Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, I do, especially our efforts to restore law and order, ensuring that Kiwis feel safe in their homes, their businesses, and in their community. As part of that objective, on Sunday the Government announced that legislation will be introduced this year, making stalking illegal, with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison. The new offence comes as a part of a wider package of changes to actually keep Kiwis safe, including a change to prevent those convicted of a stalking offence from holding a firearms licence, and a recognition of the Family Violence Act that stalking is a form of psychological violence. Our message is very simple: if you are perpetrating a culture of fear in your community—whether that’s breaking into a shop or stalking and intimidating someone—we are coming after you. This is a Government focused on restoring law and order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that, if enacted, the Treaty principles bill would “be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty in modern times.”, and that if it isn’t repealed it would constitute the “end of the Treaty”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Unless Opposition parties support the bill, it won’t be enacted.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Opposition parties were going to support the bill. I asked him whether he agreed with the Waitangi Tribunal.

SPEAKER: You did. You also asked him to comment on the circumstances that might exist if the bill were passed. I think for that reason the question’s certainly been addressed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he aware that the Waitangi Tribunal has determined that principle 2, as contained in the bill, would “abrogate rights of Māori that article 2 guaranteed and protected, and revoke the promises and guarantees the Queen made to Māori in 1840.”, and that principle 3, as contained in the bill, “bears no resemblance to the texts and meaning of article 3.”; if so, how can he support the bill in good conscience?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I explained to the member last week, we are supporting the bill through first reading. But the Government parties in the coalition are free not to support it after that point in time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the reason why his Ministers have consistently sought to undermine the Waitangi Tribunal without any censure from him, even calling for its disestablishment, because the tribunal has brought attention to the profoundly negative impacts the Treaty principles bill is having on the Crown’s relationship with Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to that member is that many commentators have said in a post-Treaty settlement world it’s quite a legitimate question to ask what the role of the Waitangi Tribunal is going forward. That is something that we as a coalition Government will explore in due course.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can he claim that the National Party’s support of the bill ending before the second reading will address the widespread concerns, when the mere introduction of the bill will, according to the Waitangi Tribunal, “prejudice Māori” and there is a risk that the select committee process will be hijacked by racists and purveyors of misinformation for six months?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with the characterisation of that question. As I explained to the member last week, we live in an MMP world. Parties in this Parliament have different views and different constituents they represent here in Parliament. We didn’t get what we wanted; the ACT Party didn’t get what they wanted. We came to a sensible compromise. We’re supporting it at first reading, not beyond that. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Before the member goes into his next question, I just remind the House that a sort of general barrage is not acceptable and that all questions are heard in silence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What responsibility does he take as Prime Minister for the fact that, as former National Minister Christopher Finlayson has said, “there is too much division and hurt in New Zealand caused by, among other things, pernicious nonsense like the Treaty Principles Bill.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I don’t take responsibility for Chris Finlayson.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he told New Zealanders before the election that he thought the Treaty principles bill was divisive and that National would not support it, why didn’t he tell them that commitment was something he was willing to trade away in coalition negotiations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re not supporting the bill into law; we’re not supporting the bill out to a national referendum. We’ve been very clear about that from the get-go.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Every fortnight, on its website, Treasury publishes a summary of economic data and events. The most recent of these contains a number of data points that suggest the New Zealand economy is recovering after a long recession. The number of building consents is beginning to rise. New Zealand’s goods export prices, particularly dairy, are continuing to climb. On Monday—and Grant McCallum was pleased to tell me all about it—Fonterra lifted its forecast milk price from a mid-point of $9 a kilogram to $9.50, and business confidence, firms’ expected activity, and employment intentions have all risen.

Nancy Lu: When will the next Treasury forecasts be released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Treasury will release a full set of economic and fiscal forecasts in the half-year update on 17 December. I expect those forecasts will show a strengthening economy, lower interest rates, and reducing unemployment over the next few years. That’s not just me; that’s what almost all economic commentators anticipate. What will also be of interest, though, is how the economic and fiscal forecasts compare to previous expectations.

Nancy Lu: How have the economic forecasts changed in recent years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Economic forecasts have generally changed for the worse over successive updates, as it became clear that the current recession started earlier, was deeper, and persisted for longer than was earlier understood. With the benefit of hindsight, earlier forecasts attributed too much weight to an apparent pick-up in productivity over the COVID period. This pick-up proved to be illusory. Earlier forecasts were therefore too optimistic. So, incrementally, Treasury has been lowering its assumptions around labour productivity.

Nancy Lu: How have these economic forecasts flowed through to the fiscal forecasts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Economic forecasts flow through to the fiscal forecasts in several ways, especially through the impact of nominal GDP on tax revenue, which subsequently impacts on debt and the operating balance. Steadily deteriorating economic forecasts, plus some big spending increases in Budgets 2022 and 2023 have led to a series of downgrades in the fiscal forecasts. For example, since the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2021, every forecast for the return to operating balance before gains and losses surplus has been revised downwards.

