last year alone. That’s lives turned around, careers on the move, and brighter futures for themselves and their whānau.
But we also recognise that the job market landscape changes. The jobs of tomorrow won’t always be the jobs of today. That’s why $2 million has been invested to increase the capacity of the Direct Career Guidance Service—a quick phone call and you could be on your way to a new vocation or further study.
I’d just like to say that I am incredibly proud of MSD and the role they played in the recovery and building back from the recent severe events in the upper North Island. MSD’s support for affected communities will continue into the coming months, working with central and local agencies to put the social sector recovery plan into action and deliver targeted support for whānau. Whether young, old, a sole parent, or living with a disability, every New Zealander should be given the opportunity to live their best lives. I just want to do a shout-out, in particular, to the MSD staff that are in the weather-impacted areas. Not only have they served their communities well but they’ve done that despite the fact that many of them were impacted by the weather events themselves.
We’ve made a number of changes to support Kiwis facing hardship. Benefit rates have been increased to align with the Consumers Price Index. MSD recently reported that for those on a main benefit, total incomes after housing costs are 48 percent higher than at the end of 2017 after adjusting for inflation. We also continued the winter energy payment, increased income thresholds for the childcare subsidy and out of school care and recreation subsidy, and enabled the passing on of child support payments to sole parents.
The reality is most New Zealanders will rely on MSD services at some point in their lives, be it for employment, income support, or superannuation. Often this is much more than just a quick phone call or a flying visit to the Work and Income office; it’s about providing wraparound support, working with clients to understand their circumstances, and helping them overcome what is stopping them from living their best lives.
MSD operates in just about every corner of the motu—130 offices across New Zealand towns, cities, and communities. That is why we’ve invested heavily in MSD’s people and systems to keep these front-line services as fast, efficient, and as accessible as possible. That means matching supply with demand, ensuring there are enough front-line staff in locations where they’re needed. It means ensuring our IT systems, phones, and other technologies can take the pressure if there’s an emergency—quakes, tsunamis, and, yes, of course, floods and cyclones.
Of course, MSD is also thinking about the future, which is why Cabinet has given the go-ahead to Te Pae Tawhiti, multimillion-dollar transformation programme to make it easier for people to get the help they need from MSD. With about 60,000 users a day logging on to MSD’s online service, MyMSD, we know New Zealanders want to engage with MSD online, yet some of the systems MSD uses are 30 years old—that’s pre-internet—and we cannot risk them falling over. It is a massive undertaking and possibly the most ambitious of its kind in the Public Service, and it may take many years, but it will completely transform everything from MSD’s backroom operations to how services are delivered, providing a more consistent and seamless experience for all our clients.
Early changes include a new technology platform giving 130,000 students an easy-to-use online experience, a digital employment platform where 100,000 job seekers can connect with employers, and simpler, more efficient commissioning and reporting processes for MSD’s 2,000 partners, and that’s just the beginning; there’s way more to come. The new technology and processes will create space for the moments that matter, really understanding client situations and needs, and helping them into employment and independence. It’s innovative, transformative, and will make MSD’s services more accessible and more effective for Kiwis from all walks of lives. Thank you. I will now take your questions.
NICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you. My question is a simple one to the Minister, which reflects what surely is one of the primary goals of the Ministry of Social Development, and it is: why has the number of people receiving a main benefit increased so significantly since 2017, with 67,000 more New Zealanders receiving a jobseeker benefit today compared to when the Labour Government came to office, and why is this the case in a time of record job vacancies with employers crying out for workers?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m really relieved that we never got to the forecast numbers that Treasury had predicted when we were hit with the pandemic. They had anticipated that we could get as far as, I believe, 497,000 people on benefit. If we had not responded as quickly as we did at the beginning of the pandemic, and put the measures in place that we did, including the wage subsidy, thousands more New Zealanders would have lost jobs because of the pandemic. It was always anticipated that there would be an increase in beneficiaries because of the pandemic, and then everything that ensued from that, but we never reached those numbers. I think we got just over 390,000 at maximum, and then we have come back down since then.
