Sitting date: 8 August 2024

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Local Government

1. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made on Local Water Done Well?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): This morning, my colleague the Hon Andrew Bayly and I shared great news for ratepayers and local government, announcing the enduring components of water service delivery under our Government's fantastic Local Water Done Well plan. This is about providing local government with the certainty it needs to deliver the water services Kiwis rely on while minimising costs for ratepayers. Members on the other side said that Local Water Done Well could not be done, but after just nine months we've delivered for communities across our country.

Ryan Hamilton: What are these enduring components of Local Water Done Well?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The enduring components of Local Water Done Well announced today will enable new models for financially sustainable water organisations across the country and financing from the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency for water organisations, which will reduce the financial burden on ratepayers who were faced with higher rates under three waters.

Ryan Hamilton: What does this mean for councils across the country?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Councils will be pleased with today's announcement. The New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency provides the lowest cost financing that is available to local government. From today, it will be able to support leverage for water council-controlled organisations (CCOs) up to a level equivalent of 500 percent of revenue—around twice that of existing financing levels for councils, subject to water organisations meeting prudent credit criteria. This would not have happened under the co-governed, mega-entity, three waters model. Our plan restores local ownership, it restores local control of water assets, and it recognises the importance of local decision-making.

Ryan Hamilton: What impact will this have on ratepayers?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I've been sitting here listening to the supplementary questions, and they simply don't relate to any announcements that the Minister has made. Yesterday, you upbraided a member of the Opposition for supplementaries not relating to the primary. Now, if the member has questions about other announcements, that would be within scope, but this would seem to be without.

SPEAKER: There was only one supplementary—probably the last one—and the question that's just been asked is most certainly relating to this. The question was about the effect on ratepayers.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: No, the question was about announcements.

SPEAKER: Well, OK. I'll do what I did yesterday and give the member the opportunity to ask it with a slightly different focus.

Ryan Hamilton: What impact will this announcement—that being Local Water Done Well—have on ratepayers?

SPEAKER: Well, yeah, I see the point. Have a think about it, and maybe move on to another question. The Minister can't really reflect on how ratepayers feel about the announcement. The effect of the announcement might be a different matter. So I'm sorry, if we're getting all pedantic about the words, which we appear to be, then we need to think about that.

Ryan Hamilton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What will be the financial implications of this announcement?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Today's announcement is great news for ratepayers. Local Water Done Well will provide lower costs to New Zealand councils for financing than could have been achieved under the previous Government's three waters reform, which we swiftly repealed to restore local control of water assets to communities. It will do this with the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency being able to immediately lend to water CCOs. This financing is available as of today and means that communities will have the flexibility and the tools they need to meet their unique needs.

Lan Pham: Did the Minister include in his announcement that out of the only 182 submissions who were able to submit as part of the truncated 10-day deadline, only 19 explicitly supported the bill, 18 percent of councils missed out on even having their voice heard; and of those who did, all of them submitted that "the cost and resource implications are both unclear and significant for councils, making it challenging to plan or fund the reforms"?

SPEAKER: Just if we're getting all pedantic about what goes into questions, I'd suggest that members look at Standing Order 390. Much of what was just said would not comply with that Standing Order. But it has to be said, to make the question reasonable, and I think that's the judgment that has to be made here.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the member's discussing the bill, which was before the House, which relates to water service delivery plans. The announcement made today is about the financing models which are now available for councils to be able to invest sustainably into their water services and actually make it happen and get things done. So that's what this Government has done with Local Water Done Well. We've got a plan, we've got the financing, and now it's up to councils to take the leadership to ensure that they can deliver for their local communities. What we campaigned on we're delivering.

Question No. 2—Health

2. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Health: Can he guarantee that the proposed review of the Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme, which has admitted more than 700 Māori and Pasifika students to medical school in the last 10 years, will not lead to its disestablishment?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: As part of our coalition agreement with ACT, we have agreed to review the Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme (MAPAS). This review is yet to begin, and no decisions about terms of reference have been made. That's because we have been laser-focused on addressing the financial challenges left to us by the botched merger of Health New Zealand.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he agree with the associate health Minister that the Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme is an example of "lazily looking at everyone through the lens of race"?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, on behalf of the health Minister, what I do agree with is the review of the MAPAS scheme in line with the coalition agreement. When you think about it, what is wrong with reviewing a programme to ensure it's meeting its objectives?