Question No. 3—Justice

3. to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent statements has he seen about the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Many and varied but overwhelmingly positive. To take just three that I received in the hour leading up to question time: “I never thought I’d see a politician take on the Treaty grift in my lifetime, especially not a Māori politician. I support redress in the tribunal but I know you’re right to wonder if the expansion of the organs of State for us becomes more a crutch than a helping hand. It’s patronising to hear TPM argue we need special treatment to compete. I worry the next generation might hear that and start believing it. Kia kaha, bro.” Another—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. There’s misrepresentation of our views—point 111. And also the reference to us—I think the Minister has misinterpreted the quote.

SPEAKER: How has that happened?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Because he’s got it wrong.

SPEAKER: Well, that is a debating point, not a point of order.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. If the Minister is going to use “TPM” in his excuse, then the quote should be correct; otherwise, he’s misrepresenting us in the House.

SPEAKER: There are avenues open to you if there has been misrepresentation. It’s not something I can rule on at the present time—or in the present time. The Hon David Seymour—who is going to be brief with his answers.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, since there’s such interest, I can share more of that statement. “It’s perhaps even more frustrating to see them using State finances funnelled through Te Whānau o Waipareira to promote messaging that aims to destabilise the State by rewriting—or, as they’d call it, reimagining—what our founding document actually says.”

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. So, first of all, there were two references made there—again, misrepresented—and there is an assumption from that Minister that they have used Government funds that cannot be validated. We should not be having those accusations in the House; it’s grossly misrepresentative.

SPEAKER: That point is correct. It’s also inappropriate to use question time to attack other parties or people outside of the House. I ask the Hon David Seymour to confine his answers to the substance of the question that was asked.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Further statements I’ve seen just in that hour leading up to question time: “I hope this message finds you well. I’m a year 11 student and I wanted to reach out to express my appreciation for your work on the recent bill. As a young New Zealander, I find it encouraging to see efforts like yours that support positive dialogue around the Treaty of Waitangi.” And, finally, just in that short time: “Keep up the great work, David. There is enormous tacit support for your Treaty principles bill (people feel they can’t speak up, though).” That is just a small selection of recent statements I’ve seen and they’re part of a theme. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to calm itself down. I can’t be expected to judge the content of an answer within the rules of the Standing Orders when there is so much other noise going on in the House.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What statements has he seen from school principals opposing the Treaty principles bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’ve seen statements from school principals to their community, urging people to oppose the Treaty principles bill and to even be absent from school to participate in hīkoi activations. I can’t miss the opportunity to say to those principals that they have a duty to adhere to political neutrality, and there is nothing in the Treaty principles bill that will disadvantage any student even one iota. However, students are disadvantaged by missing school. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: All right. That’s enough. We’ll hear the rest of this question in silence—answers to questions in silence. I’ve told the House many times: no barrage.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I just make the point, while you were standing, that while the Treaty principles bill will not disadvantage one young person in this country, missing out on education because they’re not at school or because their school leadership team is misfocused—i.e., not focused on reading and writing and mathematics and science and the skills that allow them to access the knowledge of the world—that does disadvantage students.

SPEAKER: I have also repeatedly suggested that Ministers keep their answers as concise as the questions themselves. I’d ask all Ministers to reflect on that and to respond to that today.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will the Treaty principles bill affect Māori language and culture?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Kāhore—or no. As I said at Waitangi last year, one of my goals is ki a maimoatia te reo me te ahurea Māori—that is, to cherish the Māori language and culture. The Treaty principles bill protects the rights of hapū and iwi Māori as they stood in 1840. It also ensures that those basic rights of tino rangatiratanga and self-determination extend to all New Zealanders.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will the Treaty principles bill affect Treaty settlements?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Treaty principles bill is very clear that in clause 8 it says it should not be used in interpreting any statute in relation to a Treaty settlement. What I say to people who have these fears or anxieties about the bill—and I know that there are some—or anyone saying “Kill the bill”, my advice is to read the bill because you will find such details as that that often show you there’s nothing to worry about.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: With New Zealand First making a stand to not support the bill, at a certain point, and the same with National, doing the same, where does that leave your bill—all alone with you?

SPEAKER: It’s not with me.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I meant with the Minister.

