Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement, made on Tuesday, that “Police do keep a tally of ram raids in different regions”; if so, how many ram raids have been recorded over the past three months?

Yes, police at the local level will identify and respond to incidents of commercial burglaries that use vehicles as their method of entry, commonly referred to as a “ram raid”. Police take these incidents very seriously and investigate each of them thoroughly. Police have advised me that based on a national tally of events, the current numbers for each of the three months in question are 50 in May, 37 in June, and 42 in July.

💬 Chris Baillie: How many offenders have been caught over the previous three months, and how many were under 18 years of age?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have the age breakdown of them, but I have the figures for Auckland and for the Waikato, where most of the ram-raiding offences have been taking place. Over the last four months—so they’re slightly different time periods—so from 1 April to 6 August, there were 84 ram raids in Auckland, in Tāmaki-makau-rau. To date, 38 offenders have been identified or arrested, almost all of whom are under the age of 18—the median age of them was 15—and a further 27 offenders’ images have been identified through CCTV but they don’t yet know who the particular people are. In terms of the police’s Operation Pryor in the Waikato, they have arrested 216 people and laid 829 charges.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does the Minister stand by his statement “I want to know how I can best support them, make sure they have the tools they need to do their jobs” when referring to police, and, if so, what tools, if any, have police requested that would assist them in tackling the rising ram raid issue?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, absolutely. In answer to the second part of the question, one of the things that the police have asked is that I, as Minister, help to facilitate them working with other arms of Government to try and prevent this sort of offending happening in the first place, and that’s exactly what I’m committed to doing.

💬 Chris Baillie: Can the Minister explain to a small-business owner in Ellerslie, who has been ram-raided, what the process for applying to the Small Retailer Crime Prevention Fund is?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d suggest that they talk to their local police, in the first instance, who will be able to talk to them about the range of support that’s available to them and will be able to talk them through the various prevention strategies that they can put in place.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Did he receive any advice from Treasury about potential for increased inflationary pressures from Government spending decisions made in Budget 2022; if so, on what occasions, if any, did he choose to spend more on initiatives than Treasury advised?

In answer to the first part of the question, I received a range of advice from Treasury about the macroeconomic environment during the Budget 2022 process, including on the hypothetical implications of total spending decisions. In answer to the second part of the question, it is always the case during the Budget process that initiatives change and evolve compared to the original submission, meaning the funding required might also change. For Budget 2022, there were 564 proposed Budget initiatives.

💬 Chris Bishop: Good grief!

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the time available—I know—preparing for this question, it has not been possible to compile every instance where Cabinet decided initiatives were of a greater priority than the Treasury’s assessment of them. I can confirm for the member, though, for example, we decided to invest more in Pharmac than Treasury advised, because that was a priority for the Government. There were also instances where less funding was provided than what Ministers bid for, based on advice from the Treasury. Ultimately, the core Budget operating package came in at $5.9 billion, within the $6 billion operating allowance set at the Budget Policy Statement.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does he recall receiving this advice on 7 March from Treasury recommending he reduce the size of planned climate change spending “due to delivery risk, potential for increased inflationary pressures and in order to preserve funding … for future funding requirements” with a recommendation of an alternative package with a price tag of $2.4 billion?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I certainly recall conversations with the Treasury around the phasing of the new Climate Emergency Response Fund. It is a multi-year fund. The Government made the decision to front-load some expenditure that the Treasury wasn’t in favour of, because we wanted to get on with the job of reducing emissions.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that instead of taking Treasury’s advice to reduce pressure on inflation, he went ahead with $2.9 billion of spending on climate change projects, that is half a billion dollars more than Treasury advised?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated in my primary answer, the Government in its core operating allowance came in at $5.9 billion. As we indicated at the Budget Policy Statement in December last year, we brought into place a new scheme called the Climate Emergency Response Fund. This Government takes very seriously our obligations to reduce emissions and meet the goals of the zero carbon Act. I’m sorry the member doesn’t share that.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister recall receiving this advice on 3 March also recommending he reduce climate change spending—“Warning: higher-value initiatives are expected to seek funding in future years that will reduce emissions more.”—and is he satisfied that all the funded projects are high value?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that what we have funded under the Climate Emergency Response Fund takes serious steps towards meeting the carbon budgets that have been set by the Climate Commission. I’m not at all surprised that the Opposition are telling us to do less on the climate, because that is their track record.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister continue to believe there is a magic money tree at the bottom of the garden, and how can he claim all spending will be high-value when a report provided on the $652 million industry fund found four out of five projects evaluated would likely have gone ahead anyway without Government funding?

