Estimates Debate — Social Services and Community Sector

Members, we come now to the votes in the social services and community sector, B.5, Volume 10. The question is that Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, Vote Building and Housing, Vote Oranga Tamariki, Vote Pacific Peoples, Vote Social Development, Vote Social Housing, Vote Sport and Recreation, and Vote Women stand part of the schedules.

Kia orana, Madam Chair. I rise to speak in support of the Estimates. As the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee, it was a real privilege to work with three parties on the committee to review the hearings. We heard from a number of Ministers. The Estimates reviews and the reports in this debate in the committee play a key role in the financial scrutiny of our Parliament over our executive—in other words, our Government—spending. The committee had—can I put it diplomatically—some robust and vigorous questions and answers, and I had to call only one time-out during the number of hearings; so I want to acknowledge all the members and everyone who participated in a very good-natured, very constructive though robust process.

We conducted hearings and tabled reports on the Estimates for Vote Social Development, Vote Social Housing, Vote Building and Housing, Vote Oranga Tamariki, Vote Women, Vote Pacific Peoples, Vote Sport and Recreation, and Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage for appropriations with the responsibility of the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, and within the State services, designing and implementing social investment. I want to quickly run through each of the votes and a bit of a highlight of the long list we reviewed and published a report on.

First up, in Vote Social Development, in 2018-19, the total funding of this vote was $24.285 billion—one of the Government’s largest single expenditures. Nearly 90 percent of this goes towards benefits and superannuation. We heard from the Minister for Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni, on the Government’s Families Package, overhauling the welfare system and ensuring people receive their full entitlements. The committee asked questions around reducing long-term welfare dependency and why there was an increase in the young parent payment. Under this vote, we also heard from the disability Minister, and Minister for Seniors, Tracey Martin, who discussed performance measures in the work of the Office for Disability Issues in advocacy for seniors, preventing loneliness among seniors, and the Government’s new winter energy payment.

In a second major area, we heard from Ministers Twyford and Salesa on Estimates for Vote Building and Housing. A major point of discussion was the Government’s KiwiBuild programme. This programme aims to build 100,000 affordable first homes over the next 10 years and Budget 2018-19 seeks $492 million towards it. Questions were asked around the financial structure and KiwiBuild Buying off the Plans.

In Vote Social Housing, we heard of the Government’s work managing the 63,000 homes, housing 180,000 Kiwis, and we heard about the work on social and other transitional housing measures. A major issue of discussion was tenancy reviews, with the Government pausing tenancy reviews while it considers specific exemptions. Another area of question was around the 8,108 people, as of April 2018, on the State house waiting list—an increase of 2,000 since September—and the Government’s policy of a net additional 6,400 public houses over the next four years.

For Vote Oranga Tamariki, we heard from the Minister for Children, Tracey Martin, who I must commend as the first Minister I have seen in my 8½ years to actually pull out a whiteboard and explain the process behind Oranga Tamariki and how the $951 million is to be spent. We heard about the work of performance measures and the child well-being strategy.

In Vote Women, we heard from the Minister for Women, Julie Anne Genter, on the work towards closing the gender pay gap, promoting women in leadership roles, and the 125th anniversary of suffrage in New Zealand, amongst other issues.

In Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, we heard of the 7 percent funding increase and the increase in funding for New Zealand music, the Regional Culture and Heritage Fund, funding for regional museums, as well as the specific case of the Dominion Museum building and the Great War Exhibition.

In Estimates for Vote Pacific Peoples, we heard from Aupito William Sio, and the committee discussed the Pasifika Education Centre, homeownership rates amongst the Pacific population, and the Pasifika economy.

Lastly, we heard from the Minister for Sport and Recreation, a true sports fan in the Hon Grant Robertson, and we discussed the declining levels of participation in sport amongst young people, adult volunteers, drug-free sport, and the appropriateness of lotteries funding.

I’d like to end by thanking the members of the committee, the Office of the Clerk staff, and the Ministers and their teams who appeared and participated in this very important parliamentary process.

Kia orana, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to stand in this Estimates debate and particularly focus my time on social development. This, of course, is $25 billion a year that taxpayers put into social development; so it is worthy of a lengthy debate in this Chamber. One of the things that was concerning right from the get-go was a Minister that climbed straight into a defensive position about not wishing to reduce the number of people on benefits—and, as we’ve seen in the quarter to 30 June, actually, the number in every one except one category of benefits has increased. I would have thought a Minister responsible for $25 billion worth of taxpayer spending would have had an interest, or at least a passing glance, at knowing what those numbers were. The Minister was unable to answer simple questions around, for example, the significant increase in the young parent payment.

But I want to just look at some of the figures in particular around, for example, jobseeker support. So in a situation where the Government’s inherited a very strong economy with low unemployment—we’ve seen unemployment fall even further in more recent times—to then have an increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit is somewhat concerning. At the same time, the Minister made lengthy observations, as reported in the Estimates report back to this House, around the effort to deliberately reduce the number of obligations that are placed on people who are seeking work. One of the examples that the Minister referred to was around sanctions, and, unfortunately, a lot of people misunderstand the whole discussion around sanctions. Sanctions are a number of obligations that are placed on those who are seeking employment through the jobseeker support—mutual obligations which, really, are a social contract. So if taxpayers are supporting you, there are a few obligations: being available for appointments, turning up for interviews, taking on work that’s available, and, where required, being drug-free.