SPEAKER: I do know what was intended; I’m sure the Minister does as well.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I’d say to the member is that being all alone with me is not that bad! However, that is not where this bill is. This bill is opposed by people who say it won’t go anywhere—desperate, ironically, to stop it going anywhere. And the reason that they want to do that is that they know that even sending this bill to a select committee and having a select committee hearing on it, even if it turns out—and I don’t believe for a moment—it goes no further than that, it will have democratised the debate on the Treaty of Waitangi. It will have ensured that each person gets to have a say. And when I hear people say Māori haven’t been consulted, well, actually every person will be consulted. Every person will be able to have a view on our founding document. I think that is why so many people are so worried about this bill, because it shows—

Hon Member: Because of the divisiveness—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —that actually everyone else is going to have a say too. And there’s the Green Party member saying, “What about the divisiveness?” It hasn’t created any divisiveness. What it has done has revealed the divisiveness of people—

SPEAKER: Look, that’s far too long for an answer. So we can use up the time by cutting out questions.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What will the Treaty principles bill mean for the rights of New Zealanders and our future as a country?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Most importantly, it will fill in the blanks that this House left in 1975 when it said that there were Treaty principles but failed to define what they were. It will give us a conception of our founding document that is based upon equal rights for all and that, in turn, enables us to solve together the many challenges we face with health and housing and jobs, education and the economy, and that, in short, will allow New Zealanders to overcome our real and tangible challenges with a shared and equal understanding of our citizenship and our rights in this country.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Minister implying that tino rangatiratanga is derived from Kāwanatanga and reducing indigenous rights to the set of ordinary rights?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It’s a very interesting question. I’m cognisant of your requirement to be brief in what is a 184-year debate, but what I make very clear is that under the Treaty principles bill, the rights of hapū and iwi Māori as of 1840 are protected. However, those are rights that anyone should be able to respect. And, yes, that means the right to look after your language, your culture, to self-determine, to live in the way that you choose. A very good example of that is charter schools. A very good example of that is Whānau Ora—

SPEAKER: OK, yep, good; I think we got the point.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please. My question was specific: does the Minister believe that tino rangatiratanga is derived from Kāwanatanga? He hasn’t addressed anywhere near the answer, please.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Happy to have another go.

SPEAKER: I’m sure the Minister would be happy to have another go, but the point I’d make is that the question was addressed. It may not have been addressed satisfactorily, but it was certainly addressed. We come now to question No. 4—only four?—today.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m put in a difficult position by the Te Pāti Māori member, who continually says that I don’t have the answer, but you’ve actually ruled that I have addressed the question, and therefore she’s undermining your ruling but you won’t let me give you any further answer.

SPEAKER: No, look—I’m just cutting the question off, because it’s had plenty of airtime. You have already heard my somewhat exasperation that at 5 past 3 we’re only just getting to question No. 4.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with Opposition leader Christopher Luxon, who said, “I can tell you we’re going to be straight with the New Zealand people, tell it as it is—the good, the bad and the ugly”; if so, why has the weekly reporting of income support and hardship figures stopped?

Of course. Our Government is committed to having 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit by 2030. Monthly and quarterly data is a better decision-making tool to achieve this and it’s my intention to continue this reporting. I was advised that weekly reporting was originally produced in response to demand for more timely information as required during COVID. That period, of course, has now passed. Like many things, we are simply returning to the pre-COVID reporting. We want our department’s resources to be focused on the analysis that we need to get more people into work, not on unnecessary reporting.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the weekly reporting cancelled at the request of the Ministry for Social Development and Employment, or at the Minister’s request?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I had looked at the different reporting mechanisms. The weekly reporting is very volatile and the more detailed analysis that’s provided in the monthly and quarterly report provides us the ability to do what we want to do, which is to support more people into work.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Would the Minister have cancelled weekly reporting had jobseeker numbers been going down?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, weekly reporting was introduced during COVID. We’re not during those times. The weekly reporting wasn’t as accurate—very volatile. We want to make sure we’re using data that is more meaningful in terms of making decisions to actually achieve our Government’s target to reduce the number of people on jobseeker benefit by 50,000.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has the weekly reporting been stopped because it shows that jobseeker numbers have risen by over 22,000 since she took office, as unemployment continues to climb to record heights?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. Unfortunately, as the Minister of Finance said, the economic climate that we took over, with a recession that was deeper and longer, has meant that unemployment has continued to rise. Treasury has forecast that, including a year ago, where the numbers have not yet peaked. For every single person that loses their job, I feel for them. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the circumstances we got from the last Government.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister acknowledge that unemployment figures, or the numbers of people on benefit, are now as high or higher than what they were during the height of the pandemic, and, if so, why does she think that now is the time to stop regular weekly reporting?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, monthly reporting and quarterly reporting provides us the level of analysis that we need to make decisions that actually support us to ensure that we are able to do more to support job seekers into work. What I’m really proud to say is the last quarterly report showed us that despite this very challenging economic time, we had 16,100 people in this quarter exit jobseeker benefit into work—2,400 more than the same quarter a year ago. What we’re doing is working.

Question No. 5—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

5. to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: Does she agree with the Whanaketia report that “The State failed to address the ongoing systemic impacts of colonisation that contributed to Māori being taken into care, in which Māori experienced abuse and neglect. This includes recognising the inherent mana motuhake of iwi and hapū, structural reform that would have enabled Māori to exercise rangatiratanga and mana motuhake”?

