Oral Questions

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer to oral question No. 8 yesterday.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday in question time, I inadvertently stated that Te Ahu o te Reo Māori provided teachers up to 20 hours of Māori language professional learning and development. I meant to say 120 hours of professional learning and development.

Question No. 1—Whānau Ora

1. to the Minister for Whānau Ora: What role does he believe Whānau Ora plays for all whānau in Aotearoa, both Māori and non-Māori, who choose to engage with its services?

Whānau Ora is a visionary kaupapa—Government-enabled, locally led, and whānau-centred—launched by Te Pāti Māori and the National Party together nearly 15 years ago. It’s a holistic approach to facilitating and delivering outcomes through a whānau delivery model focused on the needs of Māori and, actually, all New Zealanders. It’s inclusive of Māori and non-Māori, and it’s been exciting for me to see, for example, a Pasifika commissioning agency over the past few years.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Why does the Minister think it is necessary to fragment the Whānau Ora network, creating uncertainty for the hundreds of providers and the people they serve, when the current model is a proven success?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This Government believes in the Whānau Ora kaupapa, hence why we have continued to commit the same budget level for Whānau Ora over the next few years as has been committed in the last year. But we’re also cognisant of the need to ensure that we have value for money in the delivery of better public services, and after 10 years of no formal procurement process, we thought it was important to undertake an engagement and procurement process for Whānau Ora, especially in light of the new targets, priorities, and objectives of this Government. But what I can also assert and observe is that many of the Whānau Ora providers do not just rely on the allocation through the Whānau Ora allocation under Vote Māori Development but actually engage themselves in Votes across Government, including Vote Health—and I acknowledge Dr Reti for his commitment to two-year-old immunisations in the last year through Whānau Ora.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his response to Whānau Ora providers who are concerned that they will now have to compete with the likes of the Salvation Army for alternative funding as a result of the uncertainty he has created?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve mentioned, there is a procurement and engagement process that’s under way, and there are a number of providers throughout the delivery of Government services, not just in Whānau Ora but across many portfolios and appropriations, that have evidenced similar concerns. However, we will run a defensible and credible process, and that matter currently is at the operational end of Te Puni Kōkiri.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How will this Government sustain a fourth commissioning agency when he has cut funding for the three that already exist?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I would observe that there is no predetermined outcome for the current process under way and it is not absolutely certain that there will be a fourth commissioning agency. However, what I will say is that we will go through a defensible procurement process and ensure that the needs of Māori and any others who engage in Whānau Ora services are provided for by way of the commissioning agencies and Whānau Ora providers.

Question No. 2—Public Service

2. to the Minister for the Public Service: What recent reports has she seen about the Public Service workforce?

The latest workforce data released by the Public Service Commission shows a significant shift in back-office resources towards the front line. The data show a 10.8 percent year-on-year reduction in the number of clerical and administrative staff in the Public Service, and an 8.3 percent drop in policy advisers. This has been offset by annual increases in service delivery roles, including a 16.9 percent rise in contact centre workers who are often the first point of contact for members of the public; and there’s been a 5.7 percent increase in the number of inspectors and regulatory officers; and a 1.5 percent increase in the number of social, health, and education workers. This Government promised to shift resources from the back office to the front line, and we are delivering on that promise.

Paulo Garcia: What is happening to the overall size of the Public Service workforce?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Over the course of the year to 30 June, the number of public servants grew slightly, to 63,537—a 0.7 percent increase. But when you drill into the details, it is a year of two halves. The first half of the year, under the previous Government, saw a continuation of strong growth in Public Service numbers through to December. The second half of the year, under this Government, saw a decline of 3.3 percent. While this makes up an overall annual increase of 0.7 percent, this compares to average increases of almost 5 percent of the previous five years as growth ballooned with no corresponding improvement in outcomes. The steps this Government is taking to restore discipline to public expenditure and drive more value for money are working.