The Minister talked at length not just about the intention to remove sanctions but not to apply them. We’ve recently had a 23 percent reduction in the number of sanctions being applied—you know, that’s more than one in five; it’s nearly one in four that the Minister has then put down to mistakes, errors by front-line staff. I have to say, I’ve not seen a Minister appear before a select committee in that way and be quite so critical of front-line staff. It was surprising and concerning to see that the Minister wasn’t supporting the many thousands of front-line staff who go to work each and every day, to what this side of the Chamber believes is to ensure that each and every New Zealander achieves their potential. And yes, they experience times of hardship, and taxpayers are more than willing to support people in their times of need.

It’s interesting to see that the Minister also spoke at length about the intention for this big welfare working group review but actually provided very little detail around the scope of that work, which was also interesting given that, having been in Opposition for nine years, there was a long opportunity, lengthy periods of time, to work out some of the policies that the Minister was then going to deliver. Of course, the Minister I’m referring to—just for those who are watching in the House—isn’t the Minister that’s currently in the chair. I’m referring, of course, to the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

There were a number of areas that the discussion focused on. Part of that was ensuring people got their full entitlement, and yet half a billion dollars that’s been identified as not being claimed isn’t in the Budget. So this is a Minister who’s responsible for one of the largest areas of spending of taxpayers’ money, has accepted there’s half a billion dollars in entitlements that aren’t being claimed, and yet, hasn’t allowed for it in the Budget documents. We raised that with the Auditor-General; that’s clearly a liability for the Crown that hasn’t been included anywhere.

Speaking of liabilities, one of the areas that was deeply, deeply concerning was the acceptance that there were 10,000 people on the social housing register, and a real lack of understanding that, for some people, they are so unable to access support through Work and Income that they can’t even get on the social housing register. It was very disappointing to see a Minister not even have a simple grasp of those people that are very hard to access, and no plan for accessing them. In fact, initiatives that are showing progress, like the place-based initiatives which are social investment on the ground, really changing lives in terms of making it easier for those who need our support the most to access the services—actually, no plan for the long-term deployment of things that really make a difference.

So platitudes around intensive wrap-around support—which, of course, were initiatives that came from the previous Government—and a pure lack of understanding about those that need it most. It was echoed by the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, who actually didn’t care at all about the fact that there are large parts of this country who aren’t being supported by the $100 million that supposedly is being put in to social housing, and is quite comfortable with the fact that people in places like Tokerau, Taupō, and Tūrangi that have high needs won’t get access to it. Although he’s promised on multiple occasions that no one needs to live in a car this winter, I can give him multiple examples. We discussed it in the select committee in the Estimates hearing, and the Minister clearly was not interested in providing support, providing solutions, or coming up with dollars, even though they’re a Government that’s awash with cash.

So it was a bit conflicting, a bit disappointing, in terms of Vote Social Development, to not have a Minister that was across the detail of her portfolio, that was bagging her staff, and really doesn’t believe in the potential of New Zealanders who want to get ahead, who want to fulfil their potential, and understand that the space of obligations is about being able to ensure that people who are receiving support from other taxpayers understand that they have obligations and understand there are opportunities for them to pursue those areas.

Social investment was an area that was also in the Estimates, and I think there are some areas that the Minister realised there was clear agreement. In fact, she actually said that one of the challenges has been that a lot of people misunderstood—and I think, probably, early on, her as well—what social investment was all about. At the heart of it, social investment is about changing lives. It’s about how to ensure, through clear targeting, through clear use of data and information, the ability to absolutely focus and hone taxpayer support to those who need it most. And many of those are people who don’t access the online website, who don’t look at the website to see what their entitlements are.

We had quite a great discussion about what you have to do as a superannuitant to make sure that your information is correct and to make sure that you are getting the right amount for your superannuation. It was really interesting to note that we had a lengthy discussion around the forms. The forms have been improved in recent years to make sure that people accurately completed their form and to make sure that they were getting the right amount for their superannuation. Unfortunately, we’ve had numerous examples of people who haven’t; who’ve been overpaid. We did go through it in quite a lot of detail, just to make sure that the process was simple and that it was easy. We reviewed the form there in person.

So the Minister for Social Development has said that she’s committed to ensuring that more people get what they’re entitled to, and yet, on the books, hasn’t accounted for it, and also hasn’t accounted for how to collect from those who’ve been overpaid, and to ensure that those sorts of inaccuracies are picked up earlier, because, obviously, taxpayers are fair-minded, want to support those who have times of need, but also want to make sure they fulfil their obligations.

Kia orana, Madam Chair. It is with great pleasure that I rise to talk about the Social Services and Community Committee, and there is so much to talk about. Firstly, there were a number of Government Ministers we heard from, all of whom, actually—completely contrary to what the previous speaker who resumed her seat, Louise Upston, said—were incredibly over the detail of their portfolios, were compassionate to boot, and reflected this coalition Government’s focus on bringing kindness back and, actually, this Government’s vision to ensure that everyone is able to live with dignity. That was across a number of portfolios, whether it was about improving housing, increasing public housing that’s available, or increasing affordable housing so that everyone has good-quality, warm, dry homes that they could actually afford to live in. There is the fact that Housing New Zealand houses are being redeveloped so that they’re fit for purpose, and large-scale developments across New Zealand that will include affordable housing as well.

The Minister of Housing and Urban Development acknowledged that workforce constraints do pose a bit of a barrier. It is a bit of a challenge, but there is significant work under way to determine solutions to that. At the end of the day, we know—we heard from Ministers—that we do have a housing shortage. Members opposite have just started acknowledging that there is a housing crisis—the fact that we are short of about 71,000 homes across the country.

Ministers also outlined this Government’s vision to eliminate poverty. The Child Poverty Reduction Bill will require this Government to develop and report on a strategy to promote the overall well-being of children—the child well-being strategy, which is a cross-Government approach to ensure that every child is supported.