💬 SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, I’d perhaps wonder if she’d like to reflect on the fact that her leader has said clearly that the National Party would have spent the same amount in the core Budget allowance. So perhaps Mr Luxon can go and look for the tree, if the member thinks one is out there.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why does he keep blaming everyone else for inflation when he ignored direct Treasury advice that going ahead with lower-value climate change projects would add to pressure on inflation?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would note that virtually every economic commentator in New Zealand believes that inflation has peaked at the June quarter level of 7.3 percent. That peak represents half of what is imagined to happen in the United Kingdom. We have worked hard to put out a balanced Budget package that continues to give New Zealand one of the lowest levels of debt in the developed world while also investing in core public services.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is it the Minister’s position that as long as New Zealand is running lower inflation than a country beset by an energy crisis, then he’s doing a good job?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: My position is that this Government has overseen getting New Zealanders through COVID with an economy that is regarded by rating agencies as being robust and regarded well by the IMF and the OECD. With unemployment at 3.3 percent and with more people going into work all the time, I think this Government can be proud of its record. Does it mean it’s not tough out there for people? No—of course it is when inflation is running higher than we have seen in recent years. But this Government is looking after low and middle income people to get through that.

💬 Nicola Willis: How can he justify spending more than $600 million on corporate climate welfare when he knew that would put pressure on inflation and add to the prices being paid by everyday Kiwis in all parts of the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can justify is a Government that doesn’t just go off to conferences overseas and sign up to climate commitments, but actually takes action to do something about it. That Government failed New Zealanders, with no real climate policy. I’m proud of the actions we’re taking.

💬 Nicola Willis: Well, do we take it from the Minister’s answers today that his test for whether climate change spending is good is simply how much is spent and whether it’s got good intentions and that he doesn’t care if the evaluations show the work would have gone ahead anyway and not a single extra emission has been reduced?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is simply wrong. The Government is actually getting alongside New Zealanders to make sure that we reduce emissions. I repeat: the National Party’s record was to sign New Zealand up to agreements and then do nothing about it. We are committed to reducing emissions and also growing the economy.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Here we go! Workers have experienced their biggest pay hikes on record and outstripping inflation. Statistics New Zealand figures released last week show median weekly earnings from wages and salaries jumped by 8.8 percent in the June year—the largest annual increase since records began in 1998, and well ahead of inflation at 7.3 percent.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What did the Stats New Zealand report say about median weekly earnings for women?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Women’s median weekly earnings increased by 9.9 percent for the June year, also the highest annual percentage increase on record.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the resilience of the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the manufacturing sector has continued to expand. The seasonally adjusted BNZ–Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) was 52.7, led by new orders and employment.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What indications has he seen on activity in other sectors and its impact on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, activity in the services sector is continuing to support the economy. The seasonally adjusted BNZ–Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index (PSI) stood at 51.2 in July, driven by new orders and sales. Combining the PSI results to the PMI results from the previous question, BNZ economists said the composite index suggests the economic expansion continued into the September quarter, albeit at a slower pace than the June quarter.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the global activity in the manufacturing and services sector continues to be volatile. The US composite index contracted to its lowest level in two years in August, and the eurozone composite index declined to a 16-month low. Australia’s composite index also shrank in August for the first time in seven months. While New Zealand is not immune to global economic uncertainty, our performance in these areas shows that the country is in a strong position to respond to the current pressures we are facing.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Kei a koe, te Māngai o te Whare, te mokopuna a Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana, kei te mihi ki a koe mō tō tūranga hou. [To you, the Speaker of the House, the great-grandson of Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana, I congratulate you on your new role.] To the member, yes.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was her unwillingness to say yes in response to my primary question on Tuesday, “Is it still the Government’s intention to be, ‘the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had’?” because she has abandoned that goal?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: That’s good to know—that’s good to know. When the Minister said on Tuesday that the former Minister of Conservation “was a lawyer and advised a lot of people on official information issues”, did the former Minister say it was her legal advice that the best way to avoid things unfolding through the Official Information Act (OIA) process that were less than desirable was to have a yarn rather than to write things down?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Questions are asked in silence, thank you.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did the former Minister of Conservation tell her what letter from whom prompted her message to colleagues not to write but to have a yarn instead?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No, although many colleagues have conversations all of the time.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it possible for a Minister to claim ignorance of what was in her own mind?