Yes, the labour workforce or the labour market is very strong at the moment, but what we are finding is that many that have come on benefit don’t necessarily have the skills or experience to take up the jobs that are available in their regions. That is why, as a Government, we have been so focused on upskilling and training, and working with Ministry of Social Development clients to address the barriers to employment that exist.
One of those barriers I mentioned earlier, and that is not having a driver’s licence, or transport, to actually work. I think around 70 percent of employers require that you do have a driver’s licence so that they can be assured that you’re going to be able to get to work. But there are other skills and experiences that many who come on benefit are lacking, and therefore not able to take up the jobs that are available. I’m really proud of some of the investments we’ve made to support New Zealanders who are on benefit into the jobs that are available.
One of those areas is certainly the trades, and a big shout out for the Apprenticeship Boost Programme, which has now seen over 60,000 apprentices go through. That investment, made during COVID-19, and that continues under our Government, is so important for supporting people into employment, but so important for addressing workforce shortages that have existed for far too long. I think it was the responsible investment to make during the pandemic. I will note that when the Global Financial Crisis hit, instead of investing in supporting people to upskill and train in areas like construction, and more generally the trades, unfortunately at that point in time the Government decided to cut funding to apprenticeships, which is definitely what added to the workforce shortages we have seen across the building and construction sector. So our Government responded differently, and I think the investments that we made were the right ones.
Nicola Willis: Point of order, Madam Chair. I understood that this debate was an opportunity for the Minister to provide information in relation to questions about the Estimates. The Minister has made a very wide-ranging contribution—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. First of all, the Speaker in the Chair is the sole judge of relevance, and I’ll remind the member that the Estimates is a wide-ranging debate.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So I wanted to pick up on something the Minister has talked plenty about, around the overhaul of the welfare systems time lines. There are some issues that have been determined to be short term—so, in the next sort of 12 months. One of them was around the review of hardship assistance. I want to get a sense whether that review had started and, if not, when is it due to start and how she expects that work to be carried on in terms of who would like to be consulted or what the scope of that review would be. Because as you’ll know, the civil defence payment is tied to hardship assistance, and every time that our families are experiencing severe weather events, they are having to apply for a 20-year-old payment. So it would be really useful to get a sense of when we expect it to be started/finalised.
I also want to get an understanding about whether Working for Families changes are still a priority for this Government. As we know, there was a failed Budget bid that didn’t make it through and we think a Working for Families overhaul is a priority, and I just want to get an understanding of what work she intends to do this year to improve access to the full Working for Families package, particularly for people who are receiving main benefits.
Equally, I want to get a sense about whether any work had been started around the removal of the warrant to arrest sanction, and whether she foresees that to be happening in the next 12 months. I also know that there was plenty of consultation with advocacy groups around the purpose and principles of the Social Security Act. I know there were some kind of exchanges between officials and groups at the front lines and I want to get a sense of what we should be expecting in the near future around that, because the previous member was talking about, I guess, people entering employment and the number of people receiving benefits. There is that fundamental question about whether the purpose of the Act is to serve the needs of businesses, as members on my right would like to allude, or whether it is to enable people to live good lives. So I’m really interested to get a sense of where that’s at.
