Wednesday, 18 September 2024

WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2024

WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

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

CLERK: Annual reports for the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That bill has been set down for second reading.

Speaker’s Rulings

Oral Questions—Length of Answers

SPEAKER: Members, yesterday I commented that several answers from Ministers were far too long. I remind you that Standing Order 396(2) states that answers should be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question. Speakers’ rulings 204/1 through to 204/4 are also relevant. Where I deem an answer to a question asked by a member from the Minister’s own party to be too long, curtailing supplementary questions may be a consequence.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Last week, Statistics New Zealand released the latest monthly selected price indexes. This is not the full Consumer Price Index (CPI), which comes out quarterly, but it covers a number of constituent items, including food, which is almost 20 percent of the total basket of goods and services in the CPI. Last week’s release shows that food prices in New Zealand—including prices of fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy, and grocery items—rose only 0.4 percent over the past year. I think that the fact that food prices have settled will be welcomed by New Zealand households after years of a cost of living crisis.

Stuart Smith: How does this compare to food price increases over recent years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Annual food price inflation was 4.2 percent at the beginning of this year and has come right down to 0.4 percent, yet during 2022 and 2023, in the worst period of the cost of living crisis, food prices were rising more than 10 percent a year. So, yes, in that context, an annual food price increase of 0.4 percent is very low, and excluding the current year, you have to go back to 2018 to find annual food price increases as low as 0.4 percent.

Stuart Smith: What are people’s expectations for future CPI increases?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank, in its August Monetary Policy Statement, is forecasting annual CPI inflation of 2.3 percent in the current quarter, thereafter declining to 2 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: About what it was before the election.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Other economic forecasters have a similar view—I just wish the Leader of the Opposition could delight in the cost of living coming down for the New Zealanders we are all meant to serve. Businesses, as surveyed in the ANZ Business Outlook survey, expect inflation to be under 3 percent in a year’s time. The first—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Speech.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: For the benefit of Ginny Andersen, the first sub 3 percent result in this survey since July 2021. And it is, of course, a long way from inflation of 7.3 percent under the past Government.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister seen any reports on the costs of running a car in Wellington, and, if so, how do they compare with rates rises under the council there?

SPEAKER: Yeah—not strictly in line with the other questions, so we’ll move that. Stuart Smith.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any Standing Order that forbids that question from being asked or answered?

SPEAKER: Yes, there are. I quoted them earlier today—if the member was listening—and if he likes to get his books out and have a look at those references, he’ll find his answers. 

Stuart Smith: What does lower inflation mean for interest rates and the future of the economy?

SPEAKER: Well, once again, wide of the mark, so we’ll go to question No. 2—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, especially our action to support young families with the cost of living. As of yesterday, low to middle income families with young children can register for the new FamilyBoost payment to help them meet the cost of early childhood education. That’s good news for all those families in the squeezed middle, who have been hit hard by the cost of living crisis in recent years. The last few years have been tough, especially for those young families juggling work and childcare. As this is a Government for working Kiwis, FamilyBoost is just one of the actions, along with tax relief, to get on top of the rising cost of living and support Kiwis to get ahead.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government still committed to meeting its emissions reduction obligations under the Paris Agreement; if so, is it the Government’s intention to meet those obligations solely through domestic emissions reductions within New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, the Government is on track to deliver on its commitments for 2050.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I was asking the Prime Minister whether he was intending to meet those obligations through domestic reductions within New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Well, he addressed the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it the Government’s intention to meet those emissions reduction obligations within New Zealand by reducing New Zealand’s emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that is deeply committed to delivering on our net zero goals for 2050. We have a comprehensive climate strategy that involves transport, energy, waste, agriculture, public electric vehicle chargers, doubling renewable energy, and, obviously, giving more tools to farmers, including gene editing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the Government doesn’t meet its emissions reduction obligations by reducing New Zealand’s emissions, will it purchase international carbon credits to offset its failure to reach those targets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to the member is that we are on track to hit the first and second emissions budgets. We have actually been consulting on our draft emissions reduction plan. It is out there—[Interruption] It is now, and we look forward to reporting back on that in the fourth quarter of this year.

SPEAKER: Just calm it down. The general sort of, what would you say, interjection across the House, when it’s coming from more than one person, is very difficult.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, does he agree with Simon Watts that it wouldn’t be realistic for New Zealand to use overseas carbon credits to meet the 2030 target; if so, how does he intend to meet New Zealand’s obligations under the Paris Agreement, given the latest emissions reduction plan indicates the Government will fall short of the target?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I do agree with Simon Watts. He’s doing an excellent job as the Minister of Climate Change, and what I’d say is that we have sent a draft emissions reduction plan out. Consulting, I think, is now closed, and in the next quarter you’ll see a final emissions reduction plan that will lay that out exactly.

Hon Shane Jones: How does a trip to London by a parliamentarian seeking economic and political salvation contribute to the reduction of global emissions?

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister would have to answer for half the House if he was going to do that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. This is a Parliament where you’re allowed to debate ideas and concepts, and it’s a very innocent question as to whether our country’s carbon footprint is enhanced by this needless travel or not.

SPEAKER: That might be true, but, if you go to the heart of it, the arbiter of whether or not a question can be asked is actually the Speaker. And, obviously, that one can’t be.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order—

SPEAKER: No, no. Don’t argue with the Speaker’s ruling.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, the arbiter is not just the Speaker; otherwise, we are going to be the victim of—

SPEAKER: Hang on—wait on.

Hon Willie Jackson: No!

SPEAKER: Who spoke then?

Hon Willie Jackson: Me.

SPEAKER: Just do not speak while there is a point of order in progress.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, the arbiter is not the Speaker’s personality; it is tradition and precedent, and I’m afraid this Parliament is being—excuse the words—negatived by unfair rulings. This is a place of waging war in terms of political ideas and debate. We welcome it. We’re one of the world’s great democracies, so please don’t spoil that development.

SPEAKER: And I quite agree with you, but if you look at the Speakers’ rulings that I quoted today, you’ll find that that’s where your argument is. Come along to the Standing Orders Committee and make a case, but, in any event, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for anything that the Opposition does.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he aware that the Government’s decision to scrap the Clean Car Discount and lower the Clean Car Standard increased New Zealand’s emissions by more than the annual emissions of Tuvalu, Nauru, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Tonga, Vanuatu, Palau, Solomon Islands, Samoa, and Fiji combined?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I am well aware that we are going to deliver emissions reduction budget No. 1, emissions reduction budget No. 2. We have an emissions reduction plan that is out there, which you’ll see in the fourth quarter, but I’d just say to that member: if you’re very serious about delivering on net carbon zero 2050, actually support our fast-track legislation; actually support ending the oil and gas ban, because all we’ve had is a just transition from stopping getting domestic gas to importing foreign coal, and that doesn’t seem right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will next year’s Budget account for the New Zealand Government’s financial liability in the event that the Government doesn’t meet its emissions reduction targets; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: You’ll have to wait till next year’s Budget.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I can’t see how that could possibly be Budget sensitive. It’s asking whether the Government is actually going to be accounting for the significant multibillion-dollar financial liability that New Zealand will have in the event that it doesn’t meet its targets.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a hypothetical, to say the least, and the Budget for next year clearly hasn’t been set. Do you have another question?

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action on housing. I know the member opposite is a fan of rent control, and the good news is that our Government has delivered a rent control all of our own. According to Tenancy Services, there has been no increase in average rents since the end of last year. And according to Statistics New Zealand, the flow measure of rent inflation has fallen to just 1.4 percent over the last 12 months. It’s a great reminder that you don’t need to control rents with more taxes, regulations, and interventions. You keep rents down with less tax, fewer regulations, less intervention, and more housing supply. I’m proud that our Government has a comprehensive programme to do just that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does cutting over 400 public sector science jobs across GNS Science, the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere Research Ltd., Callaghan Innovation, and other Government departments support his coalition commitment that “decisions will be based on data and evidence”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because it’s a Government interested in outcomes, and we make sure we’re organised to deliver those outcomes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his disregard for the overwhelming evidence against military-style boot camps by saying, “I don’t care what you say about [what] does or doesn’t work.”, and, if so, is this a more true reflection of his Government’s priorities than the therefore neglected coalition commitment that “decisions will be based on data and evidence”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t care what media pundits or commentators think about that. We are making a powerful, targeted intervention in the lives of vulnerable New Zealanders. We’ve got a pilot under way with respect to our military-style academies and we are going to do everything we can to get a different set of outcomes. What the previous Government was doing wasn’t working—we’re changing that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When, if at all, does he intend to appoint a new Chief Science Adviser, a role that he knew would be vacated back when he became Prime Minister and has now been empty for months?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We currently have a review of the science system and there’ll be a decision made about that shortly.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does it say about his Government’s commitment to “data and evidence” that since he has taken office, chief science adviser roles at the ministries of transport and education and the Department of Conservation have been vacated and still remain vacant?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, it’s a different way of thinking. We are interested in improving outcomes environmentally, socially, and economically. The way we organise Government will be different from the previous administration. It’s what we do that matters as much as the roles we have and the money that we put in.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If he is going to ignore his coalition agreement’s stated commitment to data and evidence, would he also think to ignore, for example, divisive commitments to introducing a Treaty principles rewrite bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We take our coalition commitments incredibly seriously and we honour them with each other.

Hon David Seymour: Would the Government’s commitment to decision making based on data and evidence include taking a policy that sounds kind of the same from decades ago and using it to judge the military-style academies being introduced by this Government which are completely different, as that member just did?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re doing a pilot to make sure that we get it right, but it is incredibly different from what has been proposed in the past decades.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to reduce harm caused by gangs and to make communities safer?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government’s taking many actions. Shortly, the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill will pass their third readings in Parliament, which will reduce the ability of gangs to cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to New Zealanders by giving the police additional tools to disrupt gang activity. Another action of the Government is to introduce the sentencing reform package that will install real consequences for crime and, ultimately, will put more serious offenders, including gang members, in prison for longer to prevent them creating new victims.

Rima Nakhle: Why do police need additional tools to deal with gangs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because gang membership increased by 51 percent in the previous six years, and the police needed new tools to be able to respond. We’re doing this for the law-abiding New Zealanders who should be able to go about their lives without fear of being intimidated and preyed upon by organised crime.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government ensuring the Gangs Bill covers gang patches and other insignia displayed in vehicles?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government is introducing an amendment to the Gangs Bill that will ensure that gang patches and other gang insignia that are displayed from within a vehicle will be covered by the gang. The Government has decided to clarify that because when we identify a potential problem, we move to fix it.

Rima Nakhle: Does the Minister agree with commentary that, in relation to gangs, “There are no real problems that need immediate attention.”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m afraid I disagree with that comment by Dr Duncan Webb. It is urgent. Gang members make up less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the adult population, yet they’re linked to 18 percent of all serious violent crime, 19 percent of all homicides, 23 percent of all firearms offences, and 25 percent of all kidnapping and abductions.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his decision to appoint a Health New Zealand commissioner, and does he stand by his commitment not to cut front-line services at Health New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I absolutely stand by my decision to appoint a commissioner to Health New Zealand. The botched health reforms have contributed to Health New Zealand’s achievement levels deteriorating both financially and in terms of performance, and that was not sustainable. That’s why we took decisive action to appoint a commissioner in order to turn Health New Zealand around and to assure that our Government’s record investment in health—$16.68 billion in this year’s Budget—would go where it is needed most. To the second part of the member’s question, the commissioner has been made very aware that my expectation is that front-line services are not to be cut. He has consistently assured me that this will not happen. New Zealanders require a health system that works when they need it, and we’re committed to delivering that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he think it is acceptable that non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are being used at Health New Zealand in an unprecedented manner and even cover officials expressing their ideas about Health New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: NDAs are standard commercial practice and they’ve been carried across by numerous Governments, including in the form of confidentiality agreements.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: With respect to his instructions to the Health New Zealand Commissioner, has he said any particular cuts are off the table?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: That is an operational matter for Health New Zealand. As I said in my very first statement, I’ve expressed my expectations to the Health Commissioner that cuts to front-line services will not happen.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he describe in plain English to the people of New Zealand how he is making sure they are not put at risk by cost-cutting measures at Health New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We’re establishing a framework with Health New Zealand using the assistance of Ministry of Health, Health New Zealand, and the Health Quality and Safety Commission to make sure that as the Health New Zealand turn-around progresses, patients and staff are safe.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did he or his office instruct any Government members of the Health Committee to vote against my proposal that key financial reports be presented ahead of today’s select committee hearing?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have had no discussions of that nature.

Question No. 6—Police

6. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of Police: How many members of the Comancheros motorcycle gang are facing charges following recent Police operations?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): I’m happy to confirm that following Operations Embargo, Scuba, Brewer, and Avon, 41 members of the Comancheros have received a total of 137 charges. That includes 17 office holders, 10 patched members, and 14 prospects. I want to congratulate and thank our hard-working New Zealand Police for their outstanding work in dealing a significant blow to the Comancheros in New Zealand.

Joseph Mooney: What results did those operations bring?

Hon Willie Jackson: Who started it?

SPEAKER: Sorry, would the Minister sit down. We’re not having this across-the-House stuff while a question is being asked, so if people engage in that, they won’t be staying long.

Joseph Mooney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What results did those operations bring?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The operations targeting a gang that has recruited young and impressionable Kiwis with its shiny brand have dealt a significant blow to the gang. Police seized 14 vehicles, $9.2 million in assets, $1.3 million in cash, five properties, and over 200 kilograms of meth. They also seized 41 gang patches.

Joseph Mooney: How much harm have police prevented?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The seizure of over 200 kilograms of meth has prevented $216 million worth of social harm being done in our communities. In terms of the harm caused to their members, yesterday we heard from the commissioner that when police listened to Comancheros communications, members were told clearly that if they left the gang they would be put in a body bag. My message to people looking to join a gang is, quite simply, don’t.

Joseph Mooney: What more is the Government doing to crack down on gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Unfortunately, the 0.25 percent of New Zealanders who make up gang members are still causing massive and disproportionate harm. That’s why this Government is giving police additional tools to do the job. We’re banning gang patches to end intimidation on the streets, giving police the power to issue consorting prohibition notices and dispersal notices to disperse gang gatherings. We are bringing back three strikes and we’re changing the Sentencing Act to ensure real consequences for crime. This Government backs the police and appreciates the outstanding work they do.

Question No. 7—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

7. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: E tautoko ana ia i tāna kī taurangi ki te whakatika i te Ture Takutai Moana 2011; mēnā āe, he aha tāna whakaritenga ki te whakautu ki te Urgent Inquiry Stage 1 Report Takutai Moana Act 2011 nā te Taraipiunara o Waitangi?

[Does he stand by his commitment to amend the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011; if so, what is his plan to respond to the Waitangi Tribunal’s Takutai Moana Act 2011 Urgent Inquiry Stage 1 Report?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes, I stand by my commitment to restore Parliament’s original test for customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, which required an applicant group to prove they had “exclusively used and occupied … [an area] from 1840 to the present … without substantial interruption”. The Government will consider the tribunal report but remains firm in the view that the original test was, and still is, appropriate.

Teanau Tuiono: Ka tatari kia mau te taringa. Kei te whakamā ia nā te Karauna i takahi te mātāpono o te kāwanatanga pai i te korenga o tētahi tukanga waihanga kaupapa here whai take, whai haepapa hoki nāna?

[I’ll wait for the earpiece to be put on. Is he embarrassed that the Crown is breaching the principle of good government due to the absence of a reasoned and responsible policy development process from him?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In relation to his question “Is he embarrassed?”, no, I am not embarrassed.

Teanau Tuiono: Tēnā pea kei te whakamā ia nā te Karauna i takahi te mātāpono o te mahi tahi nā te korenga ōna i noho tahi ki te iwi Māori i te wā o te hanganga o ngā whakatika marohi?

[Perhaps he is embarrassed that it is the Crown that is breaching the principle of partnership by his failing to consult with Māori during the development of the proposed amendments?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In relation to the question of consultation, of course this is a bill that is yet to be introduced to the House and will be going through a normal select committee process—well, going through a select committee process—and there has been some consultation with various iwi groups; I’ve met with a number of them and also have, obviously, had full discussions with groups such as the iwi leaders groups as well. So we continue to work our way through this, but in simple terms, what we’re trying to achieve is to restore a test that was laid out in the legislation that was changed materially by a Court of Appeal decision.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister confirm that the unbroken connection back to 6 February 1840 came with the support of all the coastal tribes, led by Api Mahuika in 2004, and that also it was followed up by a mandate gained at the last election—and it’s called democracy?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can confirm that there was a large degree of support for the original bill that was passed with the support of the Māori Party in 2011, and it had that test, which I’ve outlined: “exclusively used and occupied … [an area] since 1840 to the present … without substantial interruption”.

Teanau Tuiono: Kei te whakamā ia nā te Karauna i takahia te mātāpono o te tino rangatiratanga kua whakamahi i te kāwanatanga ki runga i ngā mōtika Māori engari kāore ia i whakatakoto i ngā taunakitanga ka kī atu kāore e tiaki ana te motika tūmatanui, te pānga rānei i tēnei wā, ā, me kaha ake te tiaki?

[Is he embarrassed that the Crown is breaching the principle of tino rangatiratanga by exercising kāwanatanga over Māori rights without him providing any evidence that the public right or interest is currently not protected and needs to be further protected?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I accidentally pulled out my thing [earpiece] and I didn’t hear it. Could we try that again?

Teanau Tuiono: Ka taea te kōrero anō, e te Pīka. Ka tatari au kia mau ia i te taringa whakapākehā kōrero. Kia mau koe i tō—kia ora. Kei te whakamā ia nā te Karauna i takahi te mātāpono o te tino rangatiratanga kua whakamahi i te kāwanatanga ki runga i ngā mōtika Māori, engari kāore ia i whakatakoto i ngā taunakitanga ka kī atu kāore e tiaki ana te motika tūmatanui, te pānga rānei i tēnei wā, ā, me kaha ake te tiaki?

[I can say it again, Mr Speaker. I’ll wait until he has put on his interpretation earpiece. Put on your—thank you. Is he embarrassed that the Crown is breaching the principle of tino rangatiratanga by exercising kāwanatanga over Māori rights without him providing any evidence that the public right or interest is currently not protected and needs to be further protected?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, in terms of the Government governing, which seems to be the question, that is appropriate. We were elected to do so, we had a coalition agreement reflecting the statements of other parties, and we are simply trying to restore the test that we feel was clear in the legislation passed in 2011 that was changed substantially by a Court of Appeal decision, which, effectively, took away the word “exclusively” from the formulation of words that I read out in the beginning. We think that’s appropriate to balance the rights of—all New Zealanders have an interest in what goes on in the marine and coastal space, and those are substantially taken away by the granting of customary marine title. So there was always to be a high threshold, and that is what the legislation covered.

Teanau Tuiono: He pātai tāpiri—ka tatari kia mau ia i te taringa; ka pai—kei te mōhio kē ia kua whakatūpato te Taraipiunara ki a ia kei te takahi marika te huarahi a te Kāwanatanga i te Tiriti, ā, e whai ana anō i te huarahi o te Ture Takutai Moana 2004, ki te pērā, ka ū ia ki te whakakore i āna panonitanga marohi?

[A supplementary question—I’ll wait for him to affix his earpiece; ka pai—is he aware that the tribunal has warned him that the Government’s path “is in clear Treaty breach and repeats the approach of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004”, and, if so, will he commit to scrapping his proposed amendments?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I won’t commit to scrapping the proposed amendments. They are something that the Government has put together, and that’s all I have to say on the matter.

Question No. 8—Police

8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Ko taku pātai ki te Minita o ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa.

[My question is to the Minister of Police.]

What advice, if any, has he received on gang members either getting unlawful access to firearms or using shooting ranges?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Much of the advice that I’ve received regarding firearms includes advice specifically relating to those topics—briefings info 23-02 and info 24-35. Both provide specific advice on the topics. These have previously been released under the Official Information Act. The member is aware that the titles of other advice I’ve received are proactively released monthly on the Police website.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Has he received any advice from Police that the Comancheros, or any other gangs and their associates, have used gun ranges to practise their shooting skills?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’d have to go back and check on any specific advice around that, but one thing that I will tell the member is that the advice that I had as the incoming Minister is that there had been a massive proliferation of firearms and the use of firearms by gang members under the previous Government.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. That was an incredibly straight question asking for additional information from the answer that the Minister gave to a primary question. There was no political nature to that. It was seeking—

SPEAKER: No, look, I totally agree with you. The answer was quite out of line with the advice that I gave the House earlier this afternoon. You can consider that to be a question that you can ask again.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Has he received advice from Police that gang members and their associates have used gun ranges to practise their shooting skills?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, as I said, I’d have to go back—no. Immediately to mind, no. I don’t recall that advice. However, I’d have to go back and check. I receive a large amount of advice. I’d have to go back and check that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What advice have Police provided him on the proposed changes to non-pistol ranges specified in the Ministry of Justice discussion document that include a system of self-regulation that will be in place for those ranges and that Police will have limited powers for monitoring and enforcement?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I receive a large amount of advice. Again, I’d have to go back and check on that. But the one thing that I would reassure the member of is this: the Police have got an important role in terms of the enforcement and managing of firearms in this country. They’ll continue to have an important role. This Government—this coalition Government—intends to make our country much safer than it has been in relation to illegal firearms.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the Minister of Police, who’s just spoken about a significant operation on the Comancheros. He’s just been asked if he knows if they’ve been on a gun range. He doesn’t know that. He’s also been asked if Police have provided advice on how the gun ranges are going to be regulated in the future. They’re some pretty basic questions that you would think the Minister of Police in New Zealand should be able to answer.

SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] We’re on a point of order. He has said that he will check on one of your answers, and that’s quite a reasonable thing for a Minister to do, because he started off by saying no but wants the surety of checking. On the other issue, it’s a policy matter that clearly hasn’t advanced yet. I think his answer was quite acceptable.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What advice has he received from Police regarding the proposal to exclude A-category firearms from the registry, which would also exclude alpha-carbines?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So the advice and the information that the member is seeking—she’s getting well ahead of herself. No decisions have been made on that. Ministers continue to receive advice, and that advice will be used and taken into account when decisions are made by Cabinet.

SPEAKER: Question—

Hon Ginny Andersen: I’ve got a supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh. Still? All right. When you’re ready.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Who does he agree with regarding the firearms registry, the criminal quoted in the New Zealand Herald who diverted firearms used in the tragic Auckland shooting when he said the registry “stops [people] doing what we are doing”, or Nicole McKee, who said, “It’s going to be more costly, and it’s going to make people fearful for their own safety.”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think, in relation to the register, there’s two things going on. I’ve been very clear, as the police Minister, that the register has got an important role to play around firearms safety, without a doubt, in this country. The point that Minister Nicole McKee is making is that we’re doing a review of it to make sure that it’s efficient and that it’s delivering what we need as a country.

Question No. 9—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

9. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has the Minister made regarding company director identification?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I recently announced that we intend to introduce a unique identifier for all company directors. The reform is aimed at improving corporate governance and serves two important functions. First, it enables directors’ home addresses to be removed from the Companies Register which has important safety implications. And, second, it makes it easier to track directors and shareholders across a variety of companies which is part of our efforts to tackle harmful practices like phoenixing, which is the practice of deliberately dissolving a company, leaving behind unpaid debt, and immediately setting up a new company.

Tim Costley: How will these changes protect consumers?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: By introducing a unique ID number, consumers and law enforcement agencies will be able to trace the activities of directors before deciding whether to engage their services. This level of transparency will help prevent harmful activities and give consumers more confidence in the businesses they interact with.

Tim Costley: How will these changes protect directors?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: For directors, these reforms offer an important layer of protection. Currently, directors and shareholders are required to publicly disclose their home addresses. This poses privacy and personal safety risks. Under the new system, directors will be able to provide a service address, such as the address of the company or professional adviser, which means they can be reached for official purposes, such as serving papers. This strikes a good balance between transparency and safety.

Tim Costley: How will these changes incentivise good people to become directors?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: An ambition with these reforms is to make the director role safer and more accountable, to encourage more qualified individuals to step into governance roles. This is all part of our plan to rebuild the economy and improve outcomes for New Zealanders. This can only be done if skilled individuals are willing to lend their time and expertise to help businesses to flourish.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in respect of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and the bills into which it has been divided?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement, “For too long gang members have been allowed to behave as if they are above the law. This Government is serious about restoring law and order, and the tolerance gangs enjoyed under the previous regime, has ended.”

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does he stand by his statement that the banning of gang patches will go through the full process, so there will be a select committee and so people in public will be able to have their say on this legislation; if so, does he consider it is a normal select committee process for last-minute amendments encroaching into free speech and private spaces to skip the select committee?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I do stand by that original statement. We had a select committee process, and issues around enforcement were raised and, subsequent to the select committee, we made some extra changes. We’re all about giving the police the tools that they need to deal with the 50 percent increase in gang membership that we’ve seen over the past little while and we’re going to give them those tools.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why was the amendment inserting an offence of residing in a place where a gang patch is present not referred to the Justice Committee when the Government had a comprehensive briefing identifying the issue on 27 March 2024 whilst submissions were still open before the select committee?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, what we’ve introduced by our first Amendment Paper was a set of escalating consequences for what we hope will only be a very small group of people who openly flout the gang patch ban. So if you’re caught three times within five years flouting the gang patch ban, you will face further consequences that intrude into your own home. That’s very uncomfortable, but it’s very easily avoided by not flouting the ban many times in public. So that’s what we’re going to do and we think that’s appropriate.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question related to why it didn’t go to select committee, and the entirety of that answer was about the policy underpinning the change itself. I wonder if the Minister might address why this change didn’t go to select committee, considering that select committee had submissions open when this was a live issue known to the Minister.

SPEAKER: The Minister might like to respond to that point of order.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, why is because the bill that we introduced went to the select committee. During the select committee process, a number of issues were raised, and this change is a response to some of those issues that were raised through the select committee process.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why did he not seek the opinion of the Attorney-General regarding the proposed offence of residing in a place where a gang patch is present, given the significant New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues and given that this change was being considered on 27 March 2024?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I frequently converse with the Attorney-General.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Is there a double standard, given the Minister asked the Justice Committee to defer the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill to consider proposed Government amendments but didn’t do so in respect of the Gangs Legislation Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, like every Government, we have things that we’re particularly keen to progress quickly, and the gang patch bill is something that we’re very keen to progress quickly because we’re very conscious of the fact that there has been a very significant increase in gang membership over the past five years, and we’re moving on it quickly.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Minister ever have cause to reflect whether it would be useful if members of this House had as much concern and time for the rights of victims of crime as they seem to have for defending the rights of gang members who terrorise New Zealanders?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I do often reflect on that as an issue. My brief answer would be to say that the people that we have in mind in this legislation are the ordinary New Zealanders who should be able to go about their lives without fear and intimidation of gang members in their communities.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister tried to reach out across the House to get the support of other parties to support the victim and not the criminal?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’ve adopted the same approach that I’ve learnt from the previous Government in terms of cross-party efforts and I hope sometimes to improve on them.

Question No. 11—Resources

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): My question is to the Minister for Resources: what announcements has—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Arbuckle—just hold on. Questions are heard in silence. Please start your question again.

11. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Minister for Resources: What announcements has he made regarding critical minerals?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I have had the pleasure of announcing a list of critical minerals. I am very moved by the observations of the World Bank that over the next 25 years, mining activity must expand by 500 percent. In fact, transitional minerals are key to climate change outcomes. New Zealand, through this new list, will be able to identify those minerals which are useful and valuable to our economic resilience.

Jamie Arbuckle: What is the purpose of the critical minerals list?

Hon SHANE JONES: The purpose of this list is to ensure that overseas investors, overseas partners, along with domestic investors and other stakeholders, including policy makers, have high-quality information to ensure the mineral sector can contribute not only to our economic resilience but to ensuring that we are not reduced to bringing in minerals from other sides of the world, global distant destinations where the great apes are threatened.

Jamie Arbuckle: How does the critical minerals list fit into the overall minerals strategy?

Hon SHANE JONES: The overarching minerals strategy of this Government is to rehabilitate, re-legitimise, and to enable investors, communities, and, indeed, users of critically important minerals to have the confidence that we—our own country—have these minerals, can use them. With the eventual passage of the fast-track bill, I look forward to the growth.

Jamie Arbuckle: Why is “Aggregate and Sand” on the draft critical minerals list?

Hon SHANE JONES: Minerals have to serve, often, very domestic purposes. Aggregate and sand have become increasingly expensive. It is no longer possible, in many areas, to secure resource consents. Unless those resources are treated as being critically important, the cost of infrastructure recovery will go up. I would point out also that gold and coal are not on the list, but I’ll take coal before dole any day.

Simon Court: What would the Minister say to those who campaign against mining for minerals, particularly those who use cellphones in order to campaign against those minerals?

Hon SHANE JONES: Sadly, far too many New Zealanders have been deluded by misinformation in respect of minerals. Minerals, including vanadium, located in inordinately large content and quantities off the coast of Taranaki, will add not only to the climate change journey but they represent a new source of great wealth. Sadly, we’ve had a situation where misinformation has overcome facts, but these decisions, such as what the member refers to, will be made on the basis of economic rationalism, science, and technology.

Question No. 12—Revenue

12. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement that Inland Revenue will “deliver on the real priorities for our tax system”; if so, does he support all their work?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Yes, I stand by that statement and I support the work of IRD. In particular, I’m pleased to see Inland Revenue working hard to roll out FamilyBoost, which will see parents and caregivers receive up to $150 per fortnight towards their early childhood costs. I’m also pleased to see Inland Revenue focusing on compliance and enforcement activities, reducing tax debt owed to the Crown in order to fund public services that people deserve.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement, “What I can tell you is definitely not part of our conversation is a capital gains tax, a wealth tax.”, and, if so, why is Inland Revenue consulting on “adding new tax bases to our current mix.”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I can categorically be clear with that member that, on this side of the House, we are not pursuing an agenda around capital gains tax, as on that side of the House it is definitely on the agenda, without doubt. On this side of the House, we are clear that we are wanting to ensure that we deliver income relief and personal income tax relief to those low and middle income New Zealanders, and I am proud to be part of a Government that has delivered that.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why is Inland Revenue consulting on “pros and cons of taxes on payroll (including social security contributions), land, real property … inheritances or estates, turnover and transactions,” when Nicola Willis has ruled them out?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It would be fair to say that Inland Revenue will be undertaking a range of inquiries in terms of opportunities to ensure that we have got an appropriate broad based - low rate tax system. I support Inland Revenue in regards to the work that it is undertaking.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why in the Budget 2024 documents released last Thursday are there so many sections “redacted due to active consideration” under headings such as “Revenue-raising Options” and “Revenue Options”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As that member will know, as a previous associate revenue Minister, that as part of the Budget process, we undertake a wide range of advice in regards to that and there are elements that continue to be under active consideration. That is not new; that is the way that we operate. This is a Government that is focused on outcomes and ensuring that we’re delivering those outcomes to hard-working New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister how on earth can he possibly accuse the Labour Party of supporting a capital gains tax in over four years when it had the power and under two leaders they ruled a capital gains tax out?

SPEAKER: Well, you can answer the questions so much as it relates to a previous supplementary and his own portfolio.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I’m not going to be one to try and instil the virtues that are driving the rationale on the other side of the House, but what I can be clear about is that, on this side of the House, we are focused on delivering income tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders. We are a Government that has delivered that outcome, and we will continue to look at opportunities to support our people.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why, in the Budget documents released last Thursday, is there listed under “Active Consideration” measures considering up to $1 billion of revenue-gathering options and savings options for student loans?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can be clear about is that when I came in as Minister of Revenue, I inherited nearly $8 billion of outstanding tax debt, up 40 percent since 2022. A large portion of that relates to student loan debt. As a Government, we are keen to ensure that tax money that is owed to this Government should be collected, because the counterfactual of that is that that money needs to be borrowed, and we need to ensure that we invest in public services that New Zealanders deserve.

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, can I just make two points of order: firstly, just one in relation to question No. 1, in regards to the supplementary question from my colleague Stuart Smith, and I ask that you reflect on whether or not his question should have been allowed to continue. Our view is that it was in line with the primary question.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s, effectively, questioning a ruling, which is never a wise thing.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): OK. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of 19 September 2024 for further consideration in committee of the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill, the recommittal and reconsideration in committee of the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill to consider Amendment Paper 111, and consideration in committee of the Education and Training Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: You don’t normally take a point of order during a vote, but—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, you don’t normally, but in a circumstance that I’ve never seen before, where two people claimed to be casting the same vote, I want to know what’s going on here.

SPEAKER: Well, I think I can explain it to you. Mr Stephenson didn’t know that Darleen Tana was here, but did have her proxy, so the failing is on him for not having 360 vision around the House. It’s now been corrected.

General Debate

General Debate

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. It’s hard to comprehend where this current Government thinks it’s leading our country to. What’s the destination, where are we headed, where’s the map? And what matters most to who, and why? There are some simple questions that most struggle to garner any clarity around, but what we are clear about is that this is the Christopher Luxon - led National coalition Government of 2023, and what happens as a consequence of his leadership will be his legacy.

It’s clear to see that there is a significant knowledge and capacity gap in this Government when it comes to issues of a constitutional nature. This is also true of the vast majority of MPs and staff in Parliament. This gives rise to particular problems—hand brakes, we might call them—slowing the waka of development down. When you mention “constitution” in this House, everyone runs for cover. This House seems allergic to constitutional discussion or debate, unless, of course, they are defining the terms of engagement themselves with no regard to the history or evidence.

When you mention constitution in Aotearoa, you cannot ignore Te Tiriti o Waitangi, for it is the bedrock of the modern constitution. Nor can you ignore He Whakaputanga—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’ll just confine some of our remarks, thank you.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: —the Declaration of Independence—it is the first formal constitution of this country upon which Te Tiriti o Waitangi rests. These two documents are now firmly embedded in the nation’s psyche when it comes to contemplating constitutional arrangements, although many seem hell-bent on keeping their heads in the sand and behaving as if it was 1924.

We understand this has all transpired in a relatively short period of time and that adjusting is hard for some. What took the colonialists 160 years to build has been unwound—with clear intent—over the last 40 years. This rise of understanding has been put in overdrive in recent decades, largely because of the tireless efforts of unsung Māori leaders. Also, the tireless efforts of many non-Māori leaders who understand the nature of our constitutional arrangements and the history of our country and are deeply hopeful for a better future for all who call Aotearoa home. They, too, are unsung, and, unfortunately, their efforts are all too often forgotten, brushed under the carpet so that self-serving individuals and small pockets of the population can continue to rort the system and bask in stolen privileges that they do not deserve.

A knowledge gap is a dangerous thing. It allows lies to be presented as truths. Politicians call this obfuscation—the art of making something unclear, intentionally vague, ambiguous, to conceal or obscure the truth, to confuse others. Lies, in other words. Many in this House are masters of it, and it is a disservice to those who voted you into your positions. Unless, of course—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is simply not acceptable for someone, inexperienced as he is, to nevertheless accuse other MPs—

TĀKUTA FERRIS: E noho.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: That’s not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Keep quiet while I make a point of order—right?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: That’s hardly a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Keep quiet when I’m making a point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. Make your point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s number one.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: E noho.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: See, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, I would advise the member just to sit quietly while we hear a point of order. That’s what the Standing Orders require.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He made the allegation that members of this Parliament are liars, and he should have been stopped in his tracks right then.

SPEAKER: My apologies, I didn’t quite pick that up, but if that is what the member said, then he should withdraw and apologise. I’d also make it very clear to the member that reading speeches is not part of the tikanga of the House either. The member may wish to continue, but if he has made that statement—we’ll obviously check the Hansard later—then he should withdraw and apologise as quickly as possible.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: I haven’t made that statement.

SPEAKER: Oh, well—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order—point of order.

SPEAKER: No, hang on—wait on, wait on. We can’t go back and hear what was said inside this House, but we will check it and I do hope the member hasn’t misled the House with that particular claim. Resume the speech.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Haere mai, haere mai, haere mai. We must move Parliament in a direction that sees the knowledge gap close to disable those who seek to exploit it. There must be prerequisite understandings for becoming an MP. This is in the interest of all who call Aotearoa home. Many who suffer from this knowledge gap have naturally spent a lot of time away from Aotearoa, lived outside of Aotearoa. In my professional life, I’ve encountered many of them—people who spend a long time away and then return home—and they’re astounded at the level of influence that Māori now have. I’ve had it described to me as, “Wow, what happened?” But what happened is progress, and ignorance is no excuse for wanting to halt progress.

I recall a moment like this in 2021, when newly crowned leader of the Opposition Christopher Luxon was being questioned on the news about his views on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He was visibly uncomfortable, clearly out of his depth, and said, “Well, Māori ceded sovereignty.” I recall thinking to myself, “Gee, we could be in trouble here. This fella could become Prime Minister.”, and here we are, six urgent hearings of the Waitangi Tribunal in as many months—unprecedented, never in our history; the tribunal is usually lucky to have one a year, and now they’ve got six, seven, eight, and who knows how many will come—and peaceful protests from Te Rerenga to the Bluff. The legacy is emerging, and all because the 6 and 8 percent want to keep their heads in the sand and ignore the constitutional arrangements of our country.

Well, we’re not going anywhere and neither is the debate, and when you’re ready to have it with te iwi Māori—an open debate—the invitation is here, and we’ll be waiting.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order relates to the fact that the way in which the House has evolved, it’s sought to embrace a greater dimension of what it means to be Māori, but there are the traditions of the House, and I appeal to you: if a member is incapable of giving a five-minute speech without relying on a computer or written notes, that is grossly inconsistent with every tradition I’ve seen observed in this House since the time that I arrived, right back to the days of Parekura Horomia. I would ask that you return to the House and lay it down, is that actually the standard or not? Or are we going to have a different standard just because it’s from a minority party who believe they’re full of piety?

SPEAKER: Well, notwithstanding the last bit, I will come back to you on that.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Ka pai. Speaking to that point of order, certainly, I am thoroughly pleased that—to be able to use my notes as a new MP has been hugely important and I’m grateful. I’m glad for that privilege, and I thank the Speaker for enabling that to happen. I just wanted to speak to that point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s very presumptuous—I haven’t enabled anything. I did suggest to the previous speaker that he consider the Standing Order which says you do not read a speech; you deliver a speech. People will use notes—nothing wrong with that—but setting up a screen in front of you and reading from it is not part of the deal. I will come back with something on that tomorrow.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When Kiwis voted for our Government last year, we knew we were in for a mission, a rescue mission for this country. Labour had spent money like a teenager with their first credit card, and by the time we were sworn in, the cupboards were as empty as Labour’s promises. Education, law and order, health, everything was going backwards. We were on a sinking ship, and I can say it’s been quite the mission turning it around. But voters are getting what they wanted. We’re restoring fiscal discipline back to the Government’s books. We’re restoring law and order. We’re delivering better public services in health and education.

What is the alternative? Well, what has the Opposition leader been up to? Well, New Zealanders are learning the words “Au revoir”, “Bonjour”, “Bon voyage”, “Haere rā.” The Leader of the Opposition is on his great trip to the United Kingdom, and he’s over there for a couple of weeks just as his popularity levels drop to their record lowest levels. Well, he blamed it on his “lower profile”. I’ll tell you what. In the last two weeks, he’s had more interviews than he’s had all year and his numbers have dropped to the lowest and have been ever since.

The Hon Willie Jackson—and I must read this, Mr Speaker, because it’s quite the quote. He came to Chris Hipkins’ defence and said, “It might be time we have to talk about our internals, because our internals have been consistent in terms of—can’t say too much because Chippy is quite—he strategises around this, but our internals tell us we’re there or thereabouts. We haven’t dropped down to 24 or 25 percent anyway.” So it’s 26 percent? That’s what their internals say—26 percent; that’s the number. There must be some restless backbenchers over there. You can see Glen Bennett, Shanan Halbert, Kieran McAnulty getting very nervous and all for that small bunch of Auckland MPs. What looked like a bloodbath in 2023 is only getting worse.

So who will the next Leader of the Opposition be? Who will take the reins while Hipkins is away on his trip? Carmel Sepuloni? Well, her time on deserted Treasure Island doing whatever it takes to undermine, dispose of her colleague was a perfect work experience for the Labour leadership, wasn’t it? Will it be David Parker? Well, he has been travelling the country, talking to small groups, very small groups of Labour Party members, undermining Chris Hipkins through the media and undermining the finance spokesperson and, of course, the very excellent revenue spokesperson of the Labour Party, trying to cook up extra taxes—well, David Parker, he’s on the case. And then there’s the cabal behind David Parker, the ones who back his wealth tax, as well as Hipkins’ capital gains tax. Just like the election, it’ll be a group of Aucklanders who depose Chris Hipkins for the second time: Phil Twyford from out west, Arena Williams from down south, Helen White from central Auckland, and Ingrid Leary from Waiheke Island.

Let’s not forget about the ghosts from Governments past. If you’re in the Auckland area and you see down the back of the Labour Party meetings, you’ll see following around behind Phil Twyford Michael Wood—Michael Wood. Well, Hipkins is probably rueing the day a few weeks ago when he said about Michael Wood, “He needs to rebuild his relationship with the party, the electorate, and the country, ultimately, if he wants to be an MP again.” Well, I know he’s trying—he’s trying—and he’s got his eyes on the ball. Well, the good news is the more people in Mt Roskill who meet Dr Carlos Cheung, the more they like him and the more they will be now saying “Au revoir, bonjour, see you later.” to Michael Wood for ever. Well, whoever it is, the way things are going with Labour, many people around New Zealand actually think Chlöe Swarbrick is the Leader of the Opposition these days.

What has Labour been doing to try and pretend that they are getting ready for the next election? Well, they’re committed to slapping Kiwis with more taxes. Businesses, their KiwiSaver, capital gains tax, wealth tax, everything is back on the table. Kieran McAnulty—well, he’s still mum about whether Labour supports four lanes to the plains, a project that Wellingtonians are buzzing about more than when Deborah Russell hears about a new tax. They’re committed to piling on more debt after increasing Government expenditure by 80 percent, and Chris Hipkins—well, he wants to walk back the cellphone ban on our classrooms, which is working so well in our classrooms, when in all seriousness New Zealanders know that Labour has learnt nothing in the last nine months. They don’t care who the leader is because they know that the Labour Party doesn’t care about the interests that New Zealanders care about.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Ko te mihi tuatahi ki te Atua, ko te mihi tuarua ki te Whare e tū nei. He mihi mahana ki a koe, e te Māngai o te Whare.

[First acknowledgment is to the Almighty, the second is to this standing House. And a warm, convivial greetings to you, Mr Speaker.]

This week, the Government got delivered its report card. We had the report come in on the man who for months—nay, years—had stood there banging his desk about “outcomes”, and what did that report card show? What it showed is a Government that is taking New Zealand backwards.

Let’s go through that report card. Violent crime: something that this Government said it was going to come in and—it had the solutions—it was going to it fix overnight. It was going to make things better, and what did we see? Instead of violent crime going down, we have seen it increase on this Government’s watch. This Government now has the task of not only meeting its 20,000 fewer instances of violent crime—because it went up 30,000—it now has the task of reducing it by 50,000. That is a clear fail on that measure this Government had set itself. Then the report card also showed in a great turn and twist of irony that it was in jeopardy of hitting its education targets as well. These are at risk. They’re not a slam dunk. The report’s showing “could do better” on that one.

Then the Government said that under their watch what we were going to see was fewer people on benefits, so we’re going to reduce people on jobseeker. What did we see? We saw those numbers go up as well. Then there were the great promises in health. What this Government was going to do to fix health straight away, and what have we seen? We’re seeing people waiting longer for elective surgeries—more people waiting longer. Instead of increasing access, they are taking the country backwards, as they are on so many cases.

What kind of verdict should we issue to the student who for many years has sat in class and beat his desk yelling “outcomes” across the classroom at everyone. Well, I have some suggestions for that report card. One is that he is not demonstrating responsibility and needs to be constantly reminded of how to perform daily tasks, would be one such comment that might come on a report card like that. The other thing that I think would be most apt for this student is that he needs to listen to directions fully so that he can learn to work independently. He seems to be influenced by two other boys in the class and seems to be exhibiting behaviours that are not all of his own making, although he will not take responsibility for them himself.

We have a clear report on a Government that is going backwards. It is shambolic, it is incompetent, and it is divided. So not only the report cards; the soap opera of this Government rolls on. You have Shane Jones, a Cabinet Minister, calling a judge a communist. The Attorney-General, Judith Collins, told him off. Jones’ own party leader, Winston Peters, told him off. But Christopher Luxon has yet to do so. In fact, he implicitly supported Jones’ comments and described them as “merely descriptive”. We now have a Minister tearing up the Cabinet Manual right in front of his boss, and the only person that’s unwilling to chastise him is the Prime Minister. This sounds like a synopsis of a 1980s soap opera that I’m reading out, and this is the kind of chaotic, dystopic mess that is taking New Zealand back so fast.

Then we have Winston Peters, who clearly thinks that he doesn’t need to go through the finance Minister with his Budget bid. Instead, he’ll go around that and go straight to the Prime Minister so he doesn’t need to discuss his Budget bids during the normal processes. That doesn’t bode well for future Budgets. Just FYI, for any other Minister thinking that their time is going to come next year: it won’t.

What have we seen? We have seen money stripped out of climate action. We have seen money stripped out of health. We have seen these so-called tax cuts for New Zealanders that are delivering for so many people I represent single-digit amounts in their bank that have been eaten up by cost of living increases imposed by this Government, and what for? To deliver a $2.9 billion tax cut to landlords. That is taking New Zealand backwards.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): That from the person who agreed secretly to close down one of the three big industries in this country, namely Marsden Point—never told the workers, never told the unions, never told anybody up north. No—covertly did that.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: This is a privately owned company.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And she laughs. This critical componentry, she laughs about. And then she accuses me of going secretly to the Prime Minister. No, all 20 Cabinet Ministers were required to write to the Prime Minister with their ideas. That’s what I did, so don’t believe the media crap and hype that somehow we did something special. And isn’t it appalling; the Deputy Prime Minister has been caught talking to the Prime Minister! Only Labour could think there’s something wrong with that.

Let me tell you this: what we saw today was a speech from Tākuta Ferris. Now, tākuta means “doctor”. There are some doctors that make you well, and there are some that make you sick. In this case, he’s not even a doctor. And then he got up and he gave a speech from a laptop. This is a man who poses at being Māori. The very idea of oratory and of getting up and being able to speak off the cuff never occurs to him. As he says, he’s got a better bit of Māori quantum than the rest of us! This is arrogance of the worst sort. And he did it today; can’t make a speech without a laptop.

Helen White: Your MPs do it too.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Forget about Mt Albert. I can see why a 90,000 majority was almost lost there last time. Every time she opens her mouth—

Helen White: Oh, terrible.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, look, she opens her mouth to let the wind blow her tongue around, and she’s doing it again now. If I was that useless, I would keep my mouth shut.