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he still believe that "if you're treated in a culturally competent context, you get a better outcome.", and, if so, what is his plan to get more Māori doctors into the workforce, following the review?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: They don't want Māori to do well. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK, all right. We're not going to have outbursts like that, and I'd ask the other side of the House to keep those interjections rare and reasonable.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, we don't accept the poor outcomes for Māori in health, unlike the last Government. That's why we're focused on ensuring we lift health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori and Pasifika and our communities in need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether his inspiration comes from over a hundred years ago when the then Minister of Health, who was a Māori called Pōmare—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Sir Apirana Ngata.

SPEAKER: Sorry, we'll just start again. Now, Dr Webb, you know that's a rule: you don't speak while someone else is asking a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, don't worry—I can handle him in my sleep.

SPEAKER: I know you can handle it, but I'd like you to start the question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether his inspiration is a former brilliant Minister of Health—who was a Māori back over a hundred years ago called Pōmare—who brought modern medicine to Māori, and is that his intention in 2024, '25, '26?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, our aspiration is to grow a domestic pipeline of representative workforce for New Zealanders.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with the Prime Minister's statement, "This is a country where our economy is in real trouble. This is a country where we cannot deliver health and education services as well as we need to"; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. We inherited an economy in recession, a broken health system following a botched merger, and an education system that has been failing too many children for too long. But good news: we have got a plan to turn things around. We're fixing education, we're fixing health, we're growing the economy, we're reining in wasteful spending, and we're reducing the amount spent on external consultants, unlike members opposite, who seemed to outsource—

SPEAKER: No. That's enough, thank you.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does stopping the construction of schools, hospitals, and houses, when 6,000 people in the construction industry have lost their jobs, help the economy?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, we're not stopping the construction; we are actually getting on and fixing the fundamentals in this economy. We inherited an economy that was in recession, interest rates that were at record highs, and inflation was well outside the bounds. The previous Government was addicted to spending. We are turning this country around, unlike the mess we got left behind.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What estimates has she received of the cost to New Zealand businesses and the economy of the loss of rail capability on the Interislander ferries, given those ferries currently carry over half a million metres of train freight per year?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I'm not sure if she has realised, but the ferries are still operating, providing freight services between the North and South Islands. What we are doing is going through a process to secure their resilience into the future, but, as KiwiRail has made very clear, those ferries are safe to operate until at least 2029.