I’m advised that this quote is not one of the over 500 findings in the royal commission’s final report. As such, it has not been reviewed or analysed in our work on responding to the royal commission. The royal commission considered hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence. Most of that material is now restricted under the Inquiries Act 2013. As the material that the commission relied on to form this view is not available to the Government, it’s not possible for me to either agree or disagree with the statement. However, as the Prime Minister reflected in his apology yesterday, it is clear that racism was a contributing factor to Māori tamariki and rangatahi being disproportionately taken into care, where many experienced abuse and neglect.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister agree that repealing section 7AA is doing the complete opposite of addressing the systemic impacts of colonisation and will, therefore, contribute to further abuse and neglect of tamariki Māori in the State system?

Hon Simeon Brown: Just say no.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the answer.

SPEAKER: But I did. Have you got another question?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Oh, all right; I do, yes. When can survivors expect to see a clear time frame for a redress system to be put in place; how much longer will survivors need to wait just to be given a clear time frame for redress at all?

SPEAKER: Can I just say, look, the primary question is very explicit; the Minister has said that it doesn’t form part of the response that the Government has. It’s a bit hard to see how we now go on to something entirely different.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Sorry, Mr Speaker, from our information, we understand that the first question is in the information. I’m not sure why the Minister doesn’t know or recognise it, but I wouldn’t have put it if I didn’t think that it was valid. But we’re happy to check whether our details are absolutely so. In that regard, taking it to my second question and my third, I was following that flow and referring to section 7AA inside the context of the abuse in care work.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s fine, but it was the jumping to the compensation aspect that is the difficulty. Do you have a—[Interruption] Why are you standing?

Hon Simeon Brown: No, no, no—I don’t know if there’s much that I can add—

SPEAKER: No—well, then don’t bother, because you haven’t taken a point of order. If you’ve got another supplementary, go for it.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: All right, I do. Does she agree that legislation which seeks to undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the mana motuhake of te iwi Māori, such as the Treaty Principles Bill and the section 7AA repeal, contributes to the culture of harm described in Whanaketia and goes completely against the spirit of reconciliation and redress of yesterday’s apology?

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. I think all of those supplementary questions don’t relate to the specificity of the particular primary, which is in relation to a quote in the report, and are seeking to go outside of that. I think the supplementaries should be following the primary, and I think they are not actually anywhere near where it should be going.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but you need to be aware that the questions come in and are checked for their validity, etc. Regardless of what answer might be given, the questions come to me for approval on the basis that the authentication of them has been accepted. Once it’s accepted, then questions that might flow from that directly are OK. The last question is most certainly in order. Do you want to ask it again because I think it might be lost in the—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Yes, of course; I’m happy to. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she agree that legislation which seeks to undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the mana motuhake of te iwi Māori, such as the Treaty Principles Bill and the section 7AA repeal, contributes to the culture of harm described in Whanaketia and goes completely against the spirit of reconciliation and redress of yesterday’s apology?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m not responsible for that legislation. I’m the coordinating Minister responsible for the recommendations in the report, of which this is not one.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s hard to know where the line is as to who is responsible for which piece of it, hence my question. Again, the question aligns with the primary question. It’s very clear; it’s very specific, and I don’t feel at all—whether that’s been either addressed or understood—

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order.

SPEAKER: There’s a point of order going on. Are you speaking to the point of order?

Hon Simeon Brown: Yes, I’m speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Right—then just wait till the point of order has been delivered.

Hon Simeon Brown: Thank you. The point of order that she’s making is in relation to when she’s asking questions which are in relation to a whole range of other issues, when the primary question is whether she agrees with a particular quote in a report. She’s asking about other pieces of legislation which are not part of this question nor part of the Minister’s responsibility.

SPEAKER: But it’s hard to get away from the fact that the House took an enormous amount of time yesterday to make a public apology based on the report. To ask a question about some consequential actions and its relation to the apology is not out of order. Ask the question one more time. And if the Minister is not responsible for that, then that would be an answer to the House. But I will want to listen to the question so I can hear the answer.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she agree the legislation which seeks to undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the mana motuhake of te iwi Māori, such as the Treaty Principles Bill and the section 7AA repeal, contributes to the culture of harm described in Whanaketia and goes completely against the spirit of reconciliation and redress of yesterday’s apology?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Firstly, I reject the assertion in that question, and, secondly, I’m not the Minister responsible for the legislation that she speaks of.

Question No. 6—Children

6. to the Minister for Children: Does she accept that the State’s failures “to consider or recognise an ao Māori … view, tikanga, te reo and mātauranga Māori” were circumstances that led to abuse; if so, is she confident that the proposal to repeal section 7AA is not a continuation of this?