Now, Steve Maharey, who was a Labour MP who knew something about this House, wrote a marvellous article for the New Zealand Herald on 6 May. He talked about the standards of this House and how they’re being corroded. He said, in the article, “politics has been likened to war without guns” and why rules in politics still matter. I suggest his colleagues, not so much Labour but the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori, read this article for goodness’ sake, because what we’ve got here is people walking in in T-shirts, sneakers, bare feet—lack of respect for the House, lack of respect for the country, and utter contempt. Walking in here with T-shirts on, all sorts of hats, so to speak, and then think, if we don’t like it, it’s too bad.

In the space of just three years, the standards of this House have massively decayed. The Māori Party and Greens don’t know the Standing Orders. It was proven today. This is what he said when he was challenged—this is what he said—“Politicians call this obfuscation—the art of making something unclear, intentionally vague, ambiguous, to conceal or obscure the truth, to confuse others. Lies, in other words. Many of us in this House are masters of it,” yet when he was challenged in the House today, he got up and, barefaced, said he didn’t say it. That’s the recording. That’s the transcript already. You see what I mean? Here he comes in this House, arrogant to the extreme, slinging insults and gutter school type of behaviour.

And, by the way, the Greens had a question today under Chlöe Swarbrick. She decides she’s going to be speaking in the reo, so to speak. Go and have a look at her question—she can’t even spell it properly. It had to be corrected by the Speaker’s office. But, no, this is posing, as they do all the time. And when are these people in the gallery going to actually do something about reporting accurately what’s going on in this Parliament? There it is—it’s all there. I’ve got the transcript. I’ve got it here. I thought I’d better come down and show Parliament, just in case you want—see what I mean? Can’t even spell the darned thing right. Never even had the decency, of course, to go and ask the Māori members in her caucus maybe whether she got it right. You see what’s going on here? It’s posing all the time.

The standards of this House have fallen in just three short years, and we’re on a slippery slope of endangering and losing further what used to be in this Parliament. Look, Maharey was right when he said that. He said that standards mean that people are usually going to conform to them and behave themselves better. But I’ve never seen this Parliament in such a state of decay. And, no, I wasn’t here at the beginning of it, but I’ve been here for a bit of the time! But I’ve never seen it in such a bad state, because people are walking around here with absolute contempt for the prior standards that this Parliament once had and the standards that about 85 percent of the Parliament is maintaining, and the rest have got no regard for that at all. If we had our way, we’d been saying, “You either dress up and put a tie on or you don’t get in this House, and if you want to wear a hat, you take it off when you get in this House.” You don’t spend all your time talking about the colonials and how bad the colonists were whilst you’re sitting there with all the sort of colonist gear on, so to speak. And it happens day in, day out.

Let me tell Te Pāti Māori that out there in the real world, where Māori work sometimes two or three jobs, they won’t be voting for you at the next election—be as certain as that—because out there they want the real things that people want in this country regardless of race: decent houses, a health system that delivers, education escalators, and First World jobs. And that’s what this Government is setting out to do.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I’d like to know who it was that sent Chris Hipkins overseas. Who sent him away?

Hon Member: Kieran McAnulty.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Kieran McAnulty. I can see it a million miles away. Look at the look on his face—look at the look of guilt.

Do you know what? I actually really like Kieran McAnulty, and I play with him on the Parliamentary Rugby Team. But when he gets that glint in his eye when he’s out there hawking on the wing, waiting for the ball to come, to dive across the line—he’s got that look in his eye right now. That’s right; it’s him. It’s him that made the bookings.

Megan Woods got up, and do you know what? Megan Woods is smart. She’s learnt from Ginny Andersen: don’t get up and actually present any numbers—don’t put any numbers out there. She immediately started talking about the Government’s failures and she used violent crime as an example, and I’ll come to that shortly, but Megan Woods doesn’t understand how the victims of crime survey works. It’s got a two-year lag. Most of the numbers are back from 2022-23, when that party now in Opposition was in power. We’re cleaning up the mess. We’ve got to clean up the mess and it’s a big job. I want to acknowledge our outstanding police service and the work they’re doing.

Then she went on to give us an example of why this Government’s failing, and I thought, “OK, this will be interesting. Let’s hear an intelligent, in-depth analysis of why this Government’s failing.” The reason why the Government’s failing is because, apparently, Shane Jones used some of his expressive language. That’s why the Government’s failing! It’s ridiculous.

Megan attacked our tax cuts. They hate tax cuts, and we know that. They hate the fact that we want to trust hard-working Kiwis with their own money. They hate it, they don’t like it, and they’re going to keep attacking it, but then they turn around and they send out an email to their supporters and they say, “Would you mind donating National’s tax cuts to us because we need them?” So, you know, work out exactly what it is you want there, Labour.

Transitional fuel: let’s talk about the previous Government’s fuel policies. They’ve been a wrecking ball for us as a country, and, of course, all of our hard-working businesses in our commercial sector have suffered majorly for that over the last couple of months quite simply because our transition fuel is—what? It’s Indonesian coal, and it should be natural gas.

I do want to refer to Megan Woods raising crime in this country. Yes, as the incoming Government, we inherited a bonfire in terms of violent crime in our country, whether it be gang members carrying firearms, whether it be boy racers taking over provincial and rural roads and causing damage and havoc, or whether it be youth and juvenile offenders that now don’t think twice about committing violent aggravated robberies and being prepared to put a hammer through a hard-working shopkeeper’s head. We know that we’ve got a lot of work to do, but we’re determined that we’re going to return our country to the country that it should be, and that’s one of the safest countries in the world.

To do that you need a world-class police service. We have a world-class police service, and we’ve had no better example of that than in the recent weeks, with the very successful operations that have led to the arrest and the taking down of the entire Comanchero gang in New Zealand, and, by the way, the Comancheros are very symptomatic of the fact that we have had this awful 501 policy. They came to this country, they’re a lot more sophisticated, they introduced a new level of violence, and they’ve got big global criminal networks that they operate in.

I want to acknowledge our outstanding police force and the work that they’ve done. It’s quite simply a continuation of my instructions through my letter of expectations, as the incoming Government, that we are not going to tolerate violent, intimidatory gang behaviour in this country any more. Part of the work that we’re going to do is to make sure that they’ve got additional powers so that the public can clearly see that our police officers control our streets and not the gangs.

Gang members are not above the law. In the last six years, they’ve been operating in a very permissive environment where they thought they could operate with impunity, and that’s why we’re seeing an explosion in the type of violence and violent crime that Megan Woods refers to. But that is changing—that is changing, make no mistake. We’ve got a focused, well-equipped, highly trained, professional police service that is going after our gangs, and if you think that you’ve seen the pressure come on them now, you wait until this new legislation comes out in November and a clear message is sent to the gangs. Our police control our streets, towns, and rural communities, not the gangs. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Ka tū ake tēnei ki te mihi atu ki a tātou katoa e te Whare ki runga i ngā āhautanga o Te Wiki o te reo Māori. Te Whakanui i te wiki o te reo Māori me te aro anō o taku nei whakaaro ki te Kaupapa o tēnei tau. Ko ake ake ake. He reo anō tērā mō te ake ake ake tonu atu.

Nō reira me mihi atu au ki ngā mātua, ki ngā kaumātua e hāpai ana tērā ngā āhuatanga mō tātou katoa. Hoki aku nei mahara ki tērā o ngā whakatauki rongonui. Ko te manu e kai ana i te miro nōna te ngahere, ko te manu kai ana te mātauranga nōna te ao. Nō reira he pāpā tēnei e hari āna tamariki ki te kura kaupapa. Nō reira i au e whakaaro ana ki tērā o ngā whakatauki. Ko tātou anō ngā mātua e kaha ki te whakatupu ō tātou nei manu pīpī ō tātou nei tamariki. Ēnei kākano tino Māori mana motuhake kia tupu ake ā tātou nei tamariki ki runga ngā wawata, ki runga ngā moemoea ō tātou nei mātua tīpuna.

Me mihi atu au ki te hunga e whiri ana tēnei ara reo Māori, nā te mea ehara tēnei ara reo Māori i te ara māmā mō te hunga pēnei mai ki taku whānau e hiahia te whakarauora te reo ki roto i taku whānau ake ki roto i taku hapori, heoi i kite au ki roto i ngā tau ngā hua, i kite au ki roto i ngā tau te tupu o te wairua ki roto i tōku whānau ake. Hei tauira, ehara i te mea i au e whakaaro ake ana ki ngā kura auraki ka haere te mātua i tupono ana āna tamariki ki te waka o te kēti, ka hūro peka anō ki te waka, hoki ana ki te kāinga. Heoi anō mena he mātua koe mō te kura kaupapa me haere tō katoa ki roto i taua kura, me haere ā whānau. Ko te katoa o te whānau e hāpai ana tērā o ngā kaupapa.

He momo kaupapa waka, ia hapori, ia whānau heoi anō e haere ngātahi ana ki tērā o ngā ara reo Māori e pari ana ki ērā atu anō o ngā whānau e haere atu ana ki tō rātou haerenga o tērā ara reo Māori. I kite au ki roto i ngā tau te piki ake, te wairua me te tūāpapa o te tuakiritanga ō tātou nei tamariki. Mena kei te mōhio te Māori ko wai ia, he aha te hītori kei raro ōna rekereke, he aha ōna whakapapa, pēhea ōna hononga ki te taiao, awa, maunga te wao, ērā āhuatanga katoa he oranga anō tērā nō te ngākau o te tamaiti. He oranga anō tērā nō te ngākau o te whānau.

E pērā ana taku nei wawata mō ngā tamariki katoa puta noa o Aotearoa. Kei te whakaaro anō hoki ki tērā o ngā āhuatanga engari i te mea kei te whakaaro au ki ō tātou nei matua tūpuna. Taku nei whakaaro, i moemoea i wawatia e rātou mō tō tātou reo. I whakaarohia ki a tātou, mena kei te tupu Māori mai ō tātou nei whānau, kei te tupu Māori mai ō tātou nei tamariki mokopuna, ka ahei rātou ki te haere ki te ao.

Ko tetahi mea rerekē o Aotearoa nei ki au. I au e tipi haere ana i te ao. Ko Aotearoa tētahi o ngā whenua ko te nuinga he reo tahi noa iho kei a rātou. Mena kei te haere koe ki Ūropi, te maha hoki o rātou he reo rua, he reo toru he reo whā. Engari tātou ki Aotearoa Kotahi noa iho te reo. Ko te reo Pākehā. Mena kei te haere koe ki Rānana maha ngā reo e rangona ngā taringa. Nō reira he nui ngā akoranga mō te hunga reo rua, reo toru reo whā rānei. Me kaha te pūnaha o te mātauranga ki te hāpai tērā o ngā tuakiritanga.

Hoi ko te tuatahitanga ko te reo Māori, te reo i tupu taketake mai ki Aotearoa nei. He reo e whakapapa ana ki te katoa o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. I a tātou nei tangata katoa haere nei ki wiwi ki wawa ki te Olympics rānei, rātou whakapuaki nei tō tātou nei reo. Ka Mārama te tangata, “Ana, tērā tangata nō Aotearoa.”, tērā tangata Niu Tireni mai i tū ohorere, poho kererū ana ki runga i te atamira o te ao, nō reira tāku nei ki a tātou, kia kaha te kōrero Māori, kia kaha te reo Māori. Ehara mō tēnei rā noa iho, ēngari mō ake ake ake.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to acknowledge to us all, the House, in accordance with the Māori Language Week. To acknowledge the Māori language week and, in my opinion, the main event of the year. For ever and ever and ever. That is another statement, for ever and ever and ever.

And so I would like to acknowledge the parents, the elders who have supported this event for us all. I reminisce to the famous proverb which states that the bird that feast on the miro berry will gain the forest; the bird that feast on knowledge will gain the world. And so I am a father who takes my children to kura kaupapa. And so, as I think about that proverb, we are the parents who raise our little birds, our children. These seeds of ours that we shall raise in accordance with the aspirations and dreams of our ancestors.

I need to acknowledge those who have chosen the Māori language as a pathway, because this pathway is not an easy pathway for the likes of me and my family who want to revitalise the language within my family and my community. However, I have seen in the years the fruits, I have seen in the years the self-growth within my own family. For example, when I think to mainstream schools, the parents drop the kids off at the gates, maybe they farewell each other, and then they return to their car and go back home. However, if you are a parent of kura kaupapa, you give your all to that school, you go as a family. The whole family are there to support that school.

It is like a canoe. Everyone and every family paddle on the same canoe in regards to the Māori language, and are all similar to those other families who are on that same canoe of the Māori language. I have seen in the years how it has developed the spirit and the identity of our children. If the Māori knows who he is, and his history, his genealogy, and his connection to the environment, the river the mountain and the forest—those aspects are all a development for the wellbeing of the child, and a wellbeing as well for the families.

That is my hope for all the children of New Zealand. That is how I think because I think back to my ancestors. In my opinion, these were their aspirations for our language. They thought about us; if our families are growing in their Māori world, our children and grandchildren will then grow within their Māori world where they can be proud in this world.

One difference I have seen here in Aotearoa as I travel the world is that. Aotearoa is one of the countries where the majority of the population speak one language. If you go to Europe, there are many who speak two, three, and even four languages. But us in Aotearoa, only one language, the English language. If you go to London, there are many languages that the ears hear. And so there are a lot of lessons for bilingual speakers, trilingual, and speakers of four languages. The education system needs to be more diligent in supporting that aspect.

However, firstly it’s the Māori language, the language of this land, Aotearoa. A language that descends from all the Pacific. As we travel to there and beyond, and to the Olympics as well, and they speak the Māori language. The people can see, “Ah, that person is from New Zealand.”, and that person from New Zealand stood strong and proud on the platform of the world. So what I say to us all, honour the Māori language, and speak the Māori language. Not only for this day but for ever and ever and ever.]

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Mr Speaker, ka kōrero Māori ahau. Tuatahi kei te korikori te Kīngi, a Tūheitia, ki runga i te pae o mahara i tēnei wā tonu. Ko te rangi ki a ia, anā ko te whenua ki tana kōtiro, ki Te Arikinui, ki te Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po. Koia ko tana ingoa i runga i te taumata kōrero o Ngā Manu Kōrero. Koia te ingoa ki runga i ngā ngutu o ā tātou tamariki mokopuna, ki roto i ngā whāinga katoa o tēnei wā tonu.

Kei te whakanui ake ahau i a ia, me tōna e arahi nei i tō tātou iwi Māori, anō hoki wā tātou tamariki mokopuna, ki te āpōpō. Kaua ki ngā whakawhiu me ngā kōrero harawene me ngā take nui o te ao porotiki, engari ki te āpōpō e wawatahia nei e ō tātou mātua, e ō tātou tūpuna.

Ka tiki atu ahau i te kōrero a tōku tupuna e mea ana, “Ko te reo te mauri o te mana Māori”. Ko te reo te mauri o te mana Māori. Mehemea kei te Māori tōna ake reo, kei te ora mārika tōna mauri me tōna mana Māori. Mehemea kei te Māori tōna ake arero Māori, kāore e kore ka tū pakari ki roto i te ao ahakoa ngā whakawhiu o te wā.

Nō reira ko tāku e mea atu ana, ki te tautoko ake i tēnei kaupapa kua whakaritehia mō te Wiki o te Reo Māori i tēnei tau tonu, ko te reo Māori āke, āke, āke.

Heoi anō tāku. Ka tiro atu ahau ki te hunga e wehi nei i tō tātou reo Māori, e mataku nei i tō tātou reo Māori, he aha te take i mataku ai te tangata i te reo Māori? Kīhai te reo Māori i tūkino i tētahi atu. Kīhai te reo Māori i takahi i te mana o tētahi atu. Koinā tāku, e toko ake ana te pātai he aha te hē o te reo Māori ki tētahi atu, koinā te take i mataku ai i te reo Māori?

Heoi anō tāku, ahakoa ngā whakawhiu o te wā, me ngā kōrero tūkino o tōku reo Māori, ko tāku e mea atu ana ki ngā mema o tēnei Whare, me te hapori kei waho atu rā i ngā pātū o tō tātou Whare e tū nei: kaua e mataku. Haere mai ki te reo Māori. Haere mai ki te reo o tēnei whenua. Haere mai ki te reo kīhai i tūkino i tētahi atu reo, kīhai i tūkino i tētahi atu tangata. Haere mai ki te reo Māori kia rongo atu koe i te mauri o te mana Māori i whakataukītia ai e tōku matua tupuna, a Tā Hēmi Hēnare, i ōna ra.

Koinā tāku e mea atu ana ki tēnei motu whānui: kaua e mataku. He reo ataahua te reo Māori. He reo nō tēnei whenua te reo Māori. He reo ka tuitui i wō tātou hononga mai i ngā iwi o te motu ki te iwi Māori e noho mai nei. Kaua e mataku, e te hunga kei roto i tēnei Whare. Kaua e mataku, e te hunga kei waho atu rā i tēnei Whare.

Kāti, ko aku whakaaro kei ngā kōrero o ngā toa reo Māori, reo Pākehā anō hoki i tū i runga i te taumata kōrero o ngā whakataetae ā-motu, Ngā Manu Kōrero, i tū ki roto o Tāmaki Makaurau. Koinā tāku e manawanui ai ki ngā kōrero a wā tātou rangatahi. Kei a rātou te āpōpō.

Me te kī atu ki te Kāwanatanga me ngā tāngata katoa o tēnei motu, tēnei tangata te Māori e kore e taea e koutou te whakaueue, e kore e taea e koutou te whakanekeneke. Ko tēnei te tangata, te tangata Māori, ka ū tonu ko ōna pakiaka ki roto i a Papatūānuku. Ka tū mārō nei tōna tinana ahakoa ngā whakawhiu o te wā. Ko ōna manga ka toro atu ki a Ranginui e tū iho nei hei tāwharau i te iwi Māori, hei tāwharau i a Aotearoa whānui, hei tāwharau anō hoki i ngā kaupapa e wawatahia ana e ā tātou tamariki mokopuna ki roto i te āpōpō.

Nō reira e ōku rangatira o tēnei Whare, te hunga e mau nei i te pine e whakanui ana i te Wiki o te Reo Māori, aua e tukuna kia waikura noa. Kaua e tukuna kia waikura noa. Titia ki te manawa kia rongo atu ai te motu whānui i te kare ā-roto o tō koutou hiahia, ō koutou wawata, ō koutou manako ki tōku reo Māori e pūāwai mai nei. E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Kia ora tātou.

[Mr Speaker, I will speak in Māori. Firstly, the King, Tūheitia, is moving in the realm of memory at this very moment. The sky is for him, and the land for his daughter, the Queen Nga wai hono i te po. It is her name that is spoken at the orators’ stage of Ngā Manu Kōrero. It is her name on the lips of our children and grandchildren in all the aspirations of this very time.

I honour her, and her leadership of our Māori people, as well as our children and grandchildren, towards the future. Not focusing on the afflictions, jealous talk, and political issues of today, but on the future envisioned by our forebears and ancestors.

I recall the words of my ancestor who said, “Language is the life-force of Māori identity.” Language is the life-force of Māori identity. If Māori have their own language, their life-force and their Māori identity are truly alive. If Māori have their own Māori tongue, without a doubt, they will stand strong in the world despite the challenges of the times.

Therefore, what I am saying is to support this initiative that was developed for this year’s Māori Language Week, the Māori language for ever and ever.

That’s what I’m doing. I now turn to those who fear our Māori language, who are afraid of our Māori language. Why would anyone fear the Māori language? The Māori language has not harmed anyone. The Māori language has not trampled on anyone’s dignity. That’s why I ask, what has the Māori language done wrong that makes people afraid of it?

That is what I would say, despite the challenges of today and the denigration of my Māori language, I say to the members of this House and the community outside the walls of this House: do not be afraid. You are welcome to the Māori language. Welcome to the language of this land. Welcome to the language that has not harmed any other language, that has not harmed any other person. Welcome to the Māori language so you can feel the life-force of Māori identity, as my ancestor Sir Hēmi Hēnare proclaimed in his time.

That is what I say to this whole country: do not be afraid. The Māori language is a beautiful language. The Māori language belongs to this land. It is a language that binds our connections between the people of this land and the Māori people who reside here. Do not be afraid, those of you in this House. Do not be afraid, those of you outside this House.

Well, my thoughts are with the speeches of the champions of the Māori and English languages who stood on stage at the national competition Ngā Manu Kōrero, held in Auckland. That is what strengthens me, hearing the words of our youth. The future is theirs.

And I say to the Government and all the people of this land, you cannot shake the Māori people, you cannot move the Māori people. This people, the Māori people, their roots remain firmly in Papatūānuku. Their body stands strong despite the challenges of the times. Their branches stretch out to Ranginui above, as a shelter for the Māori people, as a shelter for all of New Zealand, and as a shelter for the aspirations of our children and grandchildren for the future.

Therefore, to my esteemed leaders of this House, those of you wearing the pin celebrating Māori Language Week, do not let it rust. Do not let it rust. Pin it to your heart so that the whole nation can feel the emotions of your desire, your dreams, and your hopes for my flourishing Māori language. Mr Speaker, thank you. Kia ora to us all.]

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I feel like I am the bearer of good news, so I want to talk about what we are doing in our region and in our country, specifically on law and order. I’m also going to talk about a few other things that are really important to me.

Look, Hawke’s Bay has a bad reputation for gang activity; it is a hive of activity. We are well known for sort of punching above our weight on gang numbers, and do you know what? We’ve got a Government that’s going to bring law and order back to the front of our minds.

Let’s talk about what we’re going to do about it. We’ve got a Government led by Prime Minister Chris Luxon; we’ve got the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections, Mark Mitchell; we’ve got the Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith—and what a team. It’s a team that is focused on restoring law and order, and, I say, relentlessly; boy, the Justice Committee has been busy.

Rima Nakhle: We’ve been busy.

KATIE NIMON: We’ve got to keep them busy. My great colleague Rima Nakhle, you are doing an amazing job.

Let me talk about some of the things that we’re going to do and we have already started doing. The National Gang Unit—this is something that is going to make such a difference in places like Hawke’s Bay. District-level gang disruption units are what we’re going to see, and that is fantastic. And, look, this is focusing on gang members that are involved in criminal activity, and that is a really important thing for me to mention. The work that we’re doing is also giving those units enhanced powers: dispersal notices, preventing gang gatherings, enforcing the upcoming ban—and I am excited—on gang patches in public spaces.

I tell you, I see people getting back in their car and driving off when they see members of gangs wearing their patches inside cafes, supermarkets, restaurants, you name it—the only reason they’re wearing them is to intimidate, and, I can tell you, they have told me that. This is very important to us. Like I said, Hawke’s Bay’s got one of the highest gang rates in the country. This is going to send a very, very clear message.

The other thing I might share is the firearms prohibition orders. We need to give the police the tools and the powers to do something about it. We have seen some very, very tragic gun-related violence—gang gun-related violence, I might just add—that could easily be solved by a lot of the work that we are doing.

The other thing that I am thrilled to hear is happening, and we campaigned very hard on this last year, is the new legislation that’ll cap sentence discounts of 40 percent—the slippery, slippery slope that ends up giving people every discount under the sun, that ends up with them walking back out on to the street to further intimidate and terrorise our communities.

Now, might I just say we have talked a lot about prioritising victims. Now, this is very important: I have talked to so many people who are absolutely at the centre of what is going on in our communities and they are being terrorised. They are afraid to be alone in their homes. They are afraid to go out in the community at night. These are the people we are working hard for. The ministerial advisory group, I will talk about—to target retail crime and protect retailers in their places of work, and also protect those in the community that are going about their day-to-day lives. I have talked to dairy owners in my community—I will mention the Manna Family Mart—who do not know whether the next person that walks in will be a good person or a bad person, and we have to do something about that and it’s about time we listen to them.

Look, we’ve got to do a lot in education to work with people at the other end of this. I just want to mention something. This week, I have just been to visit Napier Intermediate School, and I just want to take the moment to acknowledge the passing of Benita Mareikura, a long-long-time serving teacher at Napier Intermediate. They had a tragic loss in losing her earlier this week.

Napier Intermediate have shared the issue that they are having with relief teachers. Might I just come with some more good news: the Minister of Education has announced work that is going to be done to get more relief teachers back into the classroom. If you have let your registration lapse for some time, you’ve decided to retire and go on to something else, you can get a limited authority to teach. It is not costly—and that is a preventative issue here. The other thing, as well, is making sure that we are making this more available to people to get those teachers back into the classroom.

Let’s just take the last 20 seconds to talk about the FamilyBoost: money into the back pockets of everyday Kiwis who are working hard to rebuild our economy. We want to support them, so it’s up to $150 a fortnight. That opened yesterday, and the first payment will come from 1 October; three-monthly invoices is all that they need. I am so excited to share that with the House today.

SPEAKER: Darleen Tana—sorry, Ms Tana, I didn’t see you back there.

DARLEEN TANA: Kei te pai. Apparently, not many people see me back here!

Ko Ranginui i runga rawa e

Ko Papatūānuku kei raro nei e

Me ngā tāngata kei waenganui e

[Ranginui is above

Papatūānuku is below

And the people are in between]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mine is a very simple view of the world, informed, I guess, by the reality that we whakapapa to Ranginui—Sky Father—and Papatūānuku—Earth Mother. As a mokopuna, our job is to protect and nourish those generations who are coming through and ensure that we uphold the mana and the tapu and rejuvenate the mauri of our ancestral land and skies hei oranga mō ngā reanga whakatupu [as sustenance for the future generations].

In this week, Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, I am loving it. It’s a far cry to my own experiences of growing up, when it was not cool to be or to look or to sound Māori. I’m loving it because learning the reo me ōna tikanga [and its customs] brings us that bit closer to unlocking what I call the real Earth oratory. My thanks to colleagues here in the House who might indulge me as I flick between te reo Māori and English at this time.

The reo—R-E-O—real Earth oratory. For me, it’s one about whakapapa. I was out on Aotea—Great Barrier Island—this weekend, working with Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea. As a demonstration of whakapapa, we looked at the maramataka, we looked at the tohu, the signs in the sky; we looked at the tohu, the signs on the land; and we looked at the tohu, the signs in the moana. We saw the kūmarahou, a plant which is a rongoā—it’s a medicinal plant—prized, especially if you’re kumi, or asthmatic, among Māori. But we saw that in full-flush flower. That, for us, was a sign to know that the kina out in the oceans were fat.

The reo—the real Earth oratory—it’s also one of whanaungatanga: roles and responsibilities. We are, each of us, all exactly where we are meant to be at any point in time, but what are we doing to step into our roles, into our responsibilities, to rejuvenate mauri, to uphold mana, and to respect tapu?

In these full-beam, high-energy marama of Ōturu, Rākaunui, what are we showing to our rangatahi? I see quite a few come in. When they visit us in the House each day or when they see us on television, what do they see, what do they hear—and ka aroha, I’ve got Nanny Whina Cooper coming through—what do they feel?

I ngā kōrero whakahirahira a Kīngi Tūheitia mō te kotahitanga. I kī ia, kia kaua tātou e whakakotahi hei whakahē i te Kāwanatanga, engari kia tū kotahi tātou me te Kāwanatanga hei oranga mō ngā iwi katoa, mō te taiao hoki. Kei te wā tātou ki te kōkiri whakamua ki te eke tahi i te waka o te oranga, te māramatanga me te aroha. Me ngāwari ō tātou aho katoa, kia taea ai te raranga i tētahi whāriki kaha, tētahi whāriki kia taea e te katoa te tū ki runga. Mā te mahi ngātahi, mā te kotahitanga ka whiria ngā aho o te whakaaro o te whakapono me te whanaungatanga hei tūāpapa mō ngā uri whakatupu. Kia Kotahi rā tātou kia eke panuku ai mō te hunga āpōpō.

[As said about unity by the great King Tūheitia. He said, let us not unite to abase the Government, but let us stand united with the Government as sustenance for us all, and for the environment as well. In time we will paddle together in wellbeing, in wisdom and in love. All our threads need to be smooth in order to weave a strong mat, a mat that all can stand on. Through collaboration, through unity, we will thread the string of through, the string of faith, and the string of unity as a foundation for the following generations. Let us unite to be stronger for the future generations.]

As I said, mine is a very simple view of the world. I look out at the deplorable state of the mauri of our moana, I see the rapidity with which our soils are disappearing, within which we can grow kai; I look at the degrading state of our waterways, and I worry.

I want to just take these last few minutes, please, to mihi to our kaitiaki—those who are out there on the whenua, in the oceans, who are doing all the mahi, leading out from a tikanga Māori lens to make sure that our taiao is there for our mokopuna in the days and years to come. Kia ora tātou.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recall back in 2023, when I was campaigning with my ACT colleagues around the country, one of the campaign modules I was looking after was, of course, law and order, and we went around the country asking people what they thought about law and order, and we heard them. They spoke to us about the need to restore law and order within our country, their concerns about victimisations around New Zealand, and wondering how did the Mongrel Mob get given $2.75 million while victims were still struggling to come to terms with our justice system.

We talked about sentencing and their concerns also around section 27 cultural reports and why people were being hit on the hand with a wet bus ticket instead of being made accountable for their actions. They were concerned about the prison reduction targets and also the amount of retail crime that was being experienced from one end of the country to the other. They saw violence going up, they saw gang numbers going up, they saw youth crime going up, ram raids going up, victimisation going up. They saw utter disrespect for society, for systems, for communities, and even for whānau.

What has this Government done in its first 12 months? Well, we haven’t even got to 12 months yet, but I’ll let you know what it is that we have done. The first thing that we did as part of the ACT coalition agreement was abolish Labour’s prison reduction targets. The second thing we have done as part of our ACT coalition agreement is bring back the three-strikes legislation, and that is being heard by the Justice Committee now. We’ve also stopped the paying of the cottage industry that became the section 27 cultural reports that went from $3,000 taxpayer dollars per month to $6 million per annum. That has stopped. These are all ACT policies, because we listened, we heard, and we have implemented.

What else have we done? Well, we’ve just introduced the firearms prohibition orders into legislation, giving police the ability to search those in illegal possession of firearms to make sure that we get those firearms away from those that should not have them. We have prioritised victims by making sure that the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, which is now an Act, allows victims to be heard either by audio or audiovisual, instead of having to be retraumatised every time they go into the court. We’ve also today introduced the MAG—the Ministerial Advisory Group for victims of retail crime—headed by Sunny Kaushal, with the bright people of Ash, Lindsay, and also having Michael and Carolyn on board.

We’re doing more there, so much more. We’re changing the Sentencing Act to ensure that repeat sentencing discounts stops. We’re making sure—another ACT policy—that those sole charge workers who have their home and business where they work, we’ll make sure that they, if attacked, have it as an aggravating factor at sentencing. We want to make sure that the victims are looked after and that their interests are taken into account when sentencing occurs.

There are going to be more aggravating factors as well. Children who are used to offend by adults—we’ll make sure that adults have that as an aggravating factor against them. Not only that, those criminals that use these devices to go about filming themselves while they commit crimes, that will be an aggravating factor, if indeed they put that up on social media, too.

There’s other legislation that’s going through this House. Restricting the sentencing discounts to a maximum of 40 percent only, and—another ACT policy—making sure that a member of a gang is an aggravating factor at sentencing. We are delivering, and there’s so much more that we’re going to do; 12 months, we’ve got 24 left to go.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Te Māngai, ngā tāngata e noho mai ki runga i tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.

[Mr Speaker, everybody sitting in the House today, greetings to you all, once, twice, and thrice.]

I’d just like to start by talking about Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, “Ake, ake, ake”, and the fact that one of my biggest regrets in my life is not being able to become fluent in te reo. It is a language that I’m incredibly proud of. It’s obviously a culture that is part of my background, and it’s just one of those things that my career hasn’t provided me the opportunity perhaps to immerse myself in the environment to, what they call, get my plane flying with regards to the language that I so much would love to. That doesn’t mean that I don’t keep trying with regards to my journey in that space. Hearing Teanau Tuiono and Peeni Henare in te reo, it does make me proud. I’m so pleased that we have it accommodated as an official language, but also spoken in this Whare that we enjoy today.

I want to change from a want of mine—of having my te reo—to a worry of mine, and that is about energy. When I talk about energy, there are all sorts of forms of energy that we have in New Zealand here, but the significant one that we talk increasingly about is electricity. We’ve got an increasing demand for electricity as we “Electrify NZ”, as they say, but I am incredibly worried about where we are going to answer what we call the energy trilemma. What is the energy trilemma? That is ensuring that we have energy security that means that we have a reliability of supply with minimal disruption. It’s also talking about the energy equity that is making sure that we have affordable energy and an abundance of energy so that when we want to use it we can go through and do that. The last one of the trilemma is energy sustainability. That’s mitigating the potential effects on the environment but also climate change impacts that come from the different methods of generating electricity.

If I talk about the province which I’m from—I’m the MP for New Plymouth and I come from the very proud province of Taranaki—Taranaki is also known for being the energy province of New Zealand. Look back to where it began. Believe it or not, it’s nearly 160 years ago that the very first well was successfully found for oil. It was the Alpha well. It was found down by where Port Taranaki sits today, and that was back in 1865 that that very first well was found. Believe it or not, it’s thought to be the first well in the Commonwealth, and, actually, potentially one of the first wells in the world to actually find oil and start producing. Now, after 160 years, it’s a proud history of being able to explore for oil and gas—and gas is a very dominant conversation today as well—that Taranaki has been able to produce in a relatively harmless way. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t had its potential harms on the environment from time to time, but, in general, it’s actually done that in a very successful manner.

Where are we heading into the future? When I spoke about the energy trilemma, that affordability—the price of electricity, the price of the gas that many people afford in the North Island in particular—it is so important. Industry is reliant on affordable, reliable electricity and gas and other energy sources. If we don’t get this right, we are at risk as a country. What I mean by that is that we are an exporting nation. We successfully export because we can produce products very efficiently and export it halfway around the world and still be very, very competitive. A big part of that is energy itself—the affordability element of it. We’re talking about LNG—liquified natural gas. The only reason we’re talking about that is because we have lost the confidence in New Zealand, particularly the investors, to find the natural gas that we need for our future transition to the greenest possible state that we can be, particularly by that magic date of 2050.

My message today is that I implore everybody in this House, including the Opposition, to take this matter very seriously. Sovereign risk is a very, very important part that we’ve got to get right. I ask the Opposition to make sure that you can come to the table and look at what’s right for New Zealand as a whole. We rely on a successful outcome for a long-term strategy. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Ah, I call on—sorry—Rachel Boyack.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): A mighty member of the “Rachel B caucus” in the Labour Party. E te Māngai o te Whare—

SPEAKER: Well, there’s such a similarity.

RACHEL BOYACK: —tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Hari te Wiki o Te Reo. As the previous speaker mentioned, it is Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, Māori Language Week, and this year’s theme is “Ake, ake, ake”. The theme is that te reo Māori is a forever language in Aotearoa. As such, it is on all of us to uphold te reo Māori, to champion te reo Māori, to do our best to practise te reo Māori, and also, as some of my colleagues have called out, to fund te reo Māori and to champion it. So it’s wonderful to be able to celebrate Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori in the Parliament this week.

This Government is taking my electorate of Nelson and New Zealand backwards, and I’ve got a number of examples to share with the House this afternoon. The first area I want to touch on is around health, and we are seeing health go backwards under this Government. The recently appointed commissioner, who we understand is only working a couple of days a week, has recently asked Health New Zealand to make $1.4 billion in savings and we are seeing the cuts that are coming from that. They are going to gut the plans to rebuild Nelson Hospital, which is disappointing the Nelson region considerably. We have very concerned constituents who are very worried now about that project.

Just yesterday, we heard that they are going to gut Dunedin Hospital and put in a phased approach for Dunedin Hospital also. I stand with my colleagues in the South Island that this Government needs to do better for health in the South Island. Just yesterday, my colleague Ayesha Verrall accepted a petition from George Mulholland about the fact that this Government can’t even staff Buller Hospital properly. The hospitals in the regions and the provinces of the South Island are going backwards under this Government.

Under one of my written questions to Dr Shane Reti, I’ve discovered he hasn’t even taken a paper to Cabinet about Nelson Hospital, yet he is coming to Nelson and making announcements about announcements, but without any Cabinet agreement for what he is wanting to do to the Nelson Hospital project. It is chaos, it is a shambles, and to discover he hasn’t even bothered to talk to his Cabinet colleagues about the most important capital expenditure in a generation in my electorate, after many questions from the local community, frankly, is a disgrace.

The other area where we’re seeing so much going backwards in my region and in the South Island is in transport. In my electorate, the Hope Bypass—a critical project—has been delayed and may possibly be tolled, just like the new road from Palmerston North, my other hometown, across to the Wairarapa is going to be tolled, which, frankly, we’ve already paid for. It is a disgrace to put that on the people of the Manawatū, of the Rangitīkei, and of the Wairarapa communities. That’s where my whānau still live, and they are disgusted. It is just another example of how this Government is all talk but actually no action when it comes to transport.

They have scrapped the Rocks Road project in Nelson, so every time we have a weather event, the road closes our State highway, and that side is going to do absolutely nothing—

Hon Member: And you did nothing for the last six years.

RACHEL BOYACK: —about it. Oh, yes, we did. Come and have a look. The other thing they’ve done—

Sam Uffindell: The only thing you built was debt.

RACHEL BOYACK: —all talk—was to scrap free and cheap public transport. Now, we started our new public transport system in Nelson last year, and guess what we’ve seen since that change! The number of young people in Nelson using the bus has gone down. It is a disgrace.

The other thing I’ve just discovered this week is that the new school in Berryfields has been delayed. Our biggest growth area in Tasman that needs a new school is being delayed and the Minister couldn’t even bother to tell me about that until I asked her this week. It is a disgrace. Not to mention the cutting of funding to Family Start Nelson, who provide the most amazing wraparound support to vulnerable families in my community of Nelson.

There are so many cuts, and what for? For $2 a week for our superannuitants. They are calling out to me consistently that that $2 a week is not worth a cut to Nelson Hospital, a cut to transport projects in Nelson, a cut to Family Start, and the failure to build a new school in Berryfields. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 17 September on the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio, so there will be no sector-specific debates. All votes are available for debate, but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolio. The Government has indicated that the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister for Māori Development will be available today. The Business Committee has also determined that any member may commence the debate on a portfolio despite Standing Order 348(3).

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 (2024/25 Estimates) Bill. There are four hours and 26 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has one hour and 57 minutes. New Zealand Labour has one hour and three minutes. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 29 minutes. ACT New Zealand has 15 minutes. New Zealand First has 28 minutes. Te Pāti Māori has 24 minutes. Darleen Tana has five minutes.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans, as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table.

The question is, once again, that the votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2024/25 stand part of the schedules. Members, we start with the Minister for the Environment. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 4 p.m. until 5 p.m.

Environment

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I plan to not ask too many questions in each call, but have more calls. I’d like to start with environmental funds that are reported on page 4 of the report back from the Environment Committee, and that is about the cuts to the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund, to the indigenous biodiversity fund, and the Community Environment Fund. My questions relate to both the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund and the Community Environment Fund.

Going to the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund first, we heard in scrutiny week that the Minister was concerned that councils were being taken to court by this legal assistance fund. This legal assistance fund is $600,000, it’s available when there’s some environmental public interest, and it’s a contestable fund that people contest when they think that something is important and needs clarification from the court. The Minister said, “Oh, well, it’s been used to take legal action against ratepayer-funded entities.”, but, of course, councils are the regulators, so they are always involved with these cases, and their names are on it. I’m asking the Minister if she has any evidence that these cases are actually about the councils rather than the applicants that might be doing some damage to the environment, hence the importance of this fund.

My second question is about the Community Environment Fund. This fund has been used to develop community hubs that are all around the country and that do great environmental work and manage the time of many volunteers as well, and the Minister said that “It was more appropriate for such groups to find their own sources of funding.” I’m wondering, again, if the Minister has now reflected on this, if she has spoken to any of the environmental hubs and thought about the consequences of these cuts and what they would do for our environment.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up on the bigger picture of the impact of the cuts across the environment Vote, and I’m noting that—and it was made clear in the report back from the Environment Committee—the total cut has been $617 million over the next four years. I’m noting that this is worn by agencies both inside and outside the scope of the delegation of the environment Minister, but these cuts impact the core of our Public Service and our science agencies that all have, ultimately, an impact on the environment.

I just want to outline these, before I get to my question, so that the Minister knows the scope of this. I’m talking about the cuts to the Ministry for the Environment, the $65 million decrease there; cuts to the Environmental Protection Authority; Department of Conservation, $48 million decrease; Climate Change Commission cuts; National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research; GNS Science; National Science Challenges; and the list goes on.

Is the Minister concerned about the full picture of the damage to environmental outcomes as a result of her Government’s decisions and especially the impact of the delay or cancellation of time-critical environmental work that will result from these decisions? I especially want to hear this because we know—and the evidence from her own ministry makes it really clear—that this is a time when we need environmental protection the most. I’m really keen to hear the Minister’s response to that. Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Hari o Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, Mr Chair. I’ll go through the questions as they were answered. With regard to the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund and the Community Environment Fund, this Government considered prioritisation of funding and they did not meet the priorities that we considered we wanted to fund at this time.

In terms of the bigger-picture cuts that were asked by the member of the Green Party, can I just note that since 2017, the environmental Vote appropriation tripled over that time, from 2017 until 2023. During that time, there were quite specific programmes that the Government at that time were undertaking in terms of their Resource Management Act programme and also some time-limited freshwater programmes and also a number of time-limited Jobs for Nature programmes.

The peak funding for the ministry was always going to be in that 2023-2024 period, and, from that, it was always scheduled to reduce. In fact, the ministry had started that process of reviewing their structure in advance of knowing that those reductions were going to occur in many instances. That bigger picture is that there was a tripling over that time. A lot of it was specific to the work that the previous Government prioritised and that is not work that we are continuing with.

I will just add: you asked about the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) cuts. There is not a cut to the EPA. The EPA have been exceeding their budget by over $4 million. They are being asked to meet or have a break-even position. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. In response to what the Minister just said, a couple of questions arise from that. One was that there was discussion around priorities and that the issues I mentioned—the Community Environment Fund, the Legal Assistance Fund, and the indigenous biodiversity fund—did not meet those priorities. I ask the Minister if there are any environmental priorities of this Government, and an example might be something that has an environmental benefit or stops the biodiversity decline. That’s one question.

Another question then: briefly, the Minister touched on Jobs for Nature and the stopping of that funding. The Minister is, of course, right. It was a five-year programme and it’s not going to go forward. Of course, we’ve heard from many people involved in the projects that they are worried that the work, particularly in pest reduction, that has happened to date will be undone if there’s no further funding. Has the Minister been asking questions about that issue and stopping good work that was good for both jobs and for the environment? Has she asked for any funding for that? “Has she asked for any funding for anything to do with the environment?” was also a good question.

Then a third type of questioning is on the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), and the Minister’s just said that “Oh, they have to use the $4 million worth of savings.” The EPA told us that to be able to afford to carry out its core functions, without an additional $96 million over four years, then—I’m paraphrasing somewhat—it will be in trouble. Not only is the Minister saying, “Well, it has to find the $4 million worth of savings.”, it also has been given a whole lot of new roles by this Government and potentially will be given more new roles by this Government. What analysis is going into how much more money will be required for the EPA if they have additional compliance and monitoring work, in particular?

I’m also interested with the EPA. Of course, they run the emissions trading scheme computers and they need a significant upgrade as well. Will the Minister be asking for more money for that?

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I also want to pick up on the priorities of the Minister and her Government. There has been a number of times when the Minister has asserted that the rationale for the decisions that have come through in this Vote has been that the balance has swung too far towards the environment.

Now, I asked the Minister about the evidence from her own ministry which she believes, basically, helps her to come to that view, and the post-hearing response from officials outlined—and they advised this—“the balance to strike between environmental protection and the other goals is a value judgment decided by elected representatives”, and that the ministry’s role is to gather and publish data and evidence which can inform such judgments.

I’m really interested to hear from the Minister: if not the many reports documenting a sustained and ongoing decline in her environmental reporting domains across air, water, soil, biodiversity, etc., what exactly is the Minister drawing on to inform her value judgment and, therefore, her Budget decision for these comprehensive cuts across Vote Environment?

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Why has the Government expanded the use of the waste levy?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. On te mana o te wai, the funding has been cut by $2 million, with no funding allocated past June 2025, and we heard the Minister say that the intention is to review the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, requiring less tangata whenua participation in freshwater planning during the review period. I ask—talking of te reo—if she intends for there to be any tangata whenua participation.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to specifically speak to freshwater cuts, and perhaps it’s a question appropriate for the associate Minister responsible for freshwater.

In the Vote Environment Budget cuts, there’s clearly cuts to the funding for freshwater investment programmes as well as Jobs for Nature. The implementation of freshwater policy has been cut. There are cuts to Te Tuatara o Pukekohe—Integrated Catchment Management Plan, the tangata whenua capability building, and the freshwater farm plans. We see a swathe of cuts to investment in water protection, but accompanied by the cuts to collection of data and environmental monitoring of drinking-water and groundwater nitrate monitoring.

My question is: in the context also of legislative change to get rid of te mana o te wai and low-slope rules, and so forth, what freshwater improvement targets does the Government have and how are they going to be achieved, given all that has been done is that funding and monitoring and protections have been removed?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll go through a number of these questions. Then I will defer to my associates on a number of the freshwater questions.

With regard to the Jobs for Nature projects, that won’t be continuing. I will note that the previous Government had made no provision for the extension of those projects. They were always going to be time limited, and so they will come to the end of their time. Can I just note, though, that with regard particularly to pest reduction, that’s certainly an area that we are very mindful of, particularly around the wilding conifers, and I can assure the member that’s a point that I’m taking particular interest in, and we are seeing what we might be able to do there. There is still $10 million a year that has been allocated to that wilding conifer containment, and so we do need to have a look at whether that’s going to be sufficient or not.

With regard to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), yes, they are being asked to be involved in further work, although, obviously, the fast-track consenting bill is still at the select committee stage. Nothing is finalised with that, although I note that there is, I think, $2.4 million or $2.5 million over the four years that has been allocated for that additional work that may be required by the EPA for that work. Can I just also note that the EPA, I think, are constrained in the work that they do because the models that they are using are outdated. I note that they, under the previous Government, had a bid in for updating that modelling, and they note that because they’re having to use the old modelling, it does make it more expensive and less accurate and they have to make more conservative decisions. I agree that, had the previous Government agreed to the upgrades of those models, it would have made the process for the EPA much easier.

With regard to the waste levy and why we considered the expansion of use of the waste levy, this is quite a common use with other jurisdictions. I think it is New South Wales and South Australia that use a waste levy in a much broader sense in terms of being able to address broader environmental issues. I recall at the time we had quite a lot of discussion around that. Environmental issues are often caused right through the life span of resources, and, therefore, at that end where the resources are turning into waste, it’s quite appropriate to invest some of that money in some of the earlier parts of the process.