Paulo Garcia: What is happening to contractor and consultant spend by the Public Service?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m delighted to see that the brakes have also well and truly been put on contractor and consultant spending. The workforce data shows this operating spending fell by $274 million, or 13 percent, when compared to the previous year. The Government is targeting a reduction in contractor and consultant operating spending of $400 million, and good progress is being made towards this. Contractor and consultant spending was another area that blew out under the previous Government, and this Government is bringing it back under control.

Paulo Garcia: What other changes has she seen in the Public Service workforce?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On Monday, the Prime Minister announced that Sir Brian Roche will be the next Public Service Commissioner. Sir Brian is a highly respected New Zealander, and I am delighted that he will be stepping into this crucial leadership position on 4 November. He brings a wealth of experience in both public and private sector roles, and a proven track record of leadership and delivering results. Sir Brian also knows how to develop talent and drive performance—two things that will be critical for the Public Service over the next few years. I want to thank and acknowledge members of other parties in Parliament who have welcomed Sir Brian’s ascension to this role, and I’m sure that the House joins with me in wishing him all the best and in also thanking Heather Baggott—who has done a great job acting as Public Service Commissioner.

SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, just remind members that there’s a longstanding series of Speakers’ rulings on members moving from their usual seat to another seat closer to the action for the purposes of interjection. So we’ll now call on question—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I knew this was coming.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, Mr Speaker, with respect, for the House’s understanding, if you’ve got a concern, I believe you should be a bit more specific. Because I’m not aware of any member that has moved seat for the purpose of interjecting. If you were to outline it, perhaps we could explain.

SPEAKER: Well, fascinating that you bring that up, but it’s not for you to make the judgment—it’s for me. All I’m suggesting is that where people have moved from their usual seats and they are interjecting, they need to be a little cautious in how they do that. Nothing wrong with that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s no longer a point of order—just made that a ruling.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: OK, point of order then. The issue here, then, is that you’re right and Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that a member should not move seats or change seats for the purpose of interjecting. It doesn’t, however, prevent anyone that has moved due to someone not being here for the day. Moving seats around is commonplace on both sides of the House. If that were to happen, it doesn’t preclude them from interjecting, particularly if that member was already a frontbench member—

Arena Williams: Yeah.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —shh!—and happens to have moved two seats along.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Not me!

Hon Member: Who was it then?

SPEAKER: Well, it doesn’t matter who it was. It really illustrates the point and you can point of order this all day long if you want to. I’ve simply given a gentle warning to the House that it is something that people should bear in mind.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

3. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by the Government’s plan to have 50,000 fewer people on jobseeker support; if so, how many people are on jobseeker support today compared to when she took office?

Yes, in April this year, the Government set a target to reduce the number of people on jobseeker benefit to 140,000 over the next six years, from a baseline of 190,000 in December 2023. One of the reasons for setting this target was the fact that, over the previous six years, the number of people on jobseeker increased significantly, rising by over 66,000, or 55 percent, between December 2017 and December 2023. When this target was set, officials expected jobseeker numbers would continue to rise for some time due to the poor state of the economy, which had seen little to no growth for the previous two years. Since taking office, as expected, the number of people on jobseeker support has continued to increase, rising by 20,895. We expect this number will rise further due to the lagged effects of high inflation, high interest rates, and the recession on employment. We’re confident the steps we are taking to improve the welfare system, such as increased engagement with job seekers through case management and the introduction of the traffic light system, will pay off through reduced benefit dependency as economic conditions improve.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she acknowledge that escalating unemployment and jobseeker beneficiary numbers are leading to increased hardship for whānau?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I acknowledge that two years of low to no growth led to unemployment, which is why we are seeing, unfortunately, rising numbers of unemployment. That is why our Government is absolutely focused on getting people into work so they have their own income, and I’m proud to advise the House that, in the last three months, we have seen an increase of 2,457 people exit the jobseeker benefit into work compared to a year ago.

