Sitting date: 5 November 2024

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. 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, and in particular I stand by this Government's action to conclude negotiations on a trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council which will deliver duty-free access for 99 percent of New Zealand's exports over 10 years. Growing trade relationships across the world is a key part of our plan to grow the economy, to lift incomes, and to create jobs for Kiwis. Can I just acknowledge the fantastic work of trade Minister Todd McClay in getting this deal over the line and setting our exporters up for more success so that we can grow our economy and earn the money that we need to invest in the world-class health and education that Kiwis deserve.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement "We've got very good processes for managing conflict of interest." and that "Ministers need to understand and internalise the responsibility that they have."; if so, is he confident that all of his Ministers are managing their conflicts of interest appropriately?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I'm confident real or perceived conflicts were managed, declared, and are being managed appropriately.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he confirm if any conflicts of interest were declared and managed by any Cabinet Ministers regarding their association with the tobacco industry when the Government made changes to New Zealand's smoke-free laws and the taxation of tobacco products?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can confirm is that any real or perceived conflicts are raised. We've assiduously followed Cabinet Office advice from day one of this Government, and we take that very seriously.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether any conflicts of interest were declared and managed regarding a specific issue that Cabinet has considered, and he did not address that question.

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister might like to consider his answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As per the previous Government, the policy of the Cabinet Office is not to publish conflicts, as has been the policy for successive Governments.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did any Ministers leave the room when the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) or the $216 million tax break for heated tobacco products were discussed by Cabinet?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, Cabinet conflicts, perceived or real, are managed appropriately and assiduously through the Cabinet Office guidelines. We have taken that very seriously. We operate very differently from the previous administration. We don't need 16 reminders from the Cabinet Office to manage conflicts.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If Cabinet does indeed take their responsibilities very seriously, then the Prime Minister should have no difficulty answering the question.

SPEAKER: Well, that's true, but there will always be aspects of Cabinet Government that aren't in the public arena at the time that the question might be asked. The Prime Minister has answered, I think, quite reasonably given the nature of the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who provided the advice to the Government that nicotine is as harmful as coffee?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you ask the question again?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who provided advice to the Government that nicotine is as harmful as caffeine?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That would be a question that would be best directed to the Associate Minister of Health.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who provided "independent" advice to Casey Costello justifying the $216 million tax break on heated tobacco products his Government agreed to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'd say to that member what we are doing is this country has had tremendous success at lowering daily smoking rates. We're down at 6.8 percent, heading to 5 percent to deliver on Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. We are now in a place where we actually have really hard, stubborn smokers that we're trying to get off cigarettes and into alternatives. We're prepared on this side to try something different. When he represents the $216 million, I think, as a tax break, it's not a tax break. What it is is a difference of moving from cigarettes into an alternative product at a lower excise duty. We are good, prudent economic managers on this side of the House, and we're making sure that we are allowing for that, in an accounting sense, for the most conservative transition.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Despite the very long answer the Prime Minister gave, he didn't actually address the question of who provided the supposedly independent advice to Casey Costello justifying the decision to remove the tax on heated tobacco products.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but he did say that the Government doesn't consider it to be a tax break, which would kind of nullify the rest of the answer. But take another question, without penalty.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who provided independent advice to Casey Costello justifying the tax changes when it comes to heated tobacco products?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, Ministers receive a lot of advice from a lot of different sources all of the time. They don't always take it; they do, but I just ask the member to direct the question directly to the Associate Minister of Health.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he doesn't know who's providing advice to the Minister, how can he be confident that conflicts of interest are being appropriately managed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because I know that that Minister is determined to lower smoking rates across this country and is doing so incredibly passionately and is determined to do it. I'd just say to that member: if he cares a lot about conflicts, I wouldn't call a sister-in-law a distant relative.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, last year the Prime Minister objected to the fact that he himself brought a member of his own family into the debate, and you required me to withdraw and apologise for the Prime Minister doing that. We've now got a situation where, repeatedly, the Government have named a public servant who happens to be related to a member of the Opposition in the House—a public servant who cannot speak back, a public servant who is part of a politically neutral Public Service, a public servant who declared their conflict of interest and has done absolutely nothing wrong. As you required me to, the Prime Minister should be required to withdraw and apologise for that. We had a situation in the House before the recess where the point of order process and personal explanation process was abused by the Deputy Prime Minister. I don't think you should allow the Prime Minister to continue with that.