In terms of fresh water, this Government is taking a very pragmatic and balanced approach to freshwater management and ensuring that the interests of all water users are taken into account, but I will defer to my associate who has delegations in these spaces to say a few words.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Just in terms of the Jobs for Nature funding, one of my delegations is for the secretariat function for that, and one of the things we have been doing is looking at how these projects can be transitioned, in some cases, to private funding and banking the gains. That work is ongoing as to how we don’t lose what’s been invested.

Someone mentioned the pest control element of it. In a number of cases, in these projects that the Minister mentioned—wilding pines, wallabies—that work is carrying on in different ministries. Both of those are under my responsibilities in biosecurity. That work is definitely carrying on. We are looking for ways to boost that funding or come together with a better plan to actually enable us to get on top of wilding pines.

There was a question around the freshwater farm plan funding. Quite simply, because we are delaying the implementation of the freshwater farm plans until we have a system that is far more workable for farmers and doesn’t replicate and duplicate a whole lot of information and work that farmers are already doing, that money that was meant for implementation obviously doesn’t need to be there, because there won’t be any implementation until we get it right. Then, in saying that, I don’t expect we’ll need anywhere near as much money to implement it, because we will be recognising a lot of the existing farm plans that are already out there that farmers are using to do a lot of great work on their farms. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. Related to the Minister’s answers just then—thank you for the answers—we heard that the Environmental Protection Authority has outdated models and they need to be updated and that that will have some cost, and that for Jobs for Nature, the previous Government didn’t plan for future funding in Budgets for when it was in the Government. My question is: does she accept that she is now the Minister and it is now her job to find that money and make the Budget bids?

Now, on the waste levy, we heard that the waste levy is being used for broader environmental issues, and the Minister is correct. We traversed this in the committee stage during Budget urgency, and she again reiterated her point that resources turn into waste, but things like cows and associated run-off going into a river and causing an algae bloom, which might be an environmental impact that funding might go to, are not related to waste, so this is an extension away from waste. I agree with the Minister about old landfills—that that’s clearly related to waste and that there is a nexus—but there is not with, say, fertiliser run-off or cows in rivers, and that means that the levy is turning into a tax, and we raised this at the committee stage.

My question to the Minister is whether she has sought any advice from ministry officials about how to confine that environmental expenditure so that it is clearly a levy and not a tax. Related to that is my second question on that: is that extension required because the Minister was so unsuccessful in Budget bids for the environment?

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up and ask the Minister about whether she can confirm that the only new money in the Budget under Vote Environment is the multimillions that is going towards resource management reform when the Government has just scrapped the previous reforms.

I want to pick up on the reform that the Government is progressing so far. Under that, they’ve got the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which involves the comprehensive override of environmental legislation and protections; we’ve got the Resource Management Act (RMA) marine farm permits bill, and that involves a blanket extension with no consideration of iwi, hapū, community, or council voice; and then we’ve got the freshwater RMA amendment bill, which weakens freshwater standards and allows a pathway for coalmines to plough through wetlands. Is it accurate that the only new money is actually for weakening our already meagre environmental protections and enabling further environmental destruction?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I do a point of clarification just in case my answer before may have confused when I talked about the $10 million that is still there for wilding conifers. That is not from environment appropriations, and I don’t want to mislead anyone on that, so I’m just clarifying that.

With regard to the contaminated and vulnerable landfills, and the legacies that a number of councils are dealing with there, I think that it’s an entirely appropriate thing for a waste levy to be expanded out to be able to help address some of those very vulnerable landfill sites that could well be impacted by erosion or weather events. I see that as an entirely appropriate use of it.

With regard to the additional money that is in the appropriation this year for Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement and amendments, I can confirm $92.4 million has been appropriated for our programme of work around RMA, and I can also confirm that it is a three-stage process. The first process was, of course, repealing the previous Government’s legislation before Christmas; the second phase was the fast-track consenting, as well as RMA one and two; also in that second phase is the national direction instruments—the cluster of those that we are redeveloping—and then the final stage is for the replacement RMA.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I just have two very short questions for the Minister. One is a follow-up question from my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question around the cuts to the funding for the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund and the Community Environment Fund. The Minister had said that it wasn’t a priority. I’d like her to elaborate on why these were not a priority for the Government and why cutting the funding, essentially, for communities to be able to have their moment to seek legal redress over activities happening in their local areas—their help with legal assistance for that. It’d be good to hear some elaboration from the Minister on why that is not a priority for this Government and why that funding was cut.

The Minister’s going through where some of the resource within the ministry is now sitting. She’s talked about the cuts that were there in terms of the team that were working on the resource management, but one of the things that I’m interested to know is what will the role of the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) be in the upcoming review into genetic modification? Are there additional resources being allocated within the ministry for contributing to this work? And if the Minister could give an update on what the role of MfE will be in this work.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to follow up on the water question. Very specifically, keen to know what is the actual ambition of the Government in regard to freshwater quality and protection? What are the goals and the targets and how are those going to be achieved and improved? It seems the only ambition is for removing protections for water and looking the other way in terms of things like a worsening nitrate contamination problem as a consequence of the dairy industry. How are we going to see improvements? Is there even any ambition for improvements? And what advice has the Minister received on how cutting freshwater programmes will impact the quality of our waterways and the quality of our drinking water?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. This Government is incredibly ambitious in terms of our aspirations around fresh water, but we want to do it in a way that is achievable and that is not so burdensome and confusing that nobody can comply with the regulations. It’s incredibly important that we have aspirations out over several decades, because this is an issue that has occurred over several decades, and it is going to take several decades to fix. But we are ambitious, as are most landowners and most farmers.

I think it is really unfortunate that this has turned into something of a beat-up by the Greens on farmers, when we know that some of the most polluted fresh waterways are those in urban areas. I think it does no good to our nation to be trying to beat up on rural or urban. It’s about us working together to get improvement, and I see evidence of that in many places with our catchment groups and with our farmers and our landowners, who are absolutely committed, as we are, to have workable regulations that can genuinely bring about achievement; not greenwashing, not woke aspirations that are never going to get there, but, in fact, being able to do meaningful, pragmatic things that will get the improvements that are needed.

With regard to GMO—the question there—the Ministry for the Environment has no policy with GM. No new funding has been allocated to that yet because, of course—and, I’m sorry, I’m referring to the wrong area here—no legislation has been passed on that yet.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have to say, I’m surprised that the Minister is calling regulations made under the Labour Government “greenwashing” and “woke”, and, I have to say, disappointed that is how the Minister for the Environment sees environmental protections. It is shameful.

Now, the Minister did say that she was ambitious for the environment, and that was a good thing to hear. I’m interested, then, in the fast-track legislation, because, of course, the fast-track legislation overrides all of our environmental protections and all of our environmental laws because the purpose statement of that bill is to facilitate projects—infrastructure and projects of regional or national significance, and that purpose and the structure of the bill, as it was introduced, requires decision makers to put at the top of all of their decision making the purpose, which is very different from other legislation and other fast tracks.

What is the Minister for the Environment doing to ensure changes to that bill as introduced—in fact, those environmental protections; the environment that she is ambitious about—are not overridden by cowboys who would not otherwise be able to get their projects approved?

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you. I would like to pick up on the Minister’s comments about her priorities. She mentioned particularly the changes that this Government will be making as part of their Budget decisions to the national direction documents, and I’m noting, you know, there was a press release yesterday from the Environmental Defence Society which talked about these changes to the national direction and they described them as the “engine room of our resource management system”, so these are absolutely critical core environmental frameworks for how we in this country relate to and can develop, or else, in the environmental sector.

Now, I want to pick up on this example from the Environmental Defence Society because they talk about the changes that this Government will be making as an unprecedented environmental challenge. They say that “There will be powerful and well-resourced vested interests seeking to lower environmental standards [and] causing more biodiversity loss and pollution.” Why I want to pick up on that is I do want to understand—and I have not yet heard from the Minister—the broader rationale for making such sweeping changes that are involved in all of these budget decisions and all of these budget cuts.

What is the rationale for these changes, and where is the evidence of where the environment actually is sitting in the immense magnitude of the scale of the challenge that is before us in terms of our climate and ecological crisis? Why is she not seeking appropriate evidence that will actually allow her to make informed decisions?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Related to that line of questioning, I’d like to know more about the revised approach to mapping natural hazard zones and the various tools that councils can have. This is important work that’s been going on throughout Governments, different Governments. The natural environments Act had stronger natural hazard provisions, and there’s always been a need for more work in this area and more national direction. So I’m interested if the Minister can comment on that work, please.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. With regard to the question from the member from the Green Party about the national direction instruments, I quite agree that they are very much the engine room of our environmental framework, and we have a significant piece of work going on looking at a programme of changes to national direction. We’ve got clusters of them; we’ve clustered them into four packages: energy and infrastructure, housing, farming in the primary sector, and emergencies and natural hazards. So that work is very important to the work that it will feed into the Resource Management Act replacement work in 2025, and it is scheduled to feed into that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Going back to the Fast-track Approvals Bill and, in general, all of these pieces of legislation and regulatory change that are coming, how does she and the Government intend to maintain transparency and public participation in those decision-making processes, particularly for contentious projects?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Just very briefly, Mr Chair. Of course, the member asking the question is on the select committee working through the process of the Fast-track Approvals Bill at the moment, and nothing has come back yet. It’s due back in mid-October, and, so, I have no doubt that she will make fulsome input into the report that comes back from the select committee.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Well, I’m pleased that the Minister has that faith in me, but the questions are to her as the Minister and are about what she is doing, and not just in that fast-track piece of legislation but there’s a whole lot of other regulations and bills. There’s one before the Primary Production Committee at the moment and there’s been press releases about all of the national instruments being changed, as well. Where does she see public participation in the resource management system? How important is it to her that community can have a say in the planning decisions that are made around them?

Looking forward into more resource management change, does the Minister agree with Minister Chris Bishop that property rights are equally as important as heritage protection, and, if so, how does that work and how will the Government address cases where economic development interests directly conflict with long-term environmental or heritage values?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): We have committed to ensuring that there is transparency and there is a process which allows consultation and valuable input, and, particularly, consultation has started with a range of iwi in terms of specific parts of the changes to national direction—and the Associate Minister may be able to talk a little bit more there. It’s a commitment that we have made to Te Pou Taiao that we will certainly engage fulsomely in consultation there, specifically around those freshwater regulations. The processes that we are working through are the normal processes that you would expect to see in terms of a bill working through.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Just adding to what the Minister has said, two pieces of work are under way in my area. There is consultation under way now with a whole range of sectors across environmental NGOs, iwi, primary production groups—across the whole sector. Feedback is being sought across everyone, so I’m fairly comfortable that we are seeking a range of views.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Given those responses, do both the environment Ministers commit to continuing that approach with any legislation or regulations—that they provide for community input?

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Mr Chair. I raced down here from my office because I heard the Minister referencing the catchment group model. I know that she’s been heavily involved in the Thriving Southland initiative, prior to coming to Parliament. I just wanted to dig into that a little bit because we are seeing a bit of a theme come through here where there’s a genuine desire on the other side of the Chamber to talk about regulations and red tape and compliance, but we are seeing investment and appropriations to the catchment group communities.

I know you, Minister, and I both attended—as did Minister Hoggard, I believe—the Aotearoa New Zealand Catchment Communities, which is a collective of the catchment groups around New Zealand. I believe there’s about 290 of them now, or the Ministry for Primary Industries believe there are 290 of them. I heard you touched on it before, but I would like to have learnt more because I would like to hear what your vision for them is, going forward, because I think this is a really important development. I don’t think it can be overstated how actually having people on the ground, fencing waterways, doing native planning—yes, that’s the physical stuff, but they’re also talking amongst themselves, they’re analysing what they’re doing on their farm, how they can do things better and more efficiently. I would like to hear, perhaps a little bit through your appropriation, your vision for enabling these catchment groups further and how we can really lean into this model.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member Mark Patterson for that very insightful question, because I love catchment groups. I think they are a wonderful example of grassroots absolutely grabbing hold of the issue and knowing best what needs to be done.

The notion of catchments, of course, means that it is covering both rural and urban. It enables that catchment to be looked at by everyone that’s involved in contributing to it, but also the beauty of sharing best practice. I think you referred to a little bit around that; that instead of regulations and red tape and bureaucracy and things being imposed upon those that are involved with catchments, it’s actually members of those catchment groups who are coming up with the solutions—defining what the problem is, coming up with solutions, and then sharing that best practice. We know that peer pressure is probably the best way of getting outcomes rather than it being forced from above. If that sharing and that pressure is being put on by your neighbour or your neighbour’s neighbour, then that’s how we get this collective action to be able to address some of these incredibly important issues around fresh water.

I am a huge fan of our catchment groups. I’m a huge fan, of course, of Thriving Southland, and now it’s great to see that they are getting together and working now nationwide as the Aotearoa New Zealand Catchment Collective (ANZCC), because, of course, some areas have been much more advanced in their catchment work than in other areas. Again, instead of that sharing of best practice just occurring within the catchments, it can now occur from one region to another. I thank the member for that question. The ANZCC are, I think, one of the shining lights in terms of grassroots grabbing hold of a problem, finding sensible solutions, and not being dictated to from above.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. On the grassroots community catchment groups, does the Minister, first of all, accept that a lot of those groups had significant Jobs for Nature funding and did some very good work with that? Does she think, though, that regulations are not needed for water if there is a catchment group and that, as she said, peer pressure is enough—does she think that peer pressure, alone, is enough, or should there be some regulations as noted by the catchment community groups that were in Parliament just last week? That’s my first set of questions on catchment groups.

Going back to iwi and consultation with iwi, with Jobs for Nature going, there are a lot of strong relationships to balance with iwi and with catchment groups. What work has been done to continue those? Thirdly, for now, the environmental reporting legislation, where is that at?

DARLEEN TANA: Mr Chair, thank you. I just have a few questions for the Minister, please. One is around contaminated sites. Actually, I noticed the increase in appropriation there. I’m interested to hear from the Minister for the Environment on how the prioritisation for the remediation or management of contaminated sites is happening. The second question I would have relates to the emissions trading scheme (ETS)—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Point of order. Thank you. Would the member be able to move her microphone so that we can hear her? I can see the Minister straining.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That would be useful for the Minister as well, if you could speak closer to the microphone.

DARLEEN TANA: I better not; I might snap it. I’ll lean down. Is that better? Thank you. Would you like me to repeat that?

Hon Penny Simmonds: Please.

DARLEEN TANA: Right. The first question was in relation to contaminated sites. I noticed the increase in appropriations for that. I’m interested to understand how the prioritisation, if you will, for management, remediation, what have you, of those sites, is envisaged.

The second question I have relates to the emissions trading scheme and, specifically, the register. I may be wrong but, if my memory serves, there was talk that the register was nearing end-of-use date. I’m interested to see whether discussions have progressed in terms of replacing that particular system or whether it’s been wound up in something else within Government.

My last question relates to the Māori climate platform. I do see funding has continued across for that—and fantastic—but I am interested to hear what the Minister’s vision is, or expectations, with respect to the Māori climate platform, noting performance measures are not defined at this stage. I’m just interested to hear what the Minister’s vision is with respect to the Māori climate platform. Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will refer, first of all, to the questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking. Yes, I agree, regulations are needed. Like most things, though, making regulations and mandatory requirements are not the best way; education and buy-in I see, always, as the best way to get things done. That’s where I see the value of catchment groups. Yes, I agree regulations are needed.

With regard to the question from the back—thank you very much for moving closer to your mike—yes, there is an assessment tool that the local authorities have to assess their vulnerable and contaminated sites, and then the applications come from the local authorities. The prioritisation is, essentially, done by the local authorities and their applications coming in, and then there are criteria to assess those. I’m pleased to report that I will soon be opening the new Contaminated Sites and Vulnerable Landfills Fund to support councils dealing with those unwanted legacies of landfill.

With regard to the emissions trading scheme and Māori climate, they are outside my appropriation—so outside the scope of this Estimates debate.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I’ll just remind the Minister of some other questions I had. One was on the environmental reporting legislation—where that is at—and also, going back to why it is that environmental hubs are not a priority. Has she ever asked for any funding for anything for the environment?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): With regard to the environmental reporting, absolutely this is an area of focus, and it is an area of work that is being undertaken in this Budget year. We are hoping to be able to have an amendment for the Environmental Reporting Act that focuses and ensures that we are monitoring and reporting the appropriate data. We’re hoping to have that in the first half of 2025.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Has the Minister met with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and had briefings on his recent reports?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Yes. Yes, we have met in person several times, and we have had phone discussions, and we have a meeting scheduled before the end of the year as well.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): My knees!

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): A good work out!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: That’s right. It’s sad when it is your entire exercise for the day, but there we go! Thank you, Mr Chair. Going back to the fast-track bill, I did ask before about the purpose of that bill and what the Minister is doing, as the Minister for the Environment and the Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act, to ensure that there are not environmental outcomes as a result of that piece of legislation.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. I can assure the member that with the fast-track consenting, as with all the work being done in the package of resource management work, there is a ministerial group, of which I am part, and our discussions are robust and fulsome. I am confident that the opportunities are there for me to have input at that level.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you for that response. Does the Minister accept, then, that the bill as introduced does override environmental protections with the drafting of the purpose clause?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We do have some time left in this debate, but if we are running out of interventions—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): It is the timing, Mr Chair—how much time we all have. The issue here—

Hon Member: Does any Opposition care about the environment?

Camilla Belich: We’ve got limited time, as you know.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, the whips are just all calling out. There’s some noise here about the limited time, which I am now using by referring to it, but the issue here is that—I’ll rephrase: does the Minister accept that there is existing fast-track legislation that was not repealed with the Natural and Built Environment Act and that that legislation enables for the speedy consenting of renewable energy, housing, and other infrastructure?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Another intervention? No? OK, members, that’s all the interventions that we’ve got for today. The Minister for the Environment’s time in the chair has come to an end. We now have the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, is available to speak to that portfolio from 5 p.m. until the dinner break.

Social Development and Employment

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Mr Chair. As I said in the Estimates hearing in June, when this Government took office we inherited an expanding welfare system. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) was supporting 70,000 more people on jobseeker benefits than six years earlier, despite New Zealand having gone through periods where workers were in high demand. The number of people who’d been on jobseeker support continuously for more than a year grew by about 40,000 people. The number of children growing up in benefit-dependant households grew by over 50,000. The number of people receiving a working-age benefit is forecast to peak in January 2025 at about 388,100, or 12 percent of the working-age population. These numbers are the reason why this Government has placed a high priority on supporting people on welfare into employment and providing New Zealanders with greater opportunities to get ahead. It is also why one of the nine Government targets is to reduce the number of people on jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by 2030.

Under our Government, MSD will target its efforts on job seekers, with a particular focus on young people. In 2024-2025, dedicated employment case management investment is being prioritised for job seekers who are closer to the labour market. Case management services will be expanded to reach 70,000 people by the end of the year. We’ve set targets to have 70 to 75 percent of those supported by Flexi-wage and 50 to 55 percent of those supported by Mana in Mahi being jobseeker support beneficiaries by June 2025. I’ve announced a new traffic light system in August as a quick and clear way for clients to understand their current level of compliance with their work obligations and to understand what they need to do if they aren’t meeting their obligations. I’ve also announced an extra 2,100 places for job seekers aged 18 to 24 in community-led programmes that provide job coaching and other support to access training, education, and employment initiatives.

Budget 2024 prioritised spending on MSD front-line services that give those on welfare the support they need to join the workforce. We continued investing $1.1 billion in front-line employment services and supports. This funding in the employment multi-category appropriation for Budget year 2024-2025 will be put towards services that help people find and retain work, jobs and skills hubs that help people into a career in the construction and infrastructure fields, and Flexi-wage assistance to help employers to take a chance on harder to hire job seekers. I’m committed to improving the lives of vulnerable children by enacting changes to the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system. Later this year, I plan to introduce legislation to increase the independence of the Independent Children’s Monitor by transforming it from a departmental agency inside the Education Review Office, to an independent Crown entity. I also plan to give greater visibility to the role of the Children’s Commissioner to reverting to a single commissioner.

Our Government is committed to reducing child poverty and has set a target to reduce the number of children experiencing material hardship to reduce from the current measure of 12.5 percent down to 11 percent in three years’ time. That will lift 17,000 children out of poverty. In setting a new target, we had to factor in how far behind we are in tackling this problem after all three primary measures of child poverty increased in 2023 under the previous Government. Officials advised that child poverty reduction targets set by the previous Government were no longer realistically achievable. Our new targets are ambitious but they also reflect the reality of the social and economic climate we are in.

Since becoming the Minister for Disability Issues, my top priority has been making sure the disability support system is stabilised. Delivery of disability support services shifted from the Ministry of Disabled People - Whaikaha to the Ministry of Social Development on 16 September. We have established a task force to implement the recommendations of the independent review into the disability support service. I’ve been consulting with members of the disability community to ensure that since the review was launched and we have also committed to engaging further on decisions arising from the remainder of the recommendations.

I’m proud to say that in Budget 2024 we invested an additional record $1.1 billion to boost Disability Support Services, meaning a record $2.6 billion is available. The problems that we are addressing through the Disability Support Services review aren’t funding issues; they are system issues. The independent reviewers found that many of the problems stem from the previous Government’s rush to set up Whaikaha. The ministry’s financial controls were poor, its monitoring of expenditure inadequate, and it lacked public sector disciplines and operational practices seen in other Government agencies. While the review won’t solve everything overnight, it’s important that we ensure that Whaikaha and the Disability Support Services are fit for purpose, financially sustainable, and help disabled people achieve their potential. I’ve also asked the ministry to scope a programme of work to enable us to make concrete, tangible improvements in accessibility. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I’m going to start with the public sector target of reducing the number of job seekers on benefit by 50,000, and I want to discuss the numbers, where we’re at, and where we’re forecast to get. At the time we had the hearing, there were 14,000 more people on benefit since that Minister and her Government took office in October. There’s now 26,000 more people on benefit. Now, we certainly don’t begrudge people who need support through the welfare system. However, it is indicative of an economy that is going backwards, and a lack of investment and focus on supporting people into employment.

I’m concerned, and I have a question for the Minister around forecasts. As at the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) for 2024, 202,000 people were anticipated to be on benefit by January 2025. That was when it was meant to peak, but, currently, already—and this is data from 6 September—there are 203,709 people on jobseeker support. If I didn’t make it clear, the BEFU forecast of 202,000 on jobseeker support by January 2025 was meant to be the peak, but it’s September and we’re already at 203,709.

I want to know from the Minister whether or not she’s received any updated advice or information so that we can share with the public what the new forecasts are, and how bad unemployment and the rates of beneficiary uptake are going to be under this Government, given that they’ve already surpassed the forecasts that we were given at the beginning. I also want to know, given there are 26,000 more people on benefit since that Government took office, how many more children there are living in benefit-dependent households and what that will mean for child poverty and child poverty predictions.

I have a different question, but I’ll put it on the table now, too. I want to know from the Minister why, given there are actually 30,000 more people on benefit now than there were a year ago, we are seeing food grants down 2,500 now compared to a year ago. It doesn’t seem to make sense that we have fewer people in the welfare system needing hardship support when there is a significant increase of the number of people that are currently in the welfare system accessing benefits.

I want updated forecasts for how bad unemployment and beneficiary uptake is going to get in the country, given how bad it already is, and significantly worse than forecast; how many children are living in those households and what the child poverty implications will be; and why there seems to have been a reduction in hardship assistance uptake, despite the fact we see 30,000 more people on benefit compared to a year ago.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take us back to one of the decisions that was made as part of the Budget, which was to stop around 900 disabled workers from being entitled to earning at least the minimum wage. Some of those workers are currently earning close to $2 an hour for work that other people, and able-bodied people, could be making on the minimum wage. When we were unpacking this policy decision of preventing disabled workers from earning, at least, the minimum wage, to pay for tax cuts, we were told that one of the rationales was concerns from providers, including potential job losses.

I want the Minister for Social Development and Employment to tell us whether it’s true that going ahead with a wage supplement that would have topped up the contributions from employers would have resulted in job losses; if so, how many job losses would we have seen? To me, when I read the papers, it just seems like it was a callous cut to actually enable tax cuts, and it had nothing to do with protecting jobs. Can I confirm how many job losses we would have seen if we had gone ahead with the wage supplement, a top-up to wages in contributions from employers that would have enabled disabled people to earn at least the minimum wage?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have been reminded to keep my answers short, so I shall. The first thing: in terms of the economic context, I want to repeat what the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday. When you have extraordinary Government spending, some of it wasteful, it leads to inflation, it leads to higher interest rates, it leads to a recession, it leads to unemployment—that is the reality of the cycle we are in, and, yes, it is worse than Treasury forecast.

The current forecast is that instead of 202,500 being on the jobseeker benefit in January 2025, it will peak at 214,000. That doesn’t change our target, it doesn’t change the work we’re doing, and, actually, what I would like to put on record is that our work exits in July and August this year are 1,500 up on the same time a year ago, so what we’re doing is working. I would just repeat for the member that, in terms of child poverty, we have an additional 50,000 children growing up in benefit-dependent households. That’s the legacy of the previous Government, and now we have 224,000 of those children—one in five, which is reasonably dire.

In terms of the next member Ricardo Menéndez March’s question about the minimum wage exemption, I would remind members that the minimum wage exemption predominantly applies for those who are receiving the supported living payment, so they receive a full-time benefit for their disability, and the minimum wage exemption at the moment applies to about 900 people, who are able to then be in a workplace or a disability enterprise. The feedback from the disability enterprises was they didn’t put a number on the job losses, but they were very concerned that if the wage supplement was to proceed, it would mean job losses.

The member might be interested in one of the pieces of work that we are progressing at the moment, and that is how we make sure that more who are on the minimum wage exemption—that that is used as a pathway into the open employment market or further education or training. That is something that I’m committed to. I’m very clear about supporting more disabled people into work.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. What I’m hearing right now is that the Minister went off vibes, in terms of just anecdotal feedback from providers, that there would have been job losses, because she hasn’t been able to answer, straight up, how many jobs would have been lost if the Government had gone ahead with a top-up—a top-up—for employers to allow disabled workers to earn at least the minimum wage. If we look at the papers, it seems to me that she simply cut that initiative so that she could afford tax cuts, and it had nothing to do with protecting jobs, because she hasn’t been able to materially substantiate how exactly we would have seen job losses as a result of topping up employers’ contributions. I’m asking the Minister again: how exactly would we have seen job losses for disabled people, who deserve at least the minimum wage, if the Government had gone ahead with topping up employers’ contributions with the wage supplement to replace the minimum wage exemption?

Now, my second question is in relationship to child poverty. The Minister has talked about how we are behind on child poverty targets. She also talked about how her new targets are “ambitious” and “realistic”. Can I ask: how can she say that we are behind and not realise that she’s making us even further behind from meeting those targets when her changes to benefit indexation will put more children into poverty? My question on child poverty is: does the Minister accept that decisions made by this Government, changes to indexation to benefits, are projected to make child poverty worse?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Addressing the second question first, when we talk about the state of child poverty in New Zealand, the unfortunate reality is the 2023 report came back and showed that each of the three primary measures were going in the wrong direction. If you look at material hardship—that’s the one our Government focuses on—in the six years that the Labour Government was in charge, the number of children in material hardship went up by 4,100. Our focus is on supporting families into employment. That is the best way to lift children out of poverty—today and in the future. That’s what our focus is. Budget 2024 will lift 17,000 children out of poverty.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I ask the Minister some questions around Māori employment and unemployment. I’ve heard her a number of times saying how this is a priority. We accept that this is a priority. We will also understand that, when Governments come in, Māori unemployment particularly is double sometimes. When I came in as the Minister, it was nearly triple that of the general rate. In terms of the Government’s targeting of Māori unemployment, how does that apply in terms of the needs-based provisions that have been emphasised recently by David Seymour and Nicola Willis? I say that in particular because I look at a scheme like Māori trade training, which the Minister will be aware of. What sort of directive has been given there? Can the Minister explain where programmes like Māori trade training fit in? Will that mean that there will be fewer positions, in terms of Māori trade training?

Can I also go to another question: Mana in Mahi, of course, has always been a kaupapa that both the previous Government and this Government are talking about, and I’m interested in the Māori uptake in that area. Is the Minister on track for 50 to 55 percent of those being supported by Mana in Mahi being job seekers by June 2025? Can she tell the committee today what the current percentage is? Also, does the Minister have a target in terms of reducing Māori unemployment; if so, what is it, and is she working with iwi and Māori providers in this area? Obviously, it’s a major priority, and the Minister would have had some consultation, some discussions with iwi leaders, no doubt. Is that forming part of her priorities going forward?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member the Hon Willie Jackson for his question, and one of the unfortunate realities of the weak economic situation we are in, with rising unemployment, is that it does mean, as we have seen in previous challenging economic times, that Māori unemployment is rising at a rate higher than for the rest of the population, which is, of course, very concerning.

Going through some of the programmes that he referred to—Mana in Mahi: our target is 50 to 55 percent to be coming on to Mana in Mahi from the jobseeker benefit. If we look at the current numbers, 35 percent of participants are Māori. It is a programme that is producing results, as is He Poutama Rangatahi and the Māori trades training fund. In terms of the programmes, basically what we are looking at, if you look at the target of reducing the number on jobseeker benefit by 50,000, 40 percent of that 50,000 will be Māori. We’re about looking at what programmes will work for individuals, what do we give, what provides the best success for them to move into employment. I’ve been really encouraged by some of the programmes that I’ve seen, and providers, the most recent being in Auckland last week, where, with Mayor Brown, we recognised 1,000 new jobs in only one element of Auckland Council’s business with Ngā Puna Pūkenga, and many of those were young Māori and the providers, the employers, were Māori as well.

Basically, our Government is looking at the 50,000 and saying, “How do we place one person at a time into work?”, because we know that’s what improves their life outcomes, absolutely working with iwi and Māori to solve this problem.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I just want to stand and address some urgent issues—the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the wellbeing of Māori communities is prioritised, particularly in light of the current Budget cuts and policy shifts. We’re witnessing significant reductions in staffing within the Ministry of Social Development and cuts to key social programmes. These raise critical questions. How does the Government plan to hold itself accountable for ensuring that culturally appropriate services for Māori are adequately funded and not undermined by these staffing cuts? The Māori communities and partnerships groups play a vital role in supporting our whānau, hapū, and iwi. If these roles are diminished, it’s our people who will feel the brunt, and the brunt will be felt by our Māori providers out in our communities.

Another concerning point is the 12.2 percent reduction in funding for the improved employment and social outcome support appropriation. Why has there been such a cut when Māori face some of the highest unemployment rates in the country? These are varied services that our community rely on to gain meaningful employment and escape the cycle of poverty. What evidence does the Government have that this reduction won’t harm the quality of services provided in Māori communities?

We’ve also heard of the plan to reduce the number of people on jobseeker support—50,000, as other members have said. Does the Minister stand by her intention to remove these people without ensuring that they are employed? More critically, how will the Government ensure that this doesn’t disproportionately push Māori into further hardship or underemployment, given that Māori are already overrepresented in these statistics?

We cannot overlook the housing crisis which affects our whānau across the country. Given the increased need for emergency housing assistance, why is the Government forecasting a decrease in funding for homelessness and transitional housing programmes which disproportionately affect Māori? This is particularly troubling when we know the Government’s broader policies, such as the imposition of benefit sanctions and the 90-day, no-clause tenancy terminations, only increase the demand for emergency housing.

Let’s not forget about tāngata whaikaha Māori, our disabled Māori populations. What specific steps is the Government taking to address the negative impact of funding cuts on programmes that support them? The discontinuation of the wage supplement programme for disabled workers is especially concerning. How can the Government justify these cuts, knowing that it may result in disabled workers earning as little as $2 an hour?

When it comes to our kaumātua, does the Government believe it is fair that Māori die seven to 10 years earlier than non-Māori, yet receive less benefit from superannuation due to their shorter life expectancy? This is an issue of equity, of fairness, and of one that should not be ignored.

Lastly and most urgently, I must highlight the devastating issue of youth suicide among Māori. Does the Minister believe that cuts to youth support whilst this Government are pursuing an agenda harmful to the identity of rangatahi Māori to be wise, considering that Māori have higher suicide rates than non-Māori? We must ask why services supporting rangatahi Māori are being scaled back when they are already some of the most vulnerable in our communities.

Our communities deserves answers. We deserve action. We deserve policies that uplift—not diminish—the potential of our people. Kia ora.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member Takutai Tarsh Kemp for stating her concerns in the committee. I won’t be answering questions that are outside the scope of the delegation that I have today, and I won’t repeat the comments that I answered to the previous question.

Just to give an example of the employment initiatives, the member made a comment about a reduction in the employment monetary compensatory amount. The baseline amount is the same as it’s been over several years. The only difference was some time-limited funding that was related to COVID coming to an end, but the baseline has pretty much remained the same.

In terms of front-line services, in the reductions that were required in the savings exercise for Budget 2024, front-line services were protected. To give you an example, case management is one of the most effective things we can do in terms of supporting people into employment, and we have more case managers than we had a year ago. He Poutama Rangatahi, which is very much targeted on young Māori—great providers around the country—is rated as effective, and 73 percent of the participants are Māori.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister a couple of questions, given that she has repeatedly said that she’s committed to better outcomes for disabled people. However, we don’t really see that outlined in the Budget at all. I’ve got a couple of specific questions around—I’ll start with the minimum wage exemption.

I do note that the Minister has noted that she’s been asked this by other members before, but I have quite a specific question because the Minister has said, in her own record—from memory, during the Estimates hearing as well—that the reason for scrapping the work on the minimum wage exemption and deciding not to scrap the exemption itself—which of course is part of Budget 2024, and returning the money that was put aside for that to the centre—the Minister has said that this is because Aotearoa Disability Enterprises has come out and said that they cannot guarantee that jobs will not be lost as a result.

I have spoken to them since, and that is not the understanding. What we have heard from them is that they wanted the detail of the policies that was announced by the prior Labour Government. Given that that’s not what they have said—and I cannot see that in any quotes from them in any media as well—I’d really like to know from the Minister why she made the decision to do that, if that’s not purely a cost-cutting exercise as it is being seen by disability communities more broadly.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Where did the $37 million go?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: That is my first question that—yeah, I’d like to know where the $37 million that was earmarked for the minimum wage exemption to be scrapped, where is that going? That is one question that I’d like to know.

The second is really around baseline funding that was earmarked for this year for the EGL roll-out—the Enabling Good Lives roll-out—which is now being used to shift Disability Support Services (DSS) to the Ministry of Social Development. Given that that’s baseline funding within the Estimates, I would like to know why she’s decided to use that funding to make this shift, given that there’s been absolutely no evidence in any of the reviews that this is actually going to lead to good outcomes for disabled people.

I’d also like to know how she’s committed to better outcomes, given that she has cut access to flexible funding. She’s put a freeze on residential care, which means that some of the most intellectually disabled New Zealanders will not gain access to residential care. She’s paused EGL and, as I mentioned, is now using the budget that was earmarked for 2024’s EGL roll-out to shift DSS into the Ministry of Social Development—a ministry that does not have the capacity, capability, nor the inclination to be able to administer Disability Support Services. And she’s gutting Whaikaha, the Ministry of Disabled People, a ministry that disability communities fought for, for many years.

I’d also like to know, Minister, where the $1.1 billion that was earmarked in Budget 2024 is actually going, because, as far as I can tell, no one within the sector knows where that money is going either, and I would like some transparency around that in Budget 2024, because, really, all the sector is feeling at the moment is considerable anxiety and distress because of reviews that have led to changes that were not even recommended within the review. If this Minister’s saying that she’s committed to better outcomes for disabled people, where are they?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan for the question because it gives me the opportunity to put the facts on record, which are quite different from what the member was referring to. I also didn’t address the comment about tangata whaikaha from the previous member’s question. I would just remind the committee about the increase in investment of $1.1 billion, which the previous member has asked about.

I didn’t want to repeat things that I’d made in the opening statement, but let me go back to make it clear to the member. The unfortunate reality is that the disability support service was getting to a period where it was running out of its appropriation, and it was not necessary for it to do that. It was not necessary for it to do it. In previous years, if you look eight to 10 years earlier—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Under National and Labour—we topped it up.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If the member wants to hear the answer, I’m happy to do so; if they don’t, then I will return to my seat. The increases were sort of in the range of 2 to 4 percent on an annual basis; in the previous three, four, five years, they went to double digits. No one could explain double-digit increases. That is the unfortunate reality of Whaikaha being in a situation where they were running out of their appropriation. What did the Government do? The $1.1 billion included $80 million to ensure that Whaikaha could continue to provide Disability Support Services to 30 June, and it covered that appropriation. Yes, it did mean some changes to the guidelines around flexible funding, and I appreciate that that was incredibly stressful at the time.

The review was necessary. It found far more than we expected it to. As I said, it is not a failure of funding, with the increase of the $1.1 billion; it is a failure of the system—the system that the previous Government set up in a rush and set these very high expectations and then left it to be. There is an incredible disparity across New Zealand for disabled people in terms of the services and support they can access. That’s clearly unfair and it’s not sustainable at the moment. The first thing we have to do—in answering the member’s question about Enabling Good Lives, our Government is committed to the vision and principles of Enabling Good Lives. What we are doing at this point in time is stabilising the system before we seek to improve it. For those of you who have been involved with a business or an organisation that is broken and failing, job number one: stabilise it—stabilise it. That’s what we’re doing with urgency.

The independent review panel made some recommendations. One of them was to maintain the level of funding to residential providers at last year’s rate while a rapid review into pricing can be undertaken to understand why, despite there being fewer people in residential care, the increase in costs is over 30 percent—right? Understanding what is driving the increase in costs is pretty fundamental in stabilising the ship, and that is exactly what we are doing.

In terms of the funding allocated for Enabling Good Lives—yes, as I said, job number one is stabilise the system. That is why we have had to set up a task force; they have a range of work. Two of the future pieces of work that members will be really interested in are looking at flexible funding, looking at the guidelines and what the rules should be. This Government fully understands the value disabled people place on choice and control and flexibility, which is why, with these recommendations, it is absolutely critical that we understand and can decide, together with disabled people, organisations, families and carers—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Too little, too late.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —what those rules should be. “Too little, too late.” Well, actually, that former Minister should have made sure the organisation was set up to be successful, because disabled people have paid the price for that, and I think that’s really unfortunate.

What we are committed to doing is fixing the system, getting to a place where disabled people have greater access, fairer access. We are targeting the support based on those who have the highest needs.

I also want to address the issue of creating a stand-alone ministry. So instead of Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Do you want another call?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Mr Chair.

Teanau Tuiono: The Hon Louise Upston.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Instead of it being a departmental agency in the Ministry of Social Development, it will be a stand-alone ministry. I’m actually not quite sure why the previous Government didn’t do that in the first place. If they want a strong advocacy group, that’s what they should have done. I’ll be really excited to be working with and seeing the results we can provide together with Whaikaha.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Mr Chair. A couple of questions, but, firstly, I’d just like to pick up on the issue of the minimum wage exemption scheme, and I congratulate the Minister for recognising the value of those disability enterprises projects. As someone who has visited on a number of occasions and seen the value that those workers give—those disabled people—it is actually quite uplifting to go in there and see the self-esteem and the purpose that it gives to their lives. Making sure that those enterprises are able to carry on, I think, is absolutely critical, and I commend you on your position on that.

The main point I wanted to make—because you have traversed that matter a little bit—was the juxtaposition of the situation you inherited where we previously had very low unemployment yet massively increasing jobseeker numbers. Now, something must have been broken there, Minister, for that to have happened. To quote my colleague Shane Jones about the nephs on the couch, there were too many nephs on the couch. I have been, as the Minister for Rural Communities, out and about all around the country, and one of the things that I’m stunned about is often, when I’m going to, normally, primary industries—horticulture, particularly—seeing the number of recognised seasonal employer workers, often in iwi-owned organisations.

Something is broken in that system, and it’s not just iwi-owned. Something is broken in the system when we have the increase in the NEETs and the job seekers and when we have opportunities that are going begging, actually, and I know that you have taken some steps to address that and I would just like you to illuminate us on that, please.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just highlighting some of those quickly, because I know my time is limited, the first thing we did was actually set the expectation that there would be rights and responsibilities and that those who were receiving jobseeker support would need to fulfil their responsibilities—i.e., their work obligations. That was one of the first things we did.

As I said—I’m not sure if the member heard me say it earlier—it’s really exciting to see with the changes that we have made to date, including the introduction of the traffic lights and the use of obligations and consequences, an increase of 1,500 people exiting the jobseeker benefit into work. That’s 1,500 more than at the same time last year, and yet look at the economic conditions we’re in today. I think that’s a remarkable result, and I’m very proud of that.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I just want to clarify: earlier, I asked a question about the additional 26,000 people on benefits since the Minister took office and I asked how many more children are forecast to be in poverty as a result of that. She used a figure of 50,000. I just want to clarify whether the 50,000 additional children forecast to be in poverty are a direct result of there being a lack of work and more people on benefit, or if there are other reasons as well for that. I also want to know what the measure is that the Minister is using when she refers to child poverty—whether it’s before housing, after housing, or if it’s material hardship—so we can understand that a little bit more and, also, within what time frame is the Minister talking about with respect to those child poverty figures and that increase?

Just off the back of some of the disability related questions in the House, I also want to put to the Minister that it is very difficult to understand what is going on when we are told one thing by the Minister and the experience of disabled people and disability organisations is completely different. I want to know from the Minister why it is that she continues to say in the House that there is no funding freeze, that disabled people are getting more funding to support them and more access to services, when disabled people and disabled people’s organisations are telling the media and are telling politicians in the House that that is simply not the case, that their access to support has been frozen, and that they are no longer able to access some of the supports that they were previously accessing. I want to know from the Minister why there is such a difference between her perspective on how well off disabled people are under her watch compared to disabled people’s perspectives.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Addressing the child poverty one: we don’t forecast the number of children in material hardship.

Ricardo Menéndez March: You actually do.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The figure that I referred to, the increase of 50,000, was actually an increase of 52,000, and that was the number of children in benefit-dependent households that occurred after the last six years. We don’t forecast an increase in the number of children growing up in benefit-dependent households; it increased by 52,000 children under the last Government. Unfortunately, our child poverty measures—the three primary measures—have gone backwards. In terms of the measure that we will focus on, it is material hardship, and we have set a target of 11 percent. It is 12.5 percent at the moment. That is 17,000 children that our Government will lift out of poverty.

In terms of the increase of disability funding: as I said, a record level of investment, $1.1 billion. Some of the change that’s occurring at the moment—well, one of them actually is that budgets have been put back in place for needs assessors and for the Enabling Good Lives sites. They always had budgets; sort of four or five years ago, the budgets were removed. Nobody could tell me why they were removed. That’s a concern in and of itself but also speaks to why, unfortunately, the ministry then got into such a financial mess.

In terms of the changes, the $1.1 billion obviously hasn’t flowed through to disabled people yet because we are undertaking the rapid review of residential pricing and recommendations five and six, which were very well published when we announced the findings of the review; that is the work that needs to occur over the next few months with disabled people.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I’m going to once again try to ask a straight-up question that I haven’t gotten an answer to or it hasn’t been addressed, and that is how exactly would it have resulted in job losses if the Government had gone ahead with the wage supplement meant to replace the minimum wage exemption? The Minister has completely glossed over this very simple question. She keeps talking vagaries about concerns from providers; she hasn’t been able to substantiate exactly what they were. She keeps also referring to potential job losses. I want to ask: how would going ahead with the wage supplement to top up the wages of disabled workers to bring them from $2 an hour, in some cases, to the minimum wage have resulted in job losses?

If there hadn’t been any projected job losses as a result of going ahead with the wage supplement, can she then tell us, finally, that the reason why she decided to cut the wage supplement is to pay for tax cuts? So far, she hasn’t been able to substantiate exactly how it would have resulted in job losses, and I think people deserve to know this. They deserve straight-up answers, rather than this continuous, vague rhetoric about concerns for providers, when she didn’t even consult, as a Minister, with any of these providers, let alone with disabled workers. Our communities deserve a straight-up answer from a Minister that keeps ignoring the voices of disabled people.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): That member may not be aware that one of the jobs in Opposition is that you are preparing your policies to take into an election. In the 2020 election and the 2023 election, the National Party policy was to maintain the minimum wage exemption. Part of the job as an Opposition spokesperson is to go and meet with the sector, to talk to disabled workers. I have two organisations in my electorate, so I’m a frequent visitor to both of those, talking to the organisations, talking to the disabled people that are there, talking to their families. I’m very confident in our position.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Why can’t the Minister tell us how going ahead with the wage supplement would have resulted in job losses? She has alluded to that before, so either she didn’t do her homework in Opposition or she hasn’t been straight up with the House about how exactly lifting the wages of disabled workers by topping up employers would have resulted in job losses. She’s insulting the intelligence of people in this House by skirting around this answer and not giving straight-up information, so I’m going to ask again a quite straightforward question: how exactly would we have seen job losses if we had gone ahead with the wage supplement to replace the minimum wage exemption?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I’d like to pick up on that, and I too want to ask the Minister—because I asked this once before and there was no actual response, even though the Minister nodded at the time—where is her evidence? Where is her evidence? It was National Party policy prior to the election to maintain the minimum wage exemption—why? Where is the evidence that jobs would be lost, as the Minister has said—on record—given that Aotearoa Disability Enterprises can’t actually back that up? All they wanted to see was the detail of the policy that she has now scrapped. Where is the Minister’s evidence?

Where, also, is the Minister’s evidence that shifting Disability Support Services (DSS) from Whaikaha to the Ministry of Social Development will result in better outcomes for disabled people? Where is that evidence? That was not in the review, and the sector wants to know. These are questions that the disability community—is this a policy that the Minister’s dreamt up? If not, where is her evidence?

Also, given what the Minister said just previously to questions asked about the shift of DSS and the review and the gutting of Whaikaha, why did the Minister choose not to top up Whaikaha’s funding—as previous Governments have done—work in consultation with the disability community in accordance with the motto “nothing about us, without us”, which has been out the window by this Government, frankly? Why did the Minister choose not to strengthen Whaikaha if she’s placing all of this blame on the fact that the previous Government set up Whaikaha quickly?

Let me just point out that the disability community gets why it was set up quickly. That was because we wanted to ensure that there was no dropping of services or disabled people didn’t fall between the cracks as the Government got their act together. It was set up quickly—they get that; this Minister does not seem to get that—but the next steps were to then strengthen the functions and the financial structures of Whaikaha. Why did the Minister choose not to do that and instead to gut the very ministry that disabled people have fought for?

