Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Health: Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Te mea tuatahi, e ngā mate, e ngā anahera tapu, haere, haere, haere atu rā ki te torōna o Ihowa o ngā mano. E mihi ana ki a koutou, ngā mihi aroha, ngā whānau pani. Tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first thing are the deceased, the sacred angels, go, go, go on to the throne of Jehovah of the multitudes. I acknowledge you, an acknowledgment of compassion, to the bereft families. Greetings to you, greetings to all of us.]

What announcements has the Government made about its long-term vision for the health of New Zealanders?

Can I briefly join colleagues in the House in expressing condolences to the families of the shooting victims and extend our recognition to the ambulance and hospital staff caring for the casualties. Last week, the Government released the Pae Ora strategies and our long-term vision for health, where all New Zealanders can live long and healthy lives and unfair differences in outcomes are a thing of the past. These strategies contain an ambitious vision. It requires new partnerships and a shared commitment to long-term action. The launch of the Pae Ora strategies is a significant milestone in the transformation of our health system. The strategies will help us create a health system that is equitable, sustainable, and responsive to the needs of New Zealanders.

Soraya Peke-Mason: What population-specific strategies have been released?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The New Zealand health strategy addresses the health of all New Zealanders and sits alongside five population-specific strategies: the rural health strategy, hauora Māori strategy, the Pacific health strategy, health of disabled people strategy, and the women’s health strategy. This is also the first time Pacific peoples, women, and rural communities have had their own health strategies.

Soraya Peke-Mason: What impact will the strategies have?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The strategies will address underlying barriers which may have held back progress. They will give people, whānau, and communities greater control over decisions about their health and the design of services. Change of this scale will take time; however, health isn’t just a short-term outcome. These strategies provide the direction for lasting change.

Soraya Peke-Mason: Why has the Government released Te Pae Ora strategies?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We’ve heard from New Zealanders that we need to end the one-size-fits-all approach to health services and focus on what people actually need. The old health system had become remote and detached. Pae Ora strategies and our wider health reforms are designed to tackle this and support greater community-driven participation over health service delivery.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many applicants on the Housing Register, if any, indicated they were living in a car at the time of application in June 2023, and how does this compare to October 2017?

I’m told that the accommodation type at the point of application will not reduce over time, because it’s a cumulative figure and people stay on the list even if they are in emergency housing or transitional housing after the point of application. In saying that, in June 2023, there were 480 primary applicants who put “a car” down as their accommodation type, compared to 102 in October 2017 who put down “a car” as their accommodation type. I will also say that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) will always consider people’s immediate housing needs to make sure that they are housed and that people do get their full and correct entitlement, including housing support products. What I will also say is that the more accurate figure is that this Government has added 12,198 net additional public homes between October 2017 and May 2023, as compared to that member’s Government, who left us with 1,500 public homes fewer compared to when they took office.

Chris Bishop: Of the 480 applicants she just mentioned as indicating they were living in a car when they applied for the housing register, does she have the data on how many children those applications involved?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: That is not information that MSD specifically collects, and I’m told there is no specific data available on the number of children currently living in cars. As I mentioned in my primary response to the first question, it is actually the numbers—the figures relate to primary applicants. While they may or may not have children in custody, there are some cases where the children actually live with family members, and that data is not captured.

Chris Bishop: Is she seriously claiming MSD don’t collect that information, when I have repeated written questions back from her senior Minister indicating precisely how many children are involved in those applications on a quarterly basis?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Inasmuch as primary applicants disclose how many children there are included in their application, MSD holds that information. But there are cases where the primary applicant does not disclose that information, and that won’t be captured.

Chris Bishop: Does she think there’s a connection between the increase in rents around New Zealand of, on average, $175 per week in the last six years and the quadrupling in the number of families presenting as living in cars when applying for the housing register?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I mentioned previously in my primary response, the figure that the member is putting forth to us and using to assume there’s an increase in the number of people living in cars, I’m told, is not an accurate way of capturing that data. What we are doing is building our way out of a housing crisis that we inherited that was created by that member’s Government.