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister might like to consider whether he withdraws that particular remark.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't consider I named anybody.

SPEAKER: No, the inference.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I withdraw and apologise.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the Minister for Children that allowing providers to use force against children may be seen as "increasing the potential risk of abuse in custody", and, if so, why is he allowing boot camp providers to use force on children, especially when it perpetuates the abuse in State care detailed in the Whanaketia report?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, what we want to see across Government, across the delivery of social services, is enhanced child safeguarding and protection. We want to see advocacy available for those young people in those facilities. But we're also acknowledging that these are some of our most serious young offenders, and if there are issues around absconding or if there are issues around harm to each other or to themselves, then restraint is appropriate, but it's got to be used under strict guidelines.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I have seen the latest monthly ANZ Business Outlook survey. Primarily, this measures how firms are thinking about the future but also has some indicators of how they are feeling about the here and now. In terms of the here and now, on the whole, firms think their business activity has declined compared to 12 months ago. This measure has improved compared to the previous survey but is still weak, reflecting where the economy is at the moment.

David MacLeod: How are firms feeling about the future?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Firms are feeling much better about the future. The ANZ Business Outlook includes a measure of firms' outlook for their own activity, looking 12 months into the future. This is very strong—in fact, the strongest it has been since 2014. Investment intentions and employment intentions are also rising, again looking a year into the future. The survey also measures overall business confidence—a net 66 percent of businesses think that general business conditions will be better in 12 months' time. This measure of business confidence continues to rise at a new 10-year high.

David MacLeod: How does she interpret these results?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The results of the ANZ Business Outlook survey indicate that firms feel the end of the recession has been reached and they see better times ahead. Businesses have been doing it tough for a long time, but they are increasingly optimistic about the future. This is consistent with economic forecasts. The Reserve Bank, for example, is expecting a negative GDP result in the previous quarter—the September quarter—but a positive result in the current quarter and a steadily growing economy in 2025 and beyond. Inflation is back within the target band, and the Reserve Bank has begun reducing interest rates.

David MacLeod: What are the key economic releases before Christmas?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, tomorrow, Statistics New Zealand will release labour market stats for the September quarter. Typically, unemployment lags economic activity, meaning that the unemployment rate will rise for a time, even as the economy picks up. That will not continue forever, however, and unemployment is expected to come down next year. GDP for the September quarter will be announced on 19 December, and both the Reserve Bank and Treasury will issue new forecasts before the end of the year.

Question No. 3—Children

3. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Children: Will private for-profit organisations be able to run military-style academies and use force against young people?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I want to make two points. Firstly, the member is referring to the development of a bill which is still subject to Cabinet consideration. Secondly, as is already publicly available, Cabinet has agreed that a military-style academy provider and their staff—whether Oranga Tamariki or another agency—would have the power to use minimum force as reasonably required. This would be to prevent a young person from being harmed, harming themselves, or harming others, or to stop them from absconding from any location. These are our most serious offenders, who must have committed at least two serious crimes with convictions of at least 10 years or more, which could be a range of things including sexual violence, aggravated robbery, or injury with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. We need to make sure that anyone working with them has the ability to keep themselves safe, keep the community safe, and keep other young people safe.

Tamatha Paul: Will she, in this House, promise that for-profit organisations will never run these military-style academies?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would have thought that the member on the other side would have wanted to create any ability for iwi and hapū to have some involvement in self-determination for what happens to their young people. This will give them the ability to be able to run a programme in the future. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Let's wait for the House to calm down.

Tamatha Paul: If it was her intention to allow iwi and other community organisations to run these academies, then why didn't she or her officials consult with them?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There is a process to go through when decisions are being made. No decisions have been made yet, and when those decisions can be spoken about, we will.

Tamatha Paul: How can she make the recommendation to Cabinet that third-party providers should be able to use force on young people, without speaking to the Children's Commissioner, when there are very obvious children's rights implications and risks from her proposal?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The Children's Commissioner and I meet regularly face to face, and I always say to her if there's any concerns that she would like to speak about, I'm open to speaking about them. If she raises this issue with me, I will speak to her about it.

Tamatha Paul: Does she support for-profit organisations being able to run military-style academies and use force against young people?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would just like to reiterate again that it is the power to use minimum force as reasonably required. There are situations where young people may absconder, put themselves in danger, put the community in danger, and put a whole lot of people in circumstances that they shouldn't be put in. So we need to make sure that staff have the ability to deal with that.