In answer to the first part of the question, in the context of the findings of the royal commission of inquiry, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, yes, absolutely.

Kahurangi Carter: What empirical evidence can she name to justify the repeal of section 7AA when advice states that keeping it will help strengthen safety policy and guidelines, and Whanaketia found cultural safety to be a requirement of care safety?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have repeated this over many occasions that the core reason for looking at section 7AA was to bring clarity to the fact that we need to put the safety and the wellbeing of our young people at the forefront of every decision we’re making when it comes to placements and when it comes to removal of young people in care. So I have thought about the safety and wellbeing of children, and I repeat it over and over again that that should be the first thing we’re thinking about in every decision we make about our young people.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she believe that repealing section 7AA hinders the Government’s ability to implement Whanaketia recommendations and achieve its vision of holistic redress, which require the Government to partner with Māori and give effect to Te Tiriti, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No. I’ve repeated over and over again that nothing will change when it comes to partnership agreements with hapū and iwi around the country, but I will wait for the select committee to finish their deliberation of this bill and will commit to carefully considering their report once it’s tabled in the House.

Kahurangi Carter: Why is she removing section 7AA and its requirement for reporting on outcomes and disparities for Māori when Whanaketia recommends—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Think about your question, because repetition of questions is not generally appreciated by the House. The Minister has answered that. Just think about another way of asking that question.

Kahurangi Carter: Thank you. Why is the Minister removing its requirement for reporting on outcomes and disparities for Māori when Whanaketia recommends strengthening ethnicity-specific data collection to ensure better-informed decision-making?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst I appreciate that question, we have spent years and years going back to when I was dealing with Child, Youth and Family Services over 20 years ago doing reports. I’m sick of reports that say the same thing over and over again from multiple spaces that take resources away from our young people, when we know what the problem is and we just need to get on with it and deliver for our children.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, we’ve got one more to come from here, sorry.

Kahurangi Carter: Why is she removing section 7AA when Whanaketia states that a minimum safeguard for protecting tamariki in care is ensuring Māori “are connected to their whānau, hapū, iwi, whakapapa, whenua, reo, and tikanga”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ve repeated this over and over again. Nothing will change when it comes to working with whānau, hapū, and iwi to make sure that they have a voice at the table. But we must make sure that safety and wellbeing are the forefront of all our decision making. If whānau is the right place for a young person to be placed, that’s what should happen. But, unfortunately, that’s not always appropriate and we need to make sure that the safety and wellbeing come first.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the case that not only tamariki Māori but actually children of all backgrounds value and benefit from their language, their culture, and their family connections, and the removal of section 7AA will not prevent Oranga Tamariki from partnering with a range of organisations, including iwi-based, to achieve just that for each and every child that comes into its care?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely, and I was quite humbled by something that was said to me by a staff member of Oranga Tamariki: “Every kid, or every young person, that comes to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, or is in the care of Oranga Tamariki, has a name. We know their names, and we must base it on their needs and every young person deserves the same level of care and protection no matter what their ancestry is.”

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she think that Whanaketia recommendations were wrong when they said, “To strengthen ethnicity-specific data-collection to ensure better-informed decision-making”; if not, why is she repealing section 7AA?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I say over and over again: whakapapa, working with whānau, hapū, and iwi is important, but the safety and wellbeing must be the first thing we think about in every decision we make about our young people. It’s very important that we make it clear what we’re referring to when we’re referring to children in care—these are children that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, often broken, often not been treated with the dignity and respect they should have been, and Oranga Tamariki has to pick up those pieces and make decisions for these young people. We need to make sure that they’re safe in care.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, I would ask that you take some time to reflect on the questions that we’ve just had to endure for the last five minutes. It’s quite clear there is no scope for repetitive questioning going over the same ground all the time, and, more importantly, we’ve suffered enough harassment in terms of that side of the House of that Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Shane Jones has just raised a point which you yourself raised around repetition of questions, and I wonder whether you could be very clear on that, because it has certainly been the case in the entire time I’ve been in the House that where a member is dissatisfied with an answer they can repeat the basic thrust of a question over and over and over again if they want to.

SPEAKER: That’s true, and I will take a look, and I will come back with a statement to the House.

Question No. 7—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

7. to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he stand by his reported statement that previous National Governments had made good progress on Treaty settlements, and they hoped to restore some of that momentum; if not, why not?

Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does introducing the Treaty Principles Bill “restore some of that momentum.” when the bill has been described by iwi leaders as “reckless”, “dishonourable”, and “callous”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m sure there’s a wide variety of views amongst iwi leaders, but there are still plenty who are very keen to make progress on Treaty negotiations.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Paul Goldsmith that former ACT Party leader and current leader of Hobson’s Pledge, Don Brash, is a “true New Zealand patriot”, and, if so, will this help or hinder the momentum of Treaty settlements?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m not sure it will make any difference whatsoever, but I did write a book about that particular fellow 20-odd years ago, and that’s on the record.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good—let’s come back to relevance to the primary question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Nicola Willis with regard to the Treaty Principles Bill, who said on Radio New Zealand: “The debate, I think, can be healthy, but if one party seeks to impose their view on the other without consent, I think that’s dangerous.”, and, if so, will this debate restore some of the momentum of the Treaty settlement process?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think, again, that question is drawing a long bow from Treaty negotiations, which is work which is steadily working its way through the system. Now, it’s true that one year in, I have not yet concluded a settlement with Ngāpuhi, and that is challenging work and many Ministers in the past have worked in that way. Ultimately, it requires engagement on both sides, and that’s what we’re doing.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If the debate on the Treaty Principles Bill is considered dangerous, why are he and his Government choosing to ignore all the advice and warnings, and proceeding with a select committee process that is going to be one of the most divisive in Aotearoa’s history?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, clearly, the other side have woken up this morning and decided to have every question on this particular area today in the House, and so they’re straining to draw different bills into different ministerial responsibilities. In terms of making progress on Treaty settlements, we are very committed to continuing to make progress on those Treaty settlements. It’s been something that, across the House, Governments of all persuasions have worked together towards. We’ve got some progress, and we’ve got more progress yet to make.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister aware that the Minister responsible for the Treaty Principles Bill is also the Minister responsible for charter schools, and that that Minister’s own hapū have been in touch with him recently, asking about the possibility of running a kura hourua—

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s—

Hon David Seymour: —which goes to show that—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I point to Speakers’ ruling 197/6—

SPEAKER: In relation to what, sorry?

Ricardo Menéndez March: To the supplementary the member to my left just asked. The Speakers’ ruling states, “Questions commencing ‘Is the Minister aware’, … are generally not seeking elucidation but seeking to inject information or propaganda a member wishes to be heard.”, and I definitely think that that supplementary and other supplementaries most definitely fall in line with that Speakers’ ruling.

SPEAKER: Well, the supplementary was also very wide of the primary question, as well. But I’m sure the member can bring a question that is in line with the primary—very briefly—to the Minister.

Hon David Seymour: Your confidence is well placed, Mr Speaker. In light of the above facts, does it not show that maybe, actually, it is possible to advance some matters while disagreeing on others, and that is how mature people conduct business?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I agree that people—

SPEAKER: Good.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —can disagree on many things.

SPEAKER: That’s excellent. We’ll move now to question No. 8.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to reduce the number of victims of crime?

The Government has agreed to introduce legislation this year which will make stalking an illegal and jailable offence for up to five years. It is often a precursor to more serious and violent crime—there are established links between stalking and intimate partner violence—which is increasing in prevalence. Every New Zealander deserves to feel safe, and this is another part of the Government’s plan to reduce the number of victims of crime.

James Meager: How will the new offence protect victims of stalking?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: A stalking offence will provide better recognition, more effective prosecution, and support greater prevention of stalking offences. The current legislation’s not adequately responding to the challenge. While some stalking behaviours can be prosecuted through existing laws, they do not cover modern stalking methods. Victim advocates have long called for the Government to create a bespoke offence and we have listened to them.

James Meager: What will be covered by the new offence?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the new offence will capture patterns of behaviour, being three specified acts occurring within a 12-month period that amount to stalking and harassment. It includes damaging reputation, recording, tracking, loitering, as well as the use of technology and modern stalking methods.

Hon Nicole McKee: Will a conviction of stalking and harassment disqualify someone from holding a firearms licence?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Stalking and harassment is often a precursor to more serious and violent crimes such as firearms violence and does not reflect the fit and proper standards that must be met to hold a firearms licence. So, yes, the Government’s decided that a stalking and harassment conviction will disqualify the offender from holding a firearms licence.

James Meager: What feedback, if any, has he seen on the Government’s proposal to make stalking an illegal and jailable offence?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s about time.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’ve seen—I just heard one from the Leader of the Opposition: “about time”, and also from the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children, who said, “This bill is a message that stalking is unacceptable [and] that it’s not OK”. They’ve called for change and this Government is delivering it.

Question No. 9—Children

9. to the Minister for Children: Does she accept advice from officials that “New Zealand and international evidence indicates military academies have limited effectiveness in reducing offending”; if not, what evidence can she name that supports her approach to youth justice?

Yes, I do, which is why, when designing the pilot programme, we took on lessons from examples in New Zealand and internationally. In fact, in this process, over 75 formal lessons were identified and collated from these reviews of previous programmes, both in New Zealand and internationally. These lessons mean that the military-style academy pilot programme is different to what we have seen in the past. For example, each young person received a comprehensive assessment from a clinical psychologist prior to starting the programme.