Why is there no transparency, also, between the announcement the Minister made on 15 August—which talked about a vague funding freeze but did not actually state that the wait-lists of residential care facilities would now be out the window, and that only people who are out of prison, out of mental health units, occupational therapy placements, or needed severe physical care would get a placement—why was she not transparent about that? Why was that sent in operational guidelines to agencies without so much as an announcement by this Minister? Quite a few questions there, Minister, and we’d like some answers.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’d just like to put on the record of the House the findings of the independent review of the disability support service (DDS), the intention of which was to strengthen its long-term sustainability. It made six findings: “(1) Delivery of DSS is inconsistent, (2) The DSS 2024/25 appropriation will be breached if spending is not controlled, (3) There is inadequate budgetary control and commercial rigor, (4) The two areas of largest cost growth are flexible funding provisions and residential facilities-based care, (5) The new departmental agency is not set up in a manner that enables it to manage effectively the nature and scale of its appropriation, (6) Current policy settings and service design do not allow the Ministry to administer and deliver DSS effectively”.

There are, of course, a number of options available when you receive findings that are as stark as that. What we needed to do, as I said before, was to stabilise the system and to make sure there wasn’t the level of disruption that occurred to disabled people with the changes in March, and that was my commitment. It would be great not to be in this position. At the time of the release of the findings of the review on 15 August, a number of documents were published, so I did a full media conference, I put the press release out, the full report of the independent review panel, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet stocktake—which was released before the election, which also highlighted significant issues—and also a report called the Link report, which had dire findings in terms of the ministry’s financial capability and position. It required urgent action, and that’s exactly what’s been taken.

The previous Minister may not understand the changes that have been made, but the reality is that through the period of the independent review panel, I met with disabled people, with their families, with carers in their homes, in their residential settings, with providers, with disability organisations—you name it, I met with them during that time to make sure. What they’ve said to me was that the system is too confusing and it’s not consistent. We want to make sure that it’s sustainable and we want to make sure that those with the highest needs get their needs met.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. If I could just take this opportunity, with your indulgence, to acknowledge that this is Aotearoa New Zealand Social Workers’ Day and acknowledge the hard work they do.

My question to the Minister is: what changes has the Government made to reduce the number of New Zealanders who are reliant on the jobseeker benefit, given that $4.4 billion was allocated for it in the Budget?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’ve been able to traverse some of those. One of them that I wanted to just put on the record of the House, with thanks to that member for his question, is the employment investment framework. I referred to one of the components of that, which was to make sure that employment programmes that are funded by taxpayers are focused on those who are actually on the jobseeker benefit because—surprise, surprise—many of them weren’t.

The second is absolutely and resolutely to focus on young people. What we do know from the Taylor Fry report is that young people who go on to the jobseeker benefit under the age of 25, their future years on benefit is 19 years—19 years, and 23 if they’re Māori. That is unacceptable. We’re focusing on young people and getting support to them earlier. The third one was to expand case management, which is one of our most effective employment initiatives, to 70,000 people.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I just want to know why the Minister made the decision not to include any disabled people on the panel that did the review of Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People, given the motto that has been used already in this House, “Nothing about us without us”, and how can the Minister expect disabled people and disabled people’s organisations to take that review seriously, given that they weren’t even given a seat at the table to give their perspective?

The other day in the House, and I think this is important to refer to as well, we had an acting Minister in place—that was Minister Penny Simmonds, which seemed a bit mean as far as I’m concerned; I’ve never seen a Minister displaced from a role and then made to do the acting position in the House during question time—talk about the funding and say very clearly that there was no funding freeze, however, acknowledged there was a funding pause. I want to know from the Minister, what is the difference between a funding freeze and a funding pause when it comes to Government funding for agencies and for services?

I don’t have much time, so I’m going to change topic very quickly just to get these questions in as well. These questions are about Te Pae Tawhiti and business transformation at the Ministry for Social Development. I want to know from the Minister for Social Development and Employment whether or not that business transformation programme is going ahead. I want to know from the Minister for Social Development and Employment what was budgeted for at the last Budget for business transformation, what we can expect in terms of change that will support our welfare system and the Ministry for Social Development to be able to support New Zealanders, and the risks if the investment is not put into place for the system and its ability to hold up.

Also, recently I think I saw that there’s no one in the role of deputy chief executive for business transformation; what does that mean for that programme of work? Is that because the programme of work is stopped, or will there be delays in that work because of the fact that the leadership isn’t there and also because of the lack of investment, funding, and prioritising by the Government?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The member raises an important project that is well under way at the Ministry of Social Development, and that is Te Pae Tawhiti. One of the things that was kind of strange when I came into the role was to find that a nine-year programme of work that was broken into three horizons of three years was only funded for two of the first three years, which was a bit strange. I can reassure the member that the programme is working well; we have a fantastic team of specialists who are working on Te Pae Tawhiti.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): How, as she has claimed before, would going ahead with the wage supplement result in job losses?

Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: How exactly would going ahead with the wage supplement result in job losses, as she has claimed before?

Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Will the Minister actually front up to the public and explain, as she has claimed previously, how going ahead with the wage supplement will result in job losses? Or will she just continue staying silent, pretending that that assertion has any factual basis?

Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Why is she refusing to answer my questions as to why going ahead with the wage supplement, as she is claiming, will result in job losses?

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Minister, one of the things that we have seen coming out of COVID and out of Cyclone Gabrielle and other adverse events where the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) sort of strode in and had to pick up the pieces was that some of these work programmes and initiatives that you’ve got behind—even though some of them have been thrown together quite hastily—have actually worked. Also, some of the other probably longstanding entities that have had a degree of MSD support, and I’m thinking, in the rural communities, actually, of the rural education activities programmes (REAPs) and the like.

I’m just wondering what your vision is for those, because—particularly the REAPs—they have, as I say, longstanding networks. They’ve got a proven track record. I have seen, as I hope you’ve seen too, they’ve got a recent impact report done that shows they’re returning $4.90 for every dollar invested, which is quite impressive, and that work is being undertaken by Sir Bill English’s ImpactLab, which is quite a reputable outfit.

One of the things that I find a little bit problematic with some of this stuff is that MSD does some good work in supporting it, the Ministry of Education does part of it, and sometimes the Ministry of Health is involved in some of these things as well. There’s a lot of cross-party stuff that goes on, which actually can make it quite difficult for some of these organisations, and I’m sure that’s not the only organisation that’s in that boat—so just some thinking around how you would support some of those programmes that are doing great work out in our communities.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member for his question, and one of the things that our Government has been really clear about is that the way to have a greater impact on New Zealanders’ lives is when you have the Government, community organisations, and business lining up together. I have met with a number of rural education activities programmes (REAPs) over my time as Minister. They do do really important work, and I understand the frustration when they have contracts from a number of different Government departments.

One of the pieces of work that we have picked up from the previous Government is their social sector commissioning so that we’re able to really look at how we simplify it and have longer-term, higher trust relationships with providers. The REAPs would be one that springs to mind and are an example of how Government, community organisations, and businesses line up with the community job coaching, of which there’ll be 2,100 places. The Government is funding it, obviously, through MSD, the community organisation provides the job coaches, and the business provides the employer opportunities, and that’s how we’ll get more people off welfare and into work.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Why did the Minister make claims previously that going ahead with the wage supplement would have resulted in job losses and now she is quiet when asked to substantiate those claims and explain how?

All right. I’ll try another question. Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: What is the projected decrease in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit from the changes to re-applications which mean people have to apply every 26 weeks now?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for the dinner break.

Ricardo Menéndez March: There’s five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We will resume—just to acknowledge that the debate started early, so members, the time has come for the dinner break. We will resume the debate at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good evening, members. Members, the committee has resumed. Before the dinner break, we were debating the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill. There are two hours and 34 minutes remaining in this debate, and I thought it was worth going through the timings. New Zealand National has one hour and 12 minutes, New Zealand Labour has 31 minutes, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 14 minutes, ACT New Zealand has 13 minutes, New Zealand First has 22 minutes, Te Pāti Māori has 19 minutes, and Darleen Tana has three minutes.

Members, we now have the Minister of Transport. The Minister is available to speak to the portfolio from 7.30 to 8.30 p.m.

Transport

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to talk about the Budget Estimates 2024. This Government has an ambitious transport agenda to get transport back on track and to deliver the transport New Zealand needs so that New Zealanders can get where they need to go quickly and safely. We have, in this Budget, invested significantly in the roading projects that New Zealand needs: rail, metro rail, road policing—all of those things which will help ensure that New Zealanders can get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Of course, since we’ve become the Government, we have issued the new Government policy statement on transport, which outlines our roads of national significance programme and puts that back on the agenda and gets it back on track. It outlines a 91 percent increase in funding for road maintenance on our State highways, a 50 percent increase in road maintenance on our local roads, a 40 percent increase in public transport services funding, a significant investment in completing the rail network rebuild of $159 million to complete the rail network rebuild, and Auckland’s ready for the City Rail Link, which will open in 2026, and, as the member for Upper Harbour, Cameron Brewer, says, the Northwest Rapid Transit, continuing progress on that critically important rapid transit program for West Auckland.

This Government is investing significantly across roads, rail, and public transport services to ensure New Zealanders have the ability to get where they need to go quickly and safely. That is what Budget 2024 delivers on, and I look forward to taking questions and talking more about that tonight in our ambitious agenda to help unlock the economic growth and productivity that these roads will do—the road to Northland, the economic growth and productivity benefits that will come from those investments, the travel-time savings helping to ensure we have more efficient networks for our freight. It’s all part of our plan to grow our economy and help New Zealanders get where they need to go quickly and safely.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. The differing view that’s contained by members of the Opposition parties is quite clear, but I have a number of questions that I will just fire off.

The first is, Minister, when will we see the first construction activity that you have promised for the key roads of National Party significance—projects like the second Mount Victoria tunnel—and what is the time line that we can expect around that?

Also, why is the Government simply leaving out critical regional projects for the South Island by not having any funding set aside for projects like Brougham Street that will actually make a difference, and just talking about what money might sort of be left over—Rocks Road, in Nelson—and, simply, no love for the South Island?

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m keen to know about the targets the Minister and the New Zealand Transport Authority have around the repair of potholes on our State highway networks, particularly around having them fixed within 24 hours. Can the Minister tell us a little bit more about that, please?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. During the Estimates hearings at our Transport and Infrastructure Committee, the chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency, Simon Bridges, said to the committee that we didn’t have all the economic evaluation yet about the proposed roads of national significance. My question to the Minister is: if the goal is economic productivity and cost-effectiveness, why has he promised and committed to a series of projects for which we don’t know the true cost and we have no idea of the actual economic benefit? Why is it that the Government has proposed to spend tens of billions of dollars on projects for which we do not have any economic evidence? Or do we have any evidence of the cost-effectiveness?

Since members opposite are very interested in this, the most recent benefit-cost analysis for the Mount Victoria tunnel was 0.2, which means it was losing money. I’m not sure if members opposite understand what a benefit-cost analysis is, or a benefit-cost ratio, but it means that the cost massively outweighs the benefits. The question to the Minister is: how can he possibly claim that his programme is going to deliver economic productivity or achieve cost-effectiveness, particularly when tens of billions of dollars are proposed, on projects for which the chair of the Transport Agency, former transport Minister Simon Bridges, admits there is no evidence for those projects yet?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the—

Tom Rutherford: Just answer the pothole one.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yeah, well, I thought it was a very good question about potholes that the member asked about, and, of course, it’s an issue which many New Zealanders are very concerned about—

Tom Rutherford: Particularly in the Bay of Plenty.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —and particularly in the Bay of Plenty, around improving road maintenance. Of course, in our Government policy statement (GPS) on transport, we introduced the pothole prevention activity class, which was about ring-fencing funding for road resealing, road rehabilitation, and drainage—the core activities to actually ensure we’re preventing potholes on our roads and make sure we’re maintaining them to appropriate standard.

The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) board has increased funding for those activities, for pothole prevention on the State highway network, by 91 percent following that GPS being released. And, of course, there’s also been standards set with contractors to ensure that those potholes that do appear are repaired within a timely fashion to ensure the safety of our roads. My understanding is, I think, 95 percent on tier one State highways within 24 hours and 85 percent on other State highways within 24 hours—must be repaired within 24 hours. That is a significant improvement, but it’s also about ensuring that we have a safe, reliable surface for New Zealanders and for the freight operators to be able to travel around this country quickly and safely.

About ring-fencing, that money is about ensuring that we are actually investing more in that rehabilitation of the network, which has not been getting the right number of kilometres done in recent times. In some years, I think it’s been down to 0.5 percent or 0.4 percent of the network actually being rehabilitated. We actually need, over the long term, to get that up to 2 percent.

Tangi Utikere: Why is your track record previously showing a reduction in investment and maintenance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s interesting to hear the Labour Party member, the spokesperson for transport, interject. Of course, we all remember their record when it came to cycleways across the Harbour Bridge—$250 million, I think it was—and Auckland light rail didn’t even get a business case delivered. Didn’t even get a business case delivered—

Suze Redmayne: 62,000 potholes.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: And 62,000 potholes, thank you, Suze Redmayne—62,000 potholes in their last year in Government. That’s the type of stats they’re very proud of. They’re very proud of the fact that they left our roads absolutely riddled with potholes. That’s a few notes for the member for Palmerston North.

In terms of the roads of national significance, which the member likes to talk a lot about, in terms of the South Island, we’ve identified the Woodend Bypass as being a road of national significance and the Hope Bypass as being a road of national significance. Both of those will make a significant difference in the South Island—and, importantly, the significant investment in road maintenance we fill across the country to support that—as well as the NZTA board, through the National Land Transport Programme, identifying the second Ashburton Bridge as being a priority of regional significance as well.

The member from the Green Party asked some questions around economic growth and productivity. I suggest she asks those questions of people in Northland, who have recently had the Brynderwyns shut again for multiple months. The reality is that roads are what people drive on and move freight on around our country—

Ryan Hamilton: And electric buses.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: And they move electric buses, and they also connect people to their homes and to their Green Party offices with their car parks. The reality is, roads drive economic growth and productivity. We’ve seen that with what the Waikato Expressway has done through the Waikato. We’ve seen a number of economic reports which identify the economic benefits of continuing the roads of national significance programme. Yes, NZTA is going through the work of cost and scope to ensure that we get that right, as we get those programmes of roads under way over the coming years. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for the clarification that the potholes allocation of funding is not just about potholes but, in fact, about the strength and the robustness of the entire road. That’s very, very helpful.

Look, I did want to start off by asking one question around that area, and that is the whole issue of asset management. We were told, in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), that, in fact, over quite some period of time, they’ve been investing at about 50 percent of the amount of money that they should have been investing to keep the roads at the right level. An increase of 91 percent basically takes it to pretty much where they should be. The first question I’ve got for you is about how you intend to make sure that both for State highways—so NZTA’s own asset—and also for the assets that NZTA subsidises—i.e., the local roads—those asset management plans are being done well and that the investment levels are right to keep those roads in good nick, both the State highways and the local networks.

The second question I wanted to ask is around the roads of national significance. The first part of that is just to say: how quickly do you think it will be before the public of New Zealand, who are looking forward to these roads of national significance, can see concrete evidence of new roads being designed, consented, and actually shovels going into the ground?

On Northland, I’d be really interested to get some feedback on that too, because in travelling to Northland for a meeting with Northland businesses, it was not an esoteric “Look, if you build a road, there will be a certain amount of economic development which might occur”—and it’ll be plus X percent or Y percent—but there are a lot of very substantial businesses there which are quite clear that, without that road, they will not invest. With that road, they are quite clear what they will invest in, and they are significant investments for the good of not just the Northland region but the country as a whole. So I’d be interested in your feedback on that.

The last part of that question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter said that benefit-cost (BC) ratios are not very high in some cases, but it seems, to me, that the one example that I would use is Transmission Gully, where the BC was supposed to be at 0.2 or 0.3, or something like that, but I think it was predicated on a relatively modest level of time saving, and the actual experience is much more significant than that. I wonder, Minister, whether, in fact, NZTA is underselling some of those and being very conservative on those. I’ll come back with a couple of other questions later on, so I’ll leave those for now. Thank you, Minister.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member Andy Foster for his questions. The first question, in relation to pothole prevention and State highways and local roads, is an issue which is particularly important, and I thank the member for the question there. It’s about making sure that we are maintaining the assets to the appropriate levels. That means ensuring that it’s the appropriate funding, but, actually, also, that there’s the appropriate targets in place and that we’re also getting those efficiencies through that investment. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has a road efficiency group. They are undertaking work through NZTA and alongside all road-controlling authorities. They will be getting work around benchmarking councils around their spend per kilometre, making sure that they’re getting quality investment from the investment they’re putting into road maintenance, and also looking to find efficiencies around how they can get better bang for buck out of that investment.

There’s a number of things that the New Zealand Transport Agency will be going through, around their contracting model, how they can find efficiencies across road-controlling authorities, ensuring that taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money is getting bang for buck. There’s a huge amount of work that the agency is leading in terms of that, because it is the factors—it’s not just about the money; it’s about making sure it is getting value for those who are paying it, and they need to see that value on the road. Even just recently, NZTA has changed the methodology with its contractors around how they’ll be fixing potholes which appear on the road. Rather than just putting some cold mix into that hole and waiting for it to pop next week, actually going in there and cutting it and repairing it properly—yes, it’ll cost slightly extra money in the short term, but that’s the type of maintenance which actually has a longer payback and is more efficient. Those are the types of investments I’m expecting to see more of from both NZTA and from all road-controlling authorities across New Zealand, because that is actually what New Zealanders expect from their taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money.

In terms of the roads of national significance, the work that is under way there, the Ōtaki to north of Levin road, will start next year. Construction will start on it next year. There are seven other roads which have been identified for enabling works, contracts, and construction within the three-year period of the National Land Transport Programme. And the reality is that, to get these roads started quickly, we are going to need fast-track legislation. That is critical to being able to build the infrastructure New Zealanders need. We need fast-track legislation, because there is only one of—[Interruption] Sorry?

Hon David Parker: We already had it, and it was working.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if that’s the case, the reality is that the only major new road is the Warkworth to Wellsford Road, which actually has a consent, and there are not consents for other roads. If there was fast-track legislation in place, why were there not consents for all of these other roads which, actually, New Zealanders need? That last Government cancelled those roads, and they didn’t want to actually get these roads put on the books—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order—point of order, Madam Chair. The Minister has just claimed that the last Government cancelled roads, yet he’s announced a road that’s going to start construction that was funded by the last Government. It’s completely inconsistent.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s not a point of order, but I’m going to call the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Minister was incredibly cocky in his last performance, but I guarantee you one thing, he would not have been cocky if he were at the public meeting in Woodville last night. He would not have been cocky if he faced 500-plus locals who are absolutely disgusted at his proposal to toll the replacement road—the Manawatū Tararua Highway.

Before I ask the question I want to pre-empt one thing: I know that he will say that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) are consulting on this and it’s part of the process, and all that sort of thing, but the fact is he instructed them to do this. He changed the rules, as Minister, to instruct NZTA to go and look at new roads and put a toll on them. That’s the point—this is not a new road. This is a replacement road. This is nine months from being finished. This is a seven-year project, and I want to know what the Minister would say if he actually had the guts to turn up to that meeting in Woodville last night.

Shanan Halbert: Where was he?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: No answer. And that’s very fitting because that is the answer that Mike Butterick and Suze Redmayne gave to the locals in Woodville last night. The Government is treating the people of Manawatū, Tararua, Hawke’s Bay, and Wairarapa with disgrace. They are treating them with disrespect. The Minister needs to stand up and explain to them why he will not scrap this ridiculous toll idea from the get-go.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from Mr McAnulty, is his focus on tolling as an action to simply address the $6 billion financial hole that is in his Government’s transport plans.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I can answer that—yes.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, there we go. The Minister’s not answering it, so we’ll take that as a yes.

I want to move on to the Government policy statement (GPS). The Minister has referred to the additional capital funding in the GPS package. How can we have confidence when the Treasury has indicated that they only had one hour to review the limited information that was provided by the Ministry of Transport and, on that basis, they recommended not including the additional capital funding for the GPS in the Budget package as it had not been through the same assessment process as other capital initiatives had and they were not able to provide any validation and, further, that there were risks of cost escalation and delivery delays with large transport projects if they are accelerated.

My question to the Minister is: how can there be confidence in light of that Treasury advice? And, further, when it came to the concern that Treasury expressed around the cutting of bus driver wages and the funding around that contributing to front-line shortages, which they identified, and that there would be a significant risk of ongoing shortages and, in actual fact, the Treasury provided information to the Minister of Finance that they recommended that she ask the Minister of Transport to provide an assurance that core public transport networks will continue to be able to operate at the current levels if this saving is implemented—my question to the Minister is: what response did he give to the Minister of Finance if that question was asked; if it was not asked by the finance Minister, what is his answer to that question?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well, I’ll take the point that he made there about cost blowouts on projects, because the last Government was very famous for cost blowouts on projects. Let’s go no further from “Auckland light fail”, which was going to start at $1.2 billion, and by the time that Government had, I think, drafted the 300th page of the draft indicative business case, it had got to $29.2 billion. Let’s talk about that.

The other point I’d make is that the Manawatū replacement road, in terms of the tolling proposal, that road has had a $200 million cost blowout—$200 million cost blowout. That has had a $200 million cost blowout; it has gone from about $600 million to $800 million in terms of its cost. The reality is the tolling proposal has been put out as a way to recover some of those revenues in order to protect those other parts of the country which need road maintenance and new infrastructure being built in them. Ultimately, there is a consultation under way. As with many of these tolling proposals, there are a range of perspectives, and I look forward to hearing from them and considering them as part of that process.

In terms of the member’s questions around the Budget allocation and the Treasury briefing, ultimately that funding is being set aside in a contingency to help support and advance roads of national significance and major public transport projects.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question to the Minister of Transport will be in just a moment. I just want to outline my concerns, and that of many of those who live in the Warkworth region and up into Wellsford and Te Hana, about the new motorway heading north from Warkworth.

Now, we know that Labour absolutely hate motorways, because the road from Pūhoi to Warkworth, they labelled the “holiday highway”—the “holiday highway”—when all of those that live in the North need to access Auckland in a very speedy manner; no “holiday highway” at all. I’d like to ask the question around the frustration that those in that electorate—the Kaipara ki Mahurangi electorate—face getting through the Dome Valley. This is a treacherous little piece of road; it has now got sticks all through the middle of it. If you ever happen to have some sort of breakdown, you can’t get around; there’s a blockage that goes on for hours—so many frustrations for people travelling between Wellsford and Warkworth.

The question, really—we’re wanting to get faster freight through that area, whether up into the north or back into Auckland; it’ll increase our productivity. Also, those businesses, then, would be able to contribute further to GDP. Could the Minister please outline his expectation of the time line of getting this road from Warkworth through to Wellsford under way?

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, it appears that everyone else is coming up with plans for the Waitematā Harbour crossing but you. My questions tonight—

Grant McCallum: What’s your one?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not me.

SHANAN HALBERT: We delivered a plan.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not me. Say it’s you.

SHANAN HALBERT: My apologies.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT: Minister, so here’s your chance to come clean—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK—I can’t hear the member.

SHANAN HALBERT: —with Aucklanders: what is your plan? What’s the time line when the public can expect to hear from you on some sort of a plan? And what do you think of Mayor Wayne Brown’s plan that he has proposed?

Minister, I also want to touch on congestion charging, an additional levy that you’ve put on top of a number of other levies for Aucklanders. I wonder, here, what specific public transport improvements are planned to coincide with the introduction of your time-of-use charging to ensure viable alternatives for commuters.

Minister, the third part of my questioning tonight is around Auckland Transport. I’d like you to be clear with the public: do you support Marlborough MP Jamie Arbuckle’s member’s bill to disestablish Auckland Transport; if so, I’d like to know what costing and analysis you have done around that particular work, and is it your intention, following that disestablishment, to integrate parts and functions of Auckland Transport into Waka Kotahi?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Look, I thank members for their questions. Can I first thank my colleague Jenny Marcroft for her question in relation to the Warkworth to Wellsford highway, which, of course, we all remember the Labour Party calling the “holiday highway”. They spent years campaigning against it—the “holiday highway”—until Chris Hipkins turned up to open it, and then he said, “This is critical infrastructure that New Zealanders need.” That’s what he said when he got there and opened it.

Well, I tell you what, on this side of the Chamber, we know how important roading infrastructure is to New Zealand. That’s why we’ve put building and maintaining our roading networks at the heart of our Government policy statement on transport and what the New Zealand Transport Authority board has done with the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP).

Now, the good news is the Warkworth to Wellsford road is consented. It’s the only major new road which has a consent, and that means it is on the fast track for delivery within the three-year NLTP period. The New Zealand Transport Agency has already been out engaging with the market on the Northland Expressway. That is a critical piece of infrastructure for Northland but also for our economy and for growing our economy and providing economic growth.

In terms of the point the member Jenny Marcroft made around Dome Valley, I note the last Government spent something like $70 million on Dome Valley, and the reality is they didn’t consider resilience as part of any of the work—they didn’t consider resilience. They spent $70 million on some works in the Dome Valley and didn’t even consider resilience. We’ve seen more slips, we’ve seen closures, we’ve seen all sorts of other problems, and Northland continues to suffer. That’s not acceptable, and that is why we’re prioritising the Northland Expressway.

In terms of the member Shannon Halbert’s questions in regards to the Waitematā Harbour crossing, NZTA has got work under way in relation to the options. I do note that the last Government—their greatest and most amazing idea at the end of their time was to come up with something like a $55 billion project. That was what they sort of thought was the way to win the election. The reality is—what did Aucklanders say? Aucklanders said, “Haere rā.” That’s what they said. They said haere rā to the Labour Party. So that was what happened after that. So we’re working through that methodically. The agency’s got work under way in terms of identifying routes and options, and there’ll be more to say on that in the near future.

In terms of the question around time-of-use charging—the member likes talking about congestion charging; timeofuse charging—I noticed when they were in Government, they were big proponents, and now they’re big opponents. I’m a bit confused because when I announced time-of-use charging, he was very clear and put in this press release that this was just going to be another tax and, therefore, he was going to oppose it. The reality is, this is about actually maximising efficiency of the network—that’s what this is about: maximising efficiency of the network.

The great news for Aucklanders is that the last National Government started the City Rail Link, which will double capacity of our rail network in Auckland. So, for the last six years—by the end of their six years, they’ll think about, “Oh, we should do congestion charging.” They hadn’t even got “Auckland light fail” past page 300 of the draft business case. and now they’re saying, “Oh, and what are you going to do at public transport?” Well, we thought about that when we were last in Government. We had the foresight to fund and start construction on the City Rail Link. It will open in 2026. We’re starting work on the Northwest Rapid Transit. We are going to complete the Eastern Busway. There’s significant public transport investment in Auckland under way. We’re very proud of that investment; it will make a huge difference.

Last question you asked was around Auckland Transport. We’ll work with the mayor. There’s a range of options that need to be considered carefully around the future, but the reality is there needs to be greater democratic accountability of transport decisions in Auckland.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do have a series of questions. I note that the Minister is taking up lots of time for this debate, not talking about the Estimates and what’s in his plan but shouting about things that previous Governments did or did not do. Could I ask the Minister to try and stay on track and address—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Shh! I’m trying to hear.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —some questions, because there is actually quite a lot of content—really important content—in the transport budget, which is quite enormous.

I have a series of questions about the specifics of the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP), which was recently announced, because that gives effect to the next three years of transport spending from central government. We’ve previously asked the Minister how many public transport projects were funded under the NLTP and how many were not. More than two-thirds of those projects that regional and local councils applied for did not receive funding, so a huge number of projects are not going to be funded. Can the Minister tell us how many of the public transport projects that were funded are new public transport projects and how many were projects that already had funding under the previous NLTP, firstly. We’d love an answer to that if the Minister is able to give it.

Secondly, in the National Land Transport Programme documents, there is a graph which says, “Revenue and expenditure 2024-25 to 2034.”, and it shows an enormous gap opening up between expenditure intentions and net revenue from about 2027. I’m sorry that I don’t have a large graph here to show the members opposite who are looking sceptical, but you can find it in publicly available documents.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All right. That’s enough.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: So, in the detail of the first three years, 2024 to 2027, can the Minister outline how much of the funding is actually a loan that NZTA will be taking—a loan through the Crown—and is it the case that there’s an additional $1 billion from 2027 that, as of yet, has no planned revenue? Where is that revenue going to come from? There’s a question about revenue and spending intentions and the very, very large gap between them. How is the Government planning to fill that gap? Particularly in this first NLTP period, how much is NZTA already drawing down as a loan and, therefore, will have to pay back in the future?

Then, moving on from the public transport projects, is the Minister aware, and was he aware when he drafted the Government Policy Statement on land transport, that he was, essentially, defunding footpath maintenance and that councils are now going to have almost no money from the transport budget to maintain footpaths? Does he think footpaths are an important part of the transport system? Is he aware that people who use cars have to walk from their car to their destination in some cases, sometimes even crossing roads? Why has he defunded safe road crossings? We have multiple reports from regional councils here that they will not be able to meet the cost of depreciation on footpaths, that there will be no safe crossings funded. How do National electorate MPs who’ve lobbied for safe crossings and traffic calming—how are they responding to this news?

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Chair. As the Northland MP, Minister, I’d be very interested to know why you prioritised the road of national significance to Northland and why are you looking to fund it as one major project.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister’s spoken at length already about potholes. I just want to acknowledge that the largest pothole we’ve got in Christchurch East is the gap between Pages Road and New Brighton, where we should have a good Pages Road bridge. Some quick questions on the Pages Road bridge: can the Minister confirm the current new building standard for the Pages Road bridge? Can he confirm that his commitment so far is to only $13 million towards the construction of a new bridge? Can he confirm Minister Matt Doocey’s commitment to me recently on radio to a further $40 million to be invested in 2025? And can the Minister let New Brighton residents know when we can expect to see construction starting on the Pages Road bridge?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank members for their questions. I want to acknowledge Grant McCallum’s question in regards to Northland—

Hon David Parker: Here we go again—repetition, but don’t answer the questions the Opposition asked.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —in terms of the—oh, I’ve been answering everyone’s questions, if only the member asked one.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, that’s enough. I’ll be the judge of whether the Minister’s answering the questions. We’ve got quite a lot of ticks down here, so let’s just have some silence and have a constructive 25 minutes.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m top of the class, aren’t I?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I couldn’t possibly comment.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: To acknowledge the question, in terms of the Northland Expressway, ultimately, that is one of the roads which already has a consent and it is critical to the resilience and the economic productivity of the North, and it’s also part of our coalition agreement with New Zealand First.

In terms of the questions from the Hon Julie Anne Genter around public transport projects, I mean, councils always bid more projects than are able to be funded, and that is ultimately what happens across all of the activity classes. There are always more projects than can be funded. The reality is, if the member wishes to put specific questions in writing, as she is genuinely quite good at, I would be very happy to answer that through the normal process, but the reality is that this Government has a significant record of public transport investment in this National Land Transport Programme and in the Government policy statement. It’s the biggest ever expenditure on public transport services and infrastructure in any national land transport programme—$6.4 billion. This is the biggest ever expenditure on public transport in any national land transport programme, and that is something we’re incredibly proud of on this side of the House, and we know it’s going to make a difference.

I just want to reiterate the point that the last Government talked a big game on public transport. Let’s get Wellington consulting—well, you have to acknowledge them for the monument to Let’s Get Wellington Moving, which we drive past on Cobham Drive. The crossing there, that is the monument to Let’s Get Wellington Moving—2.4 million bucks for that, and tens of millions of dollars on business cases. Let’s talk about the $230 million or $250 million of “Auckland light fail”—didn’t even get to page 300 of their business case.

Now I’ll answer the question around footpaths. I hear the members are very interested in the answers to footpaths. There is investment in footpath and in cycleway maintenance renewals—$114 million in the National Land Transport Programme, so here they are trying to make the claim that there is $0 for footpath maintenance. There’s $114 million for footpath and cycleway maintenance in the National Land Transport Programme, and that will go towards councils and support them in doing what they do on their networks.

In relation to the National Land Transport Programme, there is a loan which has been provided to the New Zealand Transport Agency. I think it’s a billion dollars per year. There has also been a capital grant allocated towards that. As we’ve talked about earlier, there’s a billion dollars of contingency capital to help support and advance projects such as the roads of national significance and the Northern Busway.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’ve got three questions. The first one of them is: we had some interjectory comments about the fast track being very much the same as the previous fast-track regime, but I just wanted to ask you—I went up to visit the Mount Messenger project not that long ago, and the hold-up there wasn’t resource consent so much as the ability to acquire land—in other words, the Public Works Act (PWA). I’d just like some feedback on that and the relationship with the fast-track legislation in terms of the PWA.

The second question: Minister, both you and the Transport and Infrastructure Committee have spent quite a bit of time looking at temporary traffic management, and the member opposite has kind of ridiculed that a little bit, but I’d be very interested, Mr Minister, in your observations about the potential savings that there are. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has done some great work in changing the temporary traffic management code, but the potential savings that there are going to be through that. Also, how is that going to be monitored so that we can actually keep not just the NZTA but all roading authorities and other utility authorities efficient?

The third question that I wanted to ask, which is a very specific one that I have discussed with you, is the Marlborough Sounds. The roads there were obviously seriously damaged by the floods back in what was 2022, and there’s been a lot of consultation with the community there about how to fix them—particularly the Kenepuru Sound, which is a very, very long, winding road. It’s a beautiful part of the world, but it’s a very challenging piece of infrastructure, which, of course, the next time there is a major downpour, is quite likely to fail again. There has been some conversation about thinking laterally, and instead of accessing some of those areas by road, accessing them by water, as is done in that area for, say, D’Urville Island or Arapawa Island already. The question is whether that would be a more resilient way of doing things, to fund that rather than to fund the road into—so maybe bits of road, maybe bits of water-borne asset infrastructure—so that those communities remain connected and remain resilient the next time there is a major storm event. I look forward to your answers.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to acknowledge the member, who’s the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. He does a great job getting around the country, actually visiting the regions, understanding the issues, and visiting the projects. I want to acknowledge your visit to Mount Messenger, which is a project which has become significantly challenged. I was up there recently with David MacLeod and Barbara Kuriger—the local members of Parliament.

One of the challenges there has become the Public Works Act. Yes, there are consenting issues. That is why fast track is about making sure that we consent projects like that faster and more efficiently and deal with the complexity of consenting. The Public Works Act is also part of the challenge. I’m working very closely with the Minister for Land Information, who’s in charge of the Public Works Act, around reforms that are required to the Public Works Act, because a project can be consented but then it can be held up for many years, adding huge amounts of cost to taxpayers or hundreds of millions of dollars of cost to taxpayers, and slowing down and actually inhibiting those who require the use of that road to be able to achieve the economic benefits or safety benefits or the resilience benefits that that type of infrastructure would provide. There’s a review of the Public Works Act under way, and we’re looking at what changes might need to be made to make that more efficient. If we don’t fix that, we can have fast track for transport projects, but we will still be held back, so we need to sort that through.

In terms of temporary traffic management, there’s a number of things that we’ve outlined in the Government policy statement (GPS) around the approach required in terms of temporary traffic management. We’ve made it very clear that we need to see more efficiency and effectiveness across both State highways and local roads when it comes to the use of temporary traffic management. I think it’s fair to say New Zealanders are sick and tired of the cost and also the inconvenience which can sometimes often be caused by temporary traffic management.

The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has responded to that in the GPS in a number of ways. Firstly, they are reviewing traffic management set-ups on the State highways and instructing suppliers to remove temporary traffic management that is not necessary. In February, they audited 800 worksites across the network and found that 26 percent of unattended sites were actually not required. That just, I think, gives evidence to the intuition of everyday Kiwis driving on our roads, who realise that, actually, a big proportion of this stuff isn’t actually needed. NZTA is taking a more proactive approach to ensure that when that temporary traffic management is not needed, it is removed, and that motorists are not being inconvenienced by temporary traffic management which isn’t needed.

That’s one thing—also, transitioning from the old temporary traffic management code to the new guide. That is based more on a risk-based approach rather than a safety-at-any-cost approach, which was the previous approach. The previous approach literally would determine how many cones and how many metres between cones and drove the industry very hard in terms of temporary traffic management, but without any concern for costs. The reality is, again, it’s taxpayers and ratepayers who pay for this, so transitioning that to the new guide will deliver savings by adopting a risk-based approach rather than being prescriptive, and that’s a critical component. NZTA is now working to roll that out into all of their contracts, their capital contracts and their maintenance contracts, as quickly as possible. My expectation is for local road-controlling authorities to do the same and do it quickly.

In terms of Marlborough, the question there around the emergency response—the board, I think, has recently approved some more funding for their emergency response for those roads, which is critically important to help ensure that recovery, which is really, really important for the Marlborough Sounds.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Budget decisions taken by this Minister of Transport clearly show a real dislike for local government from this Government, because they are simply wanting to lump additional costs in this particular space.

I note from the Treasury’s release of the bilateral briefing notes to the Minister of Finance that there was a warning, and it was noting that a number of the Minister’s proposals would actually see an increase in the expectations on local government funding and that it may not be sustainable in the long term. The suggested question for the Minister of Finance to put to the Minister of Transport was to ask how he proposed to manage the risks of transferring further costs on to local government, with the removal of Crown funding from those programmes. My question to the Minister is: what was his answer to that question? Or in the circumstance where that question was not actually put to him, was it because the Minister of Finance simply didn’t have a sense of diligence in the particular space?

My colleague Mr Davidson is, I’m sorry, incorrect: the biggest pothole is not in Christchurch; it’s in the Cook Strait as we wait for a ferry. This was an issue that the Treasury identified as a real financial risk in the cancellation of iReX. My question to the Minister is this: why is there not a specific provision in the Budget for a ferry replacement? That would send a very strong signal that this was a Government that was actually serious about replacing the ferries for the Cook Strait, rather than relying on the $7.5 billion multi-year capital allowance that has been set aside. How, also, does the Minister justify wasting potentially half a billion dollars on an exit clause and penalties for this cancellation, without any viable replacement? We’re still waiting. Every day, you wake up and think, “Oh, is a ferry coming today? No, still waiting.”

Now, the question I put to the Minister during the hearing for Estimates was around ferry maintenance. Minister, you’ll recall that there was a figure that had been floating around that the maintenance cost would be around $65 million a year, and you told me in the hearing that, no, no, you were comfortable that it would be nowhere near that particular level. Within the next couple of days, we had an incident where the ferry ran aground. Now, your Government has indicated that they’re going to push out the replacement, when it eventually comes, by at least five years. That will come with additional maintenance costs. Do you maintain that that $65 million is inaccurate, and, actually, what is the figure in terms of maintenance as a result of pushing out the ferry replacement option to at least a five-year period?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I’d like to ask some questions on behalf of the residents of Westmere and Point Chev. There’s been the raising of a possibility of a crossing across the harbour there. I would like to know whether you’ve spoken to the mayor about that, what your initial view of that is, and, if it isn’t your view that it will be there, when will you be expecting a harbour crossing?

I would also like to know just about congestion charging. My understanding is it was costing the country about a billion dollars a year. Has that amount that it cost in Auckland been revised? Also, how does that balance with the way that the congestion charging will work in terms of the kind of economic implications of that? Thank you.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one final, very quick call. Firstly, I wanted to outline for the benefit of all members in the Chamber that suggesting that there’s a more cost-effective way to achieve the outcomes we want doesn’t mean we have any dislike of particular infrastructure projects. While they claim that, I think it is really important to say it up front that there is a more cost-effective way to achieve the outcomes we want, which is reduced transport costs and improved economic productivity and reduced emissions and more safety—that can all be done in a more cost-effective way. The people introducing the emotion around this are the people on the other side of the committee with their projection.

I’m looking at a graph, Minister, from Auckland Transport, which states—and this is about financial year 2025 to 2027—that prior to financial year 2025, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) funded 50 percent of walking and cycling improvements and maintenance. That is no longer the case; therefore, there is a huge shortfall in councils right around the country between what is needed for footpath maintenance and renewal and what NZTA is funding. While the Minister has some nominal amount in the National Land Transport Plan (NLTP), what is his response and does he accept that there will be a significant reduction in footpath renewal and maintenance as a result of his NLTP, which could result in higher rates, which, on the other hand, he’s complaining about.

Finally, because the Minister referred to the crossing on Cobham Drive, I just want to acknowledge that a person died trying to cross that road. I think it’s disgusting that he continually invokes something like a pedestrian crossing, which is a way for people to get around without having to be in a car—does he simply hate people who try to get around without using a car?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s not a fair question.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions for the Minister of Transport. The first is a follow-up to a question that I asked three times yesterday in the local government hearing and was advised to ask this again in the transport hearing, which is—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): As long as it’s related to transport.

RACHEL BOYACK: It sure is, Madam Chair. The Minister advised me to ask it again today in this hearing, so I am. The question is around funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for councils who have roads damaged during severe weather events, and NZTA are proposing to change the criteria so only roads that suffer damage in a one-in-20-year event as opposed to current criteria, which is a one-in-10-year event—changing that criteria. That is currently being consulted on and would lump more costs on to local government. I asked the Minister three times yesterday in that hearing; he advised me to raise it again in the transport hearing, and so I am doing so.

The second question is: will he rule out tolling the new Hope Bypass in my Nelson electorate? Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was remiss to not answer Reuben Davidson’s question in regards to Pages Road before, so I do want to just acknowledge that question, and to acknowledge the fact that this Government has funded it, unlike the previous Government in terms of that critically important road bridge—in his electorate, actually—which will help provide resilience there.

In terms of the timing of the funding, the advice I’ve received is there’s work to be done around design, and obviously procurement, etc. There’s funding to get construction started within this National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) period, and then it will need to be completed in the next NLTP period. The good news for the people of New Brighton and of Christchurch is that project is funded under this National Land Transport Programme.

Tangi Utikere: The extra $40 million from Doocey?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: In relation, as I said, there’s—if you listen to my question, there will be a new NLTP period which the remainder of that construction funding will have to be completed in.

In relation to Tangi Utikere’s question around local government funding, ultimately we’ve provided a 50 percent increase in local road maintenance funding, and that is one of local road pothole prevention. That is critically important to helping councils do what is one of their core roles, which is to repair their roads—fill the potholes, rehabilitate them, reseal them, do the drainage—and this is big support for those local councils. I reject the assertion being presented by that member, when this NLTP makes a huge difference for those local councils.

Rachel Boyack: Hasn’t answered my question. Are you moving from one-in-10 to one-in-20 or not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Rachel Boyack asked a question around the consultation on the emergency work funding assistance rate, and I thank the member for raising that question again today. I’m advised consultation on the emergency works policies review has closed. The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) is now analysing the content of submissions received, and that analysis newly resulting in recommendations of policy change will be considered by the NZTA board over the next few months.

In terms of the questions from Helen White, she asked about congestion charging and she seems to be very supportive of the idea. Shanan Halbert seems to be quite sceptical of the idea, and Helen White’s clearly in favour. The legislation will come to the House, it will go through a full select committee process, and, hopefully, by the end of that, Labour has actually determined what their view is as they squabble over it. But, ultimately, what we know is that the key purpose of time-of-use charging must be around maximising the efficiency of the network.

Shanan Halbert: You’re providing no alternatives.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The member there asked about alternatives. Well, I’ve already talked about alternatives and I’m happy to talk about the alternatives again because the last National Government started construction of the City Rail Link and it will open in 2026. We’re going to complete the Rail Network Rebuild. We’ve got the Eastern Busway under construction. We’re putting 40 percent more into public transport services. This Government is investing. This National Land Transport Programme has the biggest ever investment in public transport in the history of the National Land Transport Programmes—how fantastic is that? I just want to say there is significant investment in the alternatives.

In relation to the other question from Rachel Boyack, this Government’s position has been very clear when it comes to tolling proposals. We’ve been very clear that we will accept those recommendations which NZTA put forward.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call the Hon David Parker, and I just want to say that there’s only about three-and-a-little-bit minutes of this segment of debate left.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask questions about the northwestern busway. I think the most successful public transport project in recent decades in Auckland has been the Northern Busway, which carries an enormous amount of traffic, without which Auckland Harbour Bridge would already be clogged at peak times. I think there’s now a general agreement in New Zealand that the failure to incorporate a separated busway alongside State Highway 16 was a mistake. We’ve got a road that is five lanes wide as we get close to Auckland, and it clogs at rush hour.

I note that the State highway plan that the Minister has brought forward has funding for some of the early stations out towards Westfield and Brigham Creek, and that there is planning work being done in respect of the more holistic grade-separated busway that would be separate from the State highway. I want to hear from the Minister as to what his vision is for achieving what, I think, is probably one of the more important public transport projects in New Zealand, which is the completion of the busway down State Highway 16.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the member the Hon David Parker for his question in relation to the northwestern rapid transit project. That has been identified in our Government policy statement (GPS) on transport and in the National Land Transport Programme as a key priority, and it will make a huge difference for north-west Auckland. I acknowledge the advocacy of Cameron Brewer, the member of Parliament for Upper Harbour, who has been a staunch advocate for that project. I mean, ultimately, decisions were made in relation to that—[Interruption] Sorry?

Hon David Parker: You can’t help yourself, can you?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I can’t help talking about the importance of the northwestern rapid transit project, just like the member for Upper Harbour, and there is consultation currently under way in relation to the route, where those stations might be, and I think it is important to acknowledge the work of the former Minister of Transport, in terms of the draft GPS that he did issue just prior to the election, which also prioritised that project. I think it is one that, on both sides of the House, we would align and say is a key priority for Auckland. It is something that does need to be delivered, it can be delivered, and it will probably need to be delivered in a number of stages, as those benefits can then be accrued over time.

Also, we need to make sure that we’re planning the extension of State Highway 16 beyond Kumeū, because that is a very fast-growing part of Auckland. It has a huge amount of housing, industry, and growth going on in north-west Auckland, and so the extension of the North-Western Motorway past Kumeū is also going to be a critical project for north-west Auckland. As our city grows and develops and as more housing and infrastructure is needed, we need to have the roading infrastructure to keep up with that. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the Minister of Transport’s time in the chair has come to an end.

Māori Development

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now have the Minister for Māori Development, and the Minister is available to speak to that portfolio. I’d like to ask the Minister to come to the chair, please. Right, we have the Minister for Māori Development in the chair, ready to take questions.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Tuatahi e tika ki te mihi ki ngā rōpū i whakahere whakarite tēnei wiki, te Wiki o te Reo Māori. E tika me mihi ki a rātou Taura Whiri me ngā kaiārahi, Ngāhiwi Apanui me Rawinia Higgins. Rawe tā rāua mahi ki te whakahaere tēnei wiki. E tika hoki ki te mihi ki a tātou i Whakanui tēnei wiki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Rawe, e mihi ana ki te Whare i tēnei wā.