Tamatha Paul: Does she understand how disingenuous it looks to label something as a pilot and then seek Cabinet agreement to cement it in legislation before it's even finished and before it's even been evaluated?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Look, I'm proud of what we've achieved this year. I'm proud of the fact we've managed to step up a pilot, have 10 young people have a chance to turn their lives around, and invest in making sure they have every opportunity to be the best that they can be. I'm proud of that and I'm looking forward to seeing many more children have that opportunity.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Malo le soifua manuia, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement that FamilyBoost "will make a difference to more than 100,000 Kiwi families"; if so, why have fewer than half of that number actually received it so far?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. Inland Revenue estimates that in the next year alone—that is, the year from 1 October to 1 October next year—100,000 families will be eligible for the FamilyBoost payment. However, I would stress the fact that the FamilyBoost payment is intended to exist into future years and not just this year. I'd also stress that families may be eligible for payments in some but not all quarters as they come and go from early childhood education during the year or as their household income changes as parents shift in and out of work. They may also submit all their claims at the end of the tax year and people have a full four years to put in a claim. Clearly, it is early days, but in just four weeks there have been, already, 36,514 payments made into the bank accounts of New Zealand parents. I would say this is very good progress and I would also say this: if there are any parents in New Zealand whose children have been in early childhood education for which they have been paying fees, go on to the IRD website today and make your claim. I want to see as many eligible families as possible get the payment that they deserve and I would welcome this question being asked again tomorrow and the next day so we can get that message out to Kiwi parents.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn't it the case that most of those that have received FamilyBoost to date got less than $30 a week?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would put to the member this: $30 a week is around $1,500 a year, and if that member thinks that amount of money is not material to a New Zealand family with young children, I'd invite her to go and meet a family with young children, who will confirm for her that that is a meaningful sum of money. We've always been clear that the FamilyBoost payment is paid in proportion to two things: one, the fees that a family pays—so up to $75 a week of refunded fees, up to 25 percent of total fees; and, two, the income that a family receives. So there have been a range of payments made depending on the personal circumstances of families. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Some would suggest that rare and reasonable is not being exercised when it comes to interjections on questions.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was it fair to promise up to $150 a fortnight when, as of yesterday, only 3 percent of those who have received the payment got $150?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, because the policy that we advertised is the policy that we've delivered, whereby families are eligible for up to $975 in payment over the period—a sum that more than 1,200 families have received; 1,243. There is a range of other payments that have been made, many in excess of $500. Hundreds of dollars are being put into the bank accounts of New Zealand parents, and members on the opposite side of the House think that's a bad thing. They oppose a policy which directly provides cost of living relief to New Zealand families and I'd invite them to reconsider that position.

SPEAKER: I'd just make a point again that questions are being asked because they're on serious matters and people should at least attempt to listen to the answers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If only they were given.

SPEAKER: Well, sorry, are you—no comment.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn't it the case that FamilyBoost is so hard for parents to navigate and get it right that Inland Revenue has declined 7,700 claims, or 16 percent of total claims?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, that is incorrect. In fact, I'm advised by Inland Revenue that they have had feedback that the application process for the payment is straightforward. In fact, one person has gone so far as to say, "I feel like I've done something wrong because it was too easy to fill out." To members opposite, I'd just remind you of your responsibility here: there are people in your electorate who deserve this money, and the feedback that we have had is that when they go on to the website, they find it straightforward. The member has continued to repeat a claim that National wants to make it difficult for people to get this money. That claim is false—the member should stop making it. She should also stop mixing her metaphors and saying that my face is both blue and that my pudding is severely lacking.

SPEAKER: Both sides need to exercise a bit of calm, and I would just make the point that it's not the Government's responsibility to inform the Opposition of what their responsibilities are.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she doing nothing to make it easier for families to access support when, a month in, there is only a 33 percent uptake and 7,700 applications have been declined?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have made it easy for 35,000 families to get money put directly into their bank accounts and I stand by that. In addition, 3.5 million New Zealanders have had tax relief go directly into their bank accounts. What I would put to the member, once again, is this: any family who has children in early childhood education, who is paying fees, I would encourage strongly to go on to the IRD website and to make a claim for the payment they are due, and when they do that, to remember that they payment that that member wanted to put into their bank account was zero.