Tamatha Paul: Does she see that the moral panic around youth delinquency that was used to justify the boot camps of the past, outlined in the abuse in care report, is the same moral panic around youth crime that she is whipping up today to justify her boot camps?

SPEAKER: Can I just say the last part of that is unacceptable in a question. I will ask the member to ask the question again without that last part to it.

Tamatha Paul: Does she see that the moral panic around youth delinquency that was used to justify the boot camps of the past, outlined in the abuse in care report, is similar to moral panic being whipped up to justify the boot camps?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This Government and myself have committed to reducing youth crime within our communities, and to say that it’s just a moral panic—tell that to the people who have been attacked in their dairies and have been attacked doing their jobs every day and are left injured and traumatised by some of the crimes that these young people have committed. Our job is to make sure that these young people face consequences for that behaviour, but also make sure that we provide a rehabilitative programme on the other side.

Tamatha Paul: What evidence or experience would she need to see to make her pause and reflect on whether to proceed with boot camps or not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think a 90 percent pass rate from the first part of the pilot programme shows that it’s actually done a pretty damn good job. Now our focus is down in the community making sure that the transition from residential to community is as smooth as possible. So I’m looking forward to seeing the positive results that these young people show for their future.

Tamatha Paul: Is she saying that children that have committed a crime in their lifetime are not deserving of safe environments and protection by the State because of the things that they have done?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I don’t recall saying that or even implying that. I think that young people deserve to be in a safe environment, which they call their home, which is why in response to the abuse in care inquiry and to that report, I have tabled, in the omnibus bill yesterday, ways to keep young people safe within these facilities—because I know the damage that can be done from being abused, neglected, and traumatised, and I will not oversee any situation where I’m not making my best efforts to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

Tamatha Paul: Does she accept that almost every time a new boot camp initiative has been launched for the last 60 years, Ministers have claimed that their boot camp is different to the ones in the past, but that the result has been the same?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: That’s why, when we were designing the pilot programme, we made sure that we looked at examples from New Zealand and internationally. That’s the reason why we found 75 formal lessons that were collated from this to make sure that we don’t repeat any mistakes from the past and make sure that we can add value to these young people’s lives.

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Minister of Health: How many Te Whatu Ora staff members have now expressed interest in accepting the voluntary redundancy first offered in August, and how many, if any, have had their request approved despite their local manager recommending against it?

Decisions about voluntary redundancies are an operational matter for Health New Zealand and applications will not necessarily be accepted. However, I’m advised that 863 expressions of interest have been received from staff. To the second part of the member’s question, I’m assured by Health New Zealand that a clear process was established for considering all applications. As at 8 November, Health New Zealand advises that 224 offers have been made to people whose applications were originally declined by their immediate managers.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that emergency doctors in Northland have been asked to fill out patient registration forms themselves and even reconsider whether they really need to put out 777 calls for in-hospital medical emergencies because of insufficient clerical staff in the department at night?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’m assured by Health New Zealand that the net front line of clinical staff is safe, that patients are safe, and that outcomes will improve work.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: They’re doing paperwork. Does he stand by his statement “Local circumstances require local solutions rather than national bureaucracies.”; if so, why have the objections of local service managers in the Bay of Plenty been overridden in over 80 percent of voluntary redundancies that have been accepted?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I do agree with those statements—that reflected the previous Government’s position—and what I would say is that voluntary redundancies are an operational matter for Health New Zealand. But I’m assured that senior leaders take wider strategic matters, including the one the member raises, into account when they make their decisions.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his statement “We believe in decentralising as close to the home and hapū as possible.”, and, if so, how decentralised is the health system today when the deputy chief executive will only permit Bay of Plenty district to seek approval to recruit for 10 positions a week?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yes. And we have decentralised the four regions, but that previous Government did not.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When will he admit the impact of his cuts has tied up clinicians and paperwork and will ultimately cost the system more in the long run?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I admit is that we’re fixing the botched reforms of the previous Government and looking to improve patient outcomes.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about emergency housing?

The Government has set a target of reducing the number of people in emergency housing by 75 percent by 2030. We established Priority One to focus on whānau with tamariki, and it had indicative progress—blue shoots—to 30 September in getting 726 households, including 1,452 tamariki, moved from emergency housing into social housing under Priority One. Now we are putting in place a new practical initiative to help those in emergency housing without tamariki to move into more permanent housing. Earlier today, I announced the social outcomes contracting trial aimed at singles and couples without tamariki in emergency housing. We will start those in emergency housing for over 12 months in Wellington—Te Upoko o Te Ika—and Hamilton—Kirikiriroa.

Paulo Garcia: Why are the trials in Wellington and Hamilton only?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As at end September 2024, Hamilton and Wellington had the most households in emergency housing. In Kirikiriroa, there were 225 households in emergency housing, and around two-thirds are singles or couples with no tamariki. In Te Upoko o Te Ika / Wellington, there were 216 households in emergency housing; the overwhelming majority were singles with no children.