Tuarua e tika ana ki te mihi ki a koe e te Minita. He tino tauira e hoa, he tino tauira mō tō tātou reo Māori. E mihi ana ki a koe e hoa. Ahakoa he nui ngā āwangawanga mō ngā tau ka heke mai, nō te mea he nui ngā whakaeke o tēnei Kāwanatanga, e tika me mihi ki a koe e Tama mō tō kaha ki te whawhai mō tō tātou reo Māori. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Kia ora, Madam Chair. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the people who organised this week, the Māori Language Week. It is imperative that we acknowledge them, Taura Whiri, and the organisers, Ngāhiwi Apanui and Rawinia Higgins. They’ve done a splendid job in making this week work. And also acknowledgments to us all who are partaking in the Māori Language Week. Awesome, thank you all in the House today.

Secondly, I’d like to acknowledge you, Minister. You’re an awesome advocate, mate, and advocate for the Māori language. Acknowledgments to you, friend. Despite the rough road in the years ahead of us due to the breaches being made by this Government, it is only right that I thank you, Tama, for your hard efforts to fight for the Māori language. And so thank you all, thank you everyone.]

I’m just opening there by acknowledging our Minister for Māori Development’s commitment to the language—of that there is no doubt—and congratulating this whole House in terms of celebrating our language. Of course, on this side of the Chamber, we’re very worried given the number of attacks on kaupapa Māori initiatives over the last year, so I have to balance that, but I wish all the best to the Minister, who, no doubt, is an advocate for our reo.

I want to ask him, first of all, given the Māori broadcasting proposals today, what does he see the future for in terms of Te Māngai Pāho, Whakaata Māori, Te Mātāwai, and Te Taura Whiri. Is there going to be a rationalisation of these entities? What sort of formal kōrero conversations have taken place with the entities and what sort of future is there? Is there a number of worries that he’s getting back from these entities?

I also want to ask the Minister: will he be putting a tono, or a claim, for a budget for Whakaata Māori next year? Is that on his agenda, or will he continually blame me for not getting funding for Whakaata Māori for next year, the year after, and the year after? I have seen that response, so I just want to know if the Minister will do his job or continue to blame the former Minister for not getting funding for 2025-26—and it’ll be all over in 2026. I need to put those pātai.

That’s just on the Māori broadcasting side, and I’ll come back to other kaupapa, but can I ask him: does he agree with Minister Seymour—in terms of the need and race argument or debate, where does he see Māori broadcasting? Does he see Māori broadcasting as a needs area, or does he see Māori broadcasting in the rights area—where does the Minister distinguish in that area? Do we have Māori broadcasting as of right, as the Privy Council outlined some years ago—they said that that was the way to go in terms of increasing our language—and the Waitangi Tribunal, or does he go down the David Seymour - Nicola Willis - National Party line that everything is around the needs area?

Can I also ask in this opening kōrero what impact will this directive have if we’re going down this track of needs—which we support absolutely, apart from the Treaty settlement area and, obviously, in some of the broadcasting areas. If the Minister is going to follow the needs directive, what sort of impact will this have on Vote Māori Development moving forward, given the majority of the Vote targets, and how does that support Māori aspirations? Just some opening pātai for the Minister to consider.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Minita, me ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa i tēnei Wiki o te Reo Māori. Ake, ake, ake.

[Greetings Minister, and also acknowledgments to everyone here during this Māori Language Week. For ever and ever and ever.]

Minister for Māori Development, thank you for hearing my pātai this evening. I’m going to frame these particularly around progressive procurement, which is about, of course, using our collective buying power to deliver better value for people, for our communities, and for our taiao. Under our Government, we set a new 8 percent target, Minister, of all annual Government contracts to be awarded to Māori businesses, and we made this increase after exceeding our initial 5 percent target, hitting 6 percent in the year of 30 June 2022. This meant that more than 3,200 contracts were awarded, worth $930 million. Minister Nicola Willis announced, last Friday, that progressive procurement has been scrapped based on the Cabinet directive paper on a needs-based provision, or what ACT is calling “need before race” provisions.

I am keen to understand how this reconciles with such a particular kaupapa that it’s not only Māori from a perspective of the challenges that they face in hauora and mātauranga and so on and so forth. Actually, this is igniting the economic potential for this country that benefits Māori and non-Māori alike. Minister, how many Māori businesses have been awarded contracts and was there any notification to contractors before scrapping the progressive procurement programme? Is the Minister aware of similar programmes in Canada, the US, South Africa, the UK, and Australia, and, if so, what is his rationale to cancel the programme when other countries we measure ourselves against are progressing with targeted procurement opportunities?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Mihi ana ki a koe e te Minita mō tēnei wāhi kōrero e pā ana ki ngā take whakawhanake Māori. E tautoko ana au i ngā mihi ki a tātou e pā ana ki tēnei wiki whakanui i tō tātou reo Māori.

[Thank you, and greetings to the House. Thank you, Minister, for allowing us this time to speak to Māori development. I support the acknowledgments made in regards to the Māori Language Week.]

Minister, I’m really keen to understand and unpack where we’re at, and following on from my colleague, around Māori broadcasting, considering the substantial change which is coming. I know, yes, we can blame the previous Labour Government, but the pātai sits right now with the Minister for Māori Development here, and I’m really wanting to unpack what the plan is. Ultimately, we have a workforce that will be made redundant, we have content that will be reduced, and we have the one dedicated asset, taonga, to te reo—being the Te Reo channel—being taken off TV and being available online only. This is significant for a very skilled workforce, which is unique because they’re primarily a reo-speaking workforce, and they number only a few. When we lose this workforce, we don’t want them to go flipping burgers; we want them to walk into other options. What are we doing in terms of pathways for these people who will be impacted? It’s estimated to be some 25 percent of a workforce cut within the team. Even if we think about our awesome news and current affairs team, they could lose as well.

How does technology fit into this closure of part of Whakaata? The Hawaikirangi was established, we have the great vision, and yet we are finding a squeeze on such a specialised area of work. That plays in with all of our whānau in broadcasting—those grave concerns. Just sharing that as one pātai.

Further, can you tell us more about the next steps in terms of our Māori housing prototypes, particularly in the iwi space? We know that they’re progressing at pace, but also where to from here? Can we lock them in for the future? These are pātai i tēnei wā kia waiho ki konei. [questions to address later in time.] Kia ora.

DARLEEN TANA: Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Can everybody hear me this time, actually?

Hon Members: No.

DARLEEN TANA: I’m leaning in—ka pai? Ka pai, tēnā?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I can hear you now, yes.

DARLEEN TANA: Awesome. Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe e te Minita, tēnā tātou katoa. My questions are also around the Māori broadcasting sector. I mean, today, for example, we heard about KoPA, which Te Māngai Pāho are using as a—it’s the kore to pō awatea model to measure behavioural change and attitudes towards te reo. I’m interested to understand where in his Estimates the Minister for Māori Development is right-shifting or moving the dial to grow affinity for te reo. The downscale in funding is clear, but I’m interested to hear how the Minister sees Māori and iwi radio being able to continue to supply te reo distribution in the face of ongoing increasing operational costs year on year. I also wonder whether the Minister has made any forecasts on future operating costs under an operating model that is maybe more multi-distributional than linear, as it is today, given the very real drivers, needs, to change out technologically. Kia ora.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā tātou i te Wiki o te Reo Māori. Nau mai ki te ake ake ake me te āpōpō hoki. Me ngā mihi hoki ki ngā koroua, Willie kōrua tahi ko Shanan taku hūanga. E whakawhatukura nei tō tātou Whare Pāremata. Tātou e hui tahi nei, tēnā tātou katoa, kia kaha te reo Māori.

[Greetings to us all in this Māori Language Week. Welcome to the for ever for ever for ever, and the future as well. And greetings also to the elders, Willie and Shanan, my kin. Honouring our Parliament House. All here today, greetings to you all, and glory to the Māori language.]

And if you can get one of those shirts down at The Warehouse, let me know.

Look, there’ve been a number of questions, but I thought I’d better answer them in turn. Let’s start with the Māori broadcasting, te ao pāpāho Māori [the Māori media world]. Isn’t it absolutely amazing? Who would have thought 50 years ago, when the Māori language petition was signed; or even 40 years ago, when things started going, with Whai Ngata and Derek Fox on Koha and Te Karere; or 30 years ago, when we had Aotearoa TV and Tuku Morgan was at the top of the charts helping produce those programmes, that we would have such an array of talent?

I really want to hark back to the legacy of the National Party, in particular, in supporting reo initiatives over the last 50 years, starting with things like Te Matatini in 1972 in Rotorua—mihi ana ki a Waihirere [acknowledgments to Waihirere] and many other initiatives that were started by whānau, started by communities, and supported by National-led Governments—and other-led Governments, to be fair, not just National-led Governments. But—

Hon Member: Kōhanga reo.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes, kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa, wharekura, and wānanga, and also various marae initiatives—not just National-led Governments but all Governments. It’s been absolutely marvellous to see the development of the broadcasting sector.

The broadcasting sector is not immune to the market, either, and, certainly, questions have been asked of me this week in relation to why we should stand by and watch a te reo channel go online rather than having a terrestrial platform. Those are decisions that I leave for the board and Māori TV management—Whakaata Māori management—to make. They certainly have already foreshadowed that decision to be made; they just made it a year in advance of when they thought they were going to make it. As a result of making that decision, they will save $2.5 million of Kordia fees. Now, we know that, and that’s a step in the right direction.

Tākuta Ferris: But many people will be cut out of the reo, Tama.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: No, they won’t be cut out in te reo, because it’s becoming much more normalised in our communities. That’s actually a wonderful thing, as we strive towards that big, hairy, audacious goal of 85 percent of Aotearoa New Zealanders valuing te reo as a key part of our national identity. That legacy is one that I admire and acknowledge; even Maurice Williamson—great man—for his mahi on the broadcasting assets train many years ago.

Now, there has been a question about rationalisation of the industry. Well, there’s been a serious rationalisation across media worldwide, and I think that if the view is that the Māori broadcasting sector is the only platform to promote te reo Māori, I think we’re living in a different, alternative universe. Certainly, the commitments that have been made by Governments—including recently by the “Mana pūtea”, Nicola Willis, of $48 million extra into Te Matatini—are another platform through which te reo Māori is enhanced, elevated, and normalised through our communities, and I mihi to Nicola Willis for that.

The rationalisation of the Māori language entities, I think, is one that’s been suggested or implied by the members this evening. However, you know, there’s a wānanga to be held there or hui to be held before that sort of idea can be progressed in any serious or material way. Those are kōrero that may be had with the entities that are involved: the three Government entities and also Te Mātāwai. Certainly, from my position, an engagement with Te Mātāwai over those issues is very, very important, as is the need for Te Mātāwai legislation to recognise all those iwi that were invisibilised through the process and weren’t put on the schedule. I’m still waiting for some of my iwi to be put on that schedule.

Anyway, back to the rationalisation: if that’s something that has been foreshadowed earlier on by the previous Minister, if that’s something that was envisaged, you know, that’s ka pai. I welcome his views on that. But that’s really a kōrero to be had across the various entities—Te Māngai Pāho, Whakaata Māori, Te Taura Whiri, and Te Mātāwai—before we go further down in that direction.

Now, yes, there has been a call—a clarion call—that funding has gone up and gone down. Certainly, the $90 million extra money, paid over and above baseline funding over the last four years through the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency, I’m sure was well received by the Māori broadcasting agencies and Māori language entities. That’s something that we have to face up to: there was a fiscal cliff—it is occurring now—but we will continue to advocate for te reo.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi next, but I just want to alert members that the Green Party, in this debate, only has three minutes and 48 seconds left of time, and Darleen Tana has 1½ minutes left of time.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Madam Chair. If Māori make up 20 percent of this country’s population, you would expect us to make up no less than 20 percent of this year’s total Budget. That makes it—listen to this—$36 billion if we’re being generous, OK? It would be closer to $48 billion if it were based on need, which is a common word that we keep hearing from the other side of the Chamber. Instead, over $300 million of targeted Māori funding has been cut—obviously, you’ll know all about that—while some initiatives have been completely scrapped. Māori are not mentioned once in any of the priority areas of this Budget. The Māori Development section of this Budget summary only talks about savings. It makes no mention of new Government commitments—no surprise. Why are there no new initiatives or new funding in the Māori Development section of the Budget? First question.

Second question: do the cuts to Māori Development indicate that the Government wants to see the equity gap between Māori and non-Māori widen? That’s what it looks like, feels like, and—certainly from where we’re all sitting—it is like. I’d be interested to, hopefully, hear from the Minister for Māori Development. If you could explain and answer my questions, I’m keen to listen. Kia ora rā. Thank you. Tēnā koe.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Mr Chair, thank you. Kia pai Te Wiki o te Reo Māori—happy Māori Language Week, everybody. So just reflecting on the Estimates discussion select committee, Minister, you talked about—

Tākuta Ferris: Kia kaha te reo, W’anganui.

[Let the language be strong, W’anganui.]

DAN BIDOIS: What’s that?

Tākuta Ferris: Kia kaha te reo Māori—kia kaha te reo Māori, bro.

[Make the Māori language strong—make the Māori language strong, bro.]

DAN BIDOIS: You could take a call. Minister, you talked about your aspirations around the Māori economy and doubling the Māori economy by 2035. That is an aspirational goal, but you’ve, of course, got limited resources at your disposal. I’m wanting to ask the Minister for Māori Development—

Tākuta Ferris: Oh, you’re interested in Māori when we’re talking about economics?

DAN BIDOIS: Can you just listen with your taringa—listen with your taringa.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Ferris, can I just say the great thing about a committee stage is that members are able to take calls. I do note that Te Pāti Māori have actually got a few minutes left. So, rather than conduct this across the floor, I’m inviting you perhaps to—I’ll even give you the next call, if you want to take the call. Carry on, Mr Bidois.

DAN BIDOIS: Ngā mihi, Mr Chair. I’d just like to ask the Minister how he’s going to work with other ministries in order to achieve his aspirations around the Māori economy. Te Puni Kōkiri, his ministry, is relatively small. The aspiration—the big, hairy, audacious goal—of doubling the Māori economy by 2035 is a huge task. I’m keen to understand which ministries he wants to work with and how he is going to work with ministries to amplify and get better outcomes for the Māori economy.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The honourable Minister.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, I’d like to be the Minister again.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): I think the previous Minister was seeking some honour in standing early. However, let me come back to some of the comments before about progressive procurement, over here on my left—my Ngāti Whitikaupeka relation. The progressive procurement policy has not been scrapped; the target has been removed. There needs to be further work about how we can uplift local procurement and regional procurement. That’s a job that Minister Lee, Minister Jones, and myself will be looking into.

Now, I am very aware of progressive procurement and supply diversity programmes offshore. It’s especially noted the federal objective in Australia of 3 percent of federal funding will be spent on procurement from the indigenous population in Australia. It’s a little bit surprising to me that the previous Government, with its majority, did not enable that sort of legislation in New Zealand. However, we are really focused on procurement being based on value. Ultimately, that is determined at the procurement end by procurement managers throughout different agencies and throughout different Government entities and, indeed, councils. Our role—Minister Lee, Minister Jones, and myself—is to look how we can uplift and elevate procurement at a local level and at a regional level. I’m confident that that will also see a lot more Māori businesses engage in and enter into procurement.

There was an observation around the Budget, and 20 percent of the total Budget. This Government, as we are all aware of—and certainly the National Party—are all about getting the economy back on track. We are not for allocating on the basis of their ethnicity, as we know. We do not make choices like Budget allocations on the basis of ethnicity. However, what we have done is made some tough choices, and there have been some savings across different departments. Those savings and the approach that we have made have resulted in significant tax relief to many, many whānau Māori—in fact, over $400 million in tax relief to Māori whānau, and that’s bigger than in what I can recall any Treaty settlement in the history of Treaty settlements. There has been some reinvestment, through tax relief, into whānau Māori.

I know that some people haven’t been counting that lately, because they’re really focused on other topics, but I’m actually focused on ensuring there’s equality of opportunity for Māori across different facets and dimensions of our society, and all of us know that good government will ensure that this equality of opportunity is actually facilitated and provided. We can say, hand on heart, that does not exist today, because we just have to look at the disproportionate stats. Some of those areas where there are significant disproportionate statistics affecting Māori have come through and been demonstrated through the nine targets that we have and priorities that we have.

For example, as we’re aware, there are some serious gaps or serious inequalities in the number of immunisations for two-year-old Māori kids compared to kids in the rest of New Zealand. When we arrived in Government, that immunisation rate was about 72 percent compared to the rest of the New Zealand community, which was about 85 percent. As a result, we went direct. We contracted, through Whānau Ora mechanisms, $50 million geared around immunising kids. Since then, an additional 33,000 tamariki Māori have been immunised. I think that’s an absolutely great achievement and I acknowledge Dr Reti for that.

However, what we also have is a question—this question came over here from my colleague Mr Bidois—about how we’re going to work with other agencies around Māori development, whether or not it’s economic development, social development, or cultural development. I did want to point to one thing that is very useful for us to reflect on: the Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF) has been established with the first two goals of promoting flood resilience—which we need for a lot of communities, including Māori communities up and down the country—and Māori economic development. What a marvellous opportunity to see the Government come in behind and tautoko Māori economic development that is already happening.

Now, also as part of the RIF, we’re able to support whenua Māori that require support and find it very difficult to get lending through banks, because we aren’t able to sell whenua Māori very easily. As a result, earlier this week, Minister Jones and I made an announcement about funding the infrastructure at a papa kāinga called Parihaka—absolutely fantastic—and I acknowledge David MacLeod over here, who’s partly from Parihaka. We’ve provided that banking up against the Provincial Growth Fund, and we’ll now come in behind with another $5.5 million to get those wastewater pipes, roads, lighting, and other things fixed so we can create more housing at that papakāinga. It’s a great place to be, and this is part of a great Government’s work. Kia ora.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I want to follow up with the Minister for Māori Development on his kōrero about Whānau Ora, given the “needs not race” priority, which is obviously a priority that most Governments will follow. I want to ask the Minister: what will this mean for the commissioning of Whānau Ora contracts and Whānau Ora providers? The intent of Whānau Ora is to be a by Māori, for Māori kaupapa, so will this now mean that non-Māori providers, like the Salvation Army—will they now become Whānau Ora providers? Are they now going to take the service?

Which brings me back to my earlier question about needs-based and rights-based: does the Minister still recognise that some Māori kaupapa like Whānau Ora, like kōhanga reo, like kura kaupapa are rights-based kaupapa? It’s not about needs; it’s about rights. Māori won those through going to the courts, going to the Privy Council. They are recognition of Māori indigenous rights in this country. Or are those kaupapa going to be subject to the same needs rationale that now the Minister is talking about, and how many Māori providers are going to miss out now? I want to ask this because recently Whānau Ora has been opened up, and I need to hear about the type of advice from his officials regarding the directive. Did they provide alternatives to the directive, and, if so, what are those alternatives, Minister?

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the Minister for Māori Development’s responses to my question. I have some confusion around how there is a—

Hon Member: Nothing new.

SHANAN HALBERT: —Māori—I just want to understand from the Minister how there is a Māori economic plan. If you can’t have a Māori, does it make it just an economic plan? Acknowledging that the Minister said that the target has been removed only, can the Minister outline for me what is, effectively, his key performance indicator on building the Māori economy, on progressive procurement in particular?

I understand that there’s no plan at the moment that has come out as an alternative, following Minister Willis’ response on progressive procurement. I note that the Minister said during scrutiny week that he wanted to figure out the overarching Government economic plan, and so I’m interested in how that switches from focusing on a Māori economic plan to a needs-based economic plan, and, if he could articulate for the House, in that economic plan, what he sees as the needs basis—if he can itemise those for us.

The Minister has said that he supports “by Māori, for Māori” for everyone. What does he actually mean by this in light of the Government’s needs-based provision paper that was released last week? The Minister has stated that “to make sure that non-targeted funding addresses the needs of Māori communities”; what advice, reports, or evidence can the Minister provide that supports a non-targeting approach that works for Māori communities?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I’m mindful of the short time that I’ve got available, so I’d just like to pop off a few questions, if that’s all right, in relation particularly to the Māori Development Fund. With the reductions in the Māori Development Fund, we know, on the front line in the kāinga, the reduction of services does impact those whānau who want to develop both in their business space—also whenua Māori and the ability to access the specialist support that this fund has made available. Does the Minister for Māori Development have any explanation in terms of what he’s hearing on the ground in terms of demand, which could be outstripping the actual supply and dollar that we have left in the offices?

Also, with the restructures that have taken place within Te Puni Kōkiri, what efficiencies have been made? Is there any way to really equate the benefit of these cuts and what happened to these kaimahi, and then what has been the impact in the regions? Further, going back to Māori housing again, acknowledging Te Puni Kōkiri’s strong work within the space and knowing that through the housing and urban development changes as well as Te Puni Kōkiri, I’m worried about Māori housing keeping the volume up across all of those work streams and how Te Puni Kōkiri will maintain that focus, providing those tools, providing the specialist support, and then enabling whānau to whakamahi their whenua Māori. Kia ora.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Just going down another area for the Minister for Māori Development: what are the Minister’s plans for the Waitangi Tribunal in terms of new members? I note that no new members have been appointed to the tribunal in the last few months, which is a heck of a concern for te ao Māori, the tribunal playing such an important role in terms of Māori development. What new members will the Minister be looking at? I know that a number of them have asked about being reappointed, and they play such a vital role. Can I also ask what type of advice he is getting in terms of the tribunal? We are very appreciative—Māori communities, iwi Māori are incredibly appreciative. What type of advice is he getting in terms of its future, what are the roles that it’s going to play—is there a future for our tribunal?

Can I move to another area: Ihumātao. Given the National Party’s huge concern for housing, what is our update in that area—can the Minister provide an update on the status of Ihumātao? Given the passing of Kiingi Tuheitia and the Kiingitanga representative on the rōpu whakahaere group, are there any delays over the five-year period and what is happening to resolve the issues at Ihumātao? I’m very aware of how tough it is. I don’t envy the Minister’s mahi—job—in that area, but it’s an area of huge concern for Tainui people; and for Kiingi Tuheitia, who wanted to see some developments in the kaumātua housing area, particularly in Ihumātao. He had some objections, of course, from the younger crew over there. What is happening? Is the Minister planning on allocating any future funding for potential settlement at Ihumātao, and, given the pressures on Te Arawhiti, is engagement with iwi and the interested parties being adequately funded moving forward?

Have there been any requests from rōpu whakahaere for extra funding, or a request to extend the five-year period—which was a period that was criticised hugely when these Government members were in Opposition. We’re probably now at about 2½ to three years, and it is a huge kaupapa for our people, not just in Tainui and Kiingitanga but in South Auckland and Ihumātao. What barriers have been identified, and what are his strategies going forward in resolving what’s happening at Ihumātao?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora. Just while I’ve got a bit more time, I’m wanting to explore with the Minister for Māori Development the essential services—I’ll call them that—ngā wātene Māori. How is our funding going for ngā wātene Māori? Are they going to be sustained? Knowing that they were exceptional in the work that they did at Tūrangawaewae to support both Koroneihana [the coronation] and Kiingi Tuheitia’s hui mate [funeral], and they are essential services on the front line in our communities, I worry about groups such as that.

Further, organisations that are funded through the Hapori Māori Fund—if an explanation can be provided in terms of the changes in funding and what impact that has had on them in terms of retaining both their core functions and their ability to get out and about and engage with their Māori communities. Kia ora.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): There are a number of matters that have just been raised, but why don’t I start with the wātene Māori. They have been funded on a regular basis, annually, and my understanding is that the funding this year has been addressed and conveyed to the wātene Māori. Certainly, there’s a genuine enthusiasm across some of my ministerial colleagues to see a more enduring solution for the wātene Māori. They have done a great job—they along with people like the armed forces—at the recent tangi at Tūrangawaewae for Kiingi Tuheitia; an absolutely marvellous contribution to the delivery and success of that tangi.

Clearly, there’s a real concern around needs, race, ethnicity, and other matters. We on this side of the Chamber have coalition arrangements, but in relation specifically to Whānau Ora and kōhanga reo, I have not known any Whānau Ora provision or kōhanga reo provision that is not open to delivering for people who are not Māori, and kids who are not Māori, and whānau who are not Māori. I’m not aware of that, but please let me know if that is the case. They were not set up, and certainly Whānau Ora was not set up, just for whānau Māori. It was set up for a range of whānau with needs, but in a manner that befitted our cultural heritage and through the delivery of people who understood the needs of whānau—specifically whānau Māori, but all whānau—and doing things in a different way, and delivering Government services in a different way, with the seven Whānau Ora outcomes. The framework that goes with that—a very flexible framework, by the way—is something that I admired with Whaea Tariana, for what she did, but also the cooperation arrangements between the National Party and Te Pāti Māori, and then further enhanced by the Labour-led Governments over the last six years.

Certainly my experience and my observation is that even the delivery of Whānau Ora has not been restricted to Māori providers. Pasifika Futures has a Pasifika dynamic and a Pasifika way of delivering Whānau Ora. And that’s kei te pai, kei te mihi. I acknowledge Debbie Sorensen and all the whānau who are involved in that. It is not just for whānau Māori, and it is not delivered just by Māori providers. There is a degree of diversity in there, but we know—we all know in this House—that there are disproportionate needs amongst whānau Māori. We know that—whether or not that’s social, economic, or other—needs amongst whānau Māori are disproportionate, and we see that in the targets that we have and the priorities we have. I mentioned one before about immunisation rates. I could go through all of them, whether or not it’s victimisation through crime, the education stats of our—[Interruption] What was that?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Racial profiling.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Āe, I acknowledge it—I acknowledge your view. The education statistics of our young people, and the number of Māori who are living in emergency housing after the moral, social, fiscal, and cultural disaster curated ultimately by our previous administration—we know about these things, but what we are very clear on is having a plan to address them one by one. That’s why you’ve got Teaching the Basics Brilliantly and other programmes that have been established by this Government where decisions have been made. Even the priority one programme in emergency housing has resulted in literally hundreds of Māori kids moving out of emergency housing in the last four months. That is absolutely fantastic in my view. Up to the end of July, 1,110 children were moved out of emergency housing, primarily because of the decisions made by this Government.

Now, in terms of “by Māori, for Māori”, we are great believers in devolution—absolutely—and hence why we saw what happened at Juken Nissho when that timber mill was shut down in Gisborne. Te Puni Kōkiri stepped in and provided some support to Toitū Tairāwhiti to help retrain those many workers that were out of a job. Forty workers ended up going from Juken—basically, put out of a job and into horticulture and into housing, and most of them are still working there today. That’s the type of direct action, the type of devolution, that we’re actually into: delivering on the needs, employment and others, of people.

There was a comment in relation to Ihumātao—a very interesting take [matter] that Ihumātao; a very difficult one, Ihumātao. Certainly, I’ve met with the rōpū whakahaere on a couple of occasions. We are trying to identify a solution that’s more enduring. I hope that we get there. I think that there is a pathway. There are actually two pathways to get to a solution. There’s actually a pathway—

Tākuta Ferris: What’s your plan to get there, Tama?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Well, it’s not talking it up down at the gym or here in the House; it’s actually doing something and meeting with people. What we can say is this: that is not an easy situation, and it was diabolical that land for housing money was used to buy that land, and now we have inherited a challenge. It’s one that I gladly take on.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Those responses—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Labour have now five minutes and three seconds.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, OK. Thanks very much. They’re disturbing, those responses, particularly the Whānau Ora response, because he should know that Whānau Ora was set up because of Māori missing out in terms of funding and resourcing, and Tariana Turia, who set it up, talked about a billion dollars actually being allocated towards Māori.

The Minister for Māori Development is right: Māori providers don’t turn away anyone—that’s absolutely correct. Our doors are open to anyone who comes in. However, there are no mainstream providers; there are Māori providers and we have a Pasifika provider. The question is: are we going to open the doors to mainstream providers who already have, as the Minister knows, 97 percent of the funding in this country? That’s the question. It disturbs me if that is going to be the strategy going forward, but I’m hearing the Minister tonight.

I’m also worried about the Māori housing area. Can I ask, quickly: in Māori housing, how much has the Minister allocated in preparing Toitū Tairāwhiti and Ka Uruora to scale up housing in those areas? What impact will the Government’s directive needs-based service provision have on the delivery of papa kāinga housing? I think that’s an important area.

Going back to what I said earlier, he has to concede that there are areas where Māori have funding based on their Treaty rights. Not every set of funding that the Government allocates is based on need; some funding is based on the rights that Māori have won through the tribunal, through the appeal court, through the Privy Council. Are we going to see some silliness here in terms of how we apply needs-based service funding? I have no problem saying that both National and Labour, in the past, have confused this area. That’s why we need to have some directive from the Minister, so that our people can feel comfortable, particularly those who have been working off the smell of an oily rag, hoping that the funding would be reissued, not opened up to mainstream providers who have been taking all the funding for all the years.

Can I also ask: in the housing area, at the Iwi Chairs Forum, the Government confirmed shared priorities between Pou Tahua and the Crown prioritising housing. What feedback from iwi chairs did the Minister receive regarding Māori housing initiatives and what is being progressed in moving forward?

Can I also ask what targets, if any, has the Government set for housing repairs and infrastructure development on whenua Māori land and general title land? This area of housing—I know the Minister has a background in it—is incredibly important for our people, given the by Māori, for Māori strategies and solutions that we put in place.

Just back on the emergency funding, is the Minister concerned about no information being given? He was questioned on this the other day and he said he wasn’t concerned. I accept that he was taken out of context—he’s explained that since—because I know he would be concerned about whānau who are left out of emergency housing or who are taken out of emergency housing. Does the Minister have any information about whānau who are being kicked out of emergency housing?

Can I ask him: in terms of Māori, what are the funds that are being allocated right now in terms of Māori housing? What is the future for that?

Going back to Ihumātao, can I ask again how much longer is there left in terms of the contract and how is the partnership now working with Kiingitanga and our urban set up? Bernie O’Donnell has been our urban representative and Crown representative. How is that relationship working? It’s vital that Māori know that there’s a future there. I accept that it’s a very tough area, but I don’t accept that nothing should be done in that area.

So, just summarising, the “by Māori, for Māori” strategy—the Minister is confirming that that’s going to be the case, can he elaborate a little bit more for me on that? Kia ora, Mr Chair.

Hon Member: Three more seconds.

Shanan Halbert: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Shanan Halbert for—you have three seconds left.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hūhana Lyndon: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ah, yes, Hūhana Lyndon.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Wāhi kōrero. I think I’ve got about a minute left, Mr Chair.

Steve Abel: A minute, 30.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Oh, a minute, 30 seconds. I’m going to bang out some more. Minister for Māori Development, are you able to provide some information around—well, we’ve had our first Matariki with a 45 percent funding reduction. How’s that gone for everyone, because I know most of us got declined, and we couldn’t tono for pūtea. Is there any intention to increase that Matariki funding so we can have full celebrations within our communities, hapū, and iwi.

The youth housing cuts have occurred. Are there any plans to bring back some youth housing funding to help our young people whai kāinga [find a home]? Then also the Te Ringa Hāpai pūtea—knowing that that’s been cut, whenua Māori are lacking again those skills, expertise, and the capacity to be able to whakamahi our whenua. It would be really awesome to know what the plan is for our whenua Māori space into the future.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora tātou. You know, I think that many of us really get energised by speculation—

Shanan Halbert: By what?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Speculation. On this side of the House, we live in facts and figures, and all the reckons about Whānau Ora that have been espoused this evening are not discomforting me, because I still live in the world of facts, not reckons. The commentary about housing—you know, there’s been some amazing Māori housing development and iwi housing developments over the last few years, and I acknowledge Matua Willie and the team for giving that support to various Māori organisations, including the four iwi prototypes who are beavering away trying to deliver on the thousand homes that were either contracted or committed through the Whai Kāinga Whai Ora programme, plus also the papakāinga being run through Te Puni Kōkiri. For the most part, the funding that was set aside in the Whai Kāinga Whai Ora programme persists. It is still there, and my expectation is that there will be additional projects that will be encouraged and supported in the very near future. Taihoa—stand by, await announcements.

Now, in relation specifically to Toitū, it’s my understanding and I’m advised that they received a couple of tranches of funding—one of which was earlier this year—to carry on with their build programme, and it was great to take the Prime Minister there last Thursday to see Willie Te Aho and Annette and Tāpeta and Matua Herewini and the good mahi they are doing alongside Philip Leather. Certainly, what we saw there was a very focused group of individuals, a focused group, who are dedicated to reducing the social deprivation that comes with a lack of adequate housing, and that was acknowledged. I applaud Willie Te Aho but also Matua Willie Jackson and others who have congregated to make sure that that happens, and we continue to support it.

What we have also had to make tough choices around, though—and this is coming back to member Lyndon’s comments and questions. We have made some tough choices around housing, and there have been some savings from Kāinga Ora and across the housing Vote, including some of the youth housing monies that were not contracted at the time. They were directed back to the centre.

There was a question about Matariki. That’s actually a matter that Minister Metekōura—Minister Goldsmith—has to respond to, because it comes within the Ministry for Arts, Culture and Heritage. However, what I can say is that there was some support given, through the Minister for Māori Crown Relations’ portfolio, for Puanga. There was some support given for Puanga over the year, and I thought that that went really, really well.

The comments about iwi chairs and Pou Tahua and the mahi tahi being undertaken between iwi chairs and the Government around housing: most of the iwi and Māori chairs that I’ve talked to have been absolutely thrilled and motivated by the housing support that has been provided over the last few years but also the support that we continue to give them this year and the commitments that we’ve made to continue working with them to deliver housing to people with needs. In relation to those matters, I’m very enthusiastic. I think that Māori housing provides an alternative, a different, and, in some ways, a better way to deliver housing to whānau Māori but actually to other whānau as well, and I’ve certainly seen that—I’ve certainly seen that. Many iwi and Māori organisations don’t restrict themselves to delivering just to Māori but actually are happy to deliver to a broader community.

I just have to look at what Tainui Group Holdings has done over the years and my experience as the residential property manager at Tainui Group Holdings, delivering housing not just for tribal members but for others, and Tainui Group Holdings and Waikato-Tainui were absolutely thrilled with that. There are people in our communities—and there are people in this House also—who just want to deliver to a specific group of people, and I acknowledge that, but that’s not the space this coalition Government is in. That is never going to be the space that the National Party is in, and it’s not the space that I’m in. I’m here, as the Minister for Māori Development, to support Māori development, but sometimes that involves building businesses that don’t supply food, housing, or other services just to Māori but to a wider range of people, as well.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā koe e te Minita Whakawhanake Take Kaupapa Māori, me ō whakahau kāre koe mō te whāngai i te tahua pūtea ki te iwi Māori kia whakatūria e ia ōna whare ake e rangatira ai tāna noho, tāna tū i runga i tōna whenua?

Kao. Pai kē kia whāngaia te katoa ki te rau, ki te piki huia i tukua iho mai e ngā mātua tīpuna hei oranga mō te tini mokopuna ka heke mai i roto i tēnei rā. Ko koe te Minita i tēnei rā, e Tama.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to the Minister for Māori Development, and your assertions that you will not allocate budgeted funding to the Māori people so that they may establish their own structures so that they may live and stand with nobility on their own land?

No. It would be better to give everyone the plumes, the huia feathers that our forebears and ancestors passed down for the wellbeing of the many grandchildren to come in this time. You are the Minister today, Tama.]

I just want to pick up on the old facts and numbers idea—facts and numbers. I’ll start with our mate over there who thinks that the Māori economy is going to double by 2035—bro, you’re way out. I don’t know where you got that, but you’re so far out it’s almost ridiculous that it was uttered in here. The Māori economy is currently estimated to be $70 billion. It’s about a three- to five-year-old figure at this point, and what’s known is that whenever it’s assessed, it’s always about $5 billion to $10 billion behind.

So, Tama, my question to you is: how, in your capacity as the Minister for Māori Development, are you going to ramp up Māori enterprise? The Māori economy, which constitutes one-sixth of this country’s entire economy, grows at a rate faster than any other segment of this country’s economy. How are you going to ramp it up as the Minister for Māori Development—question No. 1. Pātai nama tahi, koia tērā. Tuhia ki tō pepa e hāngai tika tō whakautu ki taku pātai. The Treaty partner. Ko koe tonu te Minita Whakawhanake Take Tiriti, Take Kaupapa Māori o te Kāwanatanga, ko koutou ko te taha kāwana o Te Tiriti o Waitangi. [Question No. 1, that’s it. Write it down on your paper so that your answer accurately relates to my question. The Treaty partner. You are the Minister of Treaty negotiations and the Minister for Māori Development in the Government, you all are the Governor’s side of the Treaty of Waitangi.]

There you are, standing as the Minister for Māori Development in amongst the Government, who is the Treaty partner in this country for the period between 2023 and 2026, although I doubt there’s much understanding of what that means amongst the seats over on that side of the House. What’s your part in that, Tama?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just address the Minister by his correct title, please.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, Minister—what’s your part in that then, Minister? Ka pēhea tō whāngai? Te whāngai i ō hoa ki ngā tikanga i whakaritea mai e ō mātua tīpuna i roto i te 1835, te 1840? Pātai tuarua. Tuhia ki tō pepa e tika tō hāngai i te whakautu ki aku kōrero. [How will you administer it? Minister, what’s your part in that then, Minister, to educate your colleagues on the conventions that were put in place by your forebears and ancestors in 1835 and 1840? Second question. Write it down on your paper so that your answer accurately addresses my statements.]

Allocation on need, not race. I gave a kōrero in this House earlier on today, talking about constitutional arrangements, and every time anyone over there mentions race or ethnicity, they are dismissing the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this country—and I’m here listening to you do it. Pēhea ō kupu ōhākī ki ō mokopuna, e Tama? Tuhia ki te rangi. Tuhia ki te rangi. Taua tangata he mōkai noa iho, kāre au mō te paku aro ki a ia. [What about your parting words to your grandchildren, Tama? Write them on the sky. Write them on the sky. That person is just a disgrace, I’m not even going to pay any attention to them.]

OK, democracy—taku pātai tuatoru. Taku pātai tuatoru. Ko te democracy e amongia, e whakatairangahia nei e te Kāwanatanga. [—my third question. My third question. The democracy that is being espoused and promoted by this Government.] The Government has been great at reminding us that they won an election and that democracy is the thing that runs this House. Well, my understanding of democracy is the rule of numbers, and so the numbers are this, Tama: Māori are 1 million people—

Hon Members: Full name.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: —Minister, Minister—in the 5 million - plus people in this country. Tama, that’s 20 percent, minimum. Here’s the number for you, Tama. Here’s the number and—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Ferris, please respect the tikanga of this House and use the Minister’s name, or the next time, you’ll be sat down.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, ka pai. Tēnā koe. He wareware nōku. Tēnā koe, e te Minita. Anei ngā kōrero me ngā whika hei whakaaro māu. Anei ngā kōrero me ngā whika hei whakaaro māu. Whāngaia tō hoa ki te reo Māori, e te Minita.

[Oh, thank you. It’s because I forgot. Thank you, Minister. Here are the statements and figures for your consideration. Here are the statements and figures for your consideration. Educate your colleague in the Māori language, Minister.]

Twenty percent of the population, Tama—20 percent of the $180 billion in this year’s tahua pūtea is $36 billion. That’s $36 billion, e te Minita. Pēhea tō toha i te wāhanga e tika ana e ea ai te wāhi ki te democracy, e whakanuia nei e koutou, e mana nei i a koutou? Pēhea tō whakatinana i te democracy, e Tama, e te Minita, me te tuku i te wāhi e tika ana ki te tokomaha o te iwi Māori? Taku pātai tuawhā. [How will you allocate the appropriate amount to fulfil the democracy that you are celebrating, that you are enacting? How will you implement democracy, Tama, Minister, and allocate the appropriate portion to the multitudes of the Māori people? My fourth question.]

That’s my fourth question. If Māori are 20 percent of the population and democracy is the rule of numbers, then 20 percent of the $180 billion is $36 billion. Pēhea tō tuku mai i tērā pūtea? [How will you transfer that funding?]

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I have a little bit more time, I’d like to ask about Te ing—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): 33 seconds.

HŪHANA LYNDON: —and I’m going to really boot it. Te Pū Harakeke funding—it is through that funding that many of our community groups apply for Matariki funding at Te Puni Kōkiri. I know of many that were declined because it’s a small pūtea available. I’m just wanting to explore with you: how is Te Pū Harakeke going? It covers māra, it covers sponsorship, and it covers Matariki. Is the funding still the same or has it reduced?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Labour Party does not have any more time.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order, Mr Chair. If no one else is seeking the call and it’s a timed debate, it would appear that it’s in your discretion to give the call to anyone who stands up. I appear to be the only person standing up.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No—the member might like to seek leave of the committee of the whole House to speak, and he’s welcome to do that. This is a timed debate, and the Labour Party have been allocated their time and their time is used up.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): My point being, Mr Chair, that the debate as a whole is timed as well, and if other parties elect not to use their allocated time, then it’s up to the—

Hon Member: Presiding officer.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —presiding officer to allocate that time to any member who wants to give it a crack. I’m giving it a crack.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, actually, what I’ll do at this stage is—there are other parties with time still allocated. If those parties do not seek the call now, I am happy to give those parties’ calls to you, Mr Webb.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Āe, kei te pai.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That would appear to be the case, so I call—sorry, am I getting an indication that neither two parties that still have time left wish to take their call? Is that what I’m hearing?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Speaking to the point of order, just how much time do we have, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We’ll just check that. Te Pāti Māori have 12 minutes and 34 seconds; Darleen Tana has one minute and 31 seconds.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Mehemea e hiahia ana koe ki tētahi, kei a koe. E rima miniti, kei a koe.

[If you want one, it’s up to you. Five minutes—all yours.]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Right. I didn’t hear that, sorry—so you have now allocated your time to the Labour Party?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Five minutes. Duncan Webb—five minutes.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, and kia ora to Te Pāti Māori.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Duncan Webb—five minutes.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I appreciate that very much. I think it’s a real privilege, if I may say, to speak on this Estimates in respect of Māori Development. In particular, I’m interested in some aspects of Māori-Crown relations in respect of Treaty settlements, because I’m interested in the Minister’s views around the challenges in his role in respect of Treaty settlements in Te Arawhiti in particular, given that in the settlement process he will be expected—and the Crown is expected—to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

That strikes me as being quite a challenge in the current environment, especially when the underpinnings of that Treaty are being eroded by a corrosive Treaty Settlements Bill which is being generated by one of the parties in the coalition. Those principles, as developed in the courts, are, in fact, fairly well known. One of those principles is a kind of quasi-fiduciary relationship: the obligation of the stronger party to a relationship, the Treaty relationship, to protect and promote the interests of the disadvantaged party. I’ve been listening to this debate and also watching some of the steps of this Government which do anything but protect and promote the interests of Māori, most recently by revoking a procurement policy intended to support Māori business.

In respect of the Treaty Principles Bill, one of the abiding concerns appears to be the intention to trim back—

Hon Member: Uh, oh!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —I can’t do that—to trim back the customary rights of Māori to only those which are contained within the legislation as it stands. Now, that seems, to me, to be a fundamental misunderstanding of indigenous rights generally and customary Māori rights in particular. The whole concept of Māori customary rights is that a power or entitlement that has been exercised since time immemorial continues and runs, as it were, in the same stream as the common law.

In fact, I know that the Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Tama Potaka, is quite some legal scholar and he will know that there is an accommodating place in the law for customary indigenous tikanga. Yet we have a corrosive Treaty Principles Bill which is seeking to railroad and constrain what Māori customary entitlements are and say that they exist only if they’ve been recognised in legislation by the Crown. I find that extraordinary, particularly in light of the fact that customary English law doesn’t require recognition by legislation—why should customary Māori law require recognition in legislation?

I’m particularly interested in the challenges that he is facing in seeking to honour the Treaty by settling with iwi who have yet to settle; by approaching those negotiations in an honest, good-faith manner with an intention of uplifting and protecting the interests of Māori in the face of a Treaty Principles Bill which is, in fact, seeking to downgrade the principles of the Treaty and relegate the Treaty to some kind of second-rate or second-tier document.

I guess my final point was: if we are going to have a Treaty Principles Bill, let’s not waste $4 million of the Crown’s funds on it; let’s make something of it. Will the Government consider looking at that bill and making and recognising in legislation the constitutional place that the Treaty of Waitangi occupies in our country and giving it the status that it deserves: alongside other legislative instruments such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and even, conceivably, entrenched legislation such as those provisions in the Electoral Act?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I’m grateful for Te Pāti Māori offering me time to take a call. I’ll take five minutes if I can get that, thanks. Just considering, and because the Minister for Māori Development is the Minister of Te Arawhiti, I’d like to talk to some of his portfolio spaces. Is that possible? We’ve already started talking Treaty principles; let’s talk Māori-Crown relations and a little bit to do with the dollars, but also some of the policies and the cuts that we have seen come out of Te Arawhiti. Can I continue on? It’s his portfolio and we’ve started to explore Treaty principles.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, as a question, the Minister’s informed me it’s not his portfolio. However, while your question is—

HŪHANA LYNDON: Crown-Māori relations? It is Māori development.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just continue your speech as long as you would like. The Minister will answer how he perceives it to be.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Well, Māori-Crown relationships should really be core to the Māori development, I would argue, and there’s an opportunity here for us to discuss with the Minister in terms of the broader remit of kaupapa Māori within the Government as Māori-Crown relations but also Māori development. It may not be a discussion about dollars and cents per se tonight, but it is about the core function of the Crown honouring its Te Tiriti relationship with te iwi Māori, so hence my questions for tonight and also the opportunity to bounce off my colleague who was speaking to the corrosive proposed Treaty principles bill.

For the Minister, as Māori development but also as Te Arawhiti, I’d like to explore with him what he thinks in terms of the cuts that have been made across his department portfolios, particularly for staff and where we see national officers are being impacted and our regional officers also being downsized, and then when I look at Te Arawhiti and Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Justice, there is staffing rationalisation happening. That’s a tangata impact, but then for te iwi Māori, it’s a navigation issue. It’s a navigation issue, because when funding is being cut across your portfolios it is very hard mō te Māori ki te aru te pūtea [for Māori to make money].

Ko wai ngā tāngata tika ki te kōrero e pā ana ki ngā take kerēme, mō te taha hāo ika, ngā kerēme takutai moana, anō ki te taha o Te Arawhiti kei te Puni Kōkiri ināianei taku whakapae. Nō reira ahea ka hūnuku ngā kaimahi? Kua oti katoa tērā kaupapa ki te huri haere i ngā kaimahi i roto i Te Arawhiti ki a tae atu rātou, wetahi o rātou ki roto i te Puni Kōkiri.

[Who are the right people to speak about settlement claims, for fisheries, for claims in regards to the ocean, and also about Te Arawhiti whom are at Te Puni Kōkiri now, I guess. And so when do the employees shift? That matter of reshuffling the employees from Te Arawhiti—well, some of them—to Te Puni Kōkiri is done.]

That’s a question around the restructure. Have our Te Arawhiti colleagues been moved over to Te Puni Kōkiri yet? Those policy functions that have been announced, has that taken place? What has been the impact in terms of kaimahi that have moved across to your ministry?