We heard from the Minister for Women, who outlined her vision to ensure that women are supported to live free from violence, her focus on removing some of those barriers that women face to getting into leadership positions, addressing pay equity, and closing the gender pay gap.

In social development—a massive amount of change, both in terms of ensuring, as I mentioned before, that everyone is supported to live with dignity but also that the process that they go through, whether it’s through Work and Income or through Oranga Tamariki, ensures that dignity is supported as well.

The Families Package is a major policy initiative in Budget 2018, and it encompasses a variety of new initiatives aimed at increasing the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders, including the winter energy payment, to ensure that those who are on a benefit—our superannuitants as well; many of whom can’t afford the heating that they need to get through winter—are supported. There is the Best Start tax credit to ensure that every child in New Zealand has the best start in life, changes to the accommodation supplement, Working for Families tax credits—and the list goes on. The fact that of children in poverty 40 percent are from working households is a fact that this Government does not think is acceptable, and has a plan to change it.

Treating people with dignity—unlike, again, the previous speaker, Louise Upston said, the Minister did not come in and “bag” the people working at the front lines, as was alleged. That’s absolutely untrue. What she talked about was strengthening the culture at Work and Income offices. That has actually been well-received. She was asked what feedback she’d got from Work and Income offices as well, and it was positive. It’s about supporting those at the front line to ensure that the people who are coming to Work and Income receive their full entitlement, that they have a friendlier and more positive experience, that it’s not a top-down, punitive approach that the previous Government actually championed. It’s not about blaming those at the front line; it’s about ensuring that those at the top make it OK for those at the front line to treat people well.

I would go into social investment, and the fact that the focus the previous Government had was on treating people like commodities and ensuring that they weren’t a fiscal liability to the State, not about what this Government is focusing on: social well-being.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I rise to take a call on the Estimates in the social services area. As the Minister for Children, can I first acknowledge the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee. I want to thank the chair very much. I had to seek permission to do something that hadn’t been done before, and that was to bring in a whiteboard to the select committee. I’ve been—

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: High tech.

—sitting on select committees for six years. I love whiteboards. Mr Twyford has just shouted something along those lines.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: High tech.

High tech—there you go. But what it is is a method to communicate, and the intent was to give as much detail as I could to the select committee around the background to the Budget. So I drew what I have drawn all over the country, whether it be for social workers on the front line of Oranga Tamariki, whether it be for the NGOs, whether it be for the VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai youth panel—I drew the pictures that show why we are investing where we are investing.

I want to be clear that nothing about the direction of Oranga Tamariki has changed, actually, from the previous Government to this Government, and that is because we don’t play politics with children. That is because this House—and I want to acknowledge again the members of the select committee—doesn’t play politics with children. So this was about the children that needed us the most. I want to thank very much the members of the select committee for giving me that leeway and giving me that opportunity to draw you the diagram of why we are funding what we are—$52 million in this year of new funding; $72 million each year for the next three years—into what are the operational matters that Oranga Tamariki must put into place for the children that we all need to care about the most: children who have families that cannot look after them for a variety of reasons, without judgment. For a variety of reasons, these children and these families need us to make this investment so that we can break the cycle of what has been youth justice in this country, to break the cycle of what has been the care experience in this country for these children.

I want to particularly acknowledge the Hon Alfred Ngaro for his intelligent yet critical questioning at the select committee. That is absolutely correct—the Hon Alfred Ngaro quite rightly questioned the Estimates, and that is what the select committee is for. So I want to thank him for his respectful yet insightful and querying questions. It was disappointing that at that select committee there were questions asked by members of the select committee around visitation, for example, that may or may not have happened for a child that they were concerned about in their area. Yet after the select committee process, when my department contacted them, they would not give us the details to be able to follow up on that child. That was not the Hon Alfred Ngaro, so I want to just say that that was a disappointment, after we’d had such a collegial and appropriate interaction at the select committee. I believe that everybody in this House wants to make sure that children who are in need get the services that they need, and get the care that they need from Oranga Tamariki, and from us as a country.

The other thing I want to close with, though, is I want to acknowledge inside this Budget the, I think, $104.9 million per year that was a commitment by the previous Government that is in the Budget of this Government for the unsupported children and orphans clothing allowance parity with foster carers. Can I thank the whole of the House. It was unanimously supported as a member’s bill, I think, in my first term—so two Parliaments ago—but it takes some time to find $104.9 million. So can I just acknowledge at this opportunity, this contribution around these Estimates, the previous Government. Can I acknowledge the current Government, and the fact that it’s been delivered today for these children.

I spent Friday morning with the care-experienced young people from VOYCE – Whakarongo Mai who were talking specifically about this money. I have been in touch with, and the Hon Alfred Ngaro and the Hon Paula Bennett were also with me, at a Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust event. This will make a difference in the lives of children. This money is inside these Estimates. We have done well here, across this House. I thank you all for the unanimous support that you have given to these children. Kia ora.

Kia orana e Maine Vaa Tuatua. And thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. Can I just acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin for her contribution and the speech that she’s made. I hope that other members across the Chamber will do likewise.

But in all seriousness, it is an acknowledgment of the work because at the end of the day it’s that commitment collectively together that we’ve made. I want to thank you, the honourable Minister, because she didn’t need to but she did, with both the Hon Paula Bennett and myself being there and that opportunity for the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust. The moment was actually the smile on Di Vivian’s face, when she, on behalf of all grandparents raising grandchildren and other kin carers, could know that actually now in perpetuity there would be this fund and this support that would allow them to have the equity of allowances round the clothing allowance. I do want to acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin, because you actually put this through in your first term, and you persisted with it to see that through. I do remember you one day saying to me, in one Budget you said, “Alfred, I can’t see it. Go and find it.”, so we did, and eventually found it. But I just want to acknowledge the work that had been done through that as well.