💬 Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. On this side of the House, we don’t talk to ourselves. [Laughter]

💬 SPEAKER: Are members ready for me to rule? Thank you—I appreciate that. Both the point of order and the member speaking to the point of order are out of order.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does she think a Government culture that avoids writing things down helps improve public confidence in Government transparency?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refute the underlying assumption in that statement, and I think and consider that all members on this side of the House adhere to our obligations under the Official Information Act and adhere to the Cabinet Manual.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was her statement on Tuesday in relation to the OIA, “As [the] member will be aware … we wear different hats.”, a confirmation of recent high-profile allegations that Ministers were using different hats to avoid disclosure under the Official Information Act?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No.

Question No. 5—Forestry

5. to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made about transforming the forestry and wood processing sector?

Last Friday, at the Canterbury West Coast Wood Council Forestry Awards, I launched the draft Forestry and wood processing industry transformation plan (ITP) for public consultation. The plan recognises how pivotal the sector will be in our future and is a significant step forward for forestry and wood processing in New Zealand.

💬 Anna Lorck: Who, if anyone, did the Government work with in developing the plan?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The Government worked closely with industry, Māori, and unions to develop the draft ITP, and we’ll continue to work with these groups to move our sector from having a significant reliance on unprocessed commodity exports to one which processes more of our logs onshore, thus creating jobs, value, and low-carbon products.

💬 Anna Lorck: How will this ITP help the Government meet its climate goals?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: By growing our wood processing capability, we can replace high-emissions material in our buildings and use woody residues to produce low-emissions fuels to power our trucks, trains, and planes, and replace plastics in a number of products and applications.

💬 Anna Lorck: What investments has the Government made to support the forestry and wood processing sector?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The Government provided $385.4 million in Budget 2022 to support the sector. This investment will be instrumental in further developing wood processing in New Zealand.

💬 Anna Lorck: What feedback has he received on the industry transformation plan?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: A great example came from Grant Dodson, president of the Forest Owners Association, who said that the plan would be a game-changer for the New Zealand economy. I’m sure the chief executive and chair of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council would have waxed lyrical as well, given the opportunity.

Question No. 6—Immigration

6. to the Minister of Immigration: How many nurses have applied for the Accredited Employer Work Visa, and how many of those nurses applied from offshore?

I am advised that since the accredited employer work visa (AEWV) migrant gate opened in July, 198 nurses have applied for the AEWV, of whom 24 have applied from offshore. As the member will be aware, the period between July and now has been one of transition between the critical purpose visa and the accredited employer work visa, and so it’s important to note that nurses continue to arrive under the critical purpose visa—142 were approved in May and 149 were approved in June, and I understand there was a similar number in July. Through our immigration rebalance we are providing simplified ways of important groups like nurses coming to New Zealand, but we’re also working hard to ensure that we have a good domestic supply, something that was neglected under the previous Government.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why did he say on Tuesday in question time that “there is very strong interest amongst nurses” for the AEWV, when today he has confirmed that only 24 new offshore nurses have applied in the first two months of the visa being open?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because that is the information that I receive from health employers and recruiters and officials. It is worth noting that nurses are able to show interest in applying for these visas before the application process has been completed.

💬 Erica Stanford: How many new migrant nurses arriving in New Zealand every month do we need before he is satisfied that his policy of placing nurses on the two-year wait to residence is working, given that he said that he will make changes to the policy if needed?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That is something that I will continue to keep under review and consult with colleagues and the sector about. As I outlined in my primary answer, we do continue to have a good number of nurses entering the workforce each month: 142 in May approved, 149 in June approved. So progress is being made, but we’ll continue to work with the sector on it. I do note that the two-year residency pathway that we have put in place covers all 13 categories of nurses, something that was not previously available. This is a simplified and more streamlined pathway than New Zealand has had previously, and it’s more simplified and streamlined than most other countries currently have as well.