Then, finally, the Minister may have seen reports around a spike of sanctions in the regions of Wellington around the occurrence of work seminars and therefore that leading to a spike of sanctions. I guess I want to get a sense of the confidence the Minister has around the integrity of how information is captured in those work seminars, because we have seen reports of people attending those seminars and then them being noted as not attending and then being sanctioned. So I just want to get her levels of confidence around whether those seminars are guaranteeing that, and whether she intends for those seminars to guarantee people good work, and whether they’re actually then contributing to people entering decent work. Also, whether she’s got any measurements or any information that she collects to test how useful those work seminars are beyond them resulting in a spike of sanctions when they do happen, in great frequency.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): That’s quite a number of things covered in that one contribution by the Green Party member, but I appreciate that and I’ll do my best to respond to all of the matters that he has raised. I’m starting with the review of hardship support. So that work is under way, but we haven’t stopped doing things, because we’re looking at the whole system around hardship support. That member is very aware that we were able to move quickly to make some changes, including the lift for the dental grant from $300 to $1,000 per year, and changing the eligibility criteria around that to make it more accessible. We also were able to lift the income thresholds so that more low-income New Zealanders can have access to hardship grants through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), which previously they couldn’t. That was something that happened when we were really going through the throes of COVID, but we decided to make permanent. It really came off the back of the feedback that we were receiving from many of our social services out there who were saying that it wasn’t just beneficiary families, it was low-income working families that were struggling during that time, and so we wanted to extend the hardship support to them as well. Is there more to do? Yes, there certainly is, but we need to look at the whole system.
Ricardo Menéndez March: When?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would hope that there would be recommendations around changes within the next two years. The Working for Families review is ongoing and we continue to seek advice in respect of that. There was nothing in the Budget, as the member cited, but that doesn’t mean that all of that work has been cast away or parked for ever. The intention is certainly to continue doing that work and then to make changes in the future.
The next point I will speak to is just in respect of sanctions. When we came in, we made it very clear to MSD—or I did as a Minister—that it should be a last resort and they should be giving plenty of notification to people so that they have the ability to re-comply. So my understanding is that they are still following that system and it certainly is still used as a last resort. If the member has examples of where people are saying that they showed up to a work seminar and they were sanctioned anyway, then those are definitely examples I would want sent to MSD or myself so that we can follow up and make sure that someone hasn’t been treated unfairly by the Ministry of Social Development. But I have no reason to believe that that is a wide-ranging or common practice that’s occurring. There is always the potential that human error has occurred, but if there are examples of where that member thinks that has happened, then those examples or cases should be sent through to myself or the Ministry of Social Development to be able to resolve as quickly as possible.
In terms of a spike of sanctions, I would say that during the throes of COVID, again, there was certainly a reduction in sanctions because of the fact that we couldn’t necessarily apply the expectations around work obligations to the extent that we can during any business’s usual year or time. There were reasons why people would not be able to comply during that period, and so there was quite a reduction then, but still the numbers that we’re seeing are significantly less than what was being experienced or what we were seeing pre us coming into Government and making the commitment to ensuring that we have a welfare system that upholds the dignity of New Zealanders that have to access that system.
Then, finally, the other question was put to me around the purpose and principles of the Act and when we are going to do that. That is certainly something that we would like to get on to in the next year, as well. Some people thought that we should have started there with the overhaul, but one of the reasons why we didn’t start with that at the beginning was because, unfortunately, given the nature of some of the policies in the legislation and throughout the welfare system, potentially any revised purpose and principles could have ended up being completely unaligned with the practice and what is happening in the welfare system. So we’ve been doing what we can to overhaul the whole system whilst in the back of our minds knowing we want to get to the point where we can change the purpose and principles in a way where everything aligns.
KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, we had many conversations, and I guess we’d agree, that people being on benefit for longer—it’s a lot harder to get back into work and that it’s best to try and do whatever possible to get people back into work as quickly as we can, and long-term dependency can become a bit of a problem.
So I’m just wondering, does the Minister think it’s acceptable that, as of the March 2023 quarter, only 37 percent of the 12,500 work-ready job seekers who have been receiving the benefit for over five years were receiving any employment case management; and of those, only 0.6 percent of the work-ready job seekers receiving the benefit for over five years were receiving any other form of case management in the March 2023 quarter?
If this is an issue, is there a plan to get a bit better in that way or of helping people get into employment when they are long-term dependent on the job-ready jobseeker? What’s the plan?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Just currently, what we have is around 64,077 in employment case management. What we did from the time we got into Government was invest quite heavily in front-line, work-focused case management, and we’ve continued to do that over the time that we have been in there and ring-fenced that. Because what we saw previously was that the demand was going up for income support and hardship support, and so inevitably what was happening before we got in was the focus on work was reducing. So we have a much stronger ring-fenced support now for those that need it through the welfare system.