Teanau Tuiono: Meitaki ranuinui, Mr Speaker. What steps is the Government taking to address the critical funding shortages faced by Hato Hone St John ambulance service which have led to the impending national withdrawal of labour of over 2,500 ambulance officers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I encourage the member to put questions on specific issues like that in writing, but what I would say, though, is that we've inherited a really tough situation in our health system, left behind by a previous Government, which decided that the best time to reorganise a health system was during the middle of a pandemic.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are they not delivering in health because her Government is leaving clinics like those in Dargaville, Wellsford, Kenepuru, Napier, and Rotorua unstaffed overnight?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, we have inherited a mess when it comes to our health system, and this Government has a plan to turn it around; unlike the previous Government, who decided the best time to reorganise the health system was during the middle of a pandemic. It's unbelievable the mess that was left behind and the challenges that this Government is having to clean up, but, unlike them, we've got a plan.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she believe that Tākai, which has shut down because of her cuts after 20 years of social service, is a cash cow, and what does she say to the tens of thousands of parents who have benefited from their support?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Again, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, we have inherited a number of challenges as a Government, which we are having to clean up with the mess left behind by the previous Government. They were spending like drunken sailors, they were borrowing, they had interest rates and inflation through the roof, and this Government has been elected to fix this economy, to ensure our public services are delivering on the front line for New Zealanders, but we have a huge mess to clean up.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does giving the tobacco industry a $216 million tax break, leaving less money for health, help the economy?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, there was a range of assumptions in that particular question, but what we are very focused on is reducing smoking rates. We've got a plan to address that on this side of the House, but we've also got a range of challenges that we need to sort out, and we've been elected to fix it. If that last Government were still in charge, they'd be spending more, they'd be taxing more, and delivering less.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. That member, in his answers, has largely attacked the former Government. And I have tried not to intervene, to try not to interrupt and disturb the dignity of the House, but he's continued to do it, and you've said repeatedly that it's inappropriate.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the point is that the member himself took a point of order before to say that words matter, and they do. And I've also in the past said it's not unreasonable—and other Speakers have said this before me—for Governments to refer to previous administrations. It's a matter of how that is done, and I think saying that a circumstance was inherited hardly breaches that particular provision. But I would suggest the Minister makes his answers slightly briefer or offers them more briefly than he has been at the moment. Have we got any further questions on that? No? Good.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps is the Government taking to support people on the jobseeker benefit into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The coalition Government has delivered a series of initiatives to support job seekers into work. Recently, we established a new over-the-phone case management service for 4,000 young job seekers and expanded the number of places for young job seekers in community-led employment programmes with coaching by 2,100. We have also introduced work check-in seminars that job seekers must attend within two weeks of coming on to benefit and again after six months. Our Government is working hard to make changes to the welfare system to ensure New Zealanders are able to reap the rewards and opportunities of work.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the key features of the community coaching the Minister has announced as part of the Government's Welfare that Works?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This is our Government's new approach that will see more funding for community organisations with a proven track record of supporting young people off welfare. This will see more young people getting a needs assessment, a job plan, and tailored support, including job coaching, to help them access employment opportunities. This programme highlights our Government's commitment to putting young people on a pathway to a better future through work.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why has the Minister chosen He Poutama Rangatahi providers for this programme?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Five hundred places for the community-led programmes will be with a selection of He Poutama Rangatahi which was launched by the previous National Government in 2017 for people aged 18-24 who have been on jobseeker support longer than a year. We know that 77 percent of participants in this programme are Māori. I am concerned about the increasing number of Māori job seekers. Community coaching delivered through He Poutama Rangatahi will help young Māori improve their employment opportunities and reach their potential.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is additional support for job seekers needed now?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The challenging economic situation we have inherited inevitably means that job seeker numbers were expected to increase until January 2025, before decreasing. We know job seekers are vulnerable to tougher labour market conditions, which is why our Government is working hard to make our welfare system proactive in helping as many job seekers as possible in the current economic climate. Even though we have a challenging economic environment, our Government will not stand by and allow New Zealanders to languish on welfare and waste their potential. We are acting now to support job seekers into work so they can experience the independence and opportunities that work provides.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she accept raising a child is work; if so, why do parents face work obligations rather than being allowed to raise their children the best way that works for them?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We are focused on supporting people off the jobseeker benefit and we want to see fewer children being raised in benefit-dependent households.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she accept raising a child is work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course, and there are many parents who work and raise their children.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I cannot see how that second supplementary was being addressed when the question was whether she considered it to be work. It was very, very narrow and she just said that there are many parents that work—that's very, very unrelated to the actual, very narrow content.

SPEAKER: No, no, no. The actual question was "does she support", and the answer came "of course", and then with the backup behind that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order. Kahurangi asked whether the Minister accepted that raising a child is work. So the Minister didn't address the question because she talked about—

SPEAKER: And the answer was "of course". And then an explanation that many people not only do that but also have other jobs.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Do recent unemployment figures show New Zealand is back on track; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Our coalition Government is getting New Zealand back on track, and, as I've acknowledged before, too many New Zealanders have been denied the independence and opportunities that work provides. We've inherited a low-growth economy from the previous Government, which unfortunately means rising unemployment. That's why we're implementing a more proactive welfare system to support people off benefit and into work. In the six years before we took over, the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit increased by 70,000, or 57 percent.