SPEAKER: Have you got a supplementary from someone there?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Yes, Mr Speaker. Why did she ignore advice about increasing the amount of Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE) workers entering the country when the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is already struggling to find job seekers meaningful employment in the regions?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As that member will know, many regions require RSE workers for short periods of time, so there is always the balance when we are trying to get the economy up and running again, to ensure that there is short-term supply of labour for required workforces at the same time as balancing the needs of job seekers, who are spread around the country.

Ingrid Leary: Does she accept that medical practitioners are better placed to determine fitness for work than public servants; if so, will she commit to exempting those with medical certificates stating they are unfit to work for mental health or disability conditions from being reassessed on their fitness to work by MSD staff?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The member raises a really important point about work capacity. Our focus is absolutely on what people can do. In some ways, the very blunt way that the work capacity has been done in the past has restricted people’s ability to do some work. So this side of the House is absolutely focused on what people can do rather than what they can’t, and what we do want to ensure is that we are not putting additional barriers in the way of people being in work.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very clear question asking whether a person with a medical certificate will be reassessed by an MSD worker, and whilst the Minister spoke to the general nature of it, she absolutely did not address that fundamental question of reassessment.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be an interesting point, but if you have a look at the primary question, it talks about numbers and asks for a comparison between now and then. I personally was right on the edge of thinking that that question was almost outside of the wickets of the primary, but the Minister did give an answer.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did she ignore officials’ advice and not allow beneficiaries on a non-financial sanction to access hardship assistance given the dire state of unemployment and the cost of living crisis?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because I thought it was really important to ensure that there’s consistency with the current sanction regime. I will note for the House that our Government hasn’t changed the sanction regime—all we’ve done is actually use it. So the advice for the new one, which is non-financial, actually will mean people are better off because they will get their full benefit.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will she take full responsibility for increased jobseeker beneficiaries, increased hardship for New Zealanders, and decreased assistance for that hardship given she has ignored the advice of her own officials because she thinks she knows better?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m really proud of the record that our Government has despite incredibly challenging economic times and unemployment that follows a period of high Government spending, high inflation, and high interest rates. We have 2,457 job seekers in the last three months who’ve exited into work, which is an increase on the year before. That’s what I’m proud of. And, actually, our side of the House doesn’t necessarily think it is a bad thing when hardship grants reduce. That means that households are able to look after themselves, and that is a direct result of lower inflation and a lower cost of living.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. to the Prime Minister: What update can he provide on the coalition Government’s progress?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: We are just 11 months, delivering across the board, injecting life back into New Zealand with the fast-track consenting bill—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You’ve got to be pretty dumb to start laughing before you’ve heard the answer, eh? It represents a knife through unnecessary red tape and delays, paving the way for infrastructure we badly need. The Regional Infrastructure Fund will pump $1.2 billion worth of much-needed stimulus into our regions, the backbone of the country. Establishing a National Infrastructure Agency—a vital move towards securing long-term and strategic investments that futureproof New Zealand’s economy. A Government serious about unlocking development and progress—Resource Management Act reform will set us on exactly that path. We’re dealing with the country’s health and education systems, and because of us alone, we will, in New Zealand, reach the smoke-free target in 2024, not some time in the distant future.

Jenny Marcroft: What actions has the coalition Government taken to uphold equal citizenship and democracy?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Cabinet communicated our expectations for public services being prioritised on the common-sense basis of need, not race. Unfortunately, it was necessary to clarify that race or personal identity is in fact not a proxy for need; anyone who understood poverty would know that. We have stopped He Puapua, which set New Zealand on a path of racial separatism, because we believe in one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders, regardless of when you arrived here. We are now into phase two of the COVID-19 inquiry, which will rework the utterly inadequate terms of reference which we inherited. Sport New Zealand will be updating its guiding principles to ensure that we have fair competition above woke values being signalled, and we are sorting out the marine and coastal areas Act so that we can get back to a solution we had when every coastal iwi agreed to it.

Jenny Marcroft: What has the coalition Government achieved so far in restoring law and order?