Chris Bishop: Is she saying that when someone presents to the housing register and ultimately gets placed into a social house, MSD don’t update their records to show that they are no longer living in a car but that they are, in fact, in a house?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I am told that this is a cumulative figure. So when a person applies, if they then disclose that they live in a car, that is captured in the data that MSD keeps. They are not removed from the list, I am told, if they are in emergency housing or if they’re given an emergency housing special needs grant or transitional housing. They’re only removed when they get a public house, and that is why we’re building our way out of the housing crisis that we inherited by delivering 12,198 more public homes since we took office.

Chris Bishop: Why do people living in cars who present to the housing register attract the same subsidy to go into public housing as everybody else on the housing register, when, clearly, their needs are greater?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I am told that there is a higher level of support required for people and whānau living in cars and that there are services in place for people in this situation when they come to MSD for help. As I mentioned previously, MSD does ensure that they do get their full and correct entitlement, including housing support products. There are a number of ways in which people are supported when they present with a housing need, and that’s the support they get.

Chris Bishop: How many applicants who present to MSD as needing support, living in a car, are classified as A-20 on the priority list for social housing?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I don’t have that information on me, but if the member puts that in writing, we can get it to him.

Question No. 3—Justice

3. to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has the Government made about increasing accountability for young offenders?

E te pae Whakawā, e tika ana ki te tautoko te tangi o ētahi tangata kei roto i tēnei Whare mō te whānau pani mō ngā tāngata kua wehe ki te pō i tēnei ata, heoi, haere haere haere atu rā.

[Mr Speaker, it is appropriate to support the condolences by the members of this House to the families of the victims and to share sympathies to the victims who died this morning, and so I’d like to say travel well.]

Yesterday, the Government continued to expand on our approach to law and order by announcing the introduction of a new offence for ram raiding offending with a maximum sentence of 10 years. Our approach to date has focused on interventions for children and young people who have committed ram raid offending by providing those intensive wrap-around supports. While our approach so far has been effective in decreasing youth offending rates overall, there is still a cohort that we have not been able to reach. So we have introduced further measures to enable decision makers to have a broader suite of tools, particularly for serious and persistent offending behaviour. We are introducing this offence because we understand the concerns that exist, that offences do not adequately recognise the seriousness and the destructiveness of ram raids, and the harm that they cause victims.

Jamie Strange: How will the new offence address gaps in the youth justice system?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Currently existing offences, such as burglary, are used to charge alleged ram raid offenders. We’ve heard concerns that there is a gap in how we respond to children under 14 whose offending does not already meet the threshold for Youth Court, or care and protection interventions. We will also be amending the Oranga Tamariki Act, so that a 12- or a 13-year-old who is charged with a ram raid offence can be escalated through to the Youth Court jurisdiction. This recognises that for a small group of these offenders we need to do more to break the cycle of offending, and to provide greater accountability. As a result of gaps in the current system, children and young people do not always receive the responses with the right level of immediacy, intensity, or duration to address their needs and the underlying factors that contribute to offending.

Jamie Strange: What new powers will this offence provide police and the wider youth justice system to deal with those offenders?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The new offence will mean police and the courts will have more tools to keep offenders from getting back on the streets, including through bail conditions, measures such as non-association, curfew, residing at specific addresses, not taking drugs or alcohol, and in some instances, detention and Oranga Tamariki custody where there was a risk of the child absconding, reoffending, or preventing loss or destruction of evidence or interferences with witnesses. It can also include warnings and alternative actions with escalation available to an Oranga Tamariki - led intention-to-charge family group conference. An intention-to-charge family group conference plan with escalation is also available to Youth Court if the plan is not agreed, or it’s not completed, and in addition, Youth Court orders for a minority, including residential orders of up to six months being available if the charge is proven, and supervision up to 12 months following the order. However, as we’re really clear: locking kids up and throwing away the key is not an approach that is evidence-based. It is likely that the most children would receive is a section 282 discharge if a family group conference plan is completed successfully.