Hon Willie Jackson: How can New Zealand be back on track when, on average, every month since she's been in office there's been an additional 1,000 people out of work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I explained, unfortunately we inherited an economy that saw the previous Government absolutely mismanage the economy, and, unfortunately, New Zealanders are paying the price. For every New Zealander that loses a job right now, it comes back to the broken economy that we inherited and the damage that that side did.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister consider Māori employment rates to be back on track when, under her watch, in just nine months, Māori unemployment has increased from 8.2 percent to 9.1 percent?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Unfortunately, the economic conditions that we have inherited mean rising unemployment. We have seen the unemployment rate rise—fortunately not as far as those forecast—and the job seeker numbers are, of course, getting worse. That is the reality of the economy we have inherited. Our job is to fix it. That's exactly what we are doing, because we want to see more New Zealanders and more Māori in work.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister consider Pacific employment rates to be back on track when, under her watch, in just nine months, Pacific unemployment has increased from 6 percent to 8.3 percent?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I can tell that member what this Government won't do with Pacific unemployment. We will not oversee an increase in six years of 93 percent in Pacific unemployment—that's outrageous, and that's your record.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can the Minister tell us how she can say youth employment is on track when recent figures show that youth unemployment has increased from 15.1 percent to 20.7 percent just in the last June quarter of 2024?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm pleased that that member is finally interested in youth unemployment, because what we saw, unfortunately, was a welfare system stagnating so much that a young person who goes on to benefit under the age of 25 now is forecast to spend two decades on welfare. That's the record of that member. We're not standing by to watch it, which is why we are taking action.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister have any plan to get people into work, or is she just planning for the figures to get better once a whole lot of Kiwis move to simple old Australia?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm very proud to again put on record the changes this Government has made to reduce the number of job seekers by 50,000 by 2030. We have made sure that the sanctions regime is utilised and people are clear about their obligations to look for work. We have introduced a work check-in within two weeks of someone going on to the jobseeker benefit, and again after six months. We have increased case management, and, for young people, 4,000 young people will now get case management over the phone. We have also, last week, increased the number of young people that will get access to the very successful He Poutama Rangatahi programme launched by National in 2017, including community coaching.

Question No. 6—Building and Construction

6. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Why is the Government reviewing the earthquake-prone building legislation?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Our Government is focused on rebuilding the economy as part of our broader aim of getting New Zealand back on track. The earthquake-prone building system attempts to manage risk by requiring earthquake-prone buildings to be remediated by set time frames. However, many building owners are currently unable to meet deadlines due to high remediation costs and excessive layering of regulations. This is why we have acted with urgency to bring forward the review to provide certainty and ensure we have a good balance between protecting lives and real-world costs.

James Meager: When will the review into earthquake-prone building legislation begin?

Hon CHRIS PENK: We are moving at pace and the review is under way as we speak. This very afternoon, in fact, the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill will have its first reading in this very House. The bill extends the remediation deadlines for earthquake-prone buildings by four years to give temporary relief to Kiwis while the review is under way.

James Meager: What will the review focus on?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The review will be extensive and report back in the first half of 2025, with four key foci. The first is the costs of mitigating earthquake risk and improving buildings resilience; the second, proposals for managing earthquake risk, including the effect on private property owners; the third, barriers and the types of incentives that would help building owners better manage seismic risk; and, fourth, changes that align with broader Government objectives, such as going for housing growth and rebuilding the economy.

James Meager: How can the public have their say?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The public can provide feedback and share their views on the earthquake-prone building system via the building.govt.nz website or by emailing or, of course, via the select committee process. This is all about listening to Kiwis to ensure that we have rules that work for them.

Question No. 7—Oceans and Fisheries

7. DARLEEN TANA to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he agree with the statement by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill is a "Bill that is a case of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut"; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: No. This bill responds to longstanding and widespread concerns by the aquaculture sector about the costs and uncertainty and mahi—that means work—associated with re-consenting processes for existing marine farms under the Resource Management Act. This process of re-consenting is inhibiting aquaculture growth. These marine farmers, many of whom are Māori, don't want the unnecessary costs and uncertainty; they want to be allowed to refocus their efforts on investment, on jobs, and on exports.