💬 Erica Stanford: Has he seen a recent nursing organisation survey from July that found that 11 percent of the workforce has made plans to leave, which equates to 6,600 nurses, and, if so, why is he not placing nurses on the fast track to residence to allow us to compete with Australia?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Taking inspiration from my colleague from the East Cape, no.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Can the Minister confirm that those who have applied for the accredited employer work visa from in-country are more likely to know that there is a two-year pathway to residency and yet still record numbers are applying for it?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I can confirm that point, and it does go some way towards demonstrating that the two-year pathway to residency is a highly attractive pathway for both recruiting and retaining nurses in New Zealand. I also note recent decisions that I have made to ensure that the two years can be counted from late 2021 to smooth that pathway further for nurses who are currently onshore. I think that’s helping as well.

💬 Erica Stanford: Is the Minister aware that the only pathway for a nurse to gain residence at the moment is the two-year pathway to residence, because he still hasn’t opened the skilled migrant category, so of course the numbers are going to be good?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That is correct. The accredited employer work visa is the main pathway to residence at the moment, and as the Government has confirmed, we will be moving forward to consult and reopen on the skilled pathway in the coming months.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Is the Minister aware of other steps the Government has taken to support the development of the nursing workforce and enable offshore nurses to come to New Zealand?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, there is significant work that is under way there. The Government is rolling out a targeted suite of measures to both attract, train, and retain overseas nurses. This includes a coordinated and enhanced national and international healthcare recruitment campaign, dedicated immigration support services that are put in place with Health New Zealand to support them to make it easier for health workers to move to New Zealand, and, finally, easing the process for overseas nurses, with provision up to $10,000 in financial support for international nurses to cover New Zealand registration costs. These measures are making a real difference.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why are game developers given residence immediately, and nurses are forced to wait two years?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government made the decision to have a streamlined pathway for all 13 categories of nurses to achieve residency within two years. We believe that that is an appropriate policy, it is an internationally competitive policy that is simpler than most countries, and it is one that, we believe, will make a real difference. The member needs to remember that residency in New Zealand is something that is highly valued by people from all around New Zealand; it’s not a competition between gamers and nurses. This is a policy that we have confidence will attract new nurses to New Zealand.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, in your reflections on question time, I wonder if you would consider whether the Minister of Health’s questions to the Minister of Immigration were in keeping with Speakers’ ruling 183/7, and, if they are, whether there will be a new Speaker’s ruling around that matter.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, I will look at it. I thought the question, when I heard it, was in order. I probably should have said to the Hon Michael Wood to answer in so far as he had responsibility; I believe he did that. But I’ll go back and have a look, and I’ll take note of what you’ve said.

Question No. 7—Research, Science and Innovation

7. to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made regarding the Research and Development Tax Incentive?

This morning, I was pleased to announce that the Research and Development Tax Incentive has supported over $1 billion in research and development activity in New Zealand. The Research and Development Tax Incentive provides a 15 percent tax credit for businesses performing eligible research and development activities in New Zealand. This milestone represents $150 million in tax credits allocated over the first two years of the scheme.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the tax incentive important to New Zealand’s economic development?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Research and Development Tax Incentive is part of a wider economic strategy to improve the wellbeing and living standards of New Zealanders through better productivity, sustainability, and inclusive growth. Through the tax incentive, we’re enabling more businesses to innovate and driving greater investment in research and development as a proportion of GDP.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What sectors have been supported by the tax incentive?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Research and Development Tax Incentive is supporting a range of innovative businesses, from exciting start-ups to some of our largest companies and growing sectors, like aerospace, medtech, biotech, and manufacturing.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What impact has the tax incentive scheme had on businesses?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There are now over 1,600 businesses enrolled in the scheme, and we know that $700 million of the $1 billion has gone into salaries for a range of high-value, low-carbon jobs for the future. Through this incentive, we’re boosting the amount of research and development taking place and building a high-skilled, knowledge-based, and productive economy.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Can she provide an example of research and development that this tax incentive is supporting?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes. This morning, I visited one of these companies, Dawn Aerospace, in Christchurch, a leader in New Zealand’s growing space and aerospace sector. Dawn Aerospace is investing tens of millions into research and development for reusable space vehicles and satellite propulsion systems, supported by the tax incentive. Dawn and their fellow innovators in the aerospace sector are contributing over $1.7 billion to our economy each year, and employ 12,000 people.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by the application of sanctions to people who receive the jobseeker – health condition and disability benefit for “failing to prepare for work”; if so, what is the purpose of these sanctions?