Jamie Strange: What other announcements to address youth offending has the Government made this week?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Earlier this week, the Government announced new aggravating factors for offenders, for example, posting their crimes online, and for those who use young people to commit a crime, as well as greater requirements for young offenders to attend education programmes or undertake community activities. We’re increasing funding for police prosecutors, supporting the police to clear the case backlog in District Courts and to enable them to pursue criminal offending. We are also improving family group conferences and providing funding for more family group coordinators who will be focused specifically on youth crime issues. We’re expanding the circuit-breaker fast-track intervention programme for young offenders to new regions, and creating a new intensive programme to break the cycle for up to 60 recidivist offenders. It’s important to note these interventions are working, but for a small cohort which we aren’t reaching, stronger deterrents and consequences are required to ensure accountability to communities. This Government is committed to doing what it can to break that cycle of crime.

Question No. 4—Climate Change

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Forty-five percent of our commercially planted forests are owned by Māori. I was aware that the Minister of Climate Change wasn’t going to be here in the House today, but I also notice the Minister of Forestry isn’t here. This is a significant question. I will seek your guidance and your ruling to have this question to have this question referred to next week.

No, you can ask it now.

4. to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he stand by all the Government’s statements and actions regarding engagement with Māori land owners on the review of the emissions trading scheme?

on behalf of the Minister of Climate Change: Yes.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: How can he stand by the Government’s action when his own lawyers said the pre-engagement period was too short and the Crown conceded in the High Court that engagements to date have been “hopelessly inadequate”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I believe that’s not a correct characterisation of the Crown’s position. I am aware that one group did seek an interim injunction to stop the publication of the consultation document on the emissions trading scheme review and they were not successful. There are a range of views within Māoridom—as is the case, more broadly, in the community—and the Government wanted consultation to go ahead so that we can hear everyone’s views before we make a decision. I would also note that it is not in the interests of Māori land owners or anyone else to have a price of carbon that collapses so as to neither encourage gross emission reductions or forestry.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: What is his response to the Māori forestry land owners’ collective, Te Taumata, who have said that the lack of engagement is a breach of Te Tiriti, given that there are significant potential impacts, including their “ability to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over the land” and the potential “material loss of control and value of lands, forestry, and income streams”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The only value that is obtained from carbon farming is under the emissions trading scheme. If the price collapses, there is no value. These issues should be consulted upon, and they are.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: What guarantees can he give, if any, that going forward, engagement with Māori forestry land owners will be Tiriti-compliant and will respect the tino rangatiratanga of tangata whenua?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There was pre-engagement with Māoridom ahead of engagement more broadly with the community—that was appropriate. The consultation in respect of emissions trading scheme settings is important for the broader economy as well as for Māoridom.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Will he adopt Te Taumata’s three-stage engagement process, which includes comprehensive briefings from officials and advisers, time for Māori to properly consider the technical detail, and direct face-to-face engagement between Māori land owners and the Crown; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The position of the Crown in respect of consultation has been set out in my earlier answers.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Te Taumata letter dated 23 June, which outlines the consultation process.

SPEAKER: Who is the letter to?

Hon Meka Whaitiri: The letter is to the Ministry for the Environment, so it’s not publicly available.

SPEAKER: Leave this for that purpose. Is the any objection? There appears to be none; it may be tabled.