For those other issues in terms of Te Arawhiti and thinking about the Treaty Principles Bill, the policy implications—so we’ve been told there’s been a review of Treaty clauses and also Treaty references across legislation. That’s what we’ve been told for the last year. Someone’s doing it. Now, it’s my understanding that Te Puni Kōkiri is that monitoring function. As well as Te Arawhiti, they are monitoring also compliance against Treaty settlements. Who’s doing that? Who is doing the review? Is it Te Puni Kōkiri pulling out the information and ruku hōhonu in all of the kaupapa here and looking for our Treaty clauses or Treaty references?

I’d really be interested in terms of who is doing the dig. Who is digging around in our legislation and policy and pulling out all of the Treaty clauses? Is it Te Puni Kōkiri? Is it Te Arawhiti? Who’s doing what in terms of the whakapapa of this digging around to take out our Treaty clauses across legislation. We’re seeing it right now, whether it be Corrections, whether it be section 7AA, someone’s digging around in the legislation and I’d like to know which part of the Minister’s portfolios is doing the digging. Who are those kaimahi and what part of his departments?

Further, the Waitangi Tribunal is under threat. We know this. They have been threatened publicly over and over, and when we see kaupapa inquiries such as the natural resources kaupapa inquiry going live about two weeks ago, I am excited for the opportunity for our people to put their kōrero forward, but how can we prepare adequately when we know that there is a here—a noose—around the Waitangi Tribunal, and are they going to get cut? What is the huarahi here? Where are we going with it? There’s a deep fear within te iwi Māori that that independent panel and function of the Waitangi Tribunal could be lost to us because of the type of Government that we have right now who is going line by line through legislation, taking out Treaty clauses and references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I know that my time is up, but I’m just going to use it as much as possible. Kia ora tātou.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā tātou katoa, kātahi rā te hūmārie, kātahi rā te māramatanga, kātahi rā te mōhio i roto i ngā pātai kua tau. E tūohu ana taku ūpoko ki a koutou e pātai mai ana ki au, ka rawe hoki ngā kōrero. Engari, koinei hoki e kite ana au i te poho kererū me te poho kukupa i roto i ētahi o ngā pātai. Me te mea nei kei te whakarangirua ngā pātai i te anga whakamua o ētehi o ngā mahi o tēnei Kāwanatanga haumi.

[Greetings all, what humility, what enlightenment, what wisdom within the questions that have been set forward. My head bows to your questions for me, such beautiful speeches. But also I see the arrogance and the pride within some of the questions. As if to confuse all questions that adhere to the development of the work done by this coalition Government.]

That’s why I’ve said be careful of the speculation.

The number of constitutional issues that have been raised this evening—but let me start with the Tupu Harakeke kaupapa, which has continued and continues to be at a regional level. That’s my awareness; that’s what I’ve just been advised by the officials. There’s also been a number of comments about the Māori Crown relations portfolio, although I did understand that this was a Māori development - Te Puni Kōkiri - Vote Māori Development hearing.

We all know what the Prime Minister said about the Treaty principles bill, so we’ll leave it there. We know what the position is.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is that?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: You’ve heard it many times before, and I don’t need to repeat it now.

Now, what we can also acknowledge is that there’s been a number of observations around democracy—ka pai hoki. I think there might’ve been a few comments looking for a question over here on the left, but I didn’t hear the question, so I don’t know if I can respond to anything there. Kia ora.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Can I just explain to members what’s happening. The total time left for the debate now is just under 24 minutes. The time set aside for the debate by the Business Committee takes precedence over the time allocated to the parties, so unless no one takes the call, the debate will still now go for another 24 minutes. Just so that everyone understands what is actually happening. While the parties on my left are getting to the end of their allocated time, there is still time allocated for this debate because the Business Committee’s decision is the overriding decision.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I back up the very valuable contribution made by Dr Duncan Webb.

This area, in terms of Treaty rights, is a huge concern. We’re seeking the Minister for Māori Development’s views on this because, surely, the way this Treaty principles bill is set up is a clear breach of indigenous rights and of Treaty rights. That being the case, can we hear from the Minister his view on this, given that we have David Seymour now with six months—six months—of publicity guaranteed because of the gutless wonders on the other side not wanting to stand up—

Dan Bidois: Point of order.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, he’s all offended—he’s all offended. He’s all upset.

Dan Bidois: Point of order, Mr Chair. I just want to illuminate your mind to Speakers’ rulings 144/1 around the relevancy of Estimates. In this debate, I have heard several times around a bill that is not before Parliament; it is not within the Minister’s responsibility. We’ve heard some comments from Duncan around that said bill, but it’s not relevant to this debate.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I would argue that that’s not the case. I think the Minister has played a huge part in the Treaty principles process. While it does not directly come under his ambit, he is the Māori development Minister. As the Māori development Minister, you play a part in every portfolio in Parliament. That is what a Māori development Minister should be doing, because every portfolio in Parliament—in Government—affects Māori, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): OK. My ruling on that is that members, if they do bring up a bill, have to be very careful that they context it against what the subject of the debate is, which, of course, is the Estimates. I’ll be watching and listening very carefully for that—for context.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you. I think, as I said, we have a Minister who’s a very influential Minister, has responsibility right across all portfolios. Whilst the Government on the other side of the Chamber don’t understand that, I’m really happy to inform them that’s how it works, whether you’re in the Treaty principles area, the police area, the health area, it doesn’t matter what area: Māori development plays a major part. That’s why I’m asking the Minister today, off the back of my colleague Duncan Webb: is he disturbed by this, given that he has a strong legal background, given he has a history in terms of advocating for Māori, that we have a Minister who wants to breach the rights of Māori, who wants to change the Treaty of Waitangi? There’s just no doubt about that. According to him, he wants to open up Te Tiriti to everyone—everybody has the same rights; Māori have no special rights. Is the Minister disturbed by this?

Is the Minister also disturbed by the continual strategy of this Government to attack kaupapa Māori initiatives? Just in today’s paper, Audrey Young, probably the most prominent political reporter in this country, has had a real crack at this Government in terms of their strategies, in terms of attacking Māori. This is from Audrey Young, who, you know, hasn’t exactly been a great Labour supporter through the years—good woman that she is, hasn’t been a great Labour supporter—but a very fair and learned political analyst, maybe the best political editor and analyst we’ve had in mainstream media. She has absolutely been clear in today’s New Zealand Herald that this Government is attacking Māori like no other Government has before. How does the Minister feel about that? Is he unsettled by that? Is he unsettled by that given his advocacy for Māori in past years? What does he say when he gets to Cabinet and then he hears about yet another kaupapa Māori initiative going to be attacked.

How does that Minister feel in terms of legislation, where we’re seeing Treaty clauses being knocked out in every—well, not every but different parts of legislation where the Treaty is absolutely relevant in terms of Māori and Pākehā relationships today. What is the Minister’s response to that? Is he contributing right across the sector?

Can I come back to the tribunal. It has been disturbing to listen to Shane Jones’ waffle and attacks on the tribunal. Now, this is relevant because the Minister appoints—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Context, Mr Jackson—context.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The context, Mr Chair, is the Minister appoints the members of the Waitangi Tribunal. The Minister has appointed nobody—nobody—since he took his position. That’s disturbing, given the quality members we have, given the terrific judge we have with Judge Caren Fox—she’s a wonderful chairman; I’m sure Te Pāti Māori will agree that she’s a wonderful chair of the Waitangi Tribunal. And we have people like Derek Fox, Professor David Williams, who I appointed. You know, these are really highly skilled New Zealanders, and I would like to know what the Minister’s strategy is in terms of the tribunal. Is it Shane Jones who is calling the shots here?

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take my first call in this debate. It’s a great privilege to speak tonight and to pick up on the questions that were asked by my colleague Shanan Halbert around progressive procurement. We didn’t hear an adequate explanation from the Minister as to why he thinks he can fulfil the ambition of Māori and that he can develop Māori business and yet drop the targets.

What I’m curious about is how this Government can talk about targets and say it is very target-focused and that this is an impact-focused Government in all other areas, but when it comes to Māori, suddenly that doesn’t apply anymore. When I think about my experience looking at social enterprise and best practice over the Ditch—say, in the state of Victoria, where there was a 1 percent procurement target from the Victoria Government—that was a real game-changer for the indigenous people there. I remember visiting construction sites where there were Aboriginal First Nations companies that employed large numbers of people, in the several hundred, able to fulfil Government contracts because of a Government procurement target that said that 1 percent—only 1 percent—had to go to First Nations people. It made a real difference, and there was real evidence to support that.

Now, when Mr Halbert asked his question, we had a bit of a fluffy answer, but we did not hear anything based in evidence or based in reporting back to say what the rationale was to suddenly drop these targets and think that Māori development was going to be able to succeed. It was a long, hard-fought battle by Māori—and I want to tautoko the Hon Willie Jackson and my former colleague Nanaia Mahuta for the wisdom and foresight they saw to bring in these targets and to make them work. Now, the fact that he has not evidenced his response is one thing, but to then sit in a Government that talks a big talk about social return on investment, about a social investment model, about targets and measuring things, and then to say, “But we’re not going to do that for Māori” seems incredibly inconsistent. I want to know from the Minister—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: It’s consistent with their 100-day plan.

INGRID LEARY: Exactly. Why does the Minister think—if he is all about everything for all New Zealanders—that targets suddenly do not apply in his portfolio, when they apply in every other portfolio?

We’ve seen that this week. We’ve seen the Government talk up targets around crime. They haven’t done very well in achieving those targets. I’ve seen it in the area that I work in with health. Some of the targets are really problematic because they’re not time-bound, but there is this philosophy that targets are an important part of how this Government says that it is achieving outcomes. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is committed to targets and that he is committed to Māori development in all other areas except for the Māori areas and then also say he doesn’t think that anyone should be treated differently from anyone else. What is it going to be, Minister? Is it one approach for everyone or are there some areas, such as setting targets, where suddenly it isn’t appropriate for one sector of the society?

Now, Shanan Halbert asked these questions. I am asking them again to you because we didn’t receive any satisfactory answers from you, and I would like to know: what advice did you receive when you looked at taking these targets away? Like, why on earth would you do that if you are, Minister, committed to Māori development; to business development? We know that targets can be a good thing if they are applied correctly—and we know that that hasn’t happened across Government—but why would you suddenly just take them away and say, “Oh no, no, no, but that doesn’t apply in my portfolio area”? I’d be very keen to hear from you why you think targets don’t apply. Which is it going to be: targets for everybody, or targets only for non-Māori, or targets for Māori? Please, you cannot have it both ways, Minister. Please answer the questions.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that this is a focused session, so I’d like to bring it back to Māori development. I know we could talk about iwi settlements, but that is not the responsibility of this Minister; it is the responsibility of Māori development. We could talk about a bill that is not before Parliament, but we will not do that because it is not in the domain of this Minister.

To the Minister, I’d really like to talk about TPK, because they do some really good work—Te Puni Kōkiri—and they do some really good work around monitoring and evaluation to make sure that the system and the agencies are delivering for Māori. I’d really like to understand what the Minister’s priorities are for the coming year. What’s he going to do differently? What’s TPK going to do differently to make the system effective so that we can get better outcomes for Māori? That’s what we’re all here for, folks, is to get better outcomes for Māori and not to waste the committee’s time for speaking on frivolous questions for five minutes.

That’s my question to the Minister. We do have a couple more minutes, so maybe the Minister may indulge us on his aspirations for TPK; maybe not, but I think that the committee deserves to know in the remaining minutes of this evening what the Minister has for his aspirations in this area.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Yes, well, as we are aware, the absolute vision of Te Puni Kōkiri is thriving whānau. Certainly, over the last six months, we’ve seen actions that have been taken by this Government to ensure that an extra $400 million of that whānau moneys stay in that whānau pockets with the tax relief that’s been announced by the “Mana pūtea” Nicola Willis. My focus, of course, is working alongside Te Puni Kōkiri to address the unfortunate and confronting inequalities of opportunity, particularly in relation to the economic and social deltas that are in front of our iwi, in front of our Māori people.

I take great pride in the work that our ministerial colleagues have undertaken—people, like Minister Shane Reti, who’s absolutely focused on activating the iwi-Māori partnership boards to actually make decisions and deliver on the health needs of Māori; the “Mana mātauranga” Erica Stanford, who’s focused on teaching the basics brilliantly and getting structured literacy throughout all schools, whether or not they’re kura, Māori-medium, or English-medium schools. I even acknowledge Matua Rewi—Minita Rewi Seymour—and the charter schools initiative, and trying to provide additional diversity of delivery of education through Aotearoa. That particular initiative, I expect, will activate a number of schools that are kaupapa Māori - focused, and potentially many schools, as he did many years ago with Raewyn Tipene and others in the North. Finally, the Minister for Regional Development, Matua Tararā, from the New Zealand First Party, who’s been absolutely focused on activating Māori economic development through our communities with the Regional Infrastructure Fund and also any of the legacy funds that emerged out of the Provincial Growth Fund.

We’ve heard a lot of humility tonight—especially from my colleagues on the far side of the Chamber. It’s been an absolutely riveting experience, but I thank all members for taking the time to listen to one another and also my answers and responses to the question, and a couple of speeches this evening. I want to acknowledge my huānga, my whanaunga from Ngāti Whitikaupeka. Ki runga ki raro, hui hui whiti whiti ora, tēnā tātou katoa. [Above and below, we meet together in light, thank you all.]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. I might just explain that the time would have taken us just beyond 5 past, in which case it would have been too late for the committee to go to the vote, so we’ll be suspending. I also will just make a note that this is not about ministerial responsibility; this is about Votes. It was divided up into Votes. What has been happening is that there have been other Associate Ministers who have taken the call when it has gone beyond the responsibility of the Minister in the chair—that is just for your edification there, Mr Bidois. The committee is suspended. I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. for the extended sitting.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2024

(continued on Thursday, 19 September 2024)

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed on the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill.

Māori Development (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mōrena, members. The committee is resumed. Last night, we were debating the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill. There are five minutes and 17 seconds remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has 13 minutes and 36 seconds. ACT New Zealand has 12 minutes and 43 seconds. New Zealand First has 15 minutes and 35 seconds. Darleen Tana has one minute and 31 seconds. New Zealand Labour, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, and Te Pāti Māori have no time remaining.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): E te Minita, kōrero mai tēnā koa e pā ana ki tō kitenga mō te whakawhanaketanga o Te Puni Kōkiri.

[Minister, please speak to your views on the development of Te Puni Kōkiri.]

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā tātou, tēnā tātou e aku hoa, e te Tiamana e mihi ana ki a koe. [Greetings all, and all my friends, Chairman, thank you.] E ngā hoa o te Whare Pāremata, [Dear friends of the Parliament House,] thank you for that very important question, and I just acknowledge everyone for returning this morning.

Look, the vision that I have for Māori development is to ensure the equality of opportunity for Māori across all dimensions of our communities, our society, our political system, and our social system and also our economy. That really revolves around making sure that we have thriving whānau, but also to recognise some of the really confronting deltas that present themselves to us. For example, we have a serious social delta between the income of Māori and the income of the rest of New Zealand. That difference, if you accumulate it all up and you add it all up, results in a delta of between $2.5 billion and $5 billion per annum that could be going into whānau Māori, but is not currently going into whānau Māori because of the—let’s call it—pay equity gap. That is particularly so for wāhine Māori, where there is a serious pay equity gap between wāhine Māori and the rest of New Zealand.

I would sort of observe that part of my role as the Minister for Māori Development is to ensure that I can activate or reactivate methods to ensure there’s a little bit more equality of opportunity in those social dimensions of our economy and our society. If we’re able to do that, if we’re able to bridge the disproportionate statistics that continue to afflict our communities, whether or not that’s in health or education or housing or law and order—thank you, Minister Metekōura, for coming today—or other dimensions of our communities, then Māori will do well and, actually, New Zealand will be a far better place because we’ll be able to realise and enable the potential, particularly amongst our young people, especially given that the average age of Māori is around 27, the average age of the rest of New Zealand is around 38, and the average age of Pākehā New Zealanders is about 42.

That economic delta, which also presents itself to our Māori businesses, is something that I’m really geared around and energised around. The estimated difference in revenue between Māoriowned businesses and the rest of New Zealand - owned businesses is estimated to be in the vicinity of $35 billion to $40 billion per annum. The estimated asset gap is around $120 billion to $130 billion. Those dimensions alone really drive me into considering the best way to activate Māori into business and into economic development, hence why we have platforms like the RIF, Regional Infrastructure Fund. We’re looking at the access to capital issues that were touched on last night. We’re also looking into different ways we can uplift and progress local procurement, although I do acknowledge the comments last night in relation to the target under progressive procurement, which has been done away with. However, we will continue to have a progressive procurement policy and we will continue to look into how we can uplift and elevate local and regional procurement.

The other item that I’ll just touch on and acknowledge at this time, given Minister Metekōura is here in the House today, is Treaty settlements. They have been a serious reinvestment into regional New Zealand, through iwi, and acknowledging the wrongs of the past, acknowledging that there have been some breaches of the Treaty, but also investing back, through those iwi that can help with Māori and iwi economic and social development in the regions.

Finally, the other item that I’ll mention, especially given this is te Wiki o te Reo Māori—kia kaha te reo Māori, ake, ake, ake—is our continued commitment, both in this House through the Budget and elsewhere, to ensure the cultural and language revolution and renaissance of our people continues to flourish. Certainly, the legacy of the National Party, which I mentioned last night and which pervades today, is such that you even see our Prime Minister—going to Tūrangawaewae on a couple of occasions recently for the Koroneihana and the uhunga for Kiingi Tuheitia, and here in the House—is using te reo Māori more and more. I wanted to acknowledge Minister Metekōura for his grasp of whakataukī, or proverbs—the pithy sayings of our ancestors. It’s something that I think we should all try at least once a day—to say one whakataukī. Mine for today is “Tama noho tama mate, tama tū tama ora” [He who sits perishes; he who stands lives]. Kia ora tātou katoa.

DARLEEN TANA: Thank you, Mr Chair. Noting that my questions regarding the operating costs and increasing year on year—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m sorry, the time for this debate has now expired.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 2024/25 stand part of the Schedules.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

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

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pati Māori 6; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Gangs Bill

Sentencing Amendment Bill

Recommittal

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the orders of the day for the third readings of the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill be discharged and that the bills be recommitted immediately to consider Amendment Paper 111 in my name.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order. I seek leave of the House to move an amendment that the committee also be instructed to further consider Subpart 2 of Part 3, being that part dealing with non-consorting orders, and clause 8, being that clause which deals with mandatory gang insignia prohibition orders.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of that Amendment Paper.

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee. The House has resolved to recommit the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill to consider the Minister’s amendment to the Gangs Bill set out on Amendment Paper 111. Members, this is a limited debate. Its sole purpose is to consider the proposed amendment to the Gangs Bill on Amendment Paper 111, which replaces the definition of “public place” in clause 4. All contributions must be relevant to this matter. The question is that the Minister’s amendment to the Gangs Bill set out on Amendment Paper 111 be agreed to.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the committee for the opportunity to consider this paper at this stage. So what we’re doing here is expanding the definition of “public place” in the bill because, traditionally, by directly referring to the definition in the Summary Offences Act, which includes the inside of cars in a public place—but it’s different in regards to the fact that, in this bill, we are excluding online places and the parliamentary precinct, and that’s been well canvassed in other parts of the bill. Generally, the inside of a vehicle is traditionally considered to be a private place, and why that was relevant to this legislation was—the purpose, of course, is to stop the intimidation of gang patches in public places.

As Police were considering the instructions of how they would implement this—the issue of what happens if gang members were driving around in cars, holding their patches up to the window and driving around—and whether that would be captured by the law as it was drafted, there was a debate about that, so we’ve decided to make it crystal clear that that would be captured because it would have an impact of intimidating the public. This is slightly more than a technical change, but it is one that is just wanting to clarify one particular area. So I’m happy to have any discussion.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Look, I’ve got some tabled amendments that I will come to, but I would like to start with a point of principle here. I mean, this just shows that the Minister’s office is in disarray as he tries to go along and patch up things, the errors that have been made.

The point is this, the Summary Offences Act definition is there for a reason, and it’s quite different to the reason in the Gangs Bill, because whilst the Minister and the Police officials can dream up scenarios where gang patches are kind of pressed against a car window, the Summary Offences Act definition is actually about preventing other offences. For example, one of the cases that I’ve uncovered is Kelly v Police. That was about possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. Obviously, that’s a thing that’s inherently dangerous. In that case, the question was whether the car was a public place, and there’s a really good argument there for saying a car is a public place.

The problem with this definition in respect of gang insignia is that it’s actually a question of—what if you’re sitting in the car with your gang patch on? What if the police go past and you’re in your van with your mates on the way to the clubhouse and the police look at you and go, “They’re wearing their gang patches”? There’s no intimidation, there’s no genuine display, but nevertheless because the interior of a van is now a public place, once again the police can give them the shake down.

Think about this: what about these people are sitting in their campervan, or perhaps just their small van, making up their bed for the night, with gang insignia, in what is fundamentally a private space—because with the policies of that Government, more and more people are living in their vans. In that situation, you’ve got gang insignia, with the curtains on the van closed, but it’s a public place. There’s a total mismatch between the Summary Offences Act definition—which is about things like offensive weapons, disorderly behaviour—and this limitation on freedom of expression. There’s no limitations on freedom of expression of any real meaning in the Summary Offences Act, but here the public place—once again, this Government is actually intruding into private spaces. In fact, saying that a vehicle is a public space, whilst it works for things like offensive weapons—knives in the case of Kelly v Police—doesn’t work in respect of the display of a symbol, because that’s what it is.

Over the other side, for the benefit of the National Party members, think of a boat, think of your yacht, think of cruising around the Marlborough Sounds on your 40-foot yacht and you just so happen to have invited a member of the Black Power. Yep, there you are, a mile offshore—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a moment—just a moment.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: That got them going!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Interjections are fine, but barrages make it very difficult to hear.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I hope they’re quieter on their yachts.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, you can’t behave in a disorderly manner like that on your yacht, because that’s disorderly behaviour in a public place under the Summary Offences Act. It’s a vessel as well. That’s a genuine point. A private vessel on the coastal waters becomes a public place upon which you can’t have gang insignia. That is the ridiculous position that we end up in. So, Minister, please answer that question. Answer the yacht question, because that’s probably the most extreme case and it would be really good to hear whether you think that’s a prohibited display of gang insignia.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I think that speech very nicely encapsulates the issue and the differences across our Parliament. That member is obviously very concerned about the rights of gang members and the potential irritations and inconveniences that they may be put to by this legislation and the fact that they may be restricted in their ability to drive around, hold up gang patches to the windows, and intimidate people in public places. He’s very concerned about that. Frankly, our concern is more with everyday New Zealanders trying to go about their business, who want to be free from the fear and intimidation caused by gang members.

I just remind the committee that only a quarter of 1 percent of the adult population of New Zealand are gang members, yet they are responsible for 18 percent of the serious violent crime and 25 percent of the kidnapping, so this is a group that causes mayhem in our communities. This Amendment Paper is about dealing with one area where the bill as drafted didn’t capture the people who are driving around in cars and are displaying gang patches in a public place. It is not intended to capture people who may be driving in their car with a gang patch on pressed against the seat of the car, not visible and not being displayed. That is not what this is dealing with. It’s only in relation to places where they are displaying those patches in a way that could cause fear and intimidation.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I’d love to just take that point on, Minister, and have a proper conversation about that, because my concern here is that you’re expanding the jurisdiction over people and, as Dr Duncan Webb suggested, they may well be people living in their vans. I know that that might be beyond, hopefully, the experience of most people in this Chamber, but that’s a reality in my suburb. I live in a big park, and at the bottom of the park there are people sleeping in their vans in the car park.

What I’m concerned about is the fact that there is such a disparity here in terms of understanding. We know that gangs are often a feature of poverty and alienation. They are places where people find an alternative set of norms and values, which we do not agree with, and it is a bad sign, but they find gangs because they’re displaced from the norms and values of the society that we are lucky enough to live in. It seems to me that by talking about swastikas as not actually meeting the standards—so you can have your Nazi sign, you can have your yacht, and you can do that because you’re insulated by where you are. We are laying open a group of people whose intimate space—whose only intimate space—might be their van, and that is a reality. That is not me being melodramatic. Those are the very people that there will be people in that situation in their van, and we are actually opening the door to those people having the door knocked on and people going into that space.

Now, that is an issue. I wondered whether you had had advice on the worry about the bias in that situation. I take your point that there are some terrible things that happen in gangs—I don’t think I’m ungrounded about that—but I do think there is a real concern about the invasion of space of people who are already fragile in some ways, and it’s going to alienate people way more if, in fact, the only refuge that they have is one that you are invading and you are inviting people to invade without any sensitivity over what that means for them.

I would really like a genuine answer. I don’t want to hear that gangs are bad—I know gangs are bad. I don’t want to hear that there are victims out there, because I know that lots of the people in those gangs and in our criminal system are, in fact, also victims. That does not excuse any bad behaviour or intimidation of others or rape or murder or involvement in drug issues, etc., but neither is it fair to put people into a situation where there is no ordinary, normal refuge, which is so important to our humanity. I mean this very genuinely. I want a response. Did you have advice that this could actually risk invading people’s privacy to an extent which was out of kilter? And did you have advice on the comparator to people who may be involved in situations where they have an offensive sign, like a neo-Nazi sign, a swastika—those kinds of signs—in their houses but may be insulated by the nature of their lives and the fact that they live in situations where they’re a lot less vulnerable to a knock on the door.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, the Minister’s given us some really good further understanding of how the car provision’s going to work. What he’s stated—and if I heard this correctly—is that you can’t sort of jack it up like that on the back window. That’s out, but if you were driving your car and your patch was on the back like that, that might be OK. What happens if he was in a car crash—not a serious one—and he happened to slam up against the window? Would that be out? I think it’s really important when we’re talking about what is displayed from a car.

I think that it’s really important for us to understand this, because if the provision that was brought in after the select committee process, which has had quite a bit of coverage in the media—the point is that there will now be a power for police, after someone’s already been warned for wearing a gang patch, where they can go right into their home, and even if it’s in a drawer or a chest of drawers or in their wardrobe or under the bed, that’s a penalty. This one is saying that, if they’re not displaying it, that’s not a penalty. My concern is you’re giving mixed messages to the gang community on what to do with their patches here. What is “display”? Is that pushing that, as you sort of said, or is that really pushing it up against the window? It does seem to be inconsistent with this new search power that you’ve introduced where, if they’ve got it in a drawer in their home, that’s infringing the provisions that are in the bill.

Also, I would really like to understand, because we haven’t heard this in any of the debate—and I think the general public want to know this—what was the thing that changed your mind, Minister? In March, when Police were asking for that additional power, did they discuss this car thing as well? Did that come up back in March? What was it between then, sort of June or July, when you whacked this new search power in, and then now when we found there’s an additional requirement to include a provision for cars and displaying from a car? Was there any sort of particular information or advice that you received from Police or from other agencies that caused you to change your mind and include the later provision and this provision so late in the piece?

I mean, this was legislation that was talked about right through the campaign period, which is nearly a year ago now. There would have been some significant considerations of how this policy would work, but it does seem, from the litany of repeated mistakes over this whole course, that it has not been very well thought through in terms of how it’s going to be implemented. It doesn’t really give a whole lot of trust and confidence in terms of how it’s going to be effectively implemented if you’re still coming up with new ideas so late in the piece.

The point, I think, that would be really useful to hear, just to recap, is: is it the display? What happens if you’re sitting in the car—where does the line lay in display? It would also be useful to understand exactly what the thought process was of the Minister for this second thing in this whole course of legislation to be introduced outside of the normal course of policy and legislation making, because it does look like it’s kind of policy on the hoof. You’re just kind of throwing everything at the wall in the hope that it’s going to look pretty tough, but the perception that it’s giving is a general sense of disorganisation in terms of understanding how Police are going to effectively make this work in terms of law enforcement.

The main one I’m really keen to hear: patch in a car, what happens; and what is classified as display? If they’re wearing the patch in the car, is that OK or not? At what point is turning your back to the window classified as display?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you. Just in relation to the question of display, I’ve explained that already; I’m happy just to explain it one more time. The element to display will be case specific and will need to be assessed in light of all relevant circumstances, including the degree of visibility, the size and placement of the gang insignia, and the nature of the public place and the overall context. The purpose of the bill is around display of gang insignia in a way that is causing fear and intimidation. If somebody’s wearing a gang patch in the car and it’s not visible and they’re not particularly displaying it, then that is not covered, and it’s not an issue. It’s only if the gang patch is being displayed. That’s, I think, reasonably straightforward.

The member asked about the thought processes here. I can explain the thought process, which is: we’re passing a bill that is designed to give extra tools to police in order to handle what has been a 50 percent increase in gang membership in the past six years, and to provide them with four new tools to push back against the negative influence of gangs in our community. When the Police came along—yes, late in the stage—and said, “Well, actually when we’ve looked at the details, there is a gap here that we think should be addressed.”, we decided to address it. Before passing the law, we’ve made this amendment in a belt and braces way to ensure that the legislation is as tight as it can be in order to ensure that the New Zealand members of the public can go about their lives without the fear and intimidation of gangs in their community.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll call Lawrence Xu-Nan—I’ll just make the member aware that we have your Amendment Paper now.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Before I talk about my tabled amendment, I’m just kind of following on from some of the discussions we’re currently having in terms of display in a vehicle, particularly in a vehicle in a public place. Even before that, I think one of the things we are seeing here—and I’m quite genuinely concerned about this—is the process and the hastiness that we are currently looking at here where the Minister put in one Amendment Paper, adding additional things in the committee stage. Genuinely, I’m reflecting on what the Attorney-General mentioned earlier in the year when she was like, “A rushed process makes bad law.”

When we are looking at this Amendment Paper, it leaves me wondering what other things have not been anticipated as a part of this. I really would like to go back to some of the things that the Minister has mentioned throughout the committee stage in terms of the debate around—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we’re not going back to previous committee stages. This is a very specific—

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK. Let’s talk about what the Minister just said in terms of a 50 percent increase in terms of gang membership, which is a response the Minister gave to our previous question. When we’re looking at this, what we are really concerned about is the fact that it doesn’t address the root cause of a lot of these issues.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we’re off track now, Dr Xu-Nan. Could you please address your tabled amendment.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I address the Amendment Paper, in terms of the public display, I am referring to the broader context of the Crimes Act and section 66 around party liability. When we’re looking at the public display, I understand what the Minister just said—that if it’s hidden, if it’s covered, it’s not an issue, but if someone holds, let’s say, a gang patch or gang insignia up to a window, it is an issue—however, I would like some clarification from the Minister, under section 66 of the Crimes Act, in terms of party liability. What does it mean for other people who are also in the vehicle at the same time? If one of the people in that vehicle holds up gang insignia publicly against the window but it also includes other members in there who did not hold up any insignia publicly but do have insignia covered—in those kinds of situations—would public liability apply? Would the other people also be charged, despite the fact that they haven’t necessarily, in the context of what you defined as a public place, violated that?

Following on from what we’ve been discussing in terms of vehicles, because my tabled amendment—which I would like to take a short call on later on—it’s about—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I’d like the member to come to the Amendment Paper now, please, within the context of the call. This is a very short debate, and long calls are actually going to start being frivolous around the committee’s time, so let’s just stick to the point of what we’re debating this morning.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I take your point there. However, the difficulty is that, because a member has submitted an amendment, they’re not limited to only speaking to that amendment. The question that the member asked was directly linked to a response that the Minister gave. I support your initial guidance 100 percent, but I have difficulty with the fact that he is now limited to speaking only to his amendment when the question itself surely was in order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah. Your point about his question to the Minister was relevant. I’m just finding that this is going a bit broad, and the member did go a bit broad to what we were supposed to be discussing. I’m just trying to bring him back to the point. I’m sure the Minister will answer his question in due course. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Also I’m noting that the time is still ticking, so if you wouldn’t mind giving me just a little bit more time to talk about my tabled amendment, that would be great.

Coming to my amendment, when we are discussing the list of public places, one of the things that we have been talking about is whether certain places should be exempted from the list of public places, which is a clean-up that you see in this Amendment Paper, which contains two possible areas which have been exempted in subclause (a) and subclause (b). What my tabled amendment does is it moves to include another subclause where cemeteries and urupā are also exempted from the list of places.

Now, this is incredibly important because, to all intents and purposes, cemeteries and urupā do fill the requirements of a public place. However, there are a couple of reasons, some of which have been addressed, I think, which are about gang insignia that already currently exist in cemeteries and urupā, but also, when we are looking at paying respect to the deceased, paying respect to our ancestors, there might be appropriate times beyond what is discussed as part of a tangi for there to be insignia or for there to be certain displays in cemeteries and urupā that go beyond a particular event in time.

This is incredibly important as an exemption. If the Minister is really serious about putting people at the centre of all of his discussions and all of his bill making, surely this is something that the Minister would consider supporting, because it is about paying respect to our elders. It is about paying respect to the deceased.

I would really like the Minister to consider this amendment, and I would really like the Minister to give me some clarifications about what I said before, because, again, the Crimes Act and criminal law is incredibly complex, as we see with the various Amendment Papers that have been put through. Clarifications would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Madam Chair.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Just following on, I want to ask my question, and I want to kōrero about my experience with gang members. I’ve been known to facilitate gang hui on our marae. I’ve been known to vaccinate gang members and their whānau on our marae. I’ve vaccinated gang members in their homes, in their communities, where they’ve opened up.

I am not intimidated by gang members. To me, they are whānau, just like everybody else. It’s how you engage. Yes, I know there was negativity, but there is positivity in supporting and helping our vulnerable communities. We are known for that at Manurewa Marae. When we were in COVID, no one would touch that community. In fact, nobody could get into that community. You had to be a strong community advocate to gain the trust of the gang to get in there to vaccinate them. We just sat at Manurewa Marae, and I’m proud of the mahi that we did, because we got to enter a space where nobody on my left would ever get into. You can’t tell me you’ll get into a gang home, a gang pad, because you’ve got to have empathy. You’ve got to have a bigger vision of who they are and what they’re about. They are whānau. My question is: are marae exempt? Kia ora.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to address, again, a wider policy issue because the Minister has swept aside the original definition of “public place” in his Gangs Bill and he’s replaced it with an entirely new one. In this debate, anything to do with “public place” seems to be an appropriate topic.

I just want to identify perhaps what seems to be an inconsistency, because in his November 2023 policy paper, they talked about the display of gang insignia that’s visible from a public place—for example, in a window of a dwelling or even displayed as a flag from a dwelling. I’m wondering if he could address the issue of whether it is now the case that if there’s a car with, say, a Mongrel Mob flag lying fully visible on the back seat or in the window, that’s a public place, but if you’ve got exactly the same flag pinned to your fence on private property only metres away, it’s not a public place. That’s question one.

Is it also the case that the car on the street is a public place when the flag is lying visible on the back window, but as soon as it moves one metre and is on the driveway, it’s not a public place? That’s question two.

Then I want to talk about my tabled amendments. The member mentioned marae, and I think this is an important one because a public place doesn’t mean it’s public property. It’s very clear in the Summary Offences Act that it’s a property that is available to the public whether there’s a right to exclude or whether there’s a charge imposed or not. Now, marae are a very special case here, and of course this has Te Tiriti overtones. This explicitly engages Treaty rights, and it explicitly engages tino rangatiratanga, the idea that iwi and hapū can have control over this space. The question becomes: if a marae is being used for a public purpose—and down at my own local marae of Rehua, they have a Matariki festival, they have a Christmas festival, and they have numerous events where I’m welcome and I really enjoy going on, and on those occasions and on some marae, gang members will go and wear their patches. Now, they’re not going to intimidate.

Tim Costley: So that’s the problem, right? Take your patch off.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Now, the question I have for the Minister, and this is a—you know, you can heckle from the other side, but this is a genuine question—

Tim Costley: No, it’s not.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: You on the other side can dismiss a question about who has authority over behaviour on a marae, but I think it’s a legitimate question. The question of whether the marae itself, and the iwi and hapū who are connected with it, should have determination of that or whether it’s the police is highly relevant. My question is this: if there are gang members on a marae with the permission of the relevant authority, iwi, and hapū, then, even if it’s open to the public, is that a public place that the police can enter or is it a private place?

Hūhana Lyndon: It’s our place.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: As the member says, is it our place, the iwi or hapū’s place, where the iwi has tino rangatiratanga or not?

I think that if the answer is that under the Amendment Paper 111, it’s a public place, then we must also pass my amendment that says a marae is excluded from a public place. There are three questions in there, Minister.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Just following on from the honourable member’s contribution, it’s a really important question for this committee, and he talked about iwi and hapū—it’s iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. I need the Minister of Justice to know that. It’s something that we have had problems with, with successive Governments, that we’re just talking about iwi and hapū—iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. Māori organisations have their own marae.

I am a marae chairman. I am the current chairman of Ngā Whare Waatea Marae. I have been the marae chair for the last six years. Obviously, I don’t get involved in all the business, because, sadly, some of that business is dealing with Government Ministers and they have Government contracts. That’s all fine. I’m not involved in the operations, but I am the marae chair. I’m probably the only current marae chair in this House. I had the position before I came into Parliament in 2017. I checked with the Prime Minister at the time, and I said that I wanted to hold the position. She said, “You’re taking no honorary?” Not one cent—not one cent. I’m there in terms of overseeing tikanga, in terms of protocols, in terms of these areas. Our marae—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What’s this got to do with the cars and the amendment?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —no, no, I’ll help the Minister here—does not allow, for the Minister’s sake, patches on the marae. All right? Our marae does not, but you don’t have the right to tell us that. We manage our marae—Madam Chair, that’s where I’m coming to: marae must be given the opportunity to make their decisions, like our member for Tāmaki Makaurau. Of course we have exemptions. We vaccinated all the King Cobras. They all came through. They wore their patches, because we weren’t going to get into a punch-up with them about removing their patches, but we allocated a special time when the kids weren’t there, and we brought them in; it was all good.

There’s no flexibility with this Government. It’s about not knocking people over. It’s all superficial stuff. As Ginny Andersen said, it’s just nonsense, the way you’re talking about patches in the car; stand this way, stand that way nonsense.

The question from Duncan Webb in terms of tino rangatiratanga has to be answered by the Minister, particularly given a lot of the pronouncements in terms of by Māori, for Māori solutions from this Government, including from the Minister for Māori Development. Is this a breach of rights for people at hapū level, at iwi level, at Māori community level, for Manurewa Marae, for our marae at Ngā Whare Waatea? You’re making things impossible, Minister. That’s what we’re saying here. You’re making things impossible.

Tim Costley: For gangs.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, you fools on the other side would not even know what a gang was. You don’t even work with our people. You don’t know what we’re talking about. We work with these people. We don’t enjoy their lifestyles. We tell them they shouldn’t be in gangs.

Hon Member: They’re your people, are they?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Don’t talk about something you don’t know and you’ll never know. We don’t enjoy their lifestyles. We put their kids in our schools while their fathers are in jail.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So can we—so do we have a—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: But you idiots on the other side would never know our life. You don’t know our lifestyle.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Mr Jackson, that’s good background, but the question for the Minister?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, the question is: what is the Minister’s position going to be over marae, papa kāinga? Are we looking at exemptions here on the basis that, as Duncan Webb said, maraes and hapū, iwi, Māori organisations have the right to choose their own paths? That is a partnership right. That is a Treaty right. It’s something that Mr Seymour might disagree with. That’s fine. That’s what this House is all about. But it’s a Treaty right for us to be able to roll our own form of rangatiratanga out. What does that mean, Minister? Does that mean that you come over the top and say, “No. That lot with the patches on can’t come to the tangi. They can’t come to be vaccinated.”? There has to be exemptions—there has to be exemptions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What’s this got to do with the amendment?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: So, therefore, the amendment—

Tom Rutherford: Take the patch off.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Get the patches out of your thick heads and understand the wider argument. It’s all superficial from you lot. Understand that Māori must have the opportunity and must have the right to decide, must have a right in terms of rangatiratanga. We are not supporters of gangs. We facilitate conferences, you morons. You would never know what we’ve been through, but you sit there and judge.

We are trying to get a better society, a better community for everyone, Minister—Māori, Pākehā—and we need some direction here in terms of working with our people, consultation, working with Māori communities, please, Minister.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Could I just clarify that we’re talking about Amendment Paper 111, which doesn’t make any changes to how this bill affects marae or any other places. It relates to cars and vehicles, hovercraft, and other things like that—but cars. What we’re focused on is extending the definition of “public place” to the inside of a vehicle where those gang patches are being displayed, and—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does it include a marae?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, it’s in relation to cars, and that’s what this Amendment Paper is in relation to.

Now, we’ve had lots of speeches around the importance of engaging with gang members and about vaccination and about the humanity of all people, and we’re all in favour of vaccinating all New Zealanders, if required. Understanding the challenges of gangs is not the same as accepting and justifying their actions, and so I’d just take it back to the bill. The bill is around giving the police extra tools to deal with the intimidation and fear that gangs create in our community, and this Amendment Paper is about extending the “public place” definition to the Summary Offences Act definition, which includes cars—the inside of cars. That’s what we’re talking about.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, so on that note, the basis on which questions will be sought is around cars—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —I’ll take your point of order in a second, Dr Duncan Webb—and it must relate to this page, because the Minister has clearly answered the questions. We may not agree on the Minister’s answers, but this is particularly around adding cars to the definition of “public place”.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment is not about cars; the amendment is about whether the Gangs Bill should incorporate the definition of “public place” from the Summary Offences Act into the Gangs Bill. Now, “public place”—that opens up a debate on what is the appropriate definition of a “public place” in the Gangs Bill. That might be the Minister’s intention in incorporating that definition, but that’s not what the Amendment Paper does. It incorporates an entire definition about “public place”, and any topic around what a “public place” is is, therefore, open to debate in this committee stage.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you for the point of order, but I do accept—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —just a moment, Lawrence Xu-Nan—that during the last debate we had, it was very broad around that topic. I’m just trying to home it in. It needs to be very specific to this Amendment Paper. The member is right that it does bring in the definition of “public place”, but my judgment at the moment is that we’re broadening it out to topics that we did discuss during the original piece of legislation. I’m just asking for members to home in and be very specific with their questions. Lawrence Xu-Nan—is this speaking to the point of order?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Yes—thank you, Madam Chair. Just very quickly speaking to the point of order, when we are looking at the Summary Offences Act 1981, which is part of this amendment, it doesn’t limit it just to cars. It actually specifies “any aircraft, hovercraft, ship or ferry, or other vessel, train, or vehicle carrying or available to carry passengers for reward”.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, that’s right. I think we’ve actually come to that place this morning.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: But the thing is—and what I’m trying to say in speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair, and I’m seeking your guidance on this—is it inappropriate for the Minister then to limit what he has put in as an amendment, because I would assume that, if the Minister wanted to talk only about cars, he would specify cars only.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just to the point of order, it’s not my role to assess what the Minister has said to put in his amendment. My role is to sit here and focus on the amendment that we’ve got in front of us, and what I’m asking the committee to do is exactly the same. Does someone want to take a call about the amendment?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, I would like to speak to the tabled amendment put forward in the name of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, and that’s to Amendment Paper 111, amending clause 4. It goes right to the heart of the points that we wish to make, and that’s in the definition of “public place”. After paragraph (b), we believe that there should be an additional paragraph added, to read as paragraph (c). There’s already been quite a high level of uncertainty and doubt in terms of what is actually trying to be achieved here. If you look at the amendment, it doesn’t even mention “vehicle” from what I can see.

We think that what would help for this to work, for the Minister, for the avoidance of doubt, any reference to “aircraft, hovercraft, ship or ferry or other vessel, train, or vehicle which is in a public place”—and is a reference to the same: “aircraft, hovercraft, ship or ferry or other vessel, train, or vehicle which is offered for reward”. The point is also that it is unclear as to whether other types of vehicles would be included or not. For example, on public transport, is it clear that, with this change, a public bus being utilised by a gang member is in fact a case of it being displayed? Would that fall into the catchment of this? I think this is important, not just for the point of giving some certainty to those people.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just to the member, the topic of public buses and things has already been very well traversed.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Sure—OK. The point I want to make, though, in terms of being clear what is within the definition of “public place”, is that that is important for police to be able to enforce this appropriately. If it is not clear what is being included in this definition of “public place”, that will need to be specified in operational instructions, which provide police with the information and training to be able to go and implement this legislation. I want to hear from the Minister specifically what instructions will be provided to police in order to know that they will have all of the information available to enforce this clearly.

Now, I appreciate that police discretion will come into this. There will be some really difficult calls to be made and different kinds of circumstances that come up through the course of this law being enforced, but I would like to know, from the Minister of Justice, what he has done alongside the Minister of Police, in consultation with police officers, that can give us confidence that they have turned their minds to the fact that this will create some incredibly difficult situations for front-line officers to be able to make their decisions and exercise their discretion as to when to prosecute and when not to prosecute. If it’s unclear to the police officers, it will be even less clear to the communities which this law will impact upon. It does seem to me that this is policy and legislation being made on the hoof and not being given the careful consideration that is required in terms of how it is practically going to be enforced, in line with police discretion.

I would like to hear from the Minister whether there has been any operational instructions already drafted for police. What are those operational instructions that have been drafted for police? And what consideration has he or the Minister of Police given to the type of training and information required for front-line officers in order for this latest amendment to be able to be enforced clearly in New Zealand for those communities it directly impacts upon?

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you for letting me take a call. I’ll try to keep it to the main Amendment Paper one-on-one with my questions.

The first question that I have is around the evidential basis for this change. There’ve been statements made by the Minister of Justice that people are holding patches up in their windows and intimidating people, but what is the actual evidence of that? It’s not something I myself have observed or seen happening, and I would hope that when we’re amending a piece of legislation and making something illegal, we would actually have a strong evidential basis or some actual precedent of this happening. It’s not something that I have seen or heard a lot about, so what is the evidential basis behind this particular amendment?

The second question I have also relates to police discretion and is mostly around how a police officer is supposed to know, if someone is in a vehicle or in a car, that what’s being worn is actually gang insignia? Obviously, a patch is obvious—we know what to look for in a patch—but there are other gang insignias that fall into this legislation that could be on a T-shirt, could be on a hoodie. The problem with that is it’s harder to know if something is a gang insignia if it is in a car. The police officer has to make that call and have a presumption that somebody is wearing gang insignia within a car. But we’ve discussed this before: gang insignia can be hard to identify because that includes, say, a fist, right? Black Power wear fists. But someone could have a hoodie or a T-shirt with a fist on it completely unrelated or unaffiliated to a gang. For example, the Black Lives Matter movement uses a fist, or workers’ rights, E tū, unions—they all use a fist. If someone’s sitting in their car and there’s a fist on their T-shirt, how is a police officer supposed to determine whether that person is wearing gang insignia or whether they’re wearing an icon or an emblem that is completely unaffiliated?