Question No. 5—Education

5. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Education: What update can she provide about her Make it Count action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): This Government is continuing to supercharge our plan to lift student achievement. Yesterday, I was delighted to announce we're introducing a targeted maths acceleration programme to give more Kiwi kids confidence in mathematics. From term 1 and 2 next year, around 2,000 year 7 and 8 students who need the most help will take part in an intensive support programme to support them progress towards required curriculum levels in mathematics. The trial will be small groups that will have tutoring and supervised online tuition as well—so a hybrid approach—for 30 minutes, up to four times a week for each student.

Mike Butterick: Which schools will be eligible?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Intermediate-age children have been specifically chosen for this, as they will have the least time to benefit from our curriculum changes and our resourcing changes before starting high school. The trial will be held in a cross-section of schools and kura across the country, teaching maths using The New Zealand Curriculum and teaching pāngarau using Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. It will run for 12 weeks and cost around $2 million, and we will work with schools to select those students who need the most support. It's my intention that the findings from this trial will inform decisions about scaling it up across the country from term 3 next year.

Mike Butterick: How else is the action plan supporting schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Last week we released the new maths curriculum for years 0 to 8, ready for schools to use from term 1—a year earlier than planned. Like our structured literacy approach, the maths curriculum is knowledge rich; sets out a structured, evidence-informed approach based on the science of learning, similar to the best from across the OECD. To support teachers with the curriculum roll-out, this Government has invested $30 million into high-quality curriculum-aligned workbooks, teacher guides, lesson plans, and resources free of charge. I'm pleased to share, as of today, that 369,966 students will benefit from those resources from term 1 next year—an increase of over 60,000 students in the last 24 hours and an additional 241 schools who've placed their order since 8.30 a.m. yesterday.

Mike Butterick: What feedback has she received?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Feedback from schools has been really positive. A number of schools have already contacted me and the ministry to get involved in the trial. In relation to the maths action plan, one principal wrote to me to say, "I'd like to reiterate my compliments to you and your team for relentlessly focusing on improving the primary school curriculum with an important emphasis on literacy and maths." And another wrote: "This is incredibly exciting and I thank you for your commitment to our students, our teachers, and our schools." Our work programme is one that is defined by pace, clarity, and outcomes, and we are delivering.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding her release of official information?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, in the context they were made. I acknowledge there has been widespread reporting and discussion in the House about the release of documents and handling of official information requests in my office. I don't deny there were challenges during a transitional period very early after receiving my ministerial warrant. Once my office was fully staffed, operational issues regarding management of information was remedied. I am far from the first Minister not to meet some of the obligations imposed by the Official Information Act, and I'm sure I won't be the last.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How did she determine that the statement "nicotine is as harmful as caffeine" was given to her by an official, when she made decisions to withhold that statement?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: There were redactions in a document that were still considered a point of debate—of full and frank discussions around advice that I was being given. That information was redacted at the time because it was still part of full and frank discussions.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific and I don't believe that response addressed it, but also earlier, when Chris Hipkins asked the Prime Minister a similar question, the Prime Minister suggested that a question be made to the Minister. Surely in doing so and avoiding addressing the question himself and putting the responsibility on to his Minister, there should be a higher expectation in the House that the Minister would address it.

SPEAKER: Well, your point of order raises the issue of the appropriateness of the Prime Minister suggesting another Minister might answer it. The reality is the Minister who the question is directed towards would be expected to know more. In this case, the answer was that there was free and frank advice that was redacted. That's not unusual for a Government to redact free and frank advice from official information.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How did she determine that it was appropriate to withhold that statement under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act if she did not know that they were an official?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The statement that she's referring to was part of a broader document that was a range of advice that was given. The redaction was later rectified and the information is fully available now. The statement in it was an extract from a broader document in which talk discussed nicotine and caffeine.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When she withheld statements that efforts to reduce smoking constitutes "nanny State nonsense", employing a section of the Act that specifically applies to advice tended by Ministers, officers, and employees of the Public Service, how did that conform with the Act if she doesn't know who wrote it?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think we're traversing a document that was used very early on, as has been discussed repeatedly in this House, which was a range of policy positions and advice—policy positions and previous New Zealand First policy positions and manifesto statements. It did not become part of the Cabinet paper. The work that was undertaken in this space was the implementation of the coalition agreement commitments.