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

Question No. 5—Education

5. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “my bottom line is to ensure our young people are getting the education they need and deserve”, and does she believe the 85 percent of year 8 Pacific students who are not achieving at curriculum level 4 or above in maths, according to the 2022 NMSSA data, are getting the education they need and deserve?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: To the first part of the member’s question, yes. To the second part: the data the member refers to shows effectively no overall change since 2018, which was just after the National Party were in Government. It shows that educational performance for all students has remained steady overall, despite the tremendous disruption of a global pandemic. There has been a very longstanding gap in performance between years 4 and 8, and this is more pronounced for Pacific and Māori learners. Measures to address this historical level of performance were disrupted for two years because of COVID. However, Government efforts to address that disruption for Pacific students included free Wi-Fi and, in some cases, devices in homes—and free catch-up tutoring sessions which saw Pacific students double their initial credits by the end of the programme and gain 9,138 credits. Right now, we’re firmly in the recovery, and we’re focused on boosting Pacific achievement. Just recently, we have, for example, delivered new equity funding: that’s $75 million in this year’s Budget to give additional funding to schools where learners face the biggest barriers to academic achievement. Secondly, we’ve rolled out the tapa whā cultural competencies framework for teachers of disabled learners, because we know that culturally appropriate education is more effective, and we’re redeveloping the curriculum to make clear what learning needs to occur and when. It’s about supporting teachers to teach and giving parents confidence in their child’s progress and achievements.

Erica Stanford: Why is it that, despite all of the efforts the Minister has just outlined, the number of Pasifika students achieving at curriculum for maths has dropped by 40 percent in the last four years, with nearly 86 percent of students behind by the time they reach year 8?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think the member is—on behalf of the Minister of Education—being somewhat selective in her comparisons. I referred, in my answer to the primary question, to the historical gap in performance between years 4 and 8, including for Pacific learners. That gap was present throughout the entirety of the national standards framework—it did not change one bit. That is why, when this Government was elected, every effort was made to address that gap; it was disrupted by COVID. Efforts were made during COVID through things like the provision of free Wi-Fi, but the problem with that was that even though we could get Wi-Fi—and we did, for about 40,000 homes—30 percent of homes were Pacific homes and many of those homes didn’t have enough devices for all of the children to do all of their learning. So it’s not surprising that the gap has widened somewhat, but I can tell you that every effort is being made to address that now and to catch up that learning.

Erica Stanford: At what point did the Minister realise that her Government’s actions to minimise the impacts of COVID on low-decile learners were not working, when the latest data from 2022, shows 83 percent are failing to meet curriculum for maths in year 8, a drop of 25 percent from 2018?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister of Education, of course, what we realised on being elected to Government was the complete failure of the national standards framework to delivering effective learning, and so we set about correcting that. We then had the disruption in calendar years 2020 and 2021 to learning, and so we started the recovery in 2022, at the very time this survey—the latest survey—was taken. It was obvious that that survey was going to pick up an ongoing gap, but the Ministry, and indeed the Government right up to the Cabinet level, have continued efforts, and we will continue to be unrelenting until we close that gap, and we’ll do better than that member and her party.

Erica Stanford: Can the Minister explain why not one single cohort of students improved in their maths performance at the end of year 8 in 2022, despite six long years of this Labour Government?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister of Education, that is the most absurd and ridiculous question I think I’ve heard given the information now available to that member. I am happy to take that member through it again. This Government, on being elected, made it a top priority to address the abject failure of the national standards framework and did so. The recovery efforts were disrupted for two years, in 2020 and 2021, by COVID and the fact that much learning was disrupted—many classrooms were closed for extended periods of time. The recovery process for that started in 2022, at the very time the survey took place. Every effort is taking place. That is why there has been extra funding for more tutoring. That’s why there has been more funding in this year’s Budget. On behalf of the Minister of Education, I am very proud of what this Government is doing to recover learning for this cohort.

Erica Stanford: Is there any maths achievement data that the Minister can quote to show that any of their education initiatives have any positive impact, given that tier 1 data released this week shows every group going backwards, and, by her own admission in this House, that the e-asTTle data shows no improvement in mathematics in our primary schools?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister of Education, I don’t know what it is about that member and her party, where they’ve suddenly forgotten that there was a pandemic that caused disruption to this country but, most importantly, to education for two years—the year 2020 and the year 2021. So it’s not surprising that the survey taken in 2022 is going to pick up the impact of that disruption on that learning. That is why remedial efforts were taken in 2022 and more remedial efforts are being taken this year, funded out of this year’s Budget, with the additional $75 million targeted for that reason.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was quite specific in my question about whether or not the Minister could point to any data that shows any improvements.