I do acknowledge that it’s a tough role to take on, because it is the care and responsibility of all the children that are placed in your responsibility. We know that, because you’ve got a ministry that then is in charge of that, sometimes things don’t always go right. Part of the role that you’re taking is to try and put those things right. So we know that when we are challenging and when we are holding to account, it’s not only your leadership; but it’s making sure the system operates in a way that does make a difference.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Can I just ask the member, please—

Apologies, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you.

So I want to acknowledge that. So in saying that, here are the things that I think that are really important to hold to account in regards to this. So I know that in the briefing to the incoming Minister (BIM)—and I know the Minister had read it—on page 8 of the BIM what it did talk about was one of the upcoming decisions that the Minister had to make, and this is in regards to residential settings. What it said was by February 2018 there’s a recommendation to ensure that the residential settings—the community-based residential options and community-based options for remand—be considered inside of that. I bring that to the Minister and to this Chamber because when we then now go to the Budget around the allocation of resource and funds—and I do want to point out that I know that, for instance, in the Estimates hearings we did talk about Stand Children’s Services, the children’s camp, both in Ōtaki and Roxburgh. I know there’s a bigger picture, because we’re talking about the operating budget of $5 million. There was a shortfall.

But I do have to say this, because they did come to us; we did not seek them and it is our responsibility to take on their advocacy. So we had Stand Children’s Services and we had mayors from the local communities come to see us to ensure that we would advocate on their behalf. Even though I know that in the Estimates hearing the Minister did say—and it was advice from the ministry, and we want to hold them to account—that, actually, the appropriate services would be there to support them; however, the communities themselves actually said that that support would not be there.

They had community meetings, they had protests, they had mayors, they even had the New Zealand Public Service Association coming out in support of them to say, “Actually, we know that won’t work.” I think one of the challenges that the Minister will find—and we will hold to account the ministry and the Minister—is that with all the good intentions, if a community at large and as a whole are saying “Actually, we know this won’t work.”, I think one of the challenges is to see actually what will become of the decision that’s been made. So the decision’s been made not to support Stand Children’s Services in Roxburgh. I do hope that those support services will be there. I know that for all of us the threshold of one child not receiving the support of trauma care—and that’s what the Stand Children’s Services children’s camp are now; they provide specialist trauma care and counselling for those that are most in need, as well.

The allocation of the Budget—the total Vote is $951 million. The part that I want to also refer to is the $260 million that’s allocated for early and intensive intervention services for children and young people who exhibit needs that require statutory intervention. In this case, I think that what actually did happen—and as the Minister said, inside the select committee room, and, again, as I’ve said to the Minister—was this was the community coming to us, saying to us that the advertising, and I know it’s been done before on TradeMe of a young Māori girl, in that case a tamariki, the issue of concern from the community was the disclosure of the iwi affiliations. And then the lack of care to make sure that there was consultation and engagement with those. So it was the concern from the community that, again, the system had not responded. In fact, the only reason they came to me was because they had approached Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children and their concerns were not listened to. The responses that came back, I think, were of concern because they had said, “Everything’s OK. There’s no concerns. We’ve done this before. It’s not a problem.” And yet what actually was highlighted in the Social Services Committee was actually that’s not the case. In fact, it hadn’t been done before in regards to the disclosure, the full disclosure, of iwi connections.

What also was not followed through, and yet was given as a reason, as acknowledgment, that they’d been engaging—in fact, if one reads through the Estimates report, entitled in the report in the chapter on page 304 was “Working with iwi to create better outcomes.”, and yet that’s not the case. That wasn’t the reality. Again, I would say to the Minister and to the ministry: this is where a ministry needs to be held to account. When a community comes forward and says that it actually, first of all, went to the ministry, did not have a response, and hence the reason they came to seek extra advocacy in the roles that they were asking for. So I want to again say that on this, it is a concern that in regards to the allocation of the Budget I hope that it’s allocated in the appropriate ways, because the allocation of that budget of $260 million is around intensive care support, and is around the support services that would ensure that family and whānau and ainga would have the support that was wrapped round them. I think what was really clear from the community was that was not the case. So again the reason why I highlight this in this Estimates hearing is because again it shows that the system itself did not work. If the system is not working, then I think it’s a real concern for us to ensure that that will continue as well.

I want to highlight also too on page 303 where the Minister—and yes, I’d never seen this before; the old whiteboard coming out. Facilitators like us who’ve been round for a while love whiteboards. They get out there, they draw pictures, and they give an analogy so they can be able to break down the presentation if it’s complex. I want to acknowledge the Minister for doing that.

The part, though, that I became concerned about was, and it’s highlighted here, in regards to developing performance measures. In this, where the Minister was highlighting the appropriation, where now they were talking about the early intensive intervention and the allocation of that, but what concerned me is that there were 15 measures that were talked about but only five of them actually had—and I’ll read from here: “The statutory intervention transition output did not state a numerical value or target or what should be achieved.”

I thought that was a concern for those of us, because, I suppose, like any target, the reason it’s called a target is that you’ve got to have something to aim for. It can’t be fluffy, it can’t be woolly, and it can’t just say that we’re just going to make people feel good. Actually, part of setting a target and a measure is to know whether you’ve achieved that goal.

So it was a concern to us on this side where the fact is that, again, out of the 15 measures that have been stated in regards to statutory intervention and transition, only five of the 15 actually had set targets and valuations. And I know that the Minister actually said here as part of the process that “We didn’t want just another tick-box exercise.” Well, those of us on this side will agree with that. As has been said previously in previous speeches, the social investment approach was not about a fluffy, woolly, “Let’s try and see if we can make a difference.” approach. Actually, let’s be held accountable—

💬 Hon Member: A tick-box exercise?