Hon Willie Jackson: Nothing.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! Willie Jackson says “Nothing”. He’s talking about any common-sense idea he might evince. We are empowering our police and courts to hold criminals to account. Gang membership is now an aggravating factor during sentencing. Instead of giving money to the gangs, we are coming down hard on them, because Māori are the greatest victims of them. We are heading towards 500 more front-line police on the streets. A surge in applications—[Interruption] Instead of hearing cheering over there because they pretend to be for law and order, they’re jeering. Well, as they say, they came to jeer, but they’ll be starting to cheer. A surge in applications and expanding recruitment wings is also a signal that our Government is serious about law and order and putting—even you—victims first.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think I’ve got those concerns, but none the less, Jenny Marcroft.

Jenny Marcroft: How is the coalition Government supporting workers?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is a Government for working people, because some of us know what hard work looks like. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Hold on. Wait on. A reasonable amount of interjection is always acceptable, but not that sort of barrage.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I start again?

SPEAKER: Yeah, of course.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you very much. This is a Government that understands working people; understands their concerns, their hopes, and their dreams, and those forgotten hard-working Kiwi battlers are on our mind. We have extended the Apprenticeship Boost scheme through to June 2028. They didn’t. The accredited employer work visa is now geared towards filling high-skilled roles that help our New Zealand economy. The Government is committed to and delivering moderate increases on the minimum wage, set, of course, by you know who, not there. The Government is backing our workers, be they blue-collar or white-collar workers. Today, we are celebrating—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: You’ve laid off all the white-collar workers in this city.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is great news; hear it in silence. Today, we are celebrating over 16,000 Kiwis getting into work and off the jobseeker benefit from July to September this year.

Hon Member: 55,000 went to Australia.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, 16,000. And, last of all, this coincides with a 133 percent increase in—

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s a patsy question!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, look, I want you to hear this, so keep quiet while I’m answering it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Well, keep reading, matua.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know you’re not concerned about the workers; that’s why you’re shouting. This coincides with a 133 percent increase in benefit sanctions being issued from just 11 months ago—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You’d think that after 40 years you’d learn how to read properly.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —which shows they are working.

SPEAKER: OK. That’s absolutely enough, particularly those sort of comments, with all due respect.

Jenny Marcroft: What are this Government’s plans for much-needed essential infrastructure like Marsden Point?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is a Government that understands the vital need for our country to invest in our infrastructure. Critical infrastructure—

Ingrid Leary: New Dunedin Hospital!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, starting a hospital plan and blowing the cost out way over what it was budgeted for is not a plan—it’s irresponsibility. Look, be patient; help is on its way.

SPEAKER: OK, we’re going to hear the rest of this answer in silence, from both sides.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s all good news, but critical infrastructure like Marsden Point, that was allowed to covertly and secretly be shut down against interests of this country, is being seriously focused on at this point in time. We are trying to get past the crisis that we are facing in stoppages because of what we think may be contaminated fuel because of our lack of access to what we once had when we were a world-leading country.

Question No. 5—Education

5. to the Minister of Education: What information source or sources is she using for her claims about what the evidence shows regarding Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

The Ministry of Education advice, an independent evaluation, and provider completion data.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Who is correct, then: the Minister, who said Te Ahu o te Reo Māori is a very expensive, poorly performing contract; or the 87 percent of participants who said the programme helped them to build the confidence they needed to use te reo Māori in the classroom, and the 77 percent who said it supported them to apply tikanga in educational contexts?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve no doubt there are some people who did the course and very much enjoyed the course. But as a steward of public money, when we spent $100 million and only 60 percent of people completed the course, and when it was 2.3 times more expensive than comparable courses, as someone in charge of public money, it’s important for me to look at this from a systems perspective. The quantitative data showed that that was not good value for money and we can contract much better in the future, and we will.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What evidence is she using to discredit the programme when the evaluation report says that Te Ahu o te Reo—[Interruption] He’s talking during question time.