SPEAKER: And that was absolutely addressed.

Erica Stanford: What does she say to parents in our low socio-economic communities, with 83 percent of their kids failing to meet the curriculum standard in maths by the end of year 8, a 25 percent drop in four years, who are now on average 2½ years behind the students from high decile schools?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister of Education, the first thing I would say is that when the National Party uses figures, they can’t be relied upon because they get it wrong. And the second thing I would say is, we take seriously the impact of the disruption of COVID on learning over the years 2020 and 2022. And that’s why, when it comes to education, we have made it a priority to put in place measures to recover the lost learning. We did it in 2022 and we’re doing it in 2023. That’s why we funded extra tutoring. That’s why we’re funding extra support for teachers and for schools: to make sure they can support those communities where the learning has slipped.

Question No. 6—Immigration

6. to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcement has he made regarding working holiday visas?

Recently, I announced a range of changes to the United Kingdom Working Holiday Visa scheme, which entered into force on 31 May. This was the result of successful negotiations alongside the New Zealand - UK free-trade agreement, and I acknowledge the work of my colleagues the Hon Damien O’Connor and, indeed, the Hon David Parker, in that respect. Working holidaymakers from the UK will now be able to spend up to three years in New Zealand and will also be able to work for the full duration of their visas; previously, they could work for only up to 12 months during the time they were here. The age limit has also been extended from 30 to 35 years old, because being younger takes longer. These changes are reciprocal; New Zealanders, at least up to the age of 35, will also be able to stay and work in the UK for an extra year. These changes underline the strength of the relationship New Zealand has with the UK, and it’s great that we’re able to further enhance the people-to-people links our countries share.

Camilla Belich: How many people are likely to benefit from these changes?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We know that around 10,000 people each year come to New Zealand from the UK under this scheme, and thousands of New Zealanders take advantage of the equivalent scheme in the UK. Since the new settings were introduced just three weeks ago, Immigration New Zealand has received over 850 applications and approved just under 470. There are also 3,250 UK working holiday visa holders already in New Zealand who will be able to extend their stay thanks to the extension to the UK working holiday visa. To be clear: both those who are currently in the UK or New Zealand on a working holiday will be able to take advantage of these extensions as well.

Camilla Belich: How will this help ensure businesses have the workforces they need?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We know that working holiday visa holders play a vital role in our overall workforce, particularly in the regions and in industries like horticulture and hospitality. Since the borders opened, we’ve seen over 47,500 people arrive here on working holiday visas—an impressive figure, given the intense global competition for migrant labour at the moment, and proof that we’ve been successful in reopening to the world. Particularly now, it’s vital we do all we can to ensure New Zealand is an attractive location for working holiday makers. Earlier this year, we also announced an expansion of the Spain Working Holiday Visa scheme, with the number of places increasing tenfold, from 200 to 2,000.

Camilla Belich: Were these changes brought in on schedule?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have to say no, they were not brought in on schedule. I am, however, pleased to report to the House that they were, in fact, brought in well ahead of schedule so that we were able to support businesses and regions experiencing labour shortages as quickly as possible.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions in relation to the release of health data by Health New Zealand?

Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Matt Doocey: When she said yesterday that staff in her office had asked Health New Zealand to not release health data on 5 July because of other announcements, which health data was she referring to and what were those other announcements?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The data was the data integrity review and clinical performance metrics report, and there were a number of announcements made in the week of 5 July, which included a large announcement on the health workforce, on nursing placements, on pay equity for midwives, on pay equity for nurses, and on one other which I will have to reply to that member on—and wait times for cataract surgery.