Another example is sports teams and, say, the use of a bulldog, which we know the Mongrel Mob use as their symbol, but also a sports team uses it too. If police see a brown person in a car who’s wearing a Canterbury Bulldogs T-shirt or jersey, how are they to know that that person is actually wearing gang insignia and isn’t just wearing a sports shirt? Are their rights to privacy and to not be subject to unwarranted or baseless searches being undermined by the fact that that police officer doesn’t even know exactly what they’re looking for? How is that discretion supposed to be applied? And how do we know that this won’t just lead to further discrimination against a group of people who might just be going about their day and wearing a regular T-shirt that has absolutely nothing to do with gang insignia?

This is just wasting the police officer’s time, because they might see somebody with a symbol on—maybe they’re Māori—and pull them up and assume that they’re a gang member because of a symbol that they have on and because they’ve made the assumption that that is gang insignia. Those are my questions; I would love an answer.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Just in response to that, the purpose of this amendment in relation to extending it to cars and vehicles generally is to cover all our bases. The concern that Police raised was that the purpose of this is to free the public from the fear and intimidation of gangs in public places. In the absence of this amendment, there was the risk that some would see the opportunity to do that from within a car, so that’s what we’re closing off through this amendment.

In terms of the police’s ability to decide whether insignia is being displayed in a way that is intimidating, we’ve got every confidence in the ability of the police to use their discretion in a way that people will understand. I think the purpose of this amendment is clear and I’m happy to explain anything else.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, I’ve been following this debate closely, and I’ll be looking for new material and material that is very close—very, very close.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, I just want to state for the record that I did hear the Minister say, I thought, that marae were not public places. If I’ve got that wrong, I’d ask him to stand up and correct the record, because that’s an important point.

I want to move on to whenua Māori now. Of course, whenua Māori can come in a number of categories. It can be titled land—and certainly that’s probably the clearest case—but also I would ask him to consider land which is under customary title or in respect of which customary rights exist.

Tim Costley: Relevance!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, Mr Costley, because we’re talking about what is a public place and—

Tim Costley: It’s not in the Summary Offences Act; it’s vehicles. Read the Act.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, I’m sorry if the member can’t read, but the Summary Offences Act definition of “public place” is about all kinds of places, and the question is—and if you’d like to go to the Table and find my tabled amendment, you’ll see that I have suggested that we exclude whenua Māori. The reason for that is because, in many cases, this land is either explicitly or implicitly open to other people. I’ve been to beaches, for example, which are whenua Māori, and I am there only by the grace and invitation, implicit invitation, of the local hapū. Now, that again goes to the question of tino rangatiratanga and whether it is for the police to determine who can wear a patch on that Māori land or whether it is for the local iwi and hapū.

That’s why my tabled amendment says that whenua Māori should be excluded from the definition of “public place” for the purposes of the Gangs Bill, just like we’ve excluded parliamentary precincts because the appropriate authority for the parliamentary precinct is the Speaker. In respect of whenua Māori, the appropriate authority to determine whether gang patches are allowed or not allowed is in fact the local iwi or hapū. And that extends not just to land that has explicit titles issued to Māori individually or collectively but also to areas where customary rights of tino rangatiratanga exist, such as marine and coastal areas, although that may not last long under this Government.

That’s one question I have. I’m asking, firstly, about whenua Māori, particularly that land which might be forested and used by hunters, which might be coastland used by beachgoers and divers and what have you, or which might simply be ordinary land which people use to walk the dogs. That’s the first one, and the second is really clarifying that marae are not public places.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Can I just quickly clarify that parts of marae are considered to be public places. It varies on which particular marae we’re talking about. In terms of this amendment, the paper is not making any changes in regards to whether Māori land or marae or any other public places are involved in this legislation. It is focused on vehicles because that is the difference in the definition. The purpose here is the inside of vehicles that are in a public place and whether a gang patch or gang insignia is being displayed. We’ve had the debate about the broader areas around public places and what that does and doesn’t involve, and we’re not making changes in relation to that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before I take the next call, I just will mention to members on my right who are continually calling about making judgment on relevance that that is a position for the Chair, and I’ll invite them to wonder whether they’re actually helping their cause.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve been wanting to ask this question for a while. While I’ve been here, I’ve looked at what I can, in terms of the guidance that we’re given, with regard to whether this should go to the Attorney-General for a report on consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I heard my friend Dr Duncan Webb ask a question of the Minister in question time—it was a supplementary—and there was an answer which skirted around the problem of whether the Attorney-General had been asked about this. I think the answer that I got from the Minister in that context was “I talk to the Attorney-General a lot.” With respect, that doesn’t specifically address the issue here. As you can see from the passion on this side of the Chamber, we’re really concerned that there is an infringement of human rights. What we would normally expect to happen is that that would be discussed in select committee, but this is something that is quite special. I just want to articulate that in terms of this amendment.

We are talking about people’s vehicles. That would normally be a very private space. I’ve explained in an earlier exchange that I’m concerned about the reason why private space in vehicles might be particularly important when we’re dealing with our most fragile or most disaffected people in our society. I would like to know, and I genuinely want to know: has the Minister talked to the Attorney-General about this and has he considered whether this should go? Because it is such a significant change to the human rights settings in the bill, has he considered that it go to the Attorney-General for a report on whether it’s consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Thank you, sir.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this. I’m wanting to focus my questions on what “definition” is and “discretion”. The definition we have heard is that these amendments are to help, for clarity and for completeness, for the displaying in an intimidating way a gang patch in a car in a public place. That’s an interesting one because some gang members have gang insignia on their faces. If they’re sitting at their Countdown supermarket waiting for their husband or wife in the car park with the gang insignia on their cheek, are they going to be at risk of being arrested?

Further, if you have a T-shirt that might say “Mangu Kaha” but does not have the brand and you’re sitting in the car at the JMB rugby, are you going to also be at risk of being arrested? The discretion for our police is a worry, because the discretion will leave it upon the shoulders of an individual policeman or policewoman to make the call as to whether they’re going to approach the car in front of their whānau and then go into their car and have a look at what they’re wearing, have a look at the way that they are sitting or mixing with their children and whānau in the car.

What is “displaying in an intimidating way”? Is wearing a T-shirt displaying in an intimidating way in the car? I could be passing at the lights and see a cousin with a hoodie on or his face might have gang insignia on his face—I still hongi that cousin; he’s not intimidating. But “displaying in an intimidating way”—what is that definition and what guidance will police get on that? I’d like to know. Is it if you’re actually hanging the flag in the back window of your car? Is that the definition of “an intimidating way”? Or can you just be wearing a hoodie that says “Mangu Kaha” on it and might have the logo on it? Is that intimidating as well? And is that being “displayed in an intimidating way”?

I worry for our rural police—like in Kohukohu, like in Houhora, like in Whangaruru—who have to move amongst our communities across the board, at marae, at rugby games, over into our schools, and they mix with people of different backgrounds. This includes whānau who are gang members. If a whānau member is wearing red and they are known to be a Head Hunter and they are sitting in their car at the JMB rugby watching the game, is the red enough of a trigger for the police to go in and arrest them? I’m asking that because it’s as simple as that. Are gang colours enough of a trigger for a police officer to go into a car and infringe upon that person’s private space with their children? Kia ora.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I’d just like to say that nothing in this Amendment Paper changes the definition of “insignia” in the bill. The amendment is about how it relates to cars, but nothing is changed in relation to what insignia is and how that is determined.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 111 inserting paragraph (c) relating to “other vehicles” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pati Māori 6; Tana.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 111 inserting paragraph (c) relating to “any whenua Māori” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pati Māori 6; Tana.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 111 inserting paragraph (c) relating to “any marae” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pati Māori 6; Tana.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment to Amendment Paper 111 inserting paragraph (c) relating to “any papakāinga” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pati Māori 6; Tana.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 111 inserting paragraph (c) relating to “any cemetery or urupa” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pati Māori 6; Tana.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to the Gangs Bill set out on Amendment Paper 111 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

New Zealand Labour National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Gangs Bill to be reported with amendment.

Sentencing Amendment Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill and reports the Gangs Bill with amendment and the Sentencing Amendment Bill without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill.

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1

Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 62A, “Amendments to principal Act” and Schedules 1 to 3. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Well, thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very pleased to get to this stage of the Education and Training Amendment Bill. I look forward to discussing the legislation and its accordance with decisions agreed by the House in the second reading.

Part 1 is mainly concerned with the introduction of charter school legislation. Later parts to the bill also include changes that relate to early childhood education and network planning. I look forward to hearing what people make of these changes and responding to any questions that members may have.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate of the committee of the whole House. I want to take my first call here this morning to talk about what we intend to do as the Labour Party in this debate and to talk about, overall, where we reached with the bill. You will see that, on the Table, there are a number of amendments that we have made and are asking the Minister to consider. None of these proposals for amendments have been made lightly. They are genuine attempts to improve a bill that, as a caucus, we determined was actually rushed. It has a lot of flaws in it and faults in it, and even announcements that have been made in the last couple of days point towards that, particularly in the charter school space, as schools are coming to terms with the fact of what does this actually mean, particularly those that are converting schools. When you look at the announcement that was made yesterday by the Minister, I’m guessing there’ll be a number of schools, now, that will look at that and say, “There is nothing in this. There is no reason why we would want to change from becoming a State school into a charter school.”

We intend to go through those in groups, in those proposed amendments that we have there. We have signalled for a start that we will be dealing with—and just to give the Minister a heads-up about where the line of inquiry will go to, we’ll start with the intent to look at the industrial side of things. Our spokesperson for workplace relations, Camilla Belich, will sort of lead that part of the debate off. We want to look at the network-management side of it, which the Minister did say was a small part of the net provision for early childhood, which the Minister did say was a small part of the bill. I would contend that that is not the case, particularly by the number of people who did actually make submissions in that area. I do have a few questions that relate to that. Then I’ll delve quite deeply into the charter school amendment itself. Starting with the charter school—and the reason for that is that our spokesperson in that area does have to leave early. We thought that it would be prudent to start with those areas and then come back to the network management, and then come back to the charter school itself.

I just want to make some opening statements, before we carry on, to say that we absolutely, wholeheartedly have the stance that charter schools are an unproven, ideological idea. They have had much research around the world, and it’s very disappointing that the one part of research that the Minister has used constantly, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) research, has been dismissed by several researchers and academics around the world, because it doesn’t have the peer review and the fact that there’s uncertainty—well, there’s not uncertainty; there’s absolute certainty—around who the funders are. Most of those funders that are in that space are actually charter school proponents. Certainly, my colleague Dr Xu-Nan has really highlighted that in the academic world, that’s actually a really big influence over the research—the peer review, and the fact of who the funders are—as to whether that’s actually credible research. The rest of the research, as we know, shows that there is very—well, it’s not even limited; it’s almost a negative impact on the system as a whole. We know that there are more examples around the world—including in New Zealand too—of charter schools failing.

Minister, I guess my first question for you—well, it’s not a guess; it is my first question for you—is: why has there been such a reliance upon that particular lot of research? You talk about it being Stanford University. We know that the research that has actually come out of Stanford University—and not an organisation that’s based there, but the actual Stanford University—shows exactly the opposite in the research and shows that these charter schools have had a negative impact. My question to you, first off, is: why has there been that reliance upon that CREDO research, and what other research have you been looking at, particularly in the New Zealand space, that would show a positive impact, if there is any? Thank you.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I could quote extensive research. However, the House agreed at the second reading on the policy principles, including advancing a charter school model. If any members have any questions about whether the legislation as proposed properly expresses that policy decision, I’d be happy to address them.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you. That points to the fact that there isn’t a lot of research, if any, that actually shows that. That is a big concern when we’re making such a big change to our system. Our system in New Zealand is already completely devolved, as the Minister knows, and that is one of the issues that we have within the system: we have the individual boards of trustees, who are making completely independent decisions on a daily basis. That makes change, as I’m sure the Minister is becoming well aware, completely difficult to actually put in place from the centre.

I really would like to know, before I hand over to my colleague Camilla Belich, and to Dr Xu-Nan as well, what other aspects did the Minister take into account other than charter schools? Knowing that the research is really dicey, what else did the Minister look at that would create the change that we want to see within the education system? Surely, when you’re looking at such a big change, there would be—and this never came through at any point, so I’m genuinely asking this. I really don’t have a sense of what else the Minister has actually looked at in this space. I don’t have an understanding of the research of other areas that the Minister looked at to create the change.

Minister, you talk about choice a lot. There are other ways of creating choice, and, in fact, one of the submitters at select committee, who was in favour of the charter schools, said, “Well, we wouldn’t need to go down this track if we looked more closely at the special character provisions within the Act”, which I thought was very interesting, and I took that on board myself, actually. I would like to know: did you take that on board, Minister? What did you look at in this space? Did you look at other ways that we could do this without such a big change to the system, which I know many people and many academics will tell you will only devolve the system more—a system that is already creaking because of that devolvement. I totally take on board some of the ideas around diversity within the system, but that could happen within the system itself.

I really want an understanding, Minister, from you as to what else you looked at in that space, before I hand to my colleagues.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I can only reiterate that the second reading was the time to debate the policy that the House agreed to—a policy of introducing charter schools. If the member has specific reference to the legislation, the wording of it and whether it gives effect to the policy decision that the House has already agreed to, I’m very happy, but I note that this is the second time that the member has taken a call and she hasn’t mentioned a single clause of the legislation.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. This is the committee of the whole House. These are genuine questions that have not been answered anywhere, in any debate, at any time, in the journey of this bill, and I know, in the past, having sat in that chair myself, that it is important to take on what the members are asking. This is our only chance to find out that information. They are genuine questions that we are asking here. The Minister has not addressed this at any—

Hon David Seymour: There have been questions in the House, at select committee, the second reading debate—

Hon JAN TINETTI: Excuse me—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence, please, Minister.

Hon JAN TINETTI: These are genuine questions that the Minister has not addressed at any other point, and I am asking them in order to find out what else the Minister has considered in this particular journey of this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member is correct: the select committee is the opportunity—there is the opportunity, at the committee the whole House, for members to consider the broader principles, provided they’re in the context of the part that is being considered, and, helpfully, for a particular clause that is being referred to. That would assist the debate considerably.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): OK, I will actually defer that, then, to make certain that I get the absolute right part, because it is about the insertion of the charter schools. I do know this bill very well, and I need to get my clauses exactly right, but I would like to come back to that and give the Minister the opportunity to actually answer what I’m asking and not say that it is something that could have happened throughout the course of this bill, because it has been asked and it has not been answered, and I still want that answer. I will come back to that, Mr Chair. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from the previous speaker, I think, in terms of the first portion of the committee of the whole House stage, and just for ease of tracking, as well, I will be discussing the employment aspect of the charter school, and this is specifically around the charter school. With that, I would like to just, first, point out one of my Amendment Papers—Amendment Paper 123—which talks about Schedule 1, and the new Part 6 of Schedule 1, and also the reference to what I believe is clause 59 of the bill, which is also in Part 1.

One of the things that we heard about from the teachers and one of the things that we discussed at the select committee stage is this idea that for a converting school converting from a State school or a State-integrated school into a charter school that the employees who have decided to move to the new charter school or to the converting school will be given the option that is no less favourable than their current employment. This is in Schedule 1 of this bill.

Now, the question I had then when we were discussing this at the select committee stage was: well, what about if, then, right after the conversion is complete—and we have seen that, yes, indeed, those employees have been placed on employment terms and conditions that are no less favourable than what they have currently—what happens—and I know this from my own previous experience—when there is a restructure and those staff are then made redundant and they have to reapply for the same role? Whether the sponsor would still be held to the same set of conditions as set out in Schedule 1, new Part 6, clause 119. The response is uncertain, which, for me, was really, really concerning, because—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Could the member at the Table just be aware that he is standing between the Speaker and the Table—just House management, please.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry, there are quite a few papers on the Table.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, carry on. Sorry to interrupt.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: No, no, thank you, Mr Chair. When we were looking at this, the response that we got was that it is uncertain. I can speak from experience that this has happened in multiple institutes but also in terms of organisations that I’ve been involved in where such a tool has been used as a tactic to work around what intention, I’m sure, the Minister has when it comes to the converting school.

My first question to the Minister is whether he will consider my amendment, Amendment Paper 123, around this, where, when we are moving into a converting school and the charter school—that the sponsor of the charter school and the terms and conditions that these employees are moving into cannot be varied because of redundancies or organisational restructures for at least two years from the conversion date. This is in the insertion of subclause (2)(b) to Schedule 1, new Part 6, clause 119(2).

This would just give some reassurance for those employees who are going over, and also then give them sufficient time to consider whether they want to stay in a charter school—is this for them; are there other elements, such as professional learning development, that isn’t as comparable to a State school or State-integrated school, for example? It also gives them sufficient time to evaluate whether a charter school environment is appropriate for them without fearing that they will be losing their job or that they will be restructured out of a system and having them replaced on much lower and, potentially, precarious terms and conditions as a result of that. It just puts in some sort of precautions in the bill to prevent such a scenario. I would ask the Minister if he would consider this amendment. Thank you.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you very much to Lawrence Xu-Nan for addressing a specific part of the legislation. I understand the concern he’s raising. While there will be a “no less favourable” clause—so, if a State school with State school collective agreements were to become a charter school, those people who currently are employed by the State school will be offered a job in the new charter school on no less favourable terms. I think that’s a fair deal.

Mr Xu-Nan’s question is, effectively, “Will the employment of that person be guaranteed in perpetuity regardless of what change and conditions the school faces or what goals they have for the education of their children?” The answer is: no, the children will come first. If the goals of the school change, if the demands of the circumstances change, then charter schools must have flexibility in the employment of adults. Ultimately, that reflects the fact that we believe that it is important that schools are run primarily for the benefit of children. Adults are there to support their learning, and they’re paid for doing so, but, I guess, employing for all eternity on certain conditions is not a goal of the education system.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to be able to make a contribution to this bill, although I’m not pleased about the content of this bill, but I will speak to it, as the Associate Minister of Education has requested. There are a number of clauses in this bill which I think are objectionable from the purpose in which they set out to achieve establishing a charter school network in New Zealand, for which we have not yet heard definitive reasons as to why this is necessary when we have an extremely flexible education system in New Zealand, different forms provided, different alternative education being able to be provided under our existing system, and we know that charter schools cost more. Despite that, the questions that I also have are around the functionality of this bill.

Now, we know this has been a rushed process. We know that in the advice that we received from the Ministry of Education, they didn’t have time to do sufficient consultation in relation to this bill. We know that the Education and Workforce Committee process was extremely short. We know that the Minister put in an amendment, which I want to speak to, and we were only able to have public submissions for two days—two days—on an amendment from the Minister that would take away fundamental rights of teachers and people working at charter schools.

I do have some questions for the Minister about that. Why, Minister, did you decide unilaterally, without advice from your officials, as is clear from the information that we have seen and that has been provided to this House, to take away the right—as is set out in Part 1, which we are debating at the moment—for teachers and employees at charter schools, like all other workers in New Zealand, to be part of a multi-employer collective agreement. What, Minister, are you so afraid of—that teachers working together, working with their sponsors, will be able to achieve—that you would make decisions that would take away rights that would possibly breach our free-trade agreement with the UK, our free-trade agreement with the European Union, and our International Labour Organization conventions that we have signed up to and incorporated into domestic legislation, and on receiving that advice, decide to proceed with this particular move?

Why, Minister, did you decide to do this when your officials provided you with at least two or three other options that would have limited the effect of multi-employer collective agreements—which I also disagree with—but wouldn’t have been as bad as the option that you put forward, which in your paper is called the “(The Associate Minister of Education’s proposed option)”? Why did you decide to go ahead with that option? I know that you have said, in response to questions previously asked at select committee and in the House, that it is because you have developed—independently, as far as I can tell, without evidence to support this—a dichotomy that places teachers against students. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the rights of teachers are at odds with the rights of students. In fact, as a New Zealander, and as most people who have either been in a school or are parents would know, the rights of teachers and teachers being happy and satisfied in their profession is directly linked to the performance of students.

So, Minister, I would ask you: why do you and members of your party continue to put out lines pretending to establish some kind of culture war between the rights of adults and the rights of children, when we know the teachers of New Zealand are here in their jobs to do the best for students? They’re not there for the money. They’re not there for the glory. They’re not there because everyone thinks it’s such a fantastic job to do. I know teachers; I know they work hard, and I know that they deserve the same rights as every other worker in New Zealand. In this part of this bill, you are taking away these rights. You are making up allegations that there is a difference between protecting the rights of children and protecting the rights of teachers. The evidence shows that this is not true.

I ask the Minister to explain to this committee, explain to the teachers of New Zealand, why you’ve decided to do this for no apparent reason and no furthering of the charter school policy as far as I can see. There is a lot of flexibility that can be maintained within a multi-employer collective agreement. I haven’t heard a sufficient answer to that and I think New Zealanders deserve one.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before I take the next call, can I just remind members that the very liberal use of the word “you”, as was in that speech—please refer to the Minister.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll return back to my question to start with, and I know that the Minister’s very keen to talk about the part of this bill that sets up charter schools. I could go through this. It’s Part 1, clause 4, subclauses (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and clauses 5, 6, and 7. All of this is related and I could go through it, but all of this part relates, apart from the very first or second subclause of clause 4 where it talks about early childhood—all of this relates to the setting up of charter schools, every single part of it. And that’s where my question is coming to—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): So what part are you actually talking to?

Hon JAN TINETTI: OK, let’s go to Part 1, clause 4(3), setting up of the authorisation charter school agency to start with. In that question, I want to know—because the setting up of the charter school agency is setting up of charter schools full stop—what else did the Minister consider when he looked at charter schools? Or was it, as I suspect, only charter schools that he looked at? Did he look at setting up or making changes to the principal Act around special character? If he did, why didn’t he pursue that further? Why did he only land on charter schools?

That is where I have never had a clear answer around this. I don’t know what other research the Minister used. I want to have a clear understanding of what it is in the Minister’s head that puts charter schools over special character when, in fact, people that came and submitted who were in favour of charter schools said they were only doing this because special character part of the principal Act had not been changed. My understanding from that was that they wouldn’t even bother with charter schools if we looked at the special character part of the Education and Training Act closer. Why did the Minister land on charter schools?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from some of the previous speakers, I would also like to again address one of my other amendments. This is Amendment Paper 102, and this is to do with new section 212ZCA in clause 40. Like the previous speaker the Hon Jan Tinetti has mentioned—which we’re still talking about—this is the employment element of this particular bill. I just wanted to address what the Minister mentioned before in terms of saying that a school’s or a sponsor’s or a charter school’s primary responsibility is for teaching, and I just want to contextualise why, for me, this is really important in terms of my own background.

With regard to this particular bill, like I mentioned before, I have worked for a private training establishment which was for profit. I can assure the Minister that when it comes to for-profit educational institutes, which, despite what the Minister has said, is a huge money-maker—I should know, because I used to work for one of them—education for students absolutely is not within the company’s or within a for-profit educational organisation’s interests. It is about making money. I appreciate what the Minister mentioned in terms of the students coming first, but we have seen across studies throughout the world that having good, qualified teachers who are happy in their employment directly results in better student outcomes, and better attendance for the students, as well.

Picking up on what Camilla Belich mentioned before, the idea that pitting the right of the teachers against the educational outcomes of the students is something that isn’t even considered when it comes to being a teacher. However, it is considered when you are looking at pitting between a for-profit employer or, in this case, a sponsor and an employee/teacher. There is a very clear reason why we are highlighting this. Going back to my Amendment Paper 102, which is the deletion of new section 212ZCA, we have not had sufficient time, and I have also not seen within the regulatory impact statement the kind of genuine, tangible impact—not just the things that the Minister has mentioned or has spoken about publicly, but genuine research and data that suggests that having a multi-employer collective agreement has affected student outcomes and student achievement.

So, to the Minister, what evidence is there, as in tangible data, and not things that you’ve said publicly or in a press release or a public release, that this does genuinely affect—not from the employers. Where is the facts that there have been tangible detrimental effects on student learning by having multi-employer collective agreements? We are without that evidence, and, for example, like I mentioned, we received Amendment Paper 49 from the Minister on 23 July. The select committee was meant to close the deadline for submissions on 25 July, and we then had to extend it out to 29 July because of this Amendment Paper with some big amendments on it. That has not given the public sufficient time to feed into it, as well, so we then had insufficient time at the select committee to weigh this issue, and also with no other data to go with it.

In light of that, I would ask whether the Minister would consider removing this clause for the time being on the basis of a lack of research, and then consider that if there is something that genuinely is present. Both in terms of my Amendment Paper 102 as well as the previous speaker Camilla Belich’s amendment, we propose a removal of this particular clause around the ineligibility of unions to initiate a multi-employer collective agreement. Now, I understand what the Minister has also mentioned before, which was that the staff themselves can do it. But, no, this is a requirement that the unions can initiate, and I think the unions should be able to.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I thank again the member Lawrence Xu-Nan for his reference to a specific part of the legislation—specifically, new section 212ZCA in clause 40. This is a clause that would be added to the Education and Training Act, and he’d like to remove it. For the benefit of people watching this, that is a part that says that a union can’t go along to a charter school and force employment terms under a multi-employer collective agreement. The reason for doing that is that we believe that charter school operators should have as much flexibility as possible to employ teachers and adults and staff in a way that is most likely to improve the outcomes for children. Now, if you put an extra constraint on that and say that you also have to satisfy what the unions want, you’d have less flexibility to satisfy children—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Where is the data?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And the member says, “Oh well, what’s the evidence for that?” I’d challenge him: what’s the evidence that allowing unions to interfere in schools is going to improve the outcomes? I don’t think he has any, but I do thank him for asking a question about this specific legislation.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to follow on from my colleague Camilla Belich in speaking to a number of clauses in Part 1 of the bill that deal with the employment rights of teachers. As Camilla Belich, I think, put it in her contribution, it’s our view that the Associate Minister has created this false dichotomy, suggesting that there is some kind of contradiction between the interests of teachers and the interests of students. I would put it to the Minister, actually, that he is projecting his own and his party’s deeply entrenched anti-union bias in this legislation, which will be to the detriment of the schools and the students that will be affected by this bill when it becomes law.

Lawrence Xu-Nan referenced new section 212ZCA in clause 40—and I want to speak in support of the Hon Jan Tinetti’s amendment that would ensure that a charter school is subject to any collective agreement that covers its learning area, unless agreement is reached with unions representing its employees to establish a new contract. This directly confronts the one of the key provisions in this bill of the Associate Minister that would, basically, ban multi-employer collective agreements for charter schools. As has been explained, that is in contravention of New Zealand’s commitments, not to mention our reputation internationally. We’ve made commitments with the EU and the UK free-trade agreements and at the International Labour Organization on this matter. It is an unwarranted restriction of the human right for workers to bargain collectively, but apparently that’s not of any great concern to this Government or to the Associate Minister.

A related amendment in the name of the Hon Jan Tinetti would delete new clause 53A. This amendment would remove new section 601A from the bill, removing provisions that allow for the board of a State school to force an employee at that school to provide services to a charter school. This also goes to the employment rights of teachers that are being infringed.

This is why we say that this legislation is basically a very expensive taxpayer-funded experiment in the deunionisation of our education system based on the prejudices of the ACT Party, and we think that’s extremely unfortunate.

Schedule 1, clause 119—another amendment from Jan Tinetti would replace current subclause 3 with—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Excuse me, to the member: we’re not on Schedule 1 at the moment.

Hon David Seymour: Wrong part, mate.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Oh, I beg your pardon, you’re right, we aren’t. The next one I want to mention is another amendment that would delete clause 53A. This amendment would remove the new section 601A from the bill, thus removing provisions that allow for the board of a State school—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, the Hon Phil Twyford. The Minister is just asking which number amendment you’re referring to.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I actually haven’t got that in front of me, but I will get it and come back to it. OK, I’ll leave it there, thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. My point of order relates to Speaker’s ruling 66/2: “There’s a convention that, in [the] committee [stage], the members in charge of the legislation should not take unfair advantage of the live mic” in front of them, and in two instances now, during the speech of my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti and during the speech of the Hon Phil Twyford, the Minister has used the mic in front of him to make quite loud interjections, which have in fact changed the speeches of my colleagues, and they have needed to speak about something else—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you for the point of order. I’ve just taken over as Chair, and I will keep an eye on it.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk about clause 40, new section 212ZCA, and—this is part of my amendment that I have put on the Table—“Replace new Section 212ZCA with the following: ‘Charter schools are subject to collective agreement. A charter school is subject to any collective agreement that covers its learning area unless agreement is reached with trade unions representing its employees to establish a new contract.’.” The reason that I have put this amendment on the Table is that, as I said, these are genuine attempts to improve what absolutely became clear to us in the select committee was a very rushed process but also one that we were very concerned about, with the fact that it was taking away basic employment rights.

Now, in a State school, as it is at the moment, the collective agreements do exist, and in the collective agreement, teachers can choose to sign up to the collective agreement or not. It seems to me that with this piece of legislation, that choice is being taken away from teachers. I’m quite surprised about that because the whole idea that was put to us was that this was supposed to give people more choice, but it seems that choice has been taken away from teachers. I get very upset when I hear that because it’s almost like the teachers are the evil enemy of the education system, when in fact, all of us in this Chamber know that that is not the case. We know that our teachers work hard. We know that they generally will follow what the direction is of the Government of the day, because they want the best for kids. As my colleague Camilla Belich said before, no teacher goes into that role wanting to become rich out of it, wanting to have an easy life, because if anybody in this Chamber or anyone watching thinks that teaching is an easy life, it absolutely is not. It is one of the hardest jobs when you are faced day by day with young people’s lives and their futures in your hands.

Now, the collective agreement is something that protects those teachers and the slim protections that they have in their role. And they are, but the collective agreement is something that unifies the teaching workforce. Now, the other fact that I would say about a collective agreement in a State school is that a teacher that chooses not to be on the collective agreement cannot be paid less than that collective agreement. I cannot understand why we would not want the ability to have that within the charter school system as well. It makes no sense to me that we would take those rights away from our teachers. The amendment ensures that collective agreements automatically apply to charter school employees unless a charter school chooses to opt out and negotiate a new agreement with unions. And that, of course, is the ability to be able to do that too. That is up to the charter school—let’s use the early childhood sector as an example—just as it is within the early childhood sector right now. On that conversion across when the charter schools are put in place, the collective agreement exists as the default unless the charter school opts into another agreement.

Now, Minister, my question to you around that is: why not put that in the legislation? Why put not less—favourability, basically, or something like that, it said? Why put that when you’ve already got the base there of the collective agreement? Now, this is following on from what Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan said before, but this takes it to that next step. This is the ability for the collective agreement to come across, and then the charter schools can choose to negotiate their own collective agreement, but it gives the teachers the choice to be in that or not. It also gives them that protection at that point. They don’t have to worry what that means—“less favourable terms”—because, Minister, I have had some legal people that have come to me and said that that’s not as clear-cut as what you might think that might be. I genuinely want to know why that is not in this bill.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): OK. Just in relation to the last three speeches, all of which in different ways have focused on new section 212ZCA, which restricts unions from initiating collective agreements—or at least multi-employer collective agreements—with a charter school, we could have a big philosophical debate, but the fact is that the House, at the second reading, agreed that this would be a feature of charter schools, that they are not subject to union contracts, and I’m confident that the wording of the legislation as set out gives good effect to that policy agreement of the House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank the Minister for actually also engaging with our questions as well. I’m going to take one more call when he comes to looking at some of the employment and also staffing elements of this, before I consider wrapping this up and moving on to the next part, which is the early childhood education element.

My question to the Minister is around the limited authority to teach (LAT). This is clause 35. This is also one of my amendments—Amendment Paper 118. I understand what the Minister’s intention is—and please also, Minister, correct me if I’m wrong—that, by having limited authority to teach, or teachers who are doing that, they are able to provide the flexibility and all of the things that the Minister mentioned, in terms of what the charter schools are supposed to have. One of the things, when we’re looking at the ability to have the limited authority to teach currently within the legislation, and particularly within the primary legislation, is that they are temporary, or they have to be reviewed on a year-to-year basis. They are very specific.

What we’re seeing here—and this is referring not only to clause 35 but also elements of clauses 43A, 43B, 44, 45, and 46. What we’re seeing is that the Teaching Council must give a limited authority to teach sort of, I guess, ability or recognition for employees of one or more charter schools. That itself, other people may have feelings about, and that is often “Well, you know what, this is what the Minister is looking for. It is what it is.”, but what I am concerned about is that, when a teacher in a charter school with limited authority to teach is on a permanent basis, they are not subjected to anything else that the teacher with the teaching qualification would be subjected to.

In effect, they all function as teachers, so the one that I’m particularly looking at is the fact that those with LATs would be exempted from being in front of the Competence Authority. I think, although they are still going to need to be part of the disciplinary and all of those by the Teaching Council, the Competence Authority fulfils a really specific area for that. This is, again, something we’ve heard in various submissions. It’s like: “Why aren’t they being subjected? If they’re going to be teaching permanently, why aren’t they also being part of this Competence Authority?” My Amendment Paper here—and I would ask the Minister to consider it—is around removing clauses 43A, 43B, 44, 45, and 46, so that way the teachers at a charter school who are going to be teaching on a permanent basis, as indicated in this bill, will then still be subjected to everything that the qualified teacher will be subjected to—i.e., the Competence Authority.

One other thing I would like to speak to in terms of this amendment is on the basis of another Amendment Paper I think I saw the Minister put out, just to specify in clause 35, new subsection (3) of section 92, that after “limited authority to teach”, insert “unless the limited authority to teach is suspended under section 498 or 500(1)(d)”. Right now, it’s not entirely clear that those who have their LAT suspended will still be eligible to teach. This additional amendment would just provide that level of clarification. Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā rawa atu koe e te Heamana. Ki a koutou katoa i te Wiki o te Reo Māori, tēnā rawa atu koutou mō āke tonu.

[Thank you, Madam Chair. To all of you during Māori Language Week, greetings to you for ever.]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak this morning on the Education and Training Amendment Bill. Obviously, I oppose this particular piece of legislation in front of us, and I have a number of contributions to make today based on opposing this bill. But I have some questions for the Minister and I’m going to start with the impact on the rainbow community, and part of it is an appeal to the Minister, because over his time in Parliament he has been an advocate for the rainbow community. He has attended the Pride Parade in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland. He well knows the statistics that impact tamariki, mokopuna, rangatahi, and young people from the rainbow community, the poor mental health statistics, the high number of suicides, the impact on whānau, and the challenges that young people face to truly be who they are.

Here we are today putting through a bill on charter schools, an experiment on our tamariki and mokopuna in this country. It opens up an opportunity for organisations and schools like Destiny Church and Brian Tamaki to actually build their congregation and spread their hate. Charter schools allow their ideology to be built and to be grown amongst these tamariki and mokopuna, amongst these young people and amongst vulnerable whānau that they prey on.

Here I have a quote from the Minister, albeit that he has been an advocate for rainbow people in the past. This is about David Seymour, and this is Newshub on 20 May 2024: “David Seymour stands by his apology to Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki over the past charter school application”, that Hekia Parata, in her time, declined. Minister, why do you think she declined that application, particularly at that time—a decade ago? Was it because she saw the lack of safety for our children in that school? Did she see that without restrictions Brian Tamaki would lead his movement to continue the hate that he places on the rainbow community? I come back to your quote and your apology to Brian Tamaki, “You applied for your excellent independent school in South Auckland to become a charter school and we said no because the authorities, the establishment against that was too strong. I want to say to you today that I’m sorry for that decision. That was wrong.”

Minister, how was that decision wrong? I want you to answer that question in this Chamber and explain to those young people, those rainbow young people and their whānau, how that decision was wrong and explain to them how by opening up access for Brian Tamaki and Destiny Church once again to apply to be a charter school—and by the sounds of it they want to be the first cab off the rank. Here you are apologising and offering your support. Minister, how are you going to protect the safety of those children?

As we go around the country, we see damage to property—which I’ve raised with the Minister of Police—and the removal of rainbow pedestrian crossings. We see Brian Tamaki and Destiny Church standing outside other schools shouting hate as young people go to their school and as their whānau drop them off. How, Minister, are you going to ensure that this isn’t going to spread? How are you going to ensure that these young people are protected from that discrimination? If you’re searching for which provision I’m speaking to, it’s section 212F, in clause 40, which outlines who can apply to be a part of a charter school. Brian Tamaki of Destiny Church has put in his application. Minister, are you supporting it?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): I want to take us to new section 212O, inserted by clause 40, “Duties and powers of sponsors”. If we look at subsection (e), it currently says, “ensure that teachers employed in the school have the necessary qualifications and skills to teach;”. What concerns me about that paragraph is that it doesn’t actually mention there—and maybe officials will be able to give the Associate Minister of Education a point where it does point to this—about current practising certificate, and even a teacher that’s going to be operated under a limited authority to teach should have a current practising certificate.

My proposal in my amendment is to replace that subsection (e) with “ensure that teachers employed in the school have the necessary qualifications, skills to teach and hold a current practising certificate”. Now, that’s really important to have that. The reason for that is that with the current practising certificate, it means that those teachers have come under the oversight of the Teaching Council. I’m concerned that the current paragraph, as it’s written at the moment, actually gives them a way out of not coming under the Teaching Council. That means that when we’re looking at the safety of our young people and the safety of our learners, that is not there. So this is a genuine proposal of an amendment to try and tidy that up.

So, Minister, I guess my question then to you is: is that your intent? I’m sure it is, with the introduction of the limited authority to teach (LAT)—which, I think, go too broad. So I put that on the table—that I think it goes far too broad. But that has the oversight of the Teaching Council. Just under this particular part and clause as it’s written at the moment, that almost gives a sideline to a way out of that—I find that and many others do too. I’ve actually had people, Minister, that have contacted me about this one, and some of them are people that are in support of charter schools that have contacted me to say that this seems to be an oversight in the drafting or an oversight of when this was being put together. Again, it goes back to that fact that this has been rushed and you can see that it has been rushed as you go through this. My amendment is a genuine attempt to ensure that there is no way that a teacher cannot come under the oversight of the Teaching Council.

Minister, I ask you to take this amendment seriously and to think about that we want to tighten up anywhere where we don’t have their oversight. That is for the safety of our learners so that they won’t have teachers in front of them that will not have that practising certificate requirement—that that must happen at all times to keep our young people safe.

Now, Minister, I mentioned before that we were going to move from the industrial side of things through to the early childhood. Now, I know that the early childhood part of this comes in both parts, but we’ve got some conversations that we want to have with you and questions that we want to ask. I know that my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan is just jumping, here, to get this part in, to ask that. I think that’s probably the last of the industrial things that we want to ask; there might be some that we come back to later. After we’ve talked about the early childhood part of Part 1, we will then go on to looking at the more nuanced parts of this bill and the new parts that it adds and the issues that we have with some of the things that have been left out of this bill. So I think that’s the last question I have around the industrial side of things at this point in time.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll take a call from Lawrence Xu-Nan. Just in terms of the early childhood education—referring to both parts—it’d be really cool if you can refer to the clauses and then we can be really clear. That’s a general comment, not just to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, in some ways I am very—I am reasonably good at referring to clauses, I hope.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It just makes our life easier up here. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: For the early childhood education (ECE), which is looking at the repeal of the network management approval process, although it’s a very small section, it’s a really tricky section. There are elements of it in clauses 4, 5, 55, but predominantly clause 59 as well. I would like to first point the Associate Minister of Education’s attention to my Amendment Paper 113 on this, and I would kind of like to talk more broadly about ECE in general.

When we are looking at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) for this, it talks about the fact that there is no other option that’s been considered other than the repeal—I’m looking at page 2 of the regulatory impact statement. There are no other options that were considered, there is no consultation on the proposal, and there are no discussions undertaken with the sector, and this will occur at select committee stage. There have been some comments from other areas like the Early Childhood Advisory Committee and the Early Childhood Council, but let us be clear that the Early Childhood Council is a lobbying for-profit owner of ECE centres, not necessarily representing the majority of the teachers of the ECE sector—just being clear in terms of the function of the ECC. It also says in the regulatory impact statement that there’s insufficient time to understand this impact. So, overall, we’re seeing that there’s not a lot of background work being done on this.

The first thing with this is, if we’re looking at the fact that we’re going to be consulting with the sector at the select committee stage, during the Education and Workforce Committee stage on the ECE portion of the bill, 96.3 percent of the submitters opposed the removal—96.3 percent—and that is just the people who oppose. We’re not even looking at the number of submitters who are on the fence about it; this is purely, straight-out opposing the repeal of the network management process. Based on what we see here in the RIS, and based on what I’m hearing and what the select committee was hearing during that process, my amendment—and although I’m trying really hard to sort of make things work the best way I can, based on the evidence that we have received, my amendment proposes the removal of the references when it comes to the repeal. I’m recommending to the Minister—and I really hope that he will hear from the 96.3 percent of the people who oppose this—not to go through with it. I am proposing the deletion of clause 4(2), deletion of clause 5, deletion of clause 55, and, in clause 59, after subclause (1), insert new subclause (1A)”.

Now, this is the second part of my sort of, I guess, discussion or plea to the Minister to consider—the network management process has only been around for a year, so the regulatory impact statement says it has meant that there’s insufficient time to understand the impact. Now, we have heard the Government mention multiple times that “Oh, you know, we’re doing something because we need a few years to see how things work, etc., and we’d like to collect some data.” It seems inconsistent with what we have here, of something that only happened in one year. I’m not saying flat-out remove it and have no other provision. What I am proposing in clause 59, after subclause (1), is to have a provision for a review. Genuinely, I think it is a good idea to review whether this is something that’s working or not. The proposal is, essentially, adding new section 87A(2), which is to say that the review under subclause (1) must take place and “(a) commence no sooner than 1 August 2025; and (b) be provided to the Minister no later than 1 August 2027.” This will give sufficient time between the three- and five-year mark for the advice to decide whether this system is working or not.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Just in response to the contribution from Jan Tinetti, thank you for putting up an amendment and referring to a specific part of the legislation. It’s certainly true that sponsors must ensure that teachers at charter schools have adequate skills and qualifications to do their job. That’s in the legislation we’re introducing today. But that should be read in conjunction with section 92 of the Education and Training Act 2020, which, of course, remains in force—is not amended by this bill—and that legislation says that teachers must have a practising certificate. The difference with charter schools is that some of them may be required to have child safety but not the Teaching Council’s competency assessment, the reason being they may well have other competencies. The amendment the member has put up—it’s good of her to engage, but, actually, it’s already covered by another part of the Act that we’re not changing today.

In terms of Lawrence Xu-Nan, the fact is that we’ve had the policy debate about whether there should be network management of early childhood education. I just make the point to members that I show up to question time pretty much every day, three days a week, when the House is sitting if you want to ask me a question about these policy questions, but none of you ever have. I’ve never been asked a question as the Associate Minister of Education about any of this. That policy debate has been had. We’re happy to keep having it, but right now we’re debating whether the wording of this bill matches the policy decisions that the House has already made in the second reading. In my view, I’m confident that it does, but happy to take questions about that.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask some questions around the early childhood education (ECE) network—in Part 1, clause 55, the “Regulations relating to early childhood services”.

I just would like to also refer to the departmental disclosure statement where it talks about the fact that one of the reasons for removing ECE from the network planning is that the Associate Minister’s heard that it’s cumbersome and it’s expensive for centres to look to undergo the process of applying to have an early childhood centre, when it says, “The network … application fee is $575 (including GST).”, of which a portion of that would come back to the business entity who is looking to apply for network approval. But $575, inclusive of GST, I would argue, is a very, very small portion of what is likely to be an exercise, undertaking the build of an ECE centre, of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I would like the Associate Minister of Education to explain to us why a $575 fee, including GST, is such a big issue. When I was the Associate Minister of Education who dealt with all the network planning applications that came across my desk—of which there were many, many—I did not once see the $575 fee, including GST, as an issue, judging by the amount of applications that came across my desk.

I am quite sure the Minister would agree that we want all children to have access to quality early learning settings and prevent unintended consequences of oversupply. What this will do is allow the big players, the big corporates, to just move in wherever they wish to, at the expense, I might add, of community-based—

Carl Bates: Scaremongering.

Hon JO LUXTON: No, I am not scaremongering. Take a call if you wish to highlight that. It would also potentially, aside from your community-based centres, there are those small, individual, privately owned ECE centres. One that I used to own myself would potentially be excluded, because how would there be the ability to compete against these big corporates that can move in as quickly as possible and, therefore, shut out that small-business owner? I would have thought that the Minister was in favour of those small businesses being able to thrive and succeed, and this could be detrimental to them. I’d be really interested to have the Minister’s comments and answers to those questions.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. Further on this question of the removal of the network management provisions in the bill, I want to speak to clauses 4, 5, 55, and 59, and I want to respond to and question the Associate Minister of Education on his claim that he has now made repeatedly that at the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, he doesn’t have to answer anything other than whether or not the precise wording in the draft provisions reflects what was voted on in the second reading.

We’re debating what was considered at the second reading and what the select committee has come back with, and the Minister doesn’t get to, basically, absent himself from any discussion about the policy intent of a particular provision. How can we scrutinise and debate the precise wording of these provisions, as we are supposed to at the committee stage, without the Minister being required to respond to those criticisms and questions about policy intent and potential consequences, unintended or otherwise? It would make a nonsense of the committee stage if that kind of debate was shut down.

In light of that, I ask the Associate Minister—because it hasn’t been clear in any of the material that’s been provided to the select committee—what is the intent of this provision to get rid of the network management requirements for early childhood education (ECE) services? We know that the ECE sector in New Zealand is a mixed market. It includes lots of non-profits and it includes a thriving for-profit sector, but to ensure that all of those community-based, non-profit, for-profit kindergartens and early childhood education centres thrive, the intent of the network management provisions was to carefully monitor questions of oversupply to ensure that parents and families are getting access to the best possible choice and provision of quality early childhood education.

Now, other than getting rid of regulation—which you would think, when you hear the Associate Minister speak, is a good in itself—it’s not clear, actually, what the desired outcome is here. Yep, it might save $575 for an early childhood education operator that doesn’t need to apply, but what is the benefit for the sector, for the quality of education, and for the choices that are being provided to parents?

I want to speak in support of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment that would insert a review of the approval process for early childhood education services, and I think that that would be the responsible thing to do, but I invite the Associate Minister to explain what the intent is and what has been his consideration of the consequences, unintended and otherwise, of this provision.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I too want to talk to clause 55 around the repealing of this section, and I too just want to start by saying that I’m really perturbed and actually very upset. It’s quite disgraceful that the Minister has said that he won’t answer questions—or he didn’t quite say it like that; he did before, but he said that it wasn’t what he should be doing here: answering policy questions. That’s not what this time is about. This is our time to be able to really dig deeply into this, and we had a ruling before by the previous Chair that this is our time—as long as we can point to the parts and the clauses in the bill—to be able to determine the policy intent, as well, that we haven’t been able to uncover along the way of this bill. We’re going to keep asking these questions because we’re not getting the answers. I’ll just go back and say that I still don’t have an answer to the very first question I asked, which was around the charter schools and what else was actually looked at in that.