I do stand by our current approach to the use of sanctions, which is only to use sanctions as a last resort and to work with a client to ensure that they meet their obligations. The obligations a client has is based on what they are capable of, according to medical advice. Any decision to reduce or pause benefit payments is never made quickly or taken lightly. A sanction is only applied if someone has failed their obligation and refused the opportunities they are provided to re-comply or to provide a good reason for noncompliance before their payments are reduced. This Government is focused on supporting people on a benefit and helping them to achieve their goals, not on penalising them.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she stand by her statement from Tuesday, “We have to remember that people with health conditions and disabilities often have aspirations to work as well.”; if so, how do benefit sanctions support these aspirations?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, I do. That’s why, as I’ve said in my response to the primary question, that they are only used as a last resort, and that the focus of the Government is to support those who can into work, based on the medical advice that is provided.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify that the Minister is speaking on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the Minister is acting. So she is answering.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who said of sanctions in 2013, “The message it sends is that the jobseeker’s role is to look for work, and the Government’s role is no longer to ensure that there are jobs, to train, to educate, and to help you move into work. No, the Government’s role is simply to sanction when you fail.”?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I do agree with that statement. That’s why this Government has placed an emphasis on supporting people who can into finding work that is sustainable and meaningful and pays a good wage. Also, as I said previously, that’s why sanctions are only used as an absolute last resort.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can she provide any evidence to support that benefit sanctions support disabled people and people with health conditions to meet their aspirations?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I can provide evidence that our approach is working, because we’ve actually seen record numbers of exits into work for people with health conditions and disabilities. In the year to June 2022, 17,295 people on jobseeker – health condition and disability exited into work, almost double the number in the year to June 2017. Just to add, in the June 2022 quarter, only 156 people out of the over 70,000 on a jobseeker – health condition and disability actually received a sanction for failing to prepare for work. So the combination of using sanctions as a last resort and a focus on supporting people who can into work does appear to be working.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is an acceptable number of disabled people who should be sanctioned by the Government?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: It’s not about an acceptable number; it’s about the approach, which is not to resort immediately to punitive measures but to actually work with people who can to find the work that is meaningful to them, to take into account the medical advice that is provided, and to use—as I’ve said multiple times—sanctions as an absolute last resort.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is her response to Roger, who participated in the 2021 Beneficiary Advisory Service research titled “Understanding Welfare Sanctions in Aotearoa”, and noted that being called into repeated meetings at short notice upon threat of a sanction left him on edge, anxious, and in a persistent state of stress, saying, “I lost my mental health. If there was a little a bit left, I lost it.”?

💬 Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The evidence that I can point to, in fact, that was undertaken also by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, was that harsh regimes of sanctions often wasn’t proven to work, but the less severe regimes where sanctions were a last resort were the ones that proved to have some benefit in terms of motivating people who could into work. I would also point to my previous response, once again: they are an absolute last resort. The focus is on ensuring that those at the front lines of the Ministry of Social Development take into account medical advice that is provided and work alongside and with those beneficiaries to enter work, as and when they can.

Question No. 9—Pacific Peoples

9. to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What recent work has the Government done to grow Pacific employment?

The latest provisional figures to 30 June show that the Tupu Aotearoa programme has supported more than 1,000 Pacific people into employment in the last six months, and over 1,400 Pacific people have transitioned into training to gain qualifications over the last 12 months. To date, the ministry has 16 Tupu Aotearoa providers servicing Pacific clients from Northland to Invercargill, and it is the ministry’s goal to place at least 2,400 Pacific people into work or in training by the end of June 2023. Tupu Aotearoa continues to transform the lives of Pacific aiga, kāinga, kopu tangata, whānau, and families with more training and employment opportunities.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How much has the Government invested in Tupu Aotearoa and growing the Pacific workforce?

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: This Government invested $13.9 million in Budget 2020 to expand Tupu Aotearoa’s reach, with a further investment of $30.3 million in Budget 2021 and $8 million in Budget 2022. This investment has taken Tupu Aotearoa from South Auckland and expanded it to the main metropolitan centres of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch and to the regional communities of Aotearoa New Zealand, delivering employment and training services so that no one is left behind.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How does Tupu Aotearoa grow the Pacific workforce?

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: The Tupu Aotearoa programme connects Pacific people with local education, training, and support providers that help them access work or learning opportunities on their journey to employment with further training or study and support to high-value jobs. This ensures that Pacific people are nurtured from the beginning of their career journey to sustainable employment, with business partners providing access to the right tools for skills development that aligns with future employment and educational opportunities.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Why has Tupu Aotearoa succeeded in growing the Pacific workforce?