—with the system is in place to make sure—tick-box exercise. That’s right. Box-ticking exercises—gets a little bit confusing! I think we know what we’re trying to say, which is that the fact is we want to be able to have a measure that we can hold ourselves accountable to. So what I’m saying in this is that it is a concern on this side that the ministry and the Minister actually still have not put this in place. They said it’s going to happen, and, again, what did we have as a response? “Oh, there’s another inquiry that’s coming along, another advisory committee.” The Minister’s looking aghast there. We just hope on this side that we’ll get past the advisory, past their inquiry, and get to a point where we can actually measure this.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: There’s no inquiry into Oranga Tamariki.

No, no, it’s actually on here. It’s on the report that the Minister was talking about how there’s an advisory committee that they’re putting together—here it is, it’s in paragraph 4: “We also heard that the ministry is working to decide on the right outcomes to measure performance … We heard that a recent expert advisory panel … had indicated that previous measures had driven activity and ‘box-ticking’ [exercises]”. I’m pretty sure I heard the Minister talking about another panel, OK? We just want to get on and do the work. I commend this speech to the House.

Can I just start by acknowledging the Social Services and Community Committee for the work that they have done and continue to do. Can I also acknowledge the public servants for the huge amount of work that we have tasked them with over the last nine months that we’ve been in Government. We have big expectations of ourselves, and we have big plans for this country, and we are reliant on the work of the public servants; so can I acknowledge the great work that they are doing.

I’ll also acknowledge Minister Tracey Martin, who spoke earlier on her portfolio as Minister for Children. She was very gracious to the previous Government, actually, and I think she will be regretting that now after the speaker who just spoke prior to me. I will, on behalf of the Minister for Children, make the point that the advisory group that was being referred to by the Hon Alfred Ngaro, and that same advisory group he was criticising the current Minister for Children for, was actually an advisory group set up under the previous Government. So I make that point on behalf of the Minister for Children.

I think it’s really important that I just briefly touch on the direction of this Government and then reflect on some of the questions or comments raised by one of the previous speakers on Vote Social Development. We were very clear in the Estimates, and we’ve been very clear since we’ve got into Government, that we are aspirational for New Zealanders, that we are about ensuring that people are supported to reach their potential. For us, it is about ensuring that, in whatever Government agency people have an interaction with, they are treated with fairness and respect and that their dignity is upheld.

I’ve been very clear about that with the Ministry for Social Development and make no apologies for that approach. I was criticised earlier for taking that approach, and the comment that was made was that I was undermining public servants who are out there on the front line. Well, in fact, I’m not doing that at all, and I have already visited, I think, 20 Work and Income New Zealand offices to make sure that we’re absolutely on the right page. The vast majority of our staff do an excellent job, but we know there are one too many incidences in the media where people have experienced something that is not a positive experience in a Work and Income New Zealand office. So I’m not going to apologise for committing to working alongside our staff to improve it so that every person who goes to Work and Income New Zealand offices has a positive experience, because they deserve that.

One of the previous speakers brought up the young parent payment and was saying that there was a marked increase in the number of people that were receiving that. The point has already been made to that member and to the select committee that that increase is due to a decision by the previous Government to increase the age range, which means that more people are captured and eligible for that particular payment. So that point of clarification is, I think, really important.

Another point that was made was that there has been a reduction in the number of people who have had cancellations or suspensions of their benefits, and criticism of me for that. Well, actually, the reason that there has been a reduction is not because we changed the general policy about why it might be applied but because we changed the process to ensure that we had our checks and balances in place, and there had to be a person authorised to sign that off. That is actually the responsible thing to do, and seeing a reduction shows that, actually, in the past, it’s probable that there were mistakes that were being made. I accept absolutely that front-line staff have a big job in front of them; so it’s important that we, as decision-makers, make that as easy as possible for them by putting responsible processes in place, which is exactly what I’ve done.

I’ve been criticised by a previous speaker also for reducing the obligations on people who are accessing a benefit. That is not at all the case. The same obligations stand. We have an expert advisory group now that’s in place to give us advice on things like excessive sanctions, income adequacy, and the way that the welfare system interacts with other Government agencies, and all of that advice will be taken on board when we receive their report in February. But I’ve been very clear: the only sanction that I can speak to that this Government has already committed to getting rid of is section 70A. As for the rest, I’m not pre-empting any changes in that space, and I’m looking forward to the advice that we get from the select committee.

I also want to make the point that we were criticised earlier—and I know the Minister of Housing and Urban Development will speak to this, but I think we were collectively criticised—on the increase of the number of people who are on the social housing register. The reality is that, when we got into Government, a lot more New Zealanders that’ve been doing it tough, struggling to make ends meet, struggling within the housing crisis that’s been left as part of the legacy of the previous Government—as soon as we got in, a large number of New Zealanders all of a sudden felt hopeful that perhaps they had a Government in place that would empathise with them and would do something about the desperate housing situations that they were in. So it’s no surprise to us that housing numbers increased on the social housing register. There wasn’t a housing crisis created when we got into Government; the housing crisis was created by the previous Government, and we have been left to respond to it. So I acknowledge the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, the Hon Phil Twyford, who is doing a fantastic job in that department, and I won’t speak anymore to housing, because I know that he will respond to that himself.