SPEAKER: Yes, he is, and he knows that it’s not—[Interruption] No, you’re not telling me what to do—OK. Don’t interrupt the questioner. Carry on.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What evidence is she using to discredit the programme when the evaluation report says, “Te Ahu o Te Reo Māori has engaged a cohort of exceptional providers to deliver this initiative. Combined, these providers have an extraordinary level of experience and expertise in the development and delivery of high-quality Māori language programmes. Participants were nearly unanimous in their glowing reviews of providers and their programmes, with most noting the providers’ outstanding skills in delivering engaging and effective learning content.”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There are two kinds of data: there is qualitative and quantitative. That member might like to focus on the qualitative data, but the quantitative data is also very important. When something is 2.3 times more expensive than a similar course—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on. You can’t just ask for an elucidation on a question you’ve just asked without listening to the answer. If we can just have a little bit of decorum so we can make some progress. Start the answer again.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There are two types of data: quantitative and qualitative. The evaluation report was unable to have much quantitative data in it because of the poor contracting. There were some people who said that they liked the course—no doubt—but, overall, when you are spending $100 million of public money, the quantitative data about how many people finished the course, and what types of people were doing the course and how expensive the course is, is very important to take into account, which is why when we recontract in the future, we will make sure that we get much better value for money. Because $100 million of public money is not a small amount, and $40 million of that public money was spent on people who did not complete the course, and that is an important consideration.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What evidence is she comparing Te Ahu o te Reo Māori to when she says that the course was 2.3 times more expensive when there are no other courses that are the same or even similar?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I received advice from my Ministry of Education officials, who said that comparable courses are 2.3 times cheaper than what was contracted under Te Ahu o te Reo Māori.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What evidence does she rely on to say whether or not pronouncing Māori names and using everyday common phrases is an acceptable level of proficiency?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: When I made those comments, I said that those things are important to me as an education Minister. I want teachers to use everyday, commonly used Māori phrases in their teaching, and I want them to be able to pronounce Māori names correctly. That is important to us, which is why, in the future, we will recontract this, but we will do so with much better contracts, making sure we are getting good, quantitative data reporting and good evaluative frameworks built into those contracts.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she actually committed to achieving 1 million New Zealanders speaking te reo Māori by 2040 when she slashes funding for one of the very programmes that the evidence shows will help achieve this?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Absolutely, which is why this Government has invested heavily in te reo Māori. In fact, for the very first time, this Government has invested in a phonics check and decodable resources which have never existed before, provided free of charge by the Ministry of Education to kura kaupapa and rūmaki units. We’re also providing all of the pāngarau—mathematics—resources free of charge in te reo Māori. We’re also making sure that kura kaupapa is included in network provision for the first time in the country’s history, and investing $100 million in kura kaupapa property.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister—

SPEAKER: Can I at least call you? Would that be OK? The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: No worries.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether it’s a fact that there is a record number of Māori and non-Māori learning Māori online?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That is a fact.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: What update can she provide about the Ministerial Inquiry into School Property?

Earlier this month, the Government released the inquiry’s report, which came in early and under budget. It’s confirmed we inherited a struggling system with a pipeline of unfunded school upgrades that weren’t able to be delivered. The report found the ministry’s processes are bureaucratic and inefficient, its internal governance structures for property investments are not robust, funding decisions lack transparency, and its organisational structure does not provide the right level of focus or accountability. This resulted in a huge loss of confidence in the system and significant uncertainty for school communities, and we’re fixing it.

Carl Bates: What is the Government doing to respond?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Even before the report was finalised, we took decisive action to sharpen school property delivery. I instructed the ministry to improve communications with schools and focus on offsite manufacturing solutions. In the first six months of this year, 72 percent of additional classrooms entering construction were being delivered as offsite modular builds, compared to the 18 percent which were delivered in the same period last year. The ministry has also completed a value-for-money review to ensure a much more fiscally responsible approach has been taken using repeatable designs, modular builds, and a reduced number of bespoke designs.