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: You have the right Government in place, but Tupu Aotearoa’s success is due to the targeted approach of supporting Pacific communities at a regional, local, and cultural level, offering end-to-end, wraparound support and pastoral care from locally based providers in metro and regional communities, using Pacific languages, cultural capital, and cultural intelligence as tools to build our workforce and people. We also know Tupu Aotearoa is reaching some of the most vulnerable members of our Pacific communities and is transforming their lives through pastoral care and cultural support, training, and employment.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: Has he heard any real-life success stories from Tupu Aotearoa?

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Earlier this year, I joined with local MP Terisa Ngobi and listened to the testimonies of realised hopes and dreams for the generation of young Pasifika people coming through the Tupu Aotearoa programme at the Horowhenua Learning Centre. These often shy students stood up and boldly acknowledged the valued support of Tupu Aotearoa employment consultant Tessa Feomaia of the Horowhenua Learning Centre in Levin, and the Life to the Max Horowhenua team, supported by the local district council. These success stories tell us that this Government is on the right path, and they are why we will continue to invest in Tupu Aotearoa so that Pacific peoples aren’t left behind during our economic recovery phase—[Interruption]—which often happens when that Government is in power.

💬 SPEAKER: During that question, there were several interjections while the question was being made, coming from that area. I don’t know who it was, but just a reminder not to interject while the question is being made. I said I would be fair on patsy questions and the length of the question. There is a ruling around that, but I will not be influenced by people shouting out that it’s a speech. The number of interjections during the answer—and I refer to a ruling from Speaker Carter—does and can extend the length of the answer. So—[Interruption] I beg your pardon?

💬 Hon Member: It’s just their masks moving.

💬 SPEAKER: I don’t know what that’s got to do with me on my feet making this ruling, but I’ll just leave that there.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she agree with Central Hawke’s Bay Mayor Alex Walker, who described her Three Waters reform process as “unempowering for our communities”, and does she believe communities have been adequately consulted in her proposed Three Waters reforms?

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. No—and yes; there’s always room for improvement.

💬 Simon Watts: Does she agree with Auckland mayor Phil Goff, who said, “We will get 20 percent of the, say, over 93 percent of how the assets that belong to the people of Auckland will be utilised. That’s patently not fair.”, and is she concerned that even former Labour Ministers don’t support her reforms?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: All elected representatives representing councils have the ability to voice their concerns at the select committee. They’re doing so and we’ll take on board those views.

💬 Simon Watts: What does she say to Marlborough district councillor Cynthia Brooks, who said three waters “has been an insult to those of us charged with upholding the mana of local government” and that she was “exhausted and unable to commit to another three years managing the pushback from this Government’s reform”?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I think the greatest insult is to ratepayers who don’t have the absolute assurance of access to safe, reliable drinking water. The need to find a financially sustainable way to invest in infrastructure, because the looming costs of guaranteeing better drinking-water standards, better and improved environmental standards, is a huge cost on councils—and that’s the problem we’re trying to fix.

💬 Simon Watts: What is your response to Roimata Minhinnick, lead negotiator for Ngāti Te Ata, who said, “There has been for us an obvious lack of consultation” and is she concerned many iwi and hapū have raised concerns with and submitted against her three waters legislation?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The opportunity for iwi to reflect their views is, as it is with councils, able to be made at the select committee. I understand that that particular submitter has made his views known, on behalf of Ngāti Te Ata—their interests in relation to entity A, I understand, have been provided for and included within Waikato-Tainui’s view as well.

💬 Simon Watts: Does she agree with Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon, who said, of three waters reforms, “The process and the resulting bill are dismissive of the concerns and alternative suggestions of local government.”, and how can she stand by her consultation with communities on three waters when so many say they aren’t being listened to?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Mayor Dan Brown has reflected his view through the small number of councils, Communities 4 Local Democracy. They’ve received correspondence which I am happy to table in relation to the range of concerns that they have raised. They have also received correspondence, which I am happy to table, in relation to the areas which we do agree on in the reform process. Point of order. I seek leave to table the responses to Communities 4 Local Democracy on the range of issues that they’ve brought to my attention so that it is clearly set out in this House.