I will say that this was one of the things that came out of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s work. They had spoken to people about their thoughts to do with the welfare system, and many had said they wanted a stronger focus and more support for upskilling and training and for that work focus. What we also have been doing is very much focused—over the COVID period and this has continued—on supporting people who come on to benefit quickly to get into work.
So that’s where programmes like the Rapid Return to Work programme are really important, because the best way in which you can avoid long-term welfare dependency is to get in there quickly and support people into employment so that they are not on benefit for long.
We also did things which have been questioned by some members in the House but I think that this is the right thing to do, where some of the employment programmes that we are offering, although still targeted to people who are at risk of being unemployed or not getting a job in a tight labour market—so Māori; Pacific; disabled; in some instances, women—we have opened up some of our employment programmes so that those targeted groups may not be on benefit but get access to the programmes anyway, because then it helps to mitigate the risk of them coming into the welfare system to start with.
So those are some of the ways in which we’ve been working, and we continue to work, to mitigate the risks of long-term welfare dependency.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just picking up on the issue around sanctions and work seminars, there are reports of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) threatening to cut job seekers’ income in half, in error. This is reported by Ethan Te Ora, from The Post, on 19 July of 2023. This has followed a doubling of benefit sanctions in the Wellington region. So while I take the point that benefit sanctions have decreased over the period when we had lockdowns, a doubling of sanctions in three months is quite a significant increase.
Why I was asking the Minister about her confidence in the integrity of information gathering in those workshops, and even the value of those workshops and whether they’re meaningfully supporting people into employment, is that MSD has been unable to actually give us information of how many people who attend those workshops are actually entering employment, and how many are attending those workshops. That information seems not to be collected centrally, but the information that is collected centrally is how many people are punished for not being engaged with those workshops.
So if the Minister’s not able to quantify, actually, how many people are being supported into jobs as a direct and tangible result of those work seminars, how is she confident that those workshops are worth it, when all we can actually understand is how many people are punished. So I guess I’m just asking the Minister to reassure us that, over the course of the next year, she can quantify how many people are supported into good, well-paying employment as a direct result of those work seminars, in the same way she’s able to quantify directly how many people are punished as a direct result of not engaging with those work seminars.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you. To that question, and it has been raised before, I think that the chief executive may have spoken to it at select committee as well. The work seminars on their own are not something that necessarily will support someone into employment. Someone may attend a work seminar and then learn about the Mana in Mahi programme or learn about some of the other employment products that are there, some of the other supports that are in place. They may get support for how they look for jobs, what they need to do to prepare for work, but on their own, they can’t be measured as something that will support someone into work by itself. There’s a whole lot of support that needs to go around it. For some, it will be the ongoing work and support that they’re getting from their front-line work-focused case manager as well.
And so when we have programmes that are work-focused, like Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Flexi-wage, Apprenticeship Boost, we can measure how many people go into those and then whether or not they retain the work that they take up and then whether or not they come back on to benefit or not—whether they complete and then go and do something else—so it is measurable, I guess. But the work seminars, by themselves, are not something where you can measure an employment outcome; they are just a part of what is provided to help prepare and support someone on their employment journey and into work.
In terms of sanctions, again, I would need the member, and anyone else who has examples where they think that someone has been treated unfairly with a sanction applied where it shouldn’t have been, to let me know. And, obviously, if there was a number of cases and it looked like there was something happening that wasn’t quite right, then we would look into it further. But otherwise it would be a case by case basis. And just to assure that member, the review of sanctions is under way.
NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Madam Chair, I have just a few questions for the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. The first is in relation to that increase in people on the main benefit, which I referred to earlier. I note that also the future years a person will spend on a main benefit has increased, so that the average future years a person will spend on a main benefit has increased to 12.8 years, up considerably from what it was in 2017, at 10.7 years. I wonder if the Minister could explain to us why it is that people are spending longer periods on benefits under her Government.