Darleen Tana: What does he say to councils and environmental non-governmental organisations who consider that the national environmental standards for marine aquaculture are working efficiently and effectively for re-consenting, and that a blanket extension of consents for 1,200 marine farms by a further 20 years is unnecessary?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, answering both those two questions, the person who first drafted the legislation is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, namely Simon Upton. This was in 1991. He was told back then it wouldn't work, and that parts of it had to be fixed up to ensure that the kinds of exports which we desperately need, in a safe environment, went ahead. Of course, he's entitled to his opinion and so are those other councils, except they're dramatically wrong. Why do we have Ngāi Tahu waiting all this time and all this money for a simple resource consent? Why do we have so many other precious operations which will bring wealth to our country, to all sorts of people—and parallel the biggest mussel farm in the world now being built in Ōpōtiki, and the Māori people down there—why don't we focus on that as being our purpose, rather than this constant big-city, small-minded complaint?

Darleen Tana: How does he reconcile blanket-consenting 1,200 marine farms by another 20 years, pushing aside environmental standards and upholding the Crown's obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi with free-trade obligations, and particularly chapters that relate to mauri of marine ecosystems and kaitiakitanga?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is not a matter of reconciliation, because when you stand up and by way of a question state a number of untruths and misnomers, it requires no response at all other than to say this: this bill does not change or remove the existing Resource Management Act (RMA) provisions that manage consented activities. Existing marine farms will continue to operate under the conditions of their consent according to the RMA. Those are the facts that so-called critics should understand. Many marine farms' consents have conditions that are consistent with standard environmental practice under the RMA. The bill will also provide councils with a one-off opportunity to review the conditions of any consent extended in duration under this bill, to update them to improve the environmental management of the consented activity. But the CEO of the Ministry for Primary Industries is required to agree so that they do not stop people trying to progress in these difficult times from starting new jobs and new export industries and turning this economy around.

Question No. 8—Children

8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Children: What evidence does she have to substantiate her statement, "For too many years, Oranga Tamariki has been the cash cow for community service providers who say they will provide services, and then don't"?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I refer the member to the $22 million Oranga Tamariki has already recovered from the last financial year where services weren't delivered, with more expected to come. In previous years, some providers have accumulated significant surpluses and this is unacceptable. Every cent of taxpayer funding that providers receive needs to reach the children and young people for its intended purpose, not sit idle in their bank accounts. I also refer the member to an email I received this morning from a lawyer who works in this space, who said, "I have been appalled over the past few years at how much taxpayer money has been wasted on agencies that make big claims yet deliver nothing but a glorified babysitting service." This is a Government that is making sure that that money will be used where it is needed, with organisations that are struggling for funding when it's sitting in bank accounts unused.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When she stated in her press release, "The funding they provide is for the care and protection of children in state care. Nothing more, nothing less." when referring to Oranga Tamariki, does this mean that family services that prevent children going into State care will no longer be funded?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I instructed Oranga Tamariki to get back to their core purpose and do their core purpose well, which is in the best interests of children in care and that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she consider that Oranga Tamariki has a role in assisting families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups at the earliest opportunity to meet the needs of their children and young persons; if not, who holds this responsibility?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely, but it's not just up to Oranga Tamariki to fix this problem—it's up to all of Government agencies and also society itself. Step up when you see something is wrong with our young people; speak up when you see something is happening with our young people. Don't just rely on Government to fix it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she aware that the previous statement is one of the statutory purposes of Oranga Tamariki in the Act, and, if so, does she intend to repeal the purpose of the Oranga Tamariki Act along with section 7AA?

SPEAKER: The Minister may like to comment, but it's probably answered pretty much in the previous answer.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki's job is to protect the children in their care and to make sure they're protecting any children that come to their attention with reports of concern.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we're dancing around here. The point the Minister made was that Oranga Tamariki would only fund children in State care. They would not be funding children and their families in order to provide a prevention service—she stated that. So my question to her was: how can the purpose of the Act be fulfilled if she's not taking that preventative action?