I’m very proud of some of the measures that we put in place already in these first nine months. I have to acknowledge the first 100 days and the Families Package: $5.4 billion worth of funding that went to support low and middle income New Zealand families. That money was shifted away from the planned tax cuts that the previous Government had promised. Those tax cuts were not agreed to by us, because, actually, the reality was that a large proportion of those tax cuts were actually going to the top 10 percent of income earners in New Zealand—something like $400 million—and, to us, that’s not acceptable.

I’m very proud of the fact that, as of 1 July, we had the winter energy payment put in place. As of 1 July, parents in this country, or people in this country who have a child, will now be eligible for the Best Start payment, and that, really, along with the extension of paid parental leave, demonstrates this Government’s commitment to families, to low and middle income New Zealanders, and to those first thousand days for children, which we’ve all been told about in this House. All of us have had the evidence put in front of us that shows very clearly how important the first thousand days are.

So I’m very proud of the Families Package, proud of the fact that something like an additional 29,000 families will now be eligible for Working for Families, and that that will only continue to grow. Very proud of the fact that even though it’s just a start, because we as a Government know that there’s still much more to do, because of our Families Package 64,000 children will be lifted out of poverty, and that really demonstrates the commitment that we have on this side of the House to addressing child poverty, an issue that almost all New Zealanders take seriously and, unfortunately, was largely ignored under the previous Government.

I’m very proud of the fact that, as a Government, we made the commitment to put $76 million towards family violence services, the first time that many of these services at the front line, if not all of them, have received additional funding for a decade. They have been working on the smell of an oily rag with some of the most vulnerable families in an area that has got increasingly challenging, and all of a sudden I feel very proud that we can be part of a Government that shows we’re committed to addressing it.

I think that all of the Ministers on this side of the House and all of the members on this side of the House in Government would acknowledge, though, that there is much more to do, and we are committed to doing it. That’s why we have made sure that we have Jan Logie in the parliamentary under-secretary role to be that person that pulls it together, given that that particular issue spans over so many portfolios and is incredibly complex.

I think I’ve covered off most of the main issues raised by the previous speaker, and all I want to say is that there is much more to do. This Government is committed to addressing child poverty, and we are committed to ensuring that we support New Zealanders into meaningful and sustainable employment. As the Prime Minister has said, we will support all who are able to be earning, learning, caring, or volunteering.

Thank you, Madam Chair—finally. I feel like I’ve been jumping up ever since this debate began. I’d like to greet you: kia orana e Maine Vaa Tuatua. Hopefully, the pronunciation was acceptable.

I would like to take the opportunity to speak briefly on the vote for the social development and housing sector, and some members in this committee would actually wonder why I am standing up to talk, because I don’t normally belong to the Social Services and Community Committee. However, it is in the Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage appropriation where broadcasting was classified, and because I belong to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation (EDSI) Committee and considering the fact that broadcasting has had a lot of interest, we were expecting the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media to turn up. Indeed, she did, but she refused to discuss broadcasting because it was given to the Social Services and Community Committee.

So I was astonished that the Hon Clare Curran would not discuss it. I know that there are some members in this House who belong to the EDSI select committee who actually, previously, when Radio New Zealand turned up, the Minister—we would have an opportunity to ask the Minister about the Estimates and the delivery that she has not done properly. Anyway—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: But it’s the wrong estimate, so why would one turn up anyway?

That Minister is asking if it was the wrong Estimates. Well, I was actually in the EDSI select committee when that Minister turned up and was asked the questions about the ethnic communities, and she couldn’t answer that, either.

Anyway, I digress. This is actually about the arts, culture, and heritage appropriation, which belongs to this Estimates debate. It is actually about broadcasting, and I’ll get to it. The Minister, in her shining, brand new ministerial role, actually promised so much. It was in the Labour Party election manifesto that they would deliver $152 million—that is actually $38 million a year for the next four years. And—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Wrong Estimates.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I keep getting an interjection from that side suggesting that this is the wrong Estimates. It is actually Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, which I can speak to in this Estimates debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): To answer your point of order, we are just double-checking that you are in the right Estimates—

That is the whole point, Tracey.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: There’s no broadcasting.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! If you are speaking to arts, culture, and heritage, then you are in the right Estimates. We’re just double-checking that the Estimates regarding broadcasting come within that Vote.

It does, and that is the whole point.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Carry on. Carry on until otherwise notified.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Where was I—the $152 million that this Minister promised to deliver, but failed to, because she literally only delivered less than 10 percent. It was $15 million. She actually took to Cabinet $152 million. She wanted $152 million for the broadcasting sector, but she delivered only $15 million, and she established a bureaucracy, a ministerial advisory board, to dish out, or, actually, to decide if we needed a public media funding commission—another level of bureaucracy.

The ministerial advisory board is actually costing taxpayers $1.5 million, and they have decided for the Minister where the money is going to go: $4.5 million to Radio New Zealand, $4 million to New Zealand On Air, $6 million between Radio New Zealand and New Zealand On Air, and $500,000 for the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. But the thing is that the Minister wanted RNZ+. She wanted Radio New Zealand to have a brand new TV channel—a complete TV channel—and she thought she could do it for $4.5 million.

That is just ridiculous. It just shows how completely out of touch she is with her portfolio and that she has no concept of what broadcasting is actually about. She is absolutely, ridiculously out of her depth to think that she can actually produce a brand new television channel with that kind of budget. There is no way RNZ+ will ever come to fruition.

Kia orana, Madam Chair. I was tempted to stand up and talk about horse racing because I do like a punt, but I realise it’s not actually part of these appropriations. So I will come back, if I may, to just talk about how much I really enjoyed being part of the appropriations.