💬 SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 11—Children

11. to the Minister for Children: Does he have confidence in the Government’s ability to protect and support vulnerable children, and what lessons, if any, have been learnt from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care to date?

In response to the first part, it’s improving. In response to the second part, we’re on the right track.

💬 Karen Chhour: Why, after a four-year-old boy was critically injured by his father and stepmother, did Oranga Tamariki return him to his abusers six months later, where he was then almost beaten to death?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That is a terrible case, and no child deserves that. That’s why I asked the Prime Minister if I could be the Minister for Children: so that we could set in place the changes. The future direction plan that we have in place—the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan that we have in place—is there to address these very issues.

💬 Karen Chhour: How are vulnerable children supposed to have faith in an organisation which returns them to their known abusers?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That is a very good question, and that’s the very reason I asked the Prime Minister if I could be the Minister for Children: because we have to turn those very issues around.

💬 Karen Chhour: How many children have been killed or hospitalised by abusers since he took over as Minister for Children?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I think in the last three years, and that might go back to before I was the Minister—so last year, I think, there was one; the year before that, there was two; and the year before that, there was one. No death is acceptable, it is a tragedy, and that is what we are trying to turn around and change.

💬 Jan Logie: What is the Minister’s response to the social services provider who recently told me that every single day, they’re supporting whānau who have had their children removed or have been told that they may have been removed because of poverty or a lack of housing?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The first thing I’d say is, thank you for the work that they do. In terms of the providers—we’re working to make sure that communities have the resources and the ability to make the decisions around the needs of their communities. I ask them to get on board with this work because that is the way forward.

💬 Karen Chhour: Can the Minister clarify the number just given—is that known to Oranga Tamariki or all across the board?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m not sure—

💬 SPEAKER: In as far as the Minister is responsible.

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m not sure. Sorry, can I just ask her to clarify the question. Is she talking about all children in New Zealand or children in Oranga Tamariki’s care?

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll let the member answer that question.

💬 Karen Chhour: Yeah, it was all children that have been hospitalised or killed.

💬 SPEAKER: Again, in so far as the Minister has responsibility.

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: So my response was the advice I’ve given about children in the care of Oranga Tamariki.

Question No. 12—Disarmament and Arms Control

12. to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What outcomes does he want to be achieved when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference concluded this week?

I recently returned from the review conference in New York of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Our diplomats there are working hard right now for a successful outcome. As the Prime Minister said in her Guardian op-ed today: right now, nuclear catastrophe is not an abstract threat; it’s a real-world risk. That’s why New Zealand calls on the nuclear-weapon States—the US, China, Russia, France, and the UK—to commit to new disarmament and arms control negotiations. That’s the measure of success.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: Why is the NPT such an important part of the international nuclear disarmament framework?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The NPT has been the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament efforts worldwide since it came into effect in the middle of the Cold War 52 years ago. Despite recent failures by the nuclear-weapon States to meet their disarmament obligations under the treaty, over the long run it has been successful in reducing nuclear arsenals and limiting the number of States acquiring nuclear weapons.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What is the current state of nuclear disarmament efforts worldwide?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: With nuclear arsenals being upgraded and expanded, the prospect of a nuclear test in North Korea, and President Putin’s nuclear threats since his invasion of Ukraine, there are alarming signs that the world’s becoming more dangerous. It was, however, reassuring to see President Biden’s remarks on the first day of the review conference that the US was ready to negotiate a new arms control agreement with Russia, and also to negotiate with China.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: How is New Zealand able to have an impact in global disarmament efforts?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: New Zealand diplomats, politicians, academics, and civil society figures have, for decades, across successive Governments, been principled and constructive players in international disarmament efforts, reflecting the pride that Kiwis have about our nuclear-free status. I want to take this opportunity to thank both the Hon Jenny Salesa and the Hon Todd McClay, who accompanied me in the official delegation in New York, which demonstrates the strong support across this Parliament for disarmament work.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What recent reports has he seen on the humanitarian consequence of nuclear war?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: New research by Rutgers University found that a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would see more than 5 million people die of hunger, due to the devastating atmospheric impacts of such a conflict. That’s why it’s critical to maintain the focus on the humanitarian consequences of a nuclear catastrophe, as New Zealand does.

💬 Simon Court: Does the Minister believe that his efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons will make the world a safer place, based on his ability to deliver the KiwiBuild programme?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That question is out of order.