Hon Shane Jones: Broad background.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: There was broad background documentation that was provided—that has fully been traversed and the information has been discussed at length regarding the source of that information.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that when she issued a revised information release to Radio New Zealand, after having been found to have acted contrary to the law by the Ombudsman, she has continued to unlawfully withhold information?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have not withheld any information under the Official Information Act. The documentation that was referred to was referring to the same piece of information that was redacted early on. Through the course of the discussions with the Ombudsman, the full document was then released unredacted, for which I apologised in this House and I have rectified the situation that the Ombudsman raised. As I said earlier, I am not the first Minister that has had to rectify issues around Official Information Act disclosures.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, I want you to consider that last question. There are many Speakers' rulings against any imprecation or imputation of legal wrongdoing, and that member has deliberately broken them. I'm surprised you allowed that question to go ahead.

SPEAKER: Well, I actually listened very carefully to the question, and the question reflected upon the—I assume it was a law relating to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's office, and that would bring it into an appropriate space. But what I would say is that it's not appropriate for members to use question time to make accusations against Ministers in a way that might not be well understood by the public, and that's probably where this question was. We'll now go to—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify exactly what you mean?

SPEAKER: Well, the problem is the question itself wasn't all that clear. So what I'm saying to you is that in referring to the Ombudsman's decision about using the law that governs him, to say that the Minister needed to release more information is not the same as saying that the Minister has broken the law, but it does perhaps suggest that. I think that's the difficulty that we have here. So while I accept that that's not the intention of the questioner, I'm just explaining why I accept that to the Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I'm not sure I follow that any clearer.

SPEAKER: Well, I'll tell you what, if you'd like to drop by my office later, particularly if you're having trouble sleeping, I'm sure I can give you an explanation that would see you doze off within seconds. Can we go to question—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I'm not sure what you've just offered.

SPEAKER: Nor was I, halfway through.

Question No. 7—Children

7. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Is she concerned that rangatahi in care and protection residences have not been given access to the basics, like healthcare, education, and freedom from violence, as Mana Mokopuna identified happening at Epuni?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): This report was written in April, not long after I became the Minister for Children. Prior to becoming Minister, I was shocked at the condition of Epuni. Once I became Minister, I asked Oranga Tamariki what could be done to improve conditions at Epuni, because it had been left in such a dire state. Since this report, we have developed and implemented an action plan with an intensive programme of work to ensure the safety and wellbeing of young people at Epuni. This has included returning to a full education programme, providing primary healthcare services and access to psychological services on site, and increasing access for advocacy services such as VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai and Mana Mokopuna. In June, I visited Epuni again, and I can confidently say there have been changes made to the way in which the residence operates, which, in turn, is creating a safer residential environment for our children and young people.

Kahurangi Carter: How does she reconcile her comment that Epuni has become "a nicer place to be for … children" with Mana Mokopuna's findings that residents couldn't access medication, didn't receive head injury treatment, had only two hours of education a day, and experienced over-reliance on punitive measures?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would suggest that the member listen to the answer to my question. That report was from April. I stated in the original answer that we have made changes since that report happened and that we have addressed the issues that the member has just asked about.

Kahurangi Carter: Is she concerned that even after refurbishments, the "overall feel of Epuni was that it was institutional and run down", and, if so, what actions will she take to de-institutionalise the facility?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The refurbishment that the member is speaking to was refurbishment that was done prior to me being Minister. We have put a lot more into the operational site since then and also into the procedures around how we are educating and how we are giving medical care and psychological care to young people within Epuni.

Laura Trask: What work has been done to ensure staff and young people's safety in youth justice residences and care and protection sites?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There are over 80 standard operating procedures in the process of being implemented across various care and protection and youth justice facilities at the moment. This means staff will now understand what the expectations of them are and what the consequences of them are if they are not followed. An example of this training that is provided would be de-escalation training and specific trauma-informed training, and I am happy with the progress that has already occurred and the trajectory of care within these residential facilities, but I can assure you we are doing everything in our power to help these young people turn their lives around and to give them the opportunities to make changes in their lives.

Kahurangi Carter: How will she ensure employment conditions are improved at Epuni, where vacancies struggle to be filled, staff work double shifts, feel like they can't take leave, and don't receive specialist training?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Once again, I suspect the member is referring to a report that was written in April. We have had a comprehensive hiring plan in place. We have looked at the culture around the residential facilities and the care and protection facilities. We are rolling out processes so that the things the member has raised today do not continue and that life is better for the young people within those residences.