This is the time when we do actually get to examine and see our own Ministers and our own ideas and strategies examined, and many in the Opposition put them through their paces. The Hon Alfred Ngaro has already been praised tonight, on a day when I understand he became the first speaker to do the prayer in a foreign language, or in a non-English language. That should be congratulated. It’s a shame that that goodwill didn’t continue to his own presentation, because what I can actually say to Mr Ngaro is that he pointed out something quite important that has come out of this: the difference between counting every little bit and piece and thinking, “We’ll get to where we want to go.” versus what we saw in this appropriation, which was a fine example of what vision and aspiration actually mean. And, in that, I refer to KiwiBuild.

Now, I come from a profession where we don’t get excited about things. I used to train detectives, and we always taught them the “ABC”: accept nothing, believe no one, and corroborate everything. So, when the whole KiwiBuild concept came to reality, I sat and watched and wanted to make sure—and I heard some of the criticisms—and I nodded my head and wanted to see how it was going to work, but, after this appropriation, and after some personal experience I’ve had, for those in the Opposition who are sort of betting their future on KiwiBuild failing, I would say, “Find another target.” because I have become a firm believer that KiwiBuild not only can work, KiwiBuild will work.

I would say, for those members of the Opposition, if they, like me, spend a lot of time out in their electorates, they will no doubt be meeting people like I did last Sunday, up in the Johnsonville market. I met a couple up there earning $220,000 between them; they’re not eligible for KiwiBuild, because they are over the limit. However, with $100,000 in the bank and earning that, they can’t find a house. They’re in the market around that $700,000 to $800,000 mark and they cannot find a house. They’re realising they have to go so much further. And this is a couple that earn a lot of money, they’re comfortable; they’re not going to be eligible. Again, I look at the Opposition; you must be meeting those people. Those who are earning less, those who are earning below $180,000, have very little hope, unless they are living in an area of New Zealand where housing is cheap, of ever owning their own home.

Now, just this weekend, we heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about how they, basically, were very keen on, I think it was, out-compassioning this Government. Well, a good way, if they really want to show some compassion, is to actually look at the compassion that is going to be required, the strategy and the goodwill that is going to be required, to ensure that the next generation of New Zealanders can get on the housing tree. And this can happen. I, again, had the experience of getting the head of KiwiBuild into my electorate and putting him in front of a good old-fashioned group of cynical developers, who came in with the old arms folded and “Yeah, you tell us about this.” They’d seen the media. They’d seen the Opposition. They’d seen the negativity. And I have to say, I’m a great believer in putting people that know what they’re doing in front of people that know what they’re talking about. I felt privileged to be on the sideline watching this. And I saw the light come on. I saw them start to understand, “Yeah, this can work. Yeah, this is going to work.” And I saw them leave there—and I’ve had phone calls since—and want to be part of this.

So KiwiBuild is, again—forget about what we inherited, forget what anyone’s done in the past. The reality of it now is that, fortunately, even the Opposition have acknowledged that we do have a housing crisis. It is something that we have to fix. If we’re going to be compassionate about this generation and the next generation of young people, we have to do something about it. And KiwiBuild can do that, and I would invite the Opposition to be part of that. And if those who believe that this KiwiBuild—and I congratulate the Minister on the different options that KiwiBuild has put together around underwrite, because, I’ll just sum up by saying this, the problems that the Opposition’s developers, our developers have—those problems; whether they be problems with shortage of tradespeople, shortage of land, whether it be planning problems, whether it be RMA, these things, all of a sudden, have become all of our problems, because, unless we can fix them, unless they are fixed, we are consigning the next generation to houselessness.

I want to speak to Vote Social Housing and make some comments about housing policy. First, I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee, under the able chairmanship of Gareth Hughes, for the excellent work that the committee did during Estimates.

Our strong sense is that the New Zealand public want the Government to fix the housing crisis. They want us to get on with it and build houses. This is our first Budget. It is the largest investment in housebuilding ever in New Zealand history. It’s a foundational Budget. It’s our first step in building our way out of the national housing crisis. We have a plan to tackle the national housing crisis right across the continuum of housing need. And I want to talk about that plan. We’re working hard to end homelessness and increase public housing. The other theme that came out of the Estimates hearings in Vote Social Housing was that this Government is finally funding programmes that the previous Government talked about but never actually put up the money to properly fund.

Now, the centrepiece of this Budget’s housing policy is that we are building a net additional 6,400 public houses over the next four years—a net additional 6,400. Now, I want you to contrast that funded commitment—a net additional 6,400 State- and community-provided homes—with the record of the former Government, who reduced the number of State houses over nine years in office—a net reduction of 6,000 houses, and if you take into account community homes, a net reduction of 1,500 public houses over nine years, in the middle of a housing crisis.

Now, we heard a lot from the members opposite about how they were going to build all these extra houses. The fourth-term National Government would have been an amazing thing to see, because they were going to do all of these things. They promised the world after nine years in office, when they reduced the amount of public housing—they reduced the amount of public housing. Apparently, in the fourth term, they were going to reverse all that and build thousands of extra houses. Well, it took a change of Government to get a Government that actually put the money up to fund these promises.

This Government is investing $4 billion—$4 billion—to increase the number of State houses by 6,400 and upgrade and improve the existing housing stock. We are also upgrading, through regulation, every rental property in this country, by passing the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act and setting decent insulation standards—not the half-baked ones that the previous Government did but proper insulation standards—plus a requirement for a fixed-model, affordable heating source, and also standards on draught-stopping, drainage, and weathertightness. These are real healthy home standards that have been passed into law, and Housing New Zealand is now spending about $100 million improving every one of its properties, including putting a heat pump in all of them. So that is the difference. That is a serious commitment to healthy homes.