SPEAKER: Yeah, my recollection is that you asked her what was the purpose of the Act, and you outlined some views there. The Minister's answer to you started with "Absolutely," and I think to then have another question that questions the answer needs to be a little clearer than perhaps it was put. So without loss of one of the party's supplementaries, try and put it a different way.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can Oranga Tamariki fulfil their statutory requirements to act at the earliest opportunity to meet the needs of children and young people if they are not funded to undertake preventative services that would occur before a child or young person enters into State care?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There are many ways a child can come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, not just being placed into State care. And when a child is brought to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, it is their responsibility to intervene as early as possible.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Zoe Hawke, the chief executive of E Tipu E Rea Whānau who says of the cuts to their services, "The core of our mahi, the core of our work is prevention, preventing uplift … We have prevented so many uplifts, unfortunately we may not be able to do that any longer."; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can't comment on individual contracts without that information in front of me—but if you'd like more information, please put that in writing.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can she reassure New Zealanders that there will not be an increase in Oranga Tamariki uplifts as a result of her cuts?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I cannot make guarantees about anything. What I can guarantee is that Oranga Tamariki will get back to their core purpose, which is the care and protection of young people in their care and children that come to their attention. If a child is unsafe and needs care and protection, that's what will happen.

Question No. 9—Children

9. LAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcement has she made regarding key performance indicators for Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): This morning I wrote to the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki, instructing him to report to me every three months on key performance indicators. These include the frequency of social worker visits to children in care, the timeliness of responses to reports of concern, and whether or not caregivers feel supported by Oranga Tamariki. These areas are going to make the biggest difference to the safety and wellbeing of children and young people in care. Too many children in the care of their family or their caregivers die or are abused and neglected every year in this country. It is a national disgrace and I'm not willing to accept it. As Minister for Children, it's my expectation that Oranga Tamariki is relentlessly focused on its core purpose of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children in their care.

Laura Trask: Why does the Minister think it's necessary to have quarterly public reporting on these performance measures?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki has oversight from the likes of the Independent Children's Monitor. However, these compliance reports are only provided to me once a year. Quarterly updates in areas that are most vital to ensuring the safety of children will allow me and the public to identify earlier any areas where Oranga Tamariki is not meeting expectations. This will mean that we can address any issues as they arise, rather than waiting for a yearly report to find out what is going on and needs to be fixed. Providing greater transparency and accountability will give Oranga Tamariki the focus it needs to ensure it's delivering on its core purpose, which is keeping children and young people safe in their care.

Laura Trask: Why is this accountability and transparency so important?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Clearly, things need to change. When a child is killed every five weeks in this country and so many more are abused and neglected by those who are meant to care for them, then a new approach is desperately needed. By making Oranga Tamariki report every three months and making these reports public, it will give Oranga Tamariki the focus it needs to ensure that it is delivering on its core purpose: keeping children and young people safe.

Laura Trask: Why is supporting caregivers one of the Minister's priorities?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The reality is that many children and young people are not able to live with their immediate family. For whatever reason, their home is not a safe, loving environment for them. In these circumstances, caregivers, including wider family or whānau, play an essential role. They open up their hearts and their homes to look after our most vulnerable. However, I have heard too many accounts of caregivers who say they do not feel supported by Oranga Tamariki. It is so important that we have skilled and experienced caregivers available for situations where a child is not able to stay in their family home.