Kahurangi Carter: What action will she take in response to Mana Mokopuna's finding that Epuni—a site of historic abuse in care—continues to cause trauma to past residents who are whānau of current residents?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think over the last few questions I have answered that question. We have rolled out 80 new operating practices. We are training people in de-escalation training. We are doing specific trauma-informed training for staff. We are supporting management to make sure that they have the tools they need to do their job and deal with things when they aren't being done properly.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has she seen on the time spent by people on welfare?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Ministry of Social Development's latest Benefit System Insights report contains some very sobering forecasts of how long people on welfare are expected to require benefit support over their lifetimes. Some of the more concerning findings are that people under the age of 25 on main benefits are now forecast to spend an average of about 20 more years on benefit over their lifetimes. Under-25s on jobseeker support are forecast to spend on average about 18 more years on a benefit. Those under 20 who are receiving a youth benefit are forecast to spend an average of 23 more years on a benefit. Work-ready jobseeker support beneficiaries of all ages are forecast to spend on average about 13 more years on a benefit. These findings highlight how bad welfare dependency has become in recent years and underscore the urgent need for our Welfare That Works reforms to get more people off welfare and into work.

Catherine Wedd: How do these forecasts compare to estimates in 2017?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Many of the estimated future years for different population groups of beneficiaries have increased significantly since 2017. For instance, the estimate that young people under 25 on a main benefit are forecast to spend an average of about 20 more years on a benefit is 39 percent longer than it was in 2017. The forecast that jobseeker support beneficiaries under 25 will spend an average of about 18 more years on a benefit is 49 percent longer than 2017. These reports also show the blame can't be placed at the feet of COVID, as the trend of people spending longer on benefits set in well before the pandemic, and the 2022 report stated its effects had mostly passed. By the end of 2019, exit rates for jobseeker benefits had already fallen to levels not seen since the unemployment benefit exit rates dropped at the peak of the global financial crisis, even though unemployment was relatively low at the time.

SPEAKER: That was a very long answer; I think answers should be more concise than that.

Catherine Wedd: What other insights does this modelling tell us about people on benefits?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We proactively released this report in its entirety, something that I note the previous Government didn't do, because we are open with the risk factors that contribute to some people being on benefit. These risk factors include growing up in a benefit-dependent household, low educational achievement, mental health issues, time spent in social housing, and a history of run-ins with the justice system. Addressing these risk factors is critical for the Government, and members will recognise that many of them are reflected in the Government's targets. Our Government will not tread the same path that has denied the opportunity to some of our most vulnerable. We want to make a practical difference in the lives of New Zealanders.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is she bringing Work for the Dole back from the dead as a punitive sanction when the evidence and official advice is clear that, "Work-for-the-dole programmes do not increase the probability of participants moving off the benefit and into employment." and "Instead, participants remain on benefit longer than would otherwise be the case"?

SPEAKER: Yeah, that was also a very long question, so—

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It's completely outside the scope of this particular report, but let me answer: the risk factors that the member is so interested in that contribute to people being on welfare for longer, are why we are introducing measures like the traffic lights—to support people into work faster.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, you don't need to. That was well and truly in scope of the primary question, with all due respect.

Catherine Wedd: What are the Government's plans—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, there is a point of order. Ricardo Menéndez March.

Ricardo Menéndez March: So in the supplementary question I talked about her policy which she received advice around on the probability of people staying on the benefit and the length of time that people would stay on the benefit as a result of that policy. That's very much directly in line with the question in relationship to a report that talks about forecasts of time that people would spend on the benefit. It may have been a long supplementary question, but that's just the advice that she received that I was quoting.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that's right; I already agree with you.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Well, do you just—sorry, you just jumped into the next supplementary question; I would like the Minister to actually address my question rather than say she's going to answer another issue.

SPEAKER: Well, with respect, she did.

Catherine Wedd: What are the Government's plans to support job seekers into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The job ahead of us to address these deep-rooted causes of welfare dependency are considerable, but so is our Government's commitment to supporting more people into work and a greater life. Some of the things we've introduced already are a new phone-based case management service, 2,100 more places for young people to get community job coaching, more regular work seminars to support people with their job searching, and a traffic light system to help them stay on track with their benefit obligations. We are determined to reduce the number on jobseeker benefit by 50,000 within six years, because we know the difference that work makes.