The Estimates hearing also focused quite a lot on tenancy management issues for Housing New Zealand, and that’s an area where we’ve seen a whole different approach from this Government—a more compassionate and tenant-centred approach. Over the last nine years, Housing New Zealand—our public housing organisation—was stripped of its social mandate systematically by the former Government. When I became the housing Minister, I met Housing New Zealand staff that told me they were doing pastoral care work with tenants on the weekend because they had been told that it wasn’t their job to do it. Now, under our Government, it is the job of Housing New Zealand tenancy managers to do that pastoral care work. We have brought compassion and kindness back to the administration of public housing in this country.

We also pulled the plug on the hysteria around methamphetamine contamination in public housing that was actively stirred up by that Government. They allowed the lack of a decent scientific standard to mean that Housing New Zealand, over the last four years, wasted the best part of $100 million on decontamination work that never needed to happen. At the same time, private landlords were making insurance claims of, on average, $25 million a year for methamphetamine contamination, most of which never needed to be done, because of the total failure of political leadership under the former Government. It took us a few weeks in office to commission Sir Peter Gluckman to do that report and sweep away the moral hysteria that had been allowed to be whipped up under the former Government. That has all changed under this Government.

Now, we know that we need to do more. We’ve inherited the legacy of nine years of housing crisis that was allowed to spin out of control. That is why the housing register, the waiting list for public housing, is now bigger than it’s ever been before. I found it amusing to hear the member Louise Upston, earlier in this debate, blaming a Government that’s been in office for nine months for the legacy of a housing crisis that was allowed to get out of control for nine years. That shows a gall that, frankly, I find amazing—and admirable, in some ways, actually.

The register is now the highest it’s been—8,108 in April, and the figures are going up every month. We know that the hidden homeless that were reported on by the housing stocktake that we commissioned in our first few weeks in office—we know that the true scale of homelessness has been supressed for too long. We know that now there is a Government that cares, a Government that welcomes people to come forward and get the help that they need, those figures will continue to get worse before they get better.

In Budget 2018, we committed an extra $100 million over and above the baseline funding for Housing First and emergency and transitional housing—an extra $100 million.

💬 Chris Bishop: Where is it in the Hutt?

We are rolling out Housing First in the Hutt, in Wellington, in Tauranga, in Hamilton, in Auckland, in Whangarei, in Napier and Hastings—the world-acclaimed approach to dealing with chronic homelessness. We have also, finally, funded the commitment that the former Government made to roll out 2,200-odd emergency and transitional housing places that they promised but never funded properly. They also didn’t fund the front-line staff needed to manage that programme. So we funded all of those things, and we’ve, in fact, rolled out several hundred extra transitional housing places. That was our commitment to seriously tackling homelessness as part of the winter 2018 package. It’s long overdue in this country that we put in place a decent safety net.

I want to take the remaining minute and a bit that I’ve got to talk about some of the wider housing and urban development issues that this Government is tackling that really come under the building and construction part of this debate, and I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa, who, as Minister for Building and Construction, is leading a really ambitious programme of workforce and skills development, reforming the whole product certification scheme and all of the building regulatory framework that we need to put in place to ensure that our KiwiBuild policy is successful.

The other big enablers of the KiwiBuild policy are tackling the systemic problems that have caused the housing crisis and the fact that we are 71,000 houses short at the moment as a result of the negligence and drift of the last nine years. We are reforming the financing of infrastructure that will allow our towns and cities to grow. We are freeing up the planning system to allow our cities to grow up and to grow out. We are putting in place an urban development authority that will lead large-scale urban development projects that will build not just housing but whole communities. These are the system-wide fixes to the housing crisis.

Before I call the honourable member, I just want to confirm with the member who took the point of order that the speech in the debate was within the Estimates, and for the reference of the House that is page 291 of the Estimates document. Kia orana.

It is a pleasure to take a call this evening on the Estimates debate for the social services and community sector. I especially want to draw attention to two important Votes in this debate: Vote Building and Housing and Vote Social Development. I certainly want to thank the Ministers who have come along to the select committee to present. I wasn’t a part of that select committee at that stage—I was fighting a by-election—but my colleagues told me a lot about it, and they raised a lot of concerns within these two areas.

Firstly, we express that this Government is not set up to deliver on the housing promises that they made to the people of New Zealand with respect to affordable housing. For example, we know that the Government promised 100,000 affordable homes across the country within 10 years. But how many of these houses have been built today? How many? We know that zero KiwiBuild homes have been built to date, and time is ticking for this Minister to demonstrate that he’s more than just talk and big promises. We’ve also had an admission from the Minister that it won’t be possible to build these affordable homes without massive subsidies. So here we are taking money from one pocket of New Zealanders and, essentially, putting it in into the other pocket.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: It’s called a progressive taxation system.

Oh, it’s very inefficient, in that case. Another thing is that this Government said, in the campaign, that they were committed to training construction workers to help build these extra homes, and now the Minister in charge has admitted that they’ll actually be importing these workers, because they can’t recruit them from overseas. So here we have a Government that is happy to say one thing and do another, and I don’t think, quite frankly, that that’s what New Zealanders voted for.

Then we have the Government policy that is littered with unintended consequences: changes to the Housing New Zealand evictions policy, for example, which means that Housing New Zealand can’t evict people that have antisocial tendencies. Now, the Government hasn’t thought through the unintended consequences of this on, for example, those that wish to buy homes right next door and maybe won’t want to buy them, because they can’t evict their neighbours.

Second is around the schools and how they’re reacting negatively to the Government’s policy changes—for example, we raised concerns that there are a number of schools that have changed their zones because they want to avoid being captured by these housing developments. And those are changes—

I apologise to the member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Debate interrupted.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.