Question No. 10—Tertiary Education and Skills

10. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Does she stand by her statement that Te Pūkenga is a "financial mess, drowning in debt of over $250 million"; if so, why?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): Yes. Te Pūkenga has $8.426 million of commercial debt, $35.391 million of Crown debt, and $207.311 million of intercompany debt, amounting to a total debt of $251.128 million.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why is the Minister including the $150.6 million of internal debt, of intercompany borrowings, in that total debt figure?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: If I can just help the member on that, it's $207.311 million of intercompany debt. When Te Pūkenga was set up, different industry training organisations (ITOs) and polytechnics came in with different financial positions. Some came in with reserves; some came in with debt. Those with reserves have had to allow their reserves to go to offset commercial debt that was being held by the other institutions. That is real debt.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why does she claim that Te Pūkenga is awash with and drowning in debt of over $250 million when, at 30 June 2024, total external borrowings were only $45.3 million?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I've outlined, there is $207.311 million of intercompany debt, which has been taken from reserves of some institutions and applied against the debt that other institutions have. As Te Pūkenga is disestablished, that debt will have to be dealt with. It is real.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why does she claim that Te Pūkenga is $250 million in debt when, of those total external borrowings, at 30 June 2024, of $45.3 million, $44.6 million is with the Crown and is non-interest bearing and only a tiny portion is external to the Crown?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Debt to the Crown is debt, and so we have significant debt being held—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me. We're going to hear the answer in silence, thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Debt to the Crown is debt, just as intercompany debt is real debt. Te Pūkenga has over $251 million worth of debt.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why did she tell Radio New Zealand this week that Te Pūkenga was running a $77 million deficit when she told the House just yesterday that it is now forecasting a surplus of $28.5 million?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: That's the half-year surplus. So when you run a polytechnic or an ITO your income comes early, your income comes in the first half of the year, your expenditure goes throughout the year. It will bounce around a little bit, but that $28 million was their half-year to date surplus.

Hon Simeon Brown: Will the Government's reforms for Te Pūkenga include improved financial literacy?

SPEAKER: No, that's enough.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Has the Minister been taking—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. We'll just wait for everyone to settle. If you could start the question again, please.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Has the Minister been taking lessons in mathematics from the Minister of Finance, who seems to think that $12 billion of extra borrowing isn't going to tax cuts?

SPEAKER: That is not a question that the Minister needs to answer.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Meitaki, Mr Speaker. Why, given that she was advised that the benefits of the Te Pūkenga merger would take at least five years to materialise, is she spending millions and millions, against the advice of Government officials and her own special advisers, breaking up an organisation that is finally posting a surplus?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Te Pūkenga hasn't posted a surplus yet. However, I can advise the member that in October 2022 a business case was done that was going to require Te Pūkenga to have over $900 million spent on it to make it fully operational. The Minister at the time understandably rejected that. They came back and said, "Oh, well, over five years, it will need over $400 million to be operational." Again, the Minister understandably rejected that. This is an organisation that would need to have hundreds of millions of dollars spent on it to make it operational, to have its systems interoperable, and I am not prepared to see that sort of money be used on setting up a structure when it should be used on tertiary education.

Question No.11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has the Government made regarding the economic regulation of water services?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This morning, the Government announced that it is establishing a new economic regulation regime for water providers overseen by the Commerce Commission. The new regulatory regime will ensure that water providers invest in the right infrastructure at the right time so that Kiwis can rely on having fresh, clean water at an affordable price.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What regulatory tools will be available?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: We've designed the economic regime to provide the Commerce Commission with a flexible range of regulatory powers. The initial regulatory tool will be the use of what we call information disclosure, which will require water providers to disclose important information such as the nature or state of their infrastructure and their financial situation. The Commerce Commission will also have the ability, if necessary, to set minimum or maximum revenue thresholds, impose quality standards or performance targets, and, ultimately, it could implement price quality regulation.

Hon Phil Twyford: Labour did that.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: In addition—no, it didn't. In addition, we've allowed the commission to take a proportionate approach to regulation by categorising providers based on their sophistication, strategic importance, and size, Mr Twyford.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What consumer protections will be put in place?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The new information disclosure will allow the commission to collect and analyse information relating to consumer protections, such as complaint procedures and customer engagement. If deficiencies are identified, the commission will have the power to require further protections. These could include strengthening complaints procedures or adoption of an external dispute resolution arrangement.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will the economic regulation regime ensure appropriate investment?

Hon Phil Twyford: We worked on this together, actually.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: But you should have listened, Mr Twyford; that's the difference. The difference is we're putting it in place; you talked about it. So an important ingredient is that the economic regime requires that the revenue collected by the water providers will be ring-fenced and only spent on investing in their water infrastructure. In essence, we're not going to allow spending to be directed into unrelated activities. Local Water Done Well not only keeps water in local ownership and control but also ensures that we get the right level of investment at the right time into our water assets so that Kiwis have access to high quality, affordable water.