Question No. 9—Children

9. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement that "this military-style academy has nothing to do with the boot camps of the past, which were absolutely horrendous"; if so, does she support giving third-party military-style academy providers the power to use force against young people?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): In response to the first part of the question: yes. The boot camps of the past I was referring to were around decades ago, with untrained staff, no proper oversight, and in an isolated setting of appalling conditions. In response to the second part of the question: yes. This may mean that, in the future, we can extend the enabling community and partnership arrangements to have section 396 providers able to be involved in the military-style academies and to be able to work alongside Oranga Tamariki in the lives of young people—this may be iwi—where they wouldn't have been able to otherwise.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with the advice from Oranga Tamariki officials that the provision of powers to use force may result in harm if not used appropriately, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes; that's why it must be used appropriately.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who said his preference was not to use force; or the Minister, who said, in a leaked Cabinet paper, "I consider that clear authority is needed for the use of force"?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I won't be referring to a document that I have been unable to verify.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to the Prime Minister, who said, "What I'm interested in is 'Have we got the layers of child safeguarding?' ", when her paper had no safeguards?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister. We do need a proper level of safeguarding. That's why we need to have the discussion when there are risks involved. There are risks involved in everything we do. The whole point is making sure we mitigate those risks. You get in a car, you put on a seatbelt. You get in a boat, you put on a lifejacket. This is about us giving the young people the lifejacket and the seatbelt they need to better their lives. [Interruption]

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: When the House settles.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she learnt nothing from the royal commission into abuse in care that found that the lack of appropriate safeguards was a factor leading to the neglect, abuse, and trauma of children in care experience?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes; that's why we're having the discussion around appropriate levels of safeguarding. That's why Mana Mokupuna, the Ombudsman, and most other agencies have been involved in the process of these military academies. There is oversight, there is proper training, and there are facilities that we've actually invested in instead of letting them rot.

Question No. 10—Trade

10. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Trade: What actions has the Government taken to support trade with the Middle East?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Acting Minister for Trade): It is an exciting time to be a New Zealand exporter. Following the conclusion of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) trade agreement in September, our exceptional trade Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, announced the conclusion of yet another deal last week, this time with the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) after almost 20 years of negotiations. About 70 percent of New Zealand's trade is already covered by arrangements, but until recently, the Gulf region had been a major omission in that coverage. That's why our Government has moved very quickly to unblock progress and prioritise a successful and quick conclusion to the negotiations.

Miles Anderson: Why is this trade deal with the GCC significant?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The GCC is the ninth-largest economy in the world and our seventh-largest export destination. To date, this is the highest-quality deal the GCC has ever entered into; and, significantly for New Zealand, its first with a major agricultural exporter. The deal delivers duty-free access in 99 percent of our exports over 10 years, and when combined with our recently concluded UAE deal, 51 percent of our exports to the region will enter tariff-free from day one.

Miles Anderson: How will this agreement with the GCC benefit New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The GCC is a growing market for New Zealand goods and exports, with two-way trade between New Zealand and the GCC worth over $3 billion in the last year, and dairy alone accounting for $1.8 billion. Products like dairy, industrial products, red meat, and horticultural products will have locked in preferential duty-free access to that market, putting money into the back pockets of New Zealand farmers and manufacturers.

Miles Anderson: What is new and innovative about this deal?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The agreement promotes sustainable development policies and outcomes, recognising the importance of using labour and environment laws for legitimate purposes, effectively enforcing these laws and not weakening them to solely encourage trade and investment. For example, it affirms the International Labour Organization's fundamental principles and rights at work. That is a first for the GCC in a trade agreement, and facilitates cooperation on matters relating to labour, including compliance and enforcing mechanisms for labour rights. It also recognises the importance of women's economic empowerment, including commitments to fostering women's entrepreneurship, exchanging best practice related to policies and programmes, and includes a commitment to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Finally, New Zealand has also secured a Treaty of Waitangi exception to allow us to meet our Treaty obligations.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: You could be in the protest for the 19th.

Rawiri Waititi: Deliver that speech next week.