I do want to talk about clause 55, and that is around this repealing of the early childhood education legislation. I just want to point members in the committee to the Early Learning Action Plan 2019-2029, and objective 5 from that was “Early learning services are part of a planned and coherent education ecosystem that is supported, accountable and sustainable”. In that, it does talk about the communities that are “under-served while some areas have experienced service growth beyond demand. This impacts on service by ability and parent choice. More active management of the network would help to ensure all children have access to quality early learning settings and prevent unintended consequences of over-supply.”

Certainly, during the Education and Workforce Committee, we heard that in many areas in the country there was oversupply. We heard about centres that have had to close because they were within a very short distance of a number of other centres. We heard of teachers who were having to go in who would have a lot of young people, then suddenly a new centre with all the bells and whistles would open, and then they would not have as many children in their service because the centre with all the bells and whistles was more attractive. This is exactly what the objective of the Early Learning Action Plan was aiming to address. It was aiming to address that oversupply but also—more importantly—it was aiming to address where there was limited supply in some areas. Now, those areas are—as it states in here—under-served areas of deprivation in some cases, but it was in also rural areas as well.

It is something that has been part of the schooling sector’s ecosystem for almost ever. In the schooling system, a new school generally doesn’t spring up unless the Ministry of Education has determined that there is a need in that particular area. Unfortunately, up until now, with the network management provisions, that has not been the case in early childhood, so that is why this plan was put in place—and it does say it is from 2019 to 2029. I have a concern that, with the repealing of this legislation, a strong signal has been sent to the sector that this plan is now irrelevant, and this was a plan that was worked out not only with the Ministry of Education but with the sector, with academics—people who know early childhood education inside out.

So, Minister, my question to you is this. You have said in select committee that you still think that the Early Learning Action Plan is relevant, and you have said that at an annual review hearing. If that is the case, why has objective 5 been totally disregarded, and what do you see that is wrong with objective 5, which ensures that we would have high-quality early childhood education provision across the motu—and repealing this part of the legislation will put at absolute risk that high quality? Those are my questions to you.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Just in response to some of the comments of the members opposite, there’s a book here, the Standing Orders, and it’s amazing what can be learnt by opening it and reading it, particularly turning to page 89, Standing Order 310: “Consideration in committee. (1) A committee of the whole House considers a bill to determine whether the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the bill as read a second time by the House.” I’m just going by the rules of Parliament. That’s what it says. If you want to have a policy debate, ask a question, use a general debate speech, have me at select committee. There’s so many opportunities. If the members opposite cared about these policy questions that they have not taken—have not taken. I make the point that, if you would like to have the policy debate, you can, but it’s pretty simple.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Because your policy’s based on ideology.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: This Government doesn’t believe in central planning, and Jan Tinetti is heckling away saying it’s all about ideology. Well, she’s about to get some. You see, the thing is, there was a time in history when people believed what Jan said frequently. They believed that Governments could decide which businesses should open where and how big they should be allowed to be. If a business wanted to grow, then it had to ask permission and get a licence from the State. The Russians tried this to a large extent. They actually tried to run the whole economy that way, and what they found was that the people in Moscow didn’t know how much to order from each factory, and they ended up with enormous shortages and enormous oversupplies for the simple reason that people in Wellington do not have the knowledge.

The member might like to refer to The Use of Knowledge in Society by F A Hayek. Seldom is the required knowledge given to a mind or small group of minds. That is the lesson of the 20th century. That is why we don’t do central planning. That’s why we’re not trying to decide whether or not an early childhood education should be able to open or grow in an area from Wellington. That is why we are going to let parents decide if they should send their child to an early childhood education centre. That’s why we think parents who know and love their children should be able to choose, because we’re economically literate, because, unlike the Labour Party, we’ve learnt the lessons of the 20th century, and that’s why, at the second reading, we agreed to get rid of central planning of early childhood education. I’m very confident that the legislation here absolutely—

Hon Member: What makes you the expert?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: “David Brent” at the back there says he’s the expert. Actually, on this matter, I might be. The fact is that we agreed at second reading to make this policy decision, and we’re making it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I call the Hon Phil Twyford. I do consider now that the Minister has answered the question about the reasoning around the networks, so can we make sure that we broaden it out to any other specific clauses that members want to talk to.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to respond directly to what the Associate Minister just said. He referred the struggle between capitalism and communism in the 20th century as some kind of justification for actually tinkering with a law that is genuinely designed to ensure that a mixed market of early childhood education provision in New Zealand works for parents, for families, and for students. Somehow the pronouncements of Hayek and this member’s selective adherence to neoclassical economics is somehow a justification for the change that’s being made in here. That is absolutely ridiculous. On this side of the Chamber, we will continue to ask questions about the provisions in this bill at committee stage. The Minister does not get to brush them away dismissively by saying that the second reading voted for this bill. This is the committee stage; this is where we get into the details—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just say to the member: I have no problem with the members asking questions. I just feel that, despite the philosophical difference, the member has given a reason around the network. I’d like to broaden the questions out to other questions people might have.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, indeed. The Minister also said that—actually, no, I’ll come back to it in the next contribution. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to first bring the Associate Minister of Education’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 124/6: “Relevance is determined in a committee stage by the substance of the bill. If it is a particularly broad-ranging bill and more general in nature, then so is the committee stage debate.” I would argue that the removal of a whole process is quite broad when we’re looking at the broader impact. I understand where the Minister’s coming from in terms of that the Minister may consider that his response has been sufficient, but I would still like to point to, from a process perspective, the rationale that the Minister has provided.

One of the rationales that the Minister has provided is removing some of these barriers—fair enough; I understand that. However, we have seen in the data that the number of early childhood education (ECE) services that have opened in 2023 under the new process has in fact increased as opposed to decrease. It went from 67 in the previous year to 72 in 2023. I would like to, again, ask the Minister: what is the evidence and the data—other than hearsay—from places like Early Childhood Council, that actually says that this process, this appeal, or this management process has been creating barriers that have reduced the number of ECE centres that have opened? Clearly we’re not seeing that in the official data.

Now, the second question that I have to the Minister is around the submission by the Children and Young People’s Commission, by Mana Mokopuna, about the concern that they have on the impact that removing this—and with a lack of consultation and proper consultation—would have on children and on students who attend ECE centres. Then, in that case, I ask the Minister: why was there no child impact statement done on this bill? When we asked about that before, we didn’t get any good answer as to why that wasn’t done. If anything, this is the bill to do a child impact statement because it is about education and, particularly when it comes to ECE, it is about very young people, and we’re looking at children here. If the Minister could answer more of a process question of the data itself—because we have seen an increase. What is the barrier that is really referred to here? Why was there no child impact statement being done in association with this bill?

To finish, I would also like to point to my final Amendment Paper on the ECE part, Amendment Paper 121. It is an amendment to new section 548A(2)(a)(iii), inserted by clause 53. The reason that I’m proposing a deletion of this, and the Minister may be able to provide some clarification, is that the clause says—let me find it—that the “(a) data relating to the socio-economic status of children attending early childhood services and their families” can be requested by the ministry, but “(iii) the data does not include personal information, unless the service provider of the early childhood service, who is an individual, has consented to the publication or disclosure of information regarding the service they operate:”.

I was quite perplexed with this particular element, Minister, because, surely, under privacy considerations, the data relating to the socio-economic status of the children and their families would be consented by the families themselves as opposed the service provider. In this case, why is the service provider the person who gets the say, as to whether that data is released or not? My Amendment Paper 121 removes this particular part of subparagraph (iii) but keeps subparagraphs (i) and (ii) because those two make sense. If the Minister wouldn’t mind highlighting—and, potentially, I got it wrong, in which case, you can disregard this amendment—why the service provider is the one who is giving consent on private information, not the families?

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Mō taku hē, Madam Chair, nā reira me mihi hoki ahau ki ngā wāhine toa i roto i tēnei Whare mō te rā whakahirahira mō ngā wahine katoa, tēnā rawa atu koutou.

[I apologise for my error, Madam Chair, and so I should also acknowledge the women champions in this House on the significant day for all women, greetings to all of you.]

Madam Chair, I made a mistake. I acknowledged Māori Language Week, of course, in my first contribution today, but I failed to acknowledge that it’s Women’s Suffrage Day, and I just want to thank all of the strong women in this great House of ours.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, on behalf of the women.

SHANAN HALBERT: I’m disappointed because I haven’t received a response from the Minister to the question that I specifically asked on new section 212F, which outlines who can apply to be a charter school. My question was about what if Brian Tamaki and Destiny Church applies to be a charter school—which I understand they have, they are, and that they expect they will be given the first right, based on the Minister’s apology to them, to become a charter school instantly. Given the sensitivity of that particular group and the concerns that I and the community have on that, I would really encourage the Minister to respond to that question. I understand that, under the Standing Orders, he doesn’t have to and isn’t required to, but actually, if he digs a little bit deeper, I’m sure he can front up to respond to that question.

In addition to that, continuing on that line of questioning, can I refer the Minister to new section 212Y, based on religious instruction and observances. My question there is: will the Authorisation Board allow the Brian Tamaki school to poison the minds of children? We have seen examples of that in our country, and this is, in fact, what I’m most fearful of. It can happen, and the Minister has offered the committee today no assurances that he will take on the duty of care—how he will protect tamariki and rangatahi. I look to schools that celebrate Pride with enthusiasm year on year, and what will actually stop this school from going and protesting outside another school just down the road in South Auckland?

These are the assurances that I’m seeking from the Minister. He refuses to answer my question. He refuses to give a response to the rainbow community, a community that he has been an advocate for in the past. If he wants to sever that relationship with the community, he should just be upfront about where he’s at. But he can’t serve everyone. Minister, you cannot serve everyone in this discussion. I ask you again: is it your intention to give permission to Brian Tamaki and Destiny Church to become a charter school? Based on what I’m seeing in the legislation today, and referring back to those two particular points—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Chair. There’s such a thing as repetition. I’ve actually been waiting to answer the member’s question, but he keeps asking the same thing over and over.

SHANAN HALBERT: Speaking to the point of order, the Minister has responded twice in the committee this morning since I made that contribution. He has had every opportunity, so I made the assumption that he did not intend to respond to that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, in my judgment on the point of order, the member is asking a repeat question for the Minister to answer. It’s a repeat question for the Minister, as the member considered the Minister hadn’t answered it.

SHANAN HALBERT: Sorry, just speaking to the point of order, just for clarification, it isn’t repetition. I did ask—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s exactly what I’ve just said. It’s a repeat question that you deemed you didn’t have the answer to.

SHANAN HALBERT: May I complete my call?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, you can.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to see that there may be a response from the Minister to these particular questions and the risks that are in front of our community. We are concerned about it. I’ve spoken to young people that are from other schools in South Auckland and on the North Shore in Auckland. They are concerned that charter schools offer an opportunity to put other students at risk in our rainbow community. I’m seeking—I am genuinely seeking from the Minister—his assurance on how he will implement his duty of care to protect rainbow communities within our schools. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): The member spent five minutes saying the same thing. I could have got up and answered it by now.

Shanan Halbert: But you didn’t.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I’m sorry, but actually I was waiting to—

Shanan Halbert: You had two opportunities and you didn’t.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, actually I was waiting—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Let’s give the Minister a chance to answer it.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: He says he wants the answer, but he won’t let me give it. I just make the point that, first of all, there are several gateways in approving a charter school. I draw the member’s attention to new section 212J—the new section that would be inherited—“Criteria for assessing whether proposed sponsor and governing members are fit and proper persons”.

In addition to new section 212F, which the member has replied to, the Authorisation Board would have to consider whether they wanted to see this school become part of the network of charter schools. Ultimately, a Minister would have to sign off on it. So, if you take the strawman of a group of people who actively promote hate and would seek to go and promote homophobic protests outside other schools, I have to question whether the member is really sincere in his advocacy for the rainbow community or trying to hijack one cause to oppose another that he doesn’t like. Of course that wouldn’t happen. It’s completely absurd. We absolutely will not be sponsoring any school that is homophobic or actively attacks people for their sexuality. There’s not a chance of that.

Finally, in terms of what my role in it is, I don’t get involved until the final sign-off, but I have great faith in our Authorisation Board, who are a remarkable group of New Zealanders committed—almost volunteering, frankly—to do this work. They have all children’s best interests at heart as well.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. Labour recognises that teaching requires a unique set of skills, and that fundamental to our belief about a quality public education system is that we should have the best possible training system, and that teachers who teach in our classrooms should be appropriately qualified. Unfortunately, one of the main effects of the Education and Training Amendment Bill is to ensure that someone without any formal teaching qualification can teach our children in a charter school.

I want to speak in support of Jan Tinetti’s amendment that would delete clause 35 which would allow a sponsor of a charter school to “permanently appoint to a teaching position a person who’s the holder of a limited authority to teach.”—an LAT. Following that, clauses 44, 45, and 46, which, basically, if passed in their current form, would have the effect of exempting these people who hold a limited authority to teach from the powers of a complaints assessment committee and exempting them from the powers of the disciplinary tribunal that all other teachers would be exposed to. Clause 45 says that a “Disciplinary Tribunal may not refer an employee in a charter school who holds a limited authority to teach to a competency review.”

I ask the Associate Minister: is this part of his ethos of when he says the Government’s against central planning? Are these provisions, which allow people who are not trained to teach, to teach in publicly funded schools and not be subject to the most basic and most fundamental accountability requirements that are there for all other teachers? When the Minister said in one contribution before the last one, “This Government does not believe in central planning”, actually every other policy announcement by this Government on education has been about strengthening the central planning of our education system; telling schools that they shouldn’t allow cellphones during the day—what is that if not central planning?

So my point is: is it this Minister’s intent to carve out this little experiment within our education system to allow people who do not have any formal qualification to teach and let them loose on children in taxpayer-funded schools. How can that possibly be justified?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I too want to talk to the amendment that is in my name around deleting clauses 35, 44, 45, and 46. The reason, as my colleague Phil Twyford has pointed out, is because these are the provisions that embed the limited authority to teach. Limited authority to teach certificates, practising certificates, are part of the State system now, but this makes a big change to what’s currently in place. Currently, a person can be granted limited authority to teach in a State school when the school has done everything they can to attract a teacher with a practising certificate into that position and they have been unable to fill that position. This makes a change that the sponsor of a charter school will be able to employ without having gone through that process and will be able to employ permanently, which means that there is no review, that that person has that job as a permanent provision, which doesn’t happen within the State school now.

Now, following on from what my colleague Phil Twyford said, that the complaints assessment committee and the disciplinary tribunal would not be able to investigate that person with that limited authority to teach with competency. Competency means that they wouldn’t have the qualities and skills as a teacher. Now, I kind of understand that because no teacher who hasn’t been trained or has the research or the support or the mentoring to go through that training and that couple of years where they get that real support alongside them in that first two years would be able to be at that same competent level. Someone that doesn’t have that practising certificate wouldn’t have that competency. As I had the discussion with the Teaching Council at select committee, when you’re investigating competency issues, often they will lead to conduct issues. I have a concern that we have no ability to assess competency with our external independent body of the Teaching Council. Many people that have been in positions of having to mandatory report or report a teacher to the Teaching Council knows that most of the issues started with competency.

I have a real concern that we are giving these teachers abilities that don’t happen within the State school system, that we’re appointing permanently, that we’re not going through that ability to ensure that there is a genuine need or vacancy in that area, and that people think—and that became clear with some of the questions that I heard in the Education and Workforce Committee as well—that anyone can teach. Again I say—and this is the second time I have said this here—that if you believe that then you’re sorely mistaken because not everybody has that ability to be able to teach, because they haven’t been through that training. That is the intent of this amendment: to actually have the same provisions for limited authority to teach as what currently exists within the State school system; to not create a different pathway which, effectively, is what this does; to ensure that there is an overview of competency so that it’s not leading to those issues of conduct—again, I go back to the fact that I did talk about that with the Teaching Council in select committee.

Minister, again, my question to you is: do you want to see a two-tiered system so limited authority to teach is different in the charter school system to in the State school system? I just want to hark back to what you talked about before, Minister, in that you talked in your evidence that you were giving around business—I want to say that kids are not business. Kids are absolutely not business. We’re talking about children at the centre here and not coffee beans. We have to have the best people in front of our young people. Minister, that’s my question to you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I wish to speak to an issue that I think falls between a couple of clauses in the bill, and it isn’t quite spoken to. I want to look at clause 40. The particular two sections I’m looking at are 212P and 212QA. It’s an issue that’s been raised by some of my local principals, and I actually think it’s going to apply to many schools across the country. I’m a little surprised that some of our colleagues right across this committee haven’t been asking this question, because it really will matter.

Now, I was up at Laingholm school out in West Auckland the other day, and it’s a great school. They’ve got some fantastic assets there—a fantastic playground, a bike track. The sorts of assets that the community has raised the money for and the community has built and the community has gifted to the school. If anyone owns those assets, it’s the community. Laingholm school is a little bit more special again because it’s kind of one of the few open spaces in the Laingholm community, so it happens to double as the local playground. People come in and use the grounds during the week. Looking at section 212P, the title says that the sponsor is to control management of the charter school. As far as I can see—and section 212P(1) says, “A sponsor has complete discretion to control the management of the school as the sponsor thinks fit.” That’s a hell of a lot of scope for a sponsor.

Then going on over to section 212QA, it’s referencing schools that have previously been State schools where the land is owned by or leased to the Crown. Then what happens is that, as far as I can understand it, the sponsor takes over the assets of that school under a lease—the ownership of the assets doesn’t necessarily pass over to the sponsor, but the sponsor leases the assets—but then, at the same time, going back to section 212P, “Sponsor to control management of … school”, the sponsor can kind of do with those assets as she or he wishes, or they, or whatever. I need the assurance from the Minister that the assets that the community fund-raised for, the assets that the community built, the assets that the community looks after—the assets that the community uses—will still be freely available to the community as they are now.

Now, we’ve heard stories of what happens to charter schools in other countries. The gate gets locked at 3.30 and the assets of the school cannot be accessed after that time without paying a fee. Sometimes they get locked at 3.30 on a Friday afternoon and only opened again at 8 o’clock on a Monday morning, so no one can use the assets of the school over the weekend. But those assets do not in any sense belong to the sponsor. In fact, if anyone owns them, it is the community. I can find no space in this legislation for the community to be able to have that guaranteed right to use the assets that they did all the work to build.

Now, perhaps this wouldn’t matter so much in some of the big city schools where there might be parks and playgrounds available. Perhaps it might not matter so much in some areas of the country, but it surely matters to Laingholm school in West Auckland. I want an assurance from the Minister that the awesome community at Laingholm, should someone in that community decide that the school ought to be a charter school, that if that school is faced with becoming a charter school—and frankly it’s within the Minister’s target range. He said schools were about 200 pupils, and Laingholm is a school of about 180. I want a guarantee from the Minister that the community of Laingholm will continue to be able to use the asset that the community worked so hard to build for their own local school.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. As we wrapped up with the early childhood section, we’re going back into the charter school element, and I will address some of the more substantial parts of the charter school bit, because I have a number of amendments on section 40. I still want to kind of talk about some of the outer areas in some of the other clauses first, and also just also for easy tracking and also for the Minister, for easy tracking purposes as well. The first two amendments I would like to speak to are two very small amendments I would like the Minister to consider. One of them is Amendment Paper 112, and then the other one’s Amendment Paper 115.

Now, in terms of Amendment Paper 112, it is purely from a format basis. We’re seeing the way that the charter school aspects are inserted into the principal Act. It’s very much based on the comparable equivalent within the principal Act. If you see “a principal”, it is “the person in charge of teaching and learning”. If it is “a board,” it then becomes “a sponsor”. This particular amendment addresses certain elements when the principal Act talks about the board of a State school, but the addition only refers to “sponsor”, but not “sponsor of a charter school”. I went through the bill and identified all instances where the comparison—it is just purely for consistency—would then be “board of a State school” or “sponsor of a charter school”. That’s just for consistency’s sake.

The second amendment is around something that the Minister actually mentioned before. I thought it tied in really nicely to this. It’s around the network of charter schools that the Minister talked about, and this is clause 7(2). In clause 7(2), there was a reference to the principal Act as well, and it talks about in section 88(4) of the principal Act, after “board” insert “or sponsor.” If you’re looking at the bill itself, it then implies that the network that is being created is a network combining both State school and charter schools. I thought that, for clarity, rather than using “and” for this particular part, it would be better to use “or”. This Amendment Paper amends it so that it clearly sets out the different criteria for establishing and managing a charter schools network from State schools and would then be a more accurate reflection, as opposed to “and”.

Those two small amendments aside, I would like to sort of address one of the areas that actually the Minister himself announced this morning, which is around attendance for charter schools. Now, as we know, attendance is a core element of this bill as well. However, what I was confused by is the fact that clause 42 of this bill—this is my Amendment Paper 120—doesn’t require charter schools to collect attendance records. There’s actually no mentioning of charter schools having the need to collect attendance records. My Amendment Paper here for clause 42 simply adds, “after ‘principal of a State school’ … insert ‘or the person responsible for teaching and learning in a charter school’” as a way of capturing that charter schools are indeed, very much functioning like State schools, required to collect attendance.

What we do see in an earlier section—and this has to do with clause 14—is that sponsors can appoint attendance officers; that I get. However, one of the things around sponsors being able to appoint attendance officers, based on the principal Act, is that as a board appointing an attendance officer, there are a lot of powers and also obligations of that attendance officer associated with that role in the principal Act. [Time expired] Mr Chair, can I just finish talking about my amendment?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, carry on.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. In the principal Act, section 49(3), there’s actually a lot of additional powers such as being able to detain a child who appears to be between the age of five and 16. An attendance officer also has additional rules even to the point of things like filing reports and also prosecution, questioning the parents on why a child is outside the school hours. That is associated with the higher accountability to the community that the board has that the sponsor may not have.

While we’re looking at being allowed to have attendance records collected, in my Amendment Paper 120—that’s an amendment to clause 42—I think we also need to address the potential clarification that needs to be provided in clause 14 around the powers of attendance officers being appointed by a sponsor. For my Amendment Paper 117, it adds an additional clause 3A, which suggests that subsections (1) to (4), where an attendance officer has the power to detain a child who appears to be between the ages of five and 16, don’t apply to the attendance officer appointed by a sponsor. The reason for that would be to sort of still give sponsors the ability to appoint an attendance officer, but then limiting that attendance officer power to just providing that attendance and also do the role that is needed within the confines of that charter school or the charter school network, as opposed to being much, much broader than that. I will also ask the Minister to consider those two amendments around attendance.

One other thing that I thought, given that I have a little bit more time, I would like to talk about as well is around actually the sense of community. I would like then to also point the Chair and also the Minister to my Amendment Paper 114, which is a correction around clause 4(6). Now, this particular clause 4(6), by amending the definition of “school community” in the principal Act, it actually gives the sponsor the ability to define what the sponsor would consider a school community. I think somewhere there’s a level of contradiction, because if the sponsor is able to define what the school community—and then later on, as we’ll discuss, a sponsor then requires one person from the school community to support their application. Then the sponsor can basically tell someone, “Now you’re part of the school community, support me.” It seems slightly out of line in terms of a conflict of interest. I would ask the Minister in terms of some of the rationale and whether he would consider this amendment as well.

The other part is when we’re looking at the school board being able to determine the definition of a school community, that is on the basis that school boards have at least a minimum of three parent-elected members on that school board who will have the relevant experience and expertise when considering who could be part of a community, whereas the sponsor may not have. The sponsor may have, but it is also possible the sponsor may not have. Again, I’m not sure why in this case an insertion is needed in clause 4(6) to be able to allow sponsors to define that. My recommendation is also a removal of this particular part.

I have mentioned a number of Amendment Papers. There are five in total; that is, Amendment Papers 114, 117, 120, 115, and 112. I would really appreciate some guidance and feedback from the Minister. Thank you.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Right, just responding to questions from Deborah Russell, which appeared to be around what happens to property of a State school that was perhaps fund-raised by the community—she gave an example of a school from Laingholm—I just draw her attention to page 43 of the bill as reported back. New Subpart 2 of New Part 6 in Schedule 1—new sections 118 and 117, for that matter—sets out that, in effect, property remains with its owner if it was part of a trust that had fund-raised for the school. If it is State property, it remains vested in the State but is leased back to the charter operator. The charter operator does not actually take ownership of any property unless they themselves build it with funding that they get from operating the school later on.

Second of all, Deborah Russell asked about the ability to make rules over the property, and she quoted, I think, new section 212P. She is right to point out that it says the sponsor has discretion in operating the school, but in the subsequent three sections that she did not refer to, it says that in making any rule, it has to make what’s termed in the bill a “bylaw” and, in making that by-law, must consult the staff, the students to the extent appropriate, and also the school community. Those concerns that Deborah Russell raises, I think, are valid, but there are parts of the legislation that address it. We have thought of these issues. I think the caricature that she gives of charter schools overseas is not only a little unfair on those schools overseas but also not really relevant to the policy we’re putting in place here in New Zealand.

Then we come to Lawrence Xu-Nan, the MVP of the session so far, who raises quite a number of issues. For example, he talks about the need to keep attendance records. Charter schools will be contracted for levels of attendance. In fact, we released some of these details publicly today. It’s not in legislation that they have to keep attendance records, but they will be contracted for attendance performance, and the reason for doing that is simply around flexibility. It’s not that that’s not our policy, but it’s not in the legislation.

As the member has pointed out, he’s also made the argument that the charter schools should be able to appoint attendance officers, but they shouldn’t have the powers to actually make kids go back to school as attendance officers appointed by State schools do. I don’t really think that’s fair. It seems to come from a presumption that charter schools are somehow less accountable or worse than State schools. I don’t think there’s a reason to think that. They certainly should have the full powers to appoint attendance officers and get the kids to go back to school if they’re not attending—one of the most important reasons for doing this.

He then talks about defining the school community. All I would say is that that is something that I’m sure will become clear over time, but to start ruling people in or out of being part of a school community, I think, if you look at the way schools operate around New Zealand, is really quite unfair and inevitably will lead to people being excluded that should be included and vice versa.

There was Amendment Paper 114, which I’ll just come back to. I hope I’m getting all of the—oh, that was the school community one. There’s also Amendment Paper 120, which he spoke of, which I’ll try and come back to if I can. Oh, that’s the one I’ve actually addressed, sorry, in relation to attendance records. There was also, I think—no, I think I—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Amendment Papers 115 and 112.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Sorry, 115 and 112?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Yeah.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: OK, I’ll try and get back to those for you. There was 112—that was the one about whether should we turn the word “sponsor” to “sponsor of a charter school”. I think it’s pretty clear from the definition section of the bill what “sponsor” means. I don’t think we need longhand throughout the bill. I think that would just be untidy drafting. It was also said that we should have the word “State school network and charter school network”, but that belies the policy intent, which is that charter schools actually are part of the State network. State schools can convert and take on the obligations to accept people’s enrolment from that area and so on. This is a good example of what I’ve been saying. This stage of the debate is all about whether the wording meets the policy intent, and Lawrence Xu-Nan has given an example where I think indeed it does.

There were some earlier comments about teachers, which I’m not going to get into the policy—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Would you like to continue, Minister?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, please, Mr Chair. I won’t get into the policy debate, but I’d just make the point that, like any profession, there are teachers that are very good; there are teachers that are not so good. The question is not: do we want the best teachers? The question is: is registration with the teacher council always the best way to identify the ones who are very good? Sometimes, but not always.

Maybe, as an example, some educators I was speaking with recently were saying, “Look, one of our main kaupapa”—given it’s te Wiki o te Reo Māori—“is language revitalisation. One of our biggest challenges is that, because our mission is to have more te reo speakers, we start with a limited number of them, and we need to spread te reo as rapidly as possible.” They were actually interested in how they can get more competent reo speakers in front of the children. They say, “Look, if we have to go through more hoops that we have to jump through with teacher registration, that actually makes our task harder than it would otherwise be.”

Now, some people might say, “Don’t care. You’ve got to be registered.” OK, you can have that position, but are you prepared to take the cost for that? Sometimes these things aren’t always as black and white as people like to lay out, but charter schools, as the policy intention is and as is set out in this legislation, are going to have greater flexibility to get the best person in front of the child, as judged by the sponsor under this legislation, which says they must have the skills and qualifications to do the best for the children.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): All right, members, we’re reaching that stage of the debate where a lot of the broader issues have been discussed. What we are looking for—and it’s up to the members—are quick-fire questions of the Minister. It takes all parties to do that, but if that’s the way they’re operating, I’ll give them continual calls if we’re doing it that way.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on, I’ve got a couple of areas that I just want to ask some questions around. The first one is just following on from the Minister’s answer there around the registration.

My understanding from this bill is that the intent is that they do have to have a limited authority to teach, which means that the teacher does have to go through the registration board, but you talked about, Minister, an example of a school where they’re saying that that’s a barrier that’s being put in front of them. Is that the intent here, as I said to begin with, with that clause that I want to see replaced that has the practising certificate? Is the intent not to have the practising certificate, not to go through the Teaching Council of Aotearoa? That changes the whole landscape if that’s the case from that example that you have just given, so I’d like some clarification on that, please, Minister.

Aside from that, I want to move to new section 212ZF(1)(a) that would come in after new section 212F, inserted by clause 40. This is, I believe, one of the most egregious parts of this bill: that there is no mechanism for a State school who decides to become a charter school to convert back to a State school if they find that that’s not working for them. I find that quite egregious, because we talk the whole way through about choice, but this is limiting choice by not doing that. Minister, I want to know whether that’s an oversight or whether that was your intent that, once they become a charter school, there is no pathway back to become a State school again. I have put up an amendment there to add a new section there that the school community or mana whenua can, at any time, initiate with the Authorisation Board a community intervention to begin the process of reconverting a charter school back into a State school. I believe that that offers the ability for choice, for the school to continue to have that choice that if they do become a charter school and it isn’t working for them, that they have that ability to come back into the State system again. I just want to know whether that was your intent to hold them at that and take that choice away from them or whether that was an oversight.

Two questions there—the first one being about the registration, the second one being around this ability to be able to reconvert to a State school.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): As I addressed earlier, all teachers must have a practising certificate. In the case of a charter school, they must at least have a limited authority to teach, and in this case that requires them to be completely vetted for student safety but not visited for competence by the Teaching Council of Aotearoa, because their competence might be judged in other ways. As I mentioned, being able to teach te reo Māori might be something that some people thought was a priority to get those people in front of the children as quickly as possible, to aid in their kaupapa of language revitalisation.

In relation to what would happen if a charter school decided it no longer wanted to operate, that will be a contractual matter, but I would envisage under this legislation that the contract would allow the charter school to cease. At that point, the State would have the option of re-establishing a State school should it want to, but just like anywhere else in New Zealand, if you want to have a State school established, then you need to go through the process. One of the reasons that we’re doing this is there are many communities who would like to take control of their destiny and their children’s destiny and establish a school, but they find that it’s almost impossible to do so, hence we’re introducing charter schools.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to be able to make a contribution on Part 1. I want to touch on section 120. This is in new Part 6, which is inserted into Schedule 1, which I understand is the part we are debating, and I understand that it hasn’t been traversed fully yet by the committee. I have an amendment in relation to this, which is to ensure that when employment information is provided to a sponsor, this is done in a way which is consistent with the Privacy Act. I think a big concern with this bill is the fact that this particular provision in relation to the transfer of information to a sponsor came about, by my recollection, after the public submissions were held. The Minister is welcome to correct me on that, but it wasn’t traversed in public submissions. It is something that was suggested late in the day and we have concerns about this.

The reason we have concerns about this particular provision is because, essentially, what this does is provide all the information that an employer holds on an employee. For example, if you think of the jobs you’ve had in the past and all the information you had to give to your employer—for example, medical records, information about your family, when you’ve been sick, disciplinary matters, matters in relation to other personal information that might come about in your employment—is usually all held on file by an employer. In this particular provision, obviously there would be an argument to say that on the conversion date of a State school or current school that is not a charter school into a charter school, the person who becomes the employer, as the sponsor, would have a decent argument to say, “I should have that information because that person’s employment has transferred to me.”

That is obviously not necessarily something that I would disagree with. The thing that is objectionable, I think, under this particular legislation is the time period in which that this particular information is transferred to the new charter school. It’s not on the conversion date. It is either the conversion date or three months before the conversion date. Three months before the conversion date is basically giving information that could be highly personal to someone who is a third party to your employment relationship and allowing them to have that information. Three months prior to the conversion of a school might be the exact period of time where someone who’s employed by an existing State school that converts to a charter school may be considering, “Do I want to keep working here?” Obviously, if you listen to the Minister, a charter school is innately different from the model that they will be working under. They are having to consider whether they will maintain their employment, whether they go to another school, or whether they try to find a job. They might not want their personal information to be held by third party.

I think there’s a justification for it, as I said, on the conversion date, and that’s why the amendment I have put forward is to either transfer that information on the conversion date or require written permission from that particular person to allow that new employer and sponsor at the charter school to have that information. I don’t see any downside with this, because if you’re unsure, if you think, “Possibly I might decide that I want to stay at the charter school but I might also be looking for another job.”, you might say, “OK, I’ll let them have my employment file because the high probability is that I’ll stay in this job and maybe I’ll leave later on. I’ll see how it goes.” That, I think, would be a situation that might arise.

The problem we have here is that that isn’t what’s included in the bill. We’ve had various concerns raised around privacy in the bill and also transparency in relation to the Official Information Act (OIA), and I do know that there are concerns that members will want to address. I think the OIA part might be in Part 2, but there are significant concerns that the Ombudsman raised around transparency. This is a privacy consideration. I don’t think there has been time to consult with the Privacy Commissioner. I would be interested to know if the Minister has sought advice from the Privacy Commissioner on this point. I’d be interested to know if this was prima facie a breach of the Privacy Act, because, essentially, if you look at the amended—[Time expired]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I appreciate the member engaging on this. I think what’s important here is that this is employment-related information. If we’re committed to ensuring that the terms of employment are no less favourable, as I’m sure people are very interested in seeing happen, then you need to have employment-related information, and that means things like payroll and terms and conditions of their employment. The idea that this is going to be medical health records is misleading. That’s not what we’re suggesting. What we are suggesting is that employment information should be. If you don’t use this exclusion, then you are subject to the Privacy Act, so it’s a narrow exemption from the Privacy Act for employment-related data that is useful for getting a person’s terms and conditions right. I can understand the concern, but I think the member has exaggerated the risk here.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I thank the Minister for his answers on that particular question. I would like to ask the Minister, then, whether he would be willing to support an amendment to specifically exclude medical and disciplinary information from the definition of employment information under the Act, for the purpose of making sure that the Act actually—the bill when it becomes an Act—does what he says it will do and just provides information on payroll and just provides information that the new sponsor would need to have. Anyone who’s worked at a school—and we do have present in the Chamber members who have done that—knows that employment information regularly includes the employee’s personnel file, and that does include that information. If it is so narrow, as the Minister suggests it is, will he accept an amendment to the Act to make sure that that information isn’t passed on?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): The short answer is no, because it’s employment-related information that is relevant to employment. The person might actually later be aggrieved that there are conditions of their employment that the new employer was not aware of because of the restriction the member proposes. I can understand what she’s trying to get at, but I suspect that if they’re trying to have a bespoke definition of employment information in this legislation, it’s liable to cause more harm than good.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you again to the Minister for his answer. I can’t reconcile the two answers the Minister has just given. The first one appeared to be that it wouldn’t include medical information and would just include payroll information that the employer would need in order to know who they’re employing and what they’re paying them, which I don’t think anyone’s objecting to. Then, when I suggested my amendment, the Minister said he wouldn’t like a bespoke definition of employment information in this bill. Would he accept a different definition of the information—perhaps the information to be transferred, or relevant employment information, therefore making sure that it was specific to the Act and only included the information that was available? I’m sorry, but I cannot reconcile his first answer, which was that medical information would not be relevant and his second answer, which was that it may be relevant and we don’t want to make sure it’s excluded.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I think we can close that off with few words that the member herself just said—only the information that’s available, from whom to whom, for what purpose. She’s trying to create a definition that unfortunately is going to create more difficulty than harm. At the moment, it is information that is relevant to a person’s employment, and that means information that will be useful for ensuring that the terms and conditions of the new employment are suitable for the person and no less favourable than the employment conditions that they had previously. It’s a justifiable purpose of this bill and of charter schools in general, and that’s why we think that, actually, as it reads, it reads well and should remain as it is.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just first of all picking up from what Camilla Belich mentioned. This is something that was discussed in the Education and Workforce Committee, and we brought it, and we’re in full support of Camilla Belich’s amendment because we weren’t entirely clear—and, in fact, it raises additional concerns during the select committee stage when we were hearing about this particular issue. I would be happy to have other members to explore this particular issue further.

I want to first pick up on a couple of things that the Minister has mentioned before. One of them is around the teaching of te reo Māori and limited authority to teach (LAT). Now, one of the things in the principal Act under Schedule 3, section 16(1) is around the fact that the first thing for you to determine whether an LAT is needed is to see if there’s a skill that’s in short supply; in which case te reo teaching is. However, what we’re seeing in terms of the LATs that the Minister has proposed here is a blanket charter schools can employ LATs permanently, and that particular section of having to check that they’re in short supply first has been removed from that particular level of consideration.

I guess the question for the Minister is: if we were having a scenario where a charter school has multiple applicants and then one of them is a qualified teacher and one of them is an LAT, and then the charter school needs to determine—because, understandably, potentially, LATs, compared to qualified teachers, may require less remuneration—does that mean that there’s no obligation for charter schools to prioritise and advertise for qualified teachers first before opening to LATs? I don’t really mind—the Minister may have an idea. Happy to hear what the Minister has to say.

The other thing the Minister mentioned was in terms of part of the contract and attendance being one of them, but then what we are seeing under the contract section of new subpart 40—and this is particularly around new subpart 6A, new section 212L—is there is actually no specific aspect that has been mentioned around attendance. If the Minister wouldn’t mind just clarifying: would that then be a guarantee that the attendance requirement will form part of that charter school contract?

Just in terms of what others have mentioned previously, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one of the amendments that the Hon Jan Tinetti has mentioned in terms of reversion. Now, we have heard from the Minister previously in terms of the fact that we don’t want to make sure that charter schools don’t give it a try before wanting to convert back. Understandable, but I also think that is unfair for those schools who are thinking about converting to not have the mechanism to convert back because there is a concern or fear that if there is a mechanism for back-track that then they’re not going to do a good job of it or giving a good go of that.

I think, as the Minister himself has mentioned, people who want to apply, who want to convert, are really keen on that. They’re going to try their best to do a good job. The Minister mentioned there’s going to be higher accountability, which is great. In that case, why not have a mechanism that just rounds it off? It’s not saying that we are going to be looking at people wanting to convert back immediately. We’re just saying there should be a mechanism in place, because the only mechanism in place right now is that the school then will have to close and then reregister as a new school. Again, having gone through a reregistration process, it is not something that happens very quickly as well.

In addition to the amendment by the Hon Jan Tinetti, I would also ask the Minister to consider my Amendment Paper—that’s Amendment Paper 103—around creating a new section that’s 212ZFA; a new section that puts out some of the processes around conversion that is comparable to the establishment of a charter school or a converting school going into a charter school. I would invite the Minister to consider that. I think I don’t have enough time to mention my next Amendment Paper.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Just in relation to the closure of schools, I addressed that. There’s nothing that I haven’t previously addressed there.

In relation to limited authority to teach, I think the whole tenet of charter schools as agreed at second reading is that charter schools have maximum flexibility in how they operate, in return for hitting high targets. If you look to section 212L(5)(c) in clause 40, that will tell you that there are performance targets and outcomes that the sponsor must meet in relation to the operation of the school. Those targets, of course, will include attendance, I can assure you. Is that in the legislation? No, it’s not. Why? Because we want to have flexibility around what targets are set as the schools are contracted.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to raise another point which I don’t think has been raised, which is around a situation where there’s a conversion of a charter school—I think it’s new section 212T, inserted by clause 40.

When there’s a single school in an area—for example, in the area that I live in, there’s one high school that is zoned for that area—some situations will occur when that particular school becomes a charter school. This is something that we discussed at the Education and Workforce Committee; my colleague Jan Tinetti has an amendment on this. The concern that we have—and I wonder if the Associate Minister of Education will answer whether he will consider this amendment—is if the State school was the only local school in the area and the parents in that area do not want to send their child to a charter school. I mean, even the Minister can imagine that situation where, for whatever reason, the parents in that local area are not keen on the new charter school—maybe they know when Labour gets in it’s going to be changed again. For whatever reason, they might decide that they don’t want to enrol their child there.

The amendment is that, in that situation—do the children, and should the children, get preferential treatment to another school? There is actually something that the Ministry of Education, I understand, can do in this situation, and that’s direct enrolment to another school. I think that this is a very reasonable suggestion. It came up in select committee; it’s something that people were concerned about. If you’re only zoned for one school and it becomes a charter school—and this will be relevant in Auckland where there are a lot of school zones; it will also be relevant in smaller communities in rural New Zealand where there’s only one school—why must you be forced to attend a charter school if that’s not what you as a student, or perhaps your parents, want? In that situation, why can’t you receive a special directional enrolment from the Ministry of Education?

If it is truly about choice, as the Minister has said the justification for charter schools is, then why not allow those people a choice to attend a different school that might be more suitable to their particular needs?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I think if the member Camilla Belich truly believed that, her party wouldn’t have introduced zoning in 1999 and kept it for 15 years—they’ve been in power since. The truth is many people are zoned into a school that they don’t wish to attend. Many people travel a long way in order to go and get a better school. A lot of people pay for after-school tuition. A lot of people pay private school fees. A lot of people actually buy their house in a location designed on getting into a school. That is the system that that member’s party has left us with. What we’re proposing is that a community that’s not happy with its school has the opportunity to convert it to a charter and do it differently. If that happened, it’s because the Authorisation Board has judged that, actually, they view charter school conversion as an improvement. I have great hopes that in good time, even that member will grow to love the concept.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ve still got quite a number of very important areas that have come up with this bill that we really want to investigate. One of them is—and I’m not going to do this; my colleague Phil Twyford will do this—around the use of the Official Information Act, and that is something that has been of big concern. The area that I want to look at now is also another, I said before, egregious area, and I think this is one of them as well that I’ve heard a lot of concern about. I actually believe that many members of this this House will have heard the same concern, because I’ve had lots of colleagues that have come to me to say this, and that’s around new section 212G in clause 40: the Minister may direct the board to apply to convert a State school to charter school. There’s a lot of fear out there around that.

We heard in select committee “Oh, it’s only to direct to the Authorisation Board to put an application in.” That still seems completely wrong when you’re talking about whether the community wants that to happen or not, that the Minister has this all-enduring power. I do have an amendment here, but I do have a couple of questions as well, Minister. My amendment is around actually replacing this and deleting new section 212G, but replacing part of new section 212F to make sure that there’s an alignment. I really want to get from you a sense of why that has been inserted in the first place. When you have talked about community choice and community not being happy with how the school is running, why have you, Minister, put in this bill that you have the ability as Minister to be able to direct the board—or the Minister of Education has the ability to be able to direct the board—to apply to convert the State school to a charter school? That does not fit with everything else that has been said around why this bill is so necessary.

To me, and to a lot of people out in the community who have been expressing their concerns, they believe that this part is a really big overreach, that it is taking away their community choice, and it’s taking away their desire to have their local school. So, Minister, again, I really want to know why you have put this in there and how it is not an overreach of a community’s wishes for their local school.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to go back to the question I raised earlier with the Minister. It was succeeded by quite an important exchange between the Minister and my colleague Camilla Belich, which I didn’t want to interrupt.

The Minister gave me an answer around the assets raised by a community, but I don’t think the answer is adequate and I’m going to say why. Going back again to clause 40, inserting new sections 212P and 212QA—it’s assets that have been fund-raised for by the community, are held by the school, and then are leased as part of a charter school to a sponsor, and the sponsor has the power to control the management of the school. I’m worried that that would enable sponsors to lock the community out of the assets that they fund-raise for. The Minister pointed me to new section 212P(4). In order to lock the community out, I think, the sponsors would need to make a by-law to do so, but before they could do that, they would have to consult its staff, the students, just to the extent that the sponsor considers appropriate, and the school community regarding the proposed by-law. That consultation is great, but it is not a guarantee that the community would continue to have access to its assets.

Is the Minister prepared to guarantee that where a community has raised money, has worked to build, has created assets for a school themselves, those assets will not be locked away from them by the sponsor of a charter school? Not just consultation about it, but a guarantee. Laingholm school wants a guarantee that the assets that the community worked so hard to build will continue to be there for the community to use after school hours, in the weekends, during the school holidays. The way this legislation is written, the sponsor can do all the consultation they like and then say, “Sucks to be you, Laingholm.”, and shut the community out. Will the Minister guarantee that that will not happen to this important school in my area?

It’s not just Laingholm school; Fruitvale School has an excellent bike path. The community fund-raised to build that, and that school wants to retain control over its bike path so that it can enable kids to get in there and use it at the weekend. Those schools, those two schools and another one down the road at Woodlands Park School, they’ve all got swimming pools, swimming pools that at the moment the school board and the principal make available to the community. That’s really important in West Auckland. There is only one public swimming pool in West Auckland—only one public swimming pool that people can access easily—so in terms of kids getting access to a swimming pool during the summer break, it depends on the principals and the boards of those schools making their swimming pools available. Will the Minister guarantee that, should those schools be converted to charter schools, those assets will continue to be available to the community?

At the moment the sponsors have free rein over it, and the Minister has said the sponsors must consult, but how good will that consultation be? We need more than just an instruction to consult. We actually need a guarantee that the families and the children in my area can continue to access the community assets that they’ve had access to for years and years and years. Schools are an important part of community institutions, and the Minister needs to respect that. I want a guarantee, Minister.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Chair’s just informed me that he wishes to report progress. I asked if I could reply in 30 seconds, and he said that it’d be interesting to see if I could. Let me try.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Fifteen gone.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Ha, ha! It’s very simple. If somebody made a proposition for Laingholm school to convert to charter status and they said “We’re going to lock everybody out. We won’t guarantee any rights. We’re going to confiscate community assets. We won’t let them use their fields or their pool.”, and nobody in Laingholm said to the Authorisation Board “I think that’s a bit of a problem.”, that would be the most extraordinary set of events. Here’s what would actually happen. If they wanted to persuade the community to actually convert to being a charter school, they would have to guarantee the community that the community would get the things it values, which it sounds like is access to the fields, the facilities, the things they’ve fund-raised for, including the pools. Let’s just apply a little bit of common sense rather than hysterical, overdramatised performances and talk about how the world actually works.

Debate interrupted.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Education and Training Amendment Bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Thursday)