I also was interested, in the Estimates, to see that there have been significant funding reductions for a number of training programmes previously available to beneficiaries, including a $68 million decrease in funding for the Flexi-wage programme, around a $15 million decrease in funding for the Māori Trades and Training Fund, and an around $8 million decrease in funding for the Mana in Mahi programme. I’m hoping the Minister can explain to us why those reductions have been made.
And, finally, I wanted to ask the Minister just a little bit more about that review of Working for Families. What is the intent of that review? How long has it been going on? Why is it happening? And what does she want to see come out of it? Thank you.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In terms of the forecasts or predictions around future years on the main benefit, I do need to give that some context. Often, when people look at that, they think it is the sole failure of the welfare system or that it’s because of the welfare system that any forecast period of time on benefit has increased.
The reality is that what it comes down to is the complex nature of the social and health issues that people are coming on to the welfare system with. It is things like whether or not they have a history of having been in State care, having been under the care of Oranga Tamariki. It is whether or not they perhaps have been incarcerated. And, as I said, the other social and health challenges, including the prevalence of mental health amongst those that are coming on to benefit, then add to the years, I guess, that have been put on the predicted number of years that someone might be on benefit.
That doesn’t have to be the case. We’re certainly working hard with the Ministry of Social Development to ensure that people who come on to benefit are getting the support that they need to be able to get into employment, and it varies; it depends on what challenges they come with and what the barriers are for them that are affecting their ability to be able to get into employment. So it is important that we have a broad range of offerings within the welfare system to support people into upskilling and training and work.
Some of the reductions have been due to no longer having COVID funding—let’s face that—but, if we look across the employment offerings, what we can see is actually we are still investing significantly into supporting people into upskilling and training and employment.
KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the answers that were given to my previous question around employment case management and how we’re helping people to not become long-term dependent on benefits, but my question was really around: what are we doing to the people who are there, who are now on long-term dependency on a benefit and not receiving the employment case management? So whilst the answers were really good around how we’re preventing people becoming long-term dependent on benefit, what are we doing for the ones that are already there?
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): So just picking up on the workshops, I know that the Minister for Social Development talked about that it is not just people going directly into jobs that happen as a result of those job fairs, job workshops, etc., but, for example, with the ones in Wellington where sanctions had increased, she was able to actually tell me which employers had engaged directly with it and attended, for example. But then there was no information around how many people attended even, right? And so, I guess, while I get her point that there’s multiple things that may happen at the workshops, is it concerning for her that there’s an inability to present quick and easy information about how many people are attending and how many people are actually then going into jobs as a direct result of engaging with those workshops? Does she not think that is useful information that would be worthwhile to collect in the same way that she does collect sanctions?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Attendance? I think that’s an interesting question, so I’ll certainly take that away and find out why they haven’t been able to provide you with that data. But, again, trying to correlate the work seminars with direct employment outcomes is not going to happen, because of the range of supports that come about because of their attendance at the work seminars. So I have to say that from what I can see, and certainly from what I have overseen as Minister, the reporting by the Ministry of Social Development, now, on outcomes through employment programs and upskilling and training programs—the transparency that is provided with respect to the effectiveness of those programmes far exceeds anything that existed when we first took office at the end of 2017. So I’m really glad with that progress. But, of course, we want to continue to be able to provide insights and data to show how effective the investments are and how well these programs are working for New Zealanders that take them up, who have come on to the welfare system—or perhaps didn’t have to come on to the welfare system because they accessed these supports. So I think there is ongoing work there to deal with regards to reporting, but I’m very, very, very proud of where we have got to, and it far exceeds, as I said, what existed when we first took office.
Just with respect to the ACT member Karen Chhour’s question, there are a range of supports that are in place for long-term beneficiaries, so I’ll just speak to a few. So Oranga Mahi is one to support people with higher barriers—often mental health and disability related. It’s really important that we recognize that one of the highest levels of unemployment sits with people who have mental health and disabilities. For far too long they have not been invested in, and there is an overwhelming desire for many of them who want to work but aren’t necessarily given the opportunity to work or provided with the support to be able to get into employment.