SPEAKER: That's all the excitement over.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to turn around New Zealand's unacceptable level of achievement in maths education. We are not prepared to sit by and accept that four out of five year 8s are not at the expected curriculum benchmark. So yesterday, we announced the latest step in our Make it Count maths action plan, a pilot programme with intensive support for 2,000 intermediate-aged students who have fallen behind the required curriculum level. We are giving the teachers the tools they need to set students up for success in a future with more opportunities than their parents had.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why have Māori faced disproportionately high rates of benefit sanctions and cancellations compared to non-Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'd say is that we are determined to make sure that every New Zealander—Māori or non-Māori—understands that they live in a country filled with rights and responsibilities. They have simple obligations: get a resume, show up for the job interview, check in with your case manager, and your fellow New Zealander will support you on a pathway to work. But you have an obligation to look for work and to participate in work, and if you don't, we'll sanction your benefits.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why has the Government's current housing strategy failed to adequately address the ongoing disparities faced by the 10,000 Māori households still on the waiting list?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I'm incredibly proud about is the incredible work that Minister Tama Potaka has been doing to actually reduce emergency housing in this country, because that was a shame from the previous administration, and to see over 1,500 kids moved out of motels and into proper houses is absolutely fantastic. I thought that if you cared about the kids, you'd back the policy—thank you very much.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why has the Government failed to effectively address the disproportionately high rate of suspected suicide amongst tangata Māori, which remains above the national average?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, this is a cross-party effort to work on suicide across New Zealand. We have a lot more work to do, as was evidenced in the last few weeks.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does the Government justify the slow processing of takutai moana applications, which directly affect Māori land rights and sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as we've talked before, what we are doing is making sure we go back to the legislation before, that balanced the interests of New Zealanders and also customary title for Māori. This is making sure that we go back to what was intended by this Parliament, rather than the lowering of a threshold interpreted by the courts.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he meet with the tens of thousands of tangata whenua and tangata moana who are arriving with the hīkoi at Parliament: 12 o'clock on 19 November?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: My schedule hasn't been confirmed and I haven't heard when they're arriving.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Justice: Does he consider that all of the appointments he has made or recommended are suitably qualified and appropriately politically neutral?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yes, in particular the recent appointment of the Hon Justice Simon Moore KC as chair of the Electoral Commission—very well qualified and appointed with the unanimous support from all parties across the House.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why was he satisfied that Dr Stephen Rainbow had the legal knowledge required by section 12(c) of the Human Rights Act to be qualified for the appointment as Chief Human Rights Commissioner?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because he has wide-ranging experience in terms of expressing strong views and making a good case for the importance of civil rights and human rights in New Zealand. The expectation has never been that you had to be an academic in human rights law. The legislation indicates that you have to have "an understanding" of human rights law, and I think that's appropriate. We've got every confidence that he will do an excellent job.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Is it politically neutral for Dr Rainbow to have messaged the ACT chief of staff on 12 December 2023: "The pushback you guys are facing is not unexpected, but it is still incredible. Am keen to help if you're needing any assistance. A gay human rights commissioner, for example?"

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The gentleman that the member has named is perfectly entitled to communicate with people on a range of issues. What I'm interested in is his ability to clearly stand up for and articulate the importance of human rights in New Zealand and to do that in a way that is well communicated. I've got every confidence he can do that.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why did he appoint Dr Stephen Rainbow as Chief Human Rights Commissioner given he is not suitably qualified; is not politically neutral; and was, in fact, assessed by an appointment panel of a retired Supreme Court judge, a former Attorney-General, a King's Counsel, and an Iwi Chairs Forum representative as not meeting appointment criteria to be a viable appointment?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: To the first part of the question: it is not I who appointed anybody—Cabinet made the decision and the Government made the appointment. The Government made the appointment because he is a very well-qualified person who would do a great job, and it's very important in this country that we have a strong advocate for universal human rights, and he'll do a good job in that area.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister consider that the quality of questions he's received in the last few minutes are evidence that maybe a law qualification is not everything?

SPEAKER: That was not particularly helpful for the order of the House at all. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to settle.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Isn't it simply the case that the appointment of Dr Rainbow as the Chief Human Rights Commissioner is because he is a party stooge who will simply do the Government's bidding?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. That question cannot possibly stand. We just had a long presentation from the Leader of the Opposition defending someone who he believes was imprecated last week. You cannot let that question stand.

SPEAKER: And I'm not going to. Thank you, that concludes oral questions.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order?

SPEAKER: I've ruled on the point of order. That concludes oral questions. We'll take 30 seconds to exit the House before we move on to the next business.

© Scoop Media