Matt Doocey: Was the Prime Minister’s office or any other Minister’s office involved in the decision to request the delay of the health data to avoid a conflict with other announcements, and, if not, when was the Prime Minister’s office first informed of the delay?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Could the member please specify which delay he is referring to?

SPEAKER: I’ll give the member another go at the question.

Matt Doocey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Was the Prime Minister’s office or any other Minister’s office involved in the decision to request the delay of the health data on 5 July to avoid a conflict with other announcements, and, if not, when was the Prime Minister’s office first informed of the delay?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No. The conversation was between my office and Te Whatu Ora, and the Prime Minister’s office would have been aware of this matter yesterday.

Matt Doocey: Just to confirm, there was no other Minister’s office involved in the discussion or decision to request the delay of health data on 5 July?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, not that I’m aware of.

Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t actually hear that answer.

SPEAKER: Can you repeat the answer?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, not that I’m aware of.

Matt Doocey: On what other occasions, if any, has her office requested the release of public health data to be delayed?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: None that I am aware of.

Matt Doocey: When did she find out what she said yesterday was wrong in relation to her office’s request that the release of health data be delayed, and who told her?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: A member of my office team—the one who had sent the message to Te Whatu Ora—at approximately 4.30 p.m. yesterday.

Question No. 8—Community and Voluntary Sector

8. to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made about modernising the charities sector?

I recently announced that the Charities Amendment Bill passed its third reading. This legislation takes some important steps to modernise the charitable sector. For example, it reduces the red tape that many charities face, particularly small charities, and it improves charities’ access to justice and establishes new requirements for the Charities Registration Board and the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs to promote best-practice regulatory decision-making. The changes to the legislation were brought about by a review of the Act that recommended some practical changes that could be made to better support charities and to improve public trust and confidence in the sector. There are approximately 28,000 registered charities in New Zealand and this Government recognises the important role they play and we want to ensure that our legislative settings are fit for purpose so that we can continue to back them in the great work they’re doing to support our communities.

Angie Warren-Clark: What are some of the ways the Charities Amendment Act supports smaller charities?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The Charities Amendment Act 2023 makes it easier for smaller charities to comply with legal requirements. For example, the Act empowers the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs to exempt very small charities for the not-for-profit reporting standard that’s set by the External Reporting Board. Now, that new reporting standard came into effect in 2015 and changed the landscape—made it quite difficult for small charities to be able to comply. I’m told by some very small charities that they even had to hire accountants just to meet their legal requirements, and that was onerous. The Act also provides greater access to justice for charities by empowering the Taxation Review Authority to hear Charities Act first appeals rather than the High Court. This reduces the costs, complexities, and resources associated with taking appeals straight to the High Court. Charities will also have more time to lodge an appeal and can self-represent at the authority to avoid legal costs. So that’s particularly beneficial for small charities.

Angie Warren-Clark: How does the Act improve charities governance?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: In addition to reducing the regulatory burden on charities, the new Act amends the definition of “officer”. Previously, this was the source of a fair amount of confusion. The new definition will ensure everyone who has significant influence over the management and administration of a charity will be defined as an officer and therefore accountable for the running of the charity. The bill also requires charities to review their governance procedures at least once in three years. This will help ensure that charities are actively considering whether their resources are being used to meet their charitable purpose and whether their governance processes are up to date but that they aren’t overly burdened with a compliance requirement.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why are these changes important?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Kiwis have been rated the second-most generous country in the world. Our charitable sector has an annual total income of over $21 billion and is supported by over 217,000 volunteers. These organisations contribute in diverse areas. The charitable sector in Aotearoa New Zealand delivers an extraordinary contribution to communities across the country and they approximately contribute 1.7 million hours every week and more than 98,000 people work full time in the sector. These changes recognise that important mahi and improve the ability of charities to operate effectively and efficiently, while also ensuring public trust and confidence in the sector is strengthened.