Another example is the Training Incentive Allowance, with some of our sole parents being at risk or being on benefit for longer periods of time because of their care responsibilities. Reinstating that not only means that they have a good chance of getting into employment but it also means that they have a good chance of getting into better paid employment that is more meaningful for them and actually can be—you know, can create a generational shift. We know the research is there to support that a child’s level of academic attainment is often dictated by the mother’s level of academic achievement. Now, not all Training Incentive Allowance recipients are women but a big proportion of them are, due to the fact that it is those on sole parent support that are able to take that up.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thought I would just ask a different line of questioning. Minister, you spoke about insights and data. My question, really, is about what work the Social Wellbeing Agency has done to support the Government’s response to recent extreme weather events.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Mr—Madam Chair; sorry, I keep forgetting that the Chair has changed.
They have done a lot to support what is happening with the recent weather events. They’ve been able to provide insights that inform the decision-making, but it’s not just the weather events; they’ve been working across Government to support some of the priority work programmes. They have been able to provide data and insights on young people who have been involved in ram raids. That data gives a very clear picture of some of the social challenges that these young people were facing.
They also informed the work that was done around alternative education, to provide insights and data on the effectiveness of alternative education. That will help to inform the review and any changes that might need to be made there. They’ve been working actively with the family violence and sexual violence programme, led by Minister Marama Davidson, and supporting with the data and insights there.
And they continue to provide the secretariat support to the Social Wellbeing Board, which is all of the chief executives of our main social sector Government agencies. That means that they are tied into a number of the priority work programmes and on hand to be able to support with data and insights. They are making a massive contribution, often not recognised behind the scenes, because they just quietly get on and do their thing. But they are doing a fantastic job.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. I’m wanting to ask some questions around the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill, which I understand may now no longer be presented to Parliament before the election, which I’m hoping to have confirmed. I will celebrate loudly if I get to hear that, considering the huge opposition from disability communities to that piece of legislation, and what a deep let-down it was for all of us who care about removing barriers to full participation in our society. So I’m interested to know—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! This is an Estimates debate, and so the member will confine her comments and questions to the Appropriation Bill.
JAN LOGIE: So the accessibility bill, in terms of the implementation of that, has financial impacts in the year ahead, and actually, in terms of the budgets through the organisations, it fits within the gambit of the agencies, and so I think is in space for conversation in this hearing.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I appreciate the answers that have been provided. I’m particularly interested in bringing it back to the training programmes and the fact that under your leadership, this Government has cut funding to these programmes. My colleague identified a $68 million decrease in the Flexi-wage programme, a $14.5 million decrease in the Māori Trade Training fund, and an almost $8 million decrease in funding for the Mana in Mahi programme. Why is that, Minister, when there’s been a constant increase in job seeker numbers this year, with more than 100,000 individuals who’ve been on jobseeker for more than a year?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’ll just respond to this question while we check out the appropriation for the last question. There continues to be a huge investment in upskilling and training, as I mentioned before. Some of the initiatives were funded through COVID funding and so we were never going to be able to continue funding to the extent that we were during that period of time with that additional funding that was available. But we’ve maintained our focus on those areas that we do know that work, making the Training Incentive Allowance permanent now, because previously, when we reinstated it, it was funded via COVID funding. Continuing with Mana in Mahi, continuing with Flexi-wage, continuing with the Apprenticeship Boost, and then, of course, committing to two more years of the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs and Auckland Council’s Ngā Puna Pūkenga—so it is still an expansion of support that is in place compared to when we took office.