SPEAKER: Well, who'd have known that water could cause such unruly behaviour.

Question No. 12—Children

12. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement that "Savings coming from getting money back where it hasn't been used are redirected to other front-line services"; if so, how is the budget for contracted services being cut by $120 million?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the member is incorrect. The figure the member is referring to is $30 million a year over four years, which is not a cut. This is the amount Oranga Tamariki has forecast it will be able to recover from providers at the end of a contract period where they have not delivered everything we have paid for. If taxpayers pay for a service and they don't get it in full, I expect that money to be repaid. If this had been happening over the last six years, there would have been at least $132 million that could have gone to children, rather than letting some providers build up significant surpluses.

Kahurangi Carter: What evidence, if any, does she have to support the claim that "Oranga Tamariki has been the cash cow for community service providers", and does she think that it's fair to accuse valued not-for-profit community providers at the front line of banking funding instead of caring for at-risk tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I refer the member to an answer from a previous question today. The member would have heard about the $22 million that Oranga Tamariki has already recovered from the last financial year where services weren't delivered, with more expected to come. In previous years, providers have accumulated significant surpluses, and this is unacceptable. Every cent of taxpayer funding providers receive needs to reach the children and young people it is intended for, not sit idle in bank accounts.

Rachel Boyack: Will she visit community organisations like Family Start in Nelson and meet with staff and clients so that she can get a proper understanding of the critical work they do to support babies, children, and families?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nobody is denying that they don't do a good job in those service areas. What we're saying is that they undelivered in the last financial year, and their new contract has been adjusted from the information we received from them.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she accept the recent finding by the Independent Children's Monitor that Oranga Tamariki does not have the systems in place to properly monitor their own practices, and, if so, how can she be confident that each of the 332 front-line service providers who have had all or part of their funding cut have been evaluated fairly and accurately?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: All decisions are at Oranga Tamariki level, but I instructed Oranga Tamariki to do a thorough process of checking through contracts to make sure we were getting the services that we were paying for and make sure that we were actually targeting the right areas for the care and protection of our young people, and I believe they've done so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether she will thank the questioner for conceding that Oranga Tamariki does not have the systems in place to do the job properly and that's what you're setting about to fix?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely. Over the years, Oranga Tamariki has not performed as well as the public would expect. I am now setting expectations that they achieve the right goals and that they're making sure they're spending taxpayer money wisely.

Kahurangi Carter: Will the $14 million cut from Family Start Nelson be redirected to other front-line services, and, if so, which comparable service in Nelson is being funded to fill this gap?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I believe we've already spoken about that provider previously, where they did not deliver the full services that they were paid for. Their funding has been adjusted based on the information they provided to Oranga Tamariki, and Oranga Tamariki will make sure that that money is not sitting in a bank account and that it is going to a provider that can actually provide a service.

Kahurangi Carter: Is she concerned that the cuts to Presbyterian Support South Canterbury's funding mean that "There will no longer be any free counselling services available within South Canterbury", and, if not, why is she comfortable with creating these gaps in front-line service provision?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I cannot make an answer on information I don't currently have in front of me. If that member would like information on that specific question, please put it in writing. But what I would say is we are making sure that every dollar of taxpayer money that is being spent is actually going towards a service that is being provided to our young people who are in the care and protection of, or the attention of, Oranga Tamariki.

Kahurangi Carter: How can she continue to claim that savings are being redirected to other front-line services when the Government is simply cutting the budget for contracted services by $120 million to help fund their tax cuts for landlords?

SPEAKER: No, the last part of the question renders it somewhat out of order. Just ask the question without the extra bit on the end.

Kahurangi Carter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How can she continue to claim that the savings are being redirected to other front-line services when the Government is simply cutting the budget for contracted services by $120 million and putting it back into the overall bucket?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can stand here and say that because that is not what is happening. That money is not going back into the main Budget; that money is being redistributed back to front-line services.

SPEAKER: That brings to an end oral questions. We'll just take a minute while members leave the House quietly and quickly, without conversations on the way.

© Scoop Media