Paulo Garcia: What outcome is being sought, and how is this different to other contracts?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: To the first part, the outcome being sought is improved housing stability. To the second part, the social outcomes contract will link some payments to the achievement of specified outcomes rather than most Government housing contracting, which ties funding to the delivery of specific services. Providers will have flexibility in how they tailor their wraparound tautoko for these clients and may receive incentive payments for getting the singles and couples out of emergency housing, supporting them to stay out of emergency housing for three, six, and 13 months.

Paulo Garcia: How many people are expected to participate in the trial, and how will you monitor the trial?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The trial’s expected to support between 50 and 100 people total across both regions over the two years. The trial will help us understand the particular needs of the eligible individuals and what it takes to tautoko them out of emergency housing and to stay out. Officials will use the Integrated Data Infrastructure from data received from providers and set up an evaluative process alongside the Social Investment Agency to inform future insights and actions.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to Te Ahu o te Reo Māori; if so, why?

Yes, in particular, my decision to reprioritise $30 million in funding to provide maths workbooks, guidebooks, resources to students across New Zealand, and as of today 400,000 primary and intermediate school students around New Zealand in schools and kura will receive these books. I also stand by my decision to ensure that these maths resources were created and made in te reo Māori to support tamariki and rangatahi to excel in Pāngarau mathematics using te reo Māori as their language of instruction.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with University of Otago education professor Susan Sandretto, who said, “Minister Stanford is misleading the public into believing that the program was ineffective in raising student achievement when that was not within the scope of the evaluation.”, supported by Dr Hana Turner from the University of Auckland, and, if not, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Herein lies the problem. It should have been in the evaluation that we are making sure that tamariki Māori are doing well at school, and it wasn’t. It also said in the report that I said that “it was unable to be told whether or not tamariki Māori were having their achievement raised.”, and that is true. Now, I also said that one in five teachers involved in this dropped out of the programme, one in five were not involved in working with students, and 18 percent of all participants enrolled in courses were more likely to be doing it for personal interest and fulfilment rather than development of teaching practice—all things that were said in the evaluation report.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she claim that “An evaluation of the programme found no evidence it directly impacted progress and achievement for students”, when an Australian Associated Press Factcheck said it was misleading because the evaluation didn’t look at the programme’s impact on student progress and achievement.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The evaluation said exactly that. There was no link between the course and student achievement. The fact is that’s what the report said and that was one of the things I asked the ministry very early on: “can we link, can we have a direct link between this course and student achievement?” And when 12 percent of tamariki Māori are at curriculum for maths, I’ve got decisions to make, and I made the decision to reprioritise that money to make sure that tamariki Māori—[Interruption]—have the ability to accelerate in maths in this country.

SPEAKER: Does the member really want an answer? There’s so much noise. I just perhaps thought the member didn’t want an answer.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Just an accurate one, kia ora. Does she agree with Bruce Jepsen, president of Māori principals’ group, Te Akatea, who said their members saw the move as a deliberate act of marginalising the language and, therefore, cultural suppression, and, if not, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No, because we in the Ministry of Education and under this Government invest a huge amount in te reo Māori. Not only have we made sure that every single resource that we are providing is also in te reo Māori for kura kaupapa and for Māori immersion units, we also have $43 million in Māori language programme funding for schools, teaching te reo Māori as a subject in any setting, and $3.5 million for Māori medium and kura professional learning and development in te reo language development.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is she gloating today about the maths resources that have been funded by cutting $30 million from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, a trade-off she should never have made?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I am immensely proud of the fact that 100,000 children, Māori children in New Zealand, in term 1 next year will receive a student workbook, a student guide, and mathematics resources because 12 percent of them are at curriculum for maths by the time they finish intermediate. Yes, there are trade-offs to be made. And I’ve already said that the reason that we’ve chosen not to carry on with that particular contract is because it was a poorly performing contract. I’ve also said that next year we will look to recontract that—

Hon Peeni Henare: Trading the Māoris away again.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Next year, we will—

SPEAKER: Just a minute, sorry—

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —but they should listen up, because it’s quite important, but they refuse—

SPEAKER: Excuse me. We’ll just have quiet for the last part of question time.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you. I have said on many occasions that next year we will look to recontract this to make sure that more than 60 percent of the teachers who take the course actually finish it, to make sure that there isn’t 20 percent of the people doing the course who aren’t actually in front of children, and to make sure that the course is actually at the level where it needs to be, and that it’s not 2.3 times more expensive than other similar courses. Because it’s important to us that teachers can—[Interruption] It’s important to us that teachers can pronounce Māori words correctly and use everyday phrases in their teaching.

SPEAKER: That concludes question time—oh, sorry, was there a supplementary from the Green Party? No, that concludes question time. Members, we’ll take 30 seconds while people exit the House quietly and without conversation.