The good thing about these programmes is that, as I said earlier to the Green Party member, we are able to measure the effectiveness of the programmes and see that they are making a real difference, particularly for those groups that we have been targeting because of the fact that they could be disadvantaged in a tight labour market. So I’m really proud of the investments that we have. We were never going to be able to retain the level of investment that came with the COVID funding, but they were the right investments to make at the time, and we’ve continued on with those things that we do know are effective.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive answer. I’m now going to turn to children in benefit-dependent homes. Could the Minister please state what aspects of the 2023/24 Estimates actively plan to reduce the number of children in benefit-dependent homes when there are currently 211,000 children living in these benefit-dependent homes—39,000 more than when National was in power?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m just going to respond to the Green Party member, Jan Logie. I am being very careful because I’m unsure of where the process is at with the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill and consideration of that. So I’m seeking advice to make sure that I don’t pre-empt any decisions or statements made by the actual Minister for Disability Issues.
With regards to children in benefit households, recognising that when the number of people go up on benefit, then we do have an increase in the number of children that are in benefit households or in households where they are receiving a benefit. Recognising too, though, that there are a number of families who are receiving a benefit who are also earning whilst they receive a benefit. They may be working part-time and it may be the extent to which they can work because of their care responsibilities with their children.
Because of that, I’m really proud of the fact that we were able to lift the abatement threshold so that they can earn more whilst on benefit without losing the benefit because that helps to prepare them, I think, for full-time work when they are able to—dependent on what their care responsibilities are for their children.
We’ve got to keep in mind that many of those that have children on benefit—not all, but many—are sole parents, so often it is difficult to hold down a full-time job when you have children and you are the sole caregiver for those children. Despite the fact that we do see more children in households where someone is claiming a benefit—but keeping in mind some of them may be working part-time as well—we still see 77,000 fewer children living in poverty, and those are the most recent figures that we’ve been given on the after-housing-costs measure.
That goes to show that not only have our increases to support through the welfare system but our increases to things like the minimum wage—and the range of other initiatives that we put in place—are making a real difference to the levels of poverty experienced by children in New Zealand, and we need to continue on with that work.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): Minister, to elaborate further on that, the question that I asked was what aspects of the 2023/24 Estimates actively plan to reduce the number of children in benefitdependent homes? The Minister’s response addressed as to why children are in benefitdependent homes. I’m asking specifically to look into what is the Government’s active plan to reduce the number of children in such homes. Thank you.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’ll have to speak again to the investment in the upskilling and training and employment programme. Clearly we can’t support the children into work, but what we can do is work with the families to support them to take up employment, and I’ve listed off the investments that have been made—particularly the ones at Budget 2023 and what we are planning for the year ahead—so I won’t traverse that again. But we do need to be supporting the parents to be able to take up employment and then, clearly, if they are no longer on benefit, then there are fewer children that are in households that are on benefit.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour): Minister, I’d like to hear about the minimum wage. What work are you doing to ensure that all people are paid at least the minimum wage?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): A good question. The Government is investing $37.312 million over four years to replace the minimum wage exemption with a wage supplement.
Currently, approximately 800 disabled people are able to be paid less than the minimum wage on the basis that they are perceived to be less productive. We’ve committed to removing this discriminatory rule in our manifesto, and our recent investment through Budget 2023 follows through on this.
It has not been an easy discussion. I think there’s been real fear that the workplaces that employ these people may not be able to continue to operate. We’ve tried to work with the sector in a way in which we can support them to retain their employees and then, of course, support those employers to be able to remain in their jobs. And so that is where we got to, with respect to the wage supplement.
I have to say that often it’s overlooked, when we’re having this discussion, that it’s actually part of our international commitment through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. For quite some time we have been questioned about this practice that we have and there was an expectation from the UN committee that we would get on to addressing it. So it is with some relief that we are finally getting there.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. When will the disabled community see the changes? And the second question to that is if there are any other details you can give us—tell us more about the wage supplement you just spoke about.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I might just take another question. Thanks, Anahila.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A: OK.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No, not from you.
JAN LOGIE (Green): I was wondering if Minister Carmel Sepuloni could speak to us about the work support available for disabled people going into employment or education and training, and that the Disabled Persons Assembly has done research around that report that has shown a significant drop in the payout. Off the top of my head, at the job level, it’s dropped by about 30 percent—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What has dropped?