Question No. 9—Corrections

9. to the Minister of Corrections: Does he think it is acceptable that, as at 31 May 2023, 2,191 sentenced prisoners had attended a rehabilitation programme during the 2022/2023 year, 4,140 fewer than attended rehabilitation programmes in the 2017/2018 year, and how many sentenced prisoners attended a rehabilitation programme during June 2023?

on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: There has been an anticipated reduction in the raw number of rehabilitation programme attends since 2017-18, as Corrections has refocused the rehabilitation programmes it runs. I can confirm that the number of attends has declined from 6,588 to 2,451 since 2017-18, as at the end of June. A significant proportion of this reduction comes from the 2019 discontinuation of just two alcohol and drug programmes that could each be completed in less than 24 hours. In reality, these programmes were just too short to make a difference in offending, but they did significantly pad the raw data statistics. There are also fewer people in prison, and the department has been navigating the impacts of COVID-19 staffing challenges. I’m advised that, in June 2023, 666 sentenced prisoners attended a rehabilitation programme, which is, proportionately, broadly in line with historic levels.

Toni Severin: Why is it that, as of 31 May 2023, only 1,508 sentenced prisoners had successfully completed a rehabilitation programme in the 2022-23 year, a decrease of 3,993 compared to those who completed a programme in 2017-18?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: There has been an expected decline in the raw number of rehabilitation programme starts and completes since 2017-18, as Corrections has refocused the rehabilitation programmes it runs by replacing those two high-volume but low-effectiveness programmes with more intensive programmes. They are rehabilitating a smaller prison population, and, of course, they’ve been dealing with the impacts of COVID-19 and staffing challenges.

Toni Severin: Why has the number of sentenced prisoners who successfully completed rehabilitation programmes decreased by over 63 percent and the number attending rehabilitation programmes decreased by over 65 percent on his watch?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On behalf of the Minister, I refer to my previous answer.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What updates can he report about the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service?

The caseload of the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service has been steadily growing as people affected by the recent weather events turned to it for support. At the end of June, the service had 972 open cases. In readiness for growth, the service has taken on more case managers, three of whom started work in June. Kiwis dealing with tricky insurance claims need support at this time, and the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service is there to provide it.

Helen White: How many households has the service been helping in the areas of recent extreme weather events?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: With regard to the Auckland floods, the service has 101 open cases and 222 cases it has already closed. In respect of Cyclone Gabrielle, there are 150 open cases and 162 have been closed.

Helen White: How satisfied have people been with the service they’ve received?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There’s a very high level of satisfaction.

Chris Bishop: Oh, really?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, yes, Mr Bishop, and it’s great that we can do this for New Zealanders who need help. There’s a 90 percent satisfaction rate in the year to date.

Hon Member: What?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I know—more than some on the other side of the House. Notably, June had a 93 percent satisfaction rate. In the month before, it was 100 percent. Homeowners have registered their thanks for the help and advice they’ve been given free of charge in this difficult time, and I want to thank the team at the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service for the work they’re doing in this space.

Helen White: In what circumstances should people get in touch with the service?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Anyone who’s having difficulty with their insurance claim is free to turn to this service for help. For some people, this is technical or legal advice. For others, it may just be about feeling overwhelmed and needing assistance to navigate a tricky insurance pathway. Whatever the reason is, if Kiwis have got stuck in their insurance claim, they should look up the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service. It’s free support: 0508 624 327 or nzcrs.govt.nz. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Question No. 11—Revenue

11. to the Minister of Revenue: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As a registered paramedic, may I acknowledge, briefly, the role of the Auckland-based St John paramedics and special emergency response team for their actions this morning.

My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Does he stand by his statement on the Government’s proposal for a wealth tax that “As is clear from the papers, I supported it”, and does he think Inland Revenue was right to say a wealth tax would “generate a range of economic costs and other risks”?

Yes, I stand by my statement. It is IRD’s obligation as public servants to provide unfettered advice to Ministers of the economic, equity, and other benefits and risks of proposed tax changes; that is a role I respect as Minister.