JAN LOGIE: Around the work—and I’m not remembering the name of the scheme; a work support scheme for people with disabilities going into employment or education and training. There are two separate funds that are available for people, to support them in employment or education and training. The Disabled Persons Assembly have done an analysis of the scheme and found that a lot less money is being paid out, and the maximum amount that can possibly be paid out has not been increased since the funds were set up in 1994. They’re really concerned and want a review of the funds, and also about clearer guidance for employers on reasonable accommodation, because there seems to be some confusion, where maybe Government has turned the fund into a fund of last resort and is expecting people to put up and pay for basic things themselves, or expecting employers to do it as part of their obligations to provide reasonable accommodation. But disabled people feel as if they’re stuck in the middle of that and are having to pay for the cost of our disabling society.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The question that the member Jan Logie is asking I think I’m going to need to be put in writing, because I don’t know if this was something that was discussed through the Estimates preparation or whether that’s something that I’ve been given information about, to be honest. So I think it’s better that you put that in writing, and then we’ll follow up.
I am relieved to be able to say that there’s been a lot of work done on the disabled persons employment action plan, and the actions are either achieved or tracking. That was very much informed by disabled people themselves and having that in place will enable us to be able to track our progress with respect to providing real support to disabled people, and where we fall short, we shouldn’t be afraid to put our hands up and say that more needs to be done, because, as I’ve said a number of times in this House, this is an area and a community that have been underserved with respect to any focus for employment programmes and upskilling and training for far too long. We have started—I feel, as a Government—working with disabled people, but there is much more to do in that space.
I’m just speaking to my colleague the member of Parliament Anahila Kanongata’a. I think the question was whether or not I could tell you more about the wage supplement that we’re putting in place to replace the minimum wage exemption. After consultation with disabled people, it was really clear that a wage supplement is the only feasible option to replace the minimum wage exemption while protecting existing jobs, and that is where we landed. That is what came out of the consultation with disabled people, with disabled persons’ organisations, and also with employers. So that is certainly the route that we decided to take as a consequence of that.
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): Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Bills
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 20 July.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to give the last speech of the day—hopefully—on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.
We oppose this bill for several reasons, which I’ll get into shortly, but I do note that all the submitters from the industry, the alcohol industry—none of them actually oppose the stated intent of the bill. The problem is the stated intent of the bill is not actually progressed at all by this bill. It’s unfortunate that it doesn’t really address the issue it sought out to solve, and it’s going to have a potentially huge impact on those businesses. There are 67 councils in New Zealand and that’ll mean 67 different licensing authorities, so there will be no real consistency in this with this bill.
It allows local authorities to decline the alcohol licence every three years when it comes up, based on its locality, if it’s close to a school or a health facility, and there is a principle in resource management law that those that come to the nuisance have less of a right. Actually, there could be a scenario, particularly like with cellar doors, which we spoke about yesterday, where—and I can think of several that have been established for almost 100 years and, potentially, could lose their licence because, say, a kindergarten gets built just down the road from them, which has come to the nuisance, effectively. So I think that’s a pretty poor result.
I note also it restricts who can question and cross-examine submitters, and that really speaks to the lack of justice, effectively, in this. If we have the ability for the licensing authorities to decide, and they may well favour one side or the other of the argument, and they can choose who gets to give evidence and who gets to cross-examine, we’re getting lopsided justice. It has all the hallmarks of a kangaroo court.
I do note, going to things like cellar doors, as I mentioned earlier, and the tourism impacts that they have—and they’re often located in historical places—it’s really interesting to note that pre the lockdowns, international wine tourists spent 27 percent more, on average, than the average tourist, and 23 percent of international tourists visit a winery. So we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot with this legislation. We’re just getting our tourism industry back off its knees after those dreadful lockdowns, and now we’re going to potentially bring the whole sector into chaos.
While it might be well-intentioned, this bill, it misses the mark. It’s miles off it, and therefore we cannot support this bill.
SPEAKER: Members, the debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 15 August 2023. Kia ora mai tātou.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.