Simon Watts: Why did he describe himself as “disappointed” over the decision not to pursue a wealth tax in this year’s Budget?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because I was.

Simon Watts: Was Inland Revenue right to say that they were “concerned” about the time frame for development of the wealth tax, and, if so, why did he try to rush his wealth tax through?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The inequities in the tax system exposed by the high-wealth individuals report is one of the reasons why I was pushing for that change.

Simon Watts: Has the Prime Minister or his office had any communications with him over any potential breaches of collective Cabinet responsibility because of his public statements of disappointment with the Government’s tax policies?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I was responding to an answer from the media; any other answer would have been entirely inconsistent with the papers. The Prime Minister has ruled this out. I’m collectively responsible for the decision that Cabinet has taken, and I stand by the Prime Minister’s statements.

Simon Watts: Has he met with the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, since the Budget, on a wealth tax?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, prior to the Minister and the Prime Minister ruling it out as Labour Party policy.

Simon Watts: How can Kiwis take this Government seriously on tax, when senior Ministers, like himself, are publicly agitating for a wealth tax, even after the Prime Minister tried to rule it out?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Labour Party has kept every one of our promises on tax to the electorate, unlike the last Government, that promised not to increase GST, and then did.

Chris Bishop: Oh, whatever. You said you wouldn’t extend the brightline test and then did it anyway.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Yeah, you did. You lied about it.

Simon Watts: Has he expressed his disappointment directly—

Hon Damien O’Connor: You were dishonest.

Simon Watts: —to the Prime Minister—

SPEAKER: Order!

Simon Watts: —that he’s tried to rule out a wealth tax—

SPEAKER: Order!

Chris Bishop: You’ve been here 25 years—

SPEAKER: Order! And for that, you can both get up and apologise—the Hon Damien O’Connor and Chris Bishop.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I withdraw and apologise.

Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise, and sorry to Mr O’Connor.

Simon Watts: Has he expressed his disappointment directly to the Prime Minister that he’s tried to rule out a wealth tax, or is he saving that for his next letter to the editor?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m very happy to quote my letter to the editor. I said to the New Zealand Herald that “I was interested to see the extensive space you gave to two former National ministers to uncritically air their views in your paper over the weekend. One column, from Steven Joyce, seemed [to] solely focus on attacking me for being a Labour Government Revenue Minister, rather than a National one. I recall that Joyce enjoyed spending up large on roads in [the] day, so long as they were [big] flash new ones—he wasn’t so keen on the more mundane task of maintaining existing roads. The other column, from National’s campaign fundraiser Paula Bennett was devoted to telling us what a great guy Christopher Luxon is. Rust never sleeps! I hope your readers were enlightened.”

Question No. 12—Transport

12. to the Minister of Transport: Is reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport still a priority for this Government?

Yes. For example, both the Clean Car Standard and the Clean Car Discount are making a tangible difference to emissions. These two initiatives are now estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around three times the originally estimated reduction for the period 2022-25.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will the new draft Government Policy Statement on land transport support mode shift from private cars to public and active transport in a manner consistent with the Paris Agreement targets and the emissions reduction plan?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Cabinet has not yet finalised its consideration of that matter, but yes: mode shift is an important part of our response, as is vehicle efficiency, obviously. There have been significant investments by this Government in mode shift, including unprecedented support for rail, buses, and other active forms of transport.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will his Government commit to funding extensions to public transport services in tier 2 and 3 cities and towns in the next term of Government, given it has deprioritised funding this term?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The announcement of Labour Party policy for the next term on transport policy will be made during the election.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he commit to a Waitematā Harbour crossing that prioritises active and public transport options that reduce congestion and emissions?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I certainly agree that the next harbour crossing for the Waitematā needs to include both public transport and active routes.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he commit to replacing the Public Transport Operating Model this term so that councils can ensure public transport services are operated for the public good of New Zealanders, not just the private benefits of shareholders of private companies?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am not envisaging a substantial change to the operating model before the election.