Carl Bates: What are the Government’s next steps?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We are working at pace. We’re in the process of appointing a functional chief executive with infrastructure expertise who will be responsible for operational aspects of school property, who will report to me; a new independent investment panel is also being stood up to provide expert advice on future property decisions; and a new entity for operational school property will be considered in coming months. Schools deserve transparency and predictability; taxpayers deserve value for money; and our tamariki deserve warm, dry classrooms.

Carl Bates: What feedback has she received?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: A principal said this inquiry is long overdue. There are some truly dire stories out there of mouldy, damp classrooms, and, at the other end of the scale, there are rebuilds and new builds that are just over the top, and we need balance. An architect who’s designed over 100 schools said, “Great job. You’ve hit the nail on the head. The focus should be on delivering safe spaces that children can learn in, to a budget, with a low level of maintenance, and it’s totally possible to procure schools faster and better than the current process and ensure that results are cost-effective.” This Government is committed to delivering just that.

Question No. 7—Children

7. to the Minister for Children: Why is the Government developing military-style academies as a sentencing response before the pilot has finished and before a full evaluation has assessed their impact on the children participating?

Because this Government cares about these young people and we want to give them every opportunity possible to succeed and turn their lives around. I feel privileged and proud to have met with these young people. I have seen the difference that this pilot has already made in terms of their confidence and their belief in themselves, and I can’t wait to see more young people get this opportunity. I invite the member and all members in this House to join me in supporting these young people to succeed, rather than willing them to fail. We can’t wait any more for more reports. These young people can’t afford for us to wait.

Tamatha Paul: How many young people remain in the pilot programme?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There are 10 young people in the pilot programme.

Tamatha Paul: How can it be 10 young people remaining in the pilot when it was publicly reported on 13 August that one person had dropped out of the boot camp already?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Because one extra young person who put their name forward was accepted to join the pilot programme.

Tamatha Paul: How many of the original 10 young people that were a part of the pilot project remain in the pilot?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nine.

Mark Cameron: Can the Minister explain the role of the intensive mentors?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The mentoring component of this pilot programme is the biggest part of the programme. We know that these young people need that support. The mentoring component has been a crucial element in helping these young people build positive relationships. This is how I know we can bring this pilot programme forward, because I am seeing the difference that this programme is already making.

Tamatha Paul: Why is she proceeding with her boot camp experiment when already one child has dropped out, representing a 10 percent failure rate of her experiment? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’d just remind people that silence when a question is being asked lasts all the way to the end of it. The Hon Karen Chhour.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I’ve made it very clear in my first answer that I have seen the difference that this pilot programme has made to these young people—their confidence and their belief in themselves, and just the change is inspirational. I’d like to thank all the staff, all the agencies, who had a role to play in this, who came together for the betterment of these young people.

Mark Cameron: What update can the Minister provide on the community stage of the pilot?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: From the outset, the military academies pilot had been designed with the transition back into the community in mind. Each young person has received a detailed transition plan to help their reintegration back into the community and ensure that they have every chance of success. This is a major difference from previous programmes, like the Military-style Activity Camp programme, and the majority of the pilot is actually about the community phase rather than the in-residence phase.

Tamatha Paul: How can she look survivors of abuse in State care in the face and say “Sorry” next month while at the same time ploughing ahead with unevaluated and unevidenced military-style boot camps that they want gone?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This pilot is completely different to the boot camps that were mentioned in the royal commission report. These were run decades ago with untrained staff, no proper oversight, and in an isolated setting. I’m kind of disappointed that we are using the survivors of abuse in State care for political gain instead of actually supporting these young people to be as successful as they possibly can. This is comparing apples with oranges—apples with oranges. For an evidence-based party, I am disappointed in you comparing apples with oranges. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Listening to that barrage, could we suggest to you that maybe we do a few courses on how the House should be run and how MPs behave. If you want to compete, then put your mind together, get some understanding of that, and not just shout out like a sick idiot every time you don’t agree with something. It’s going on every day. I’ve never seen the House like this in my time here, because back in a former time when it was a contest of ideas, we understood that. But these people are so woke that if they don’t agree, they’re just offended, and then they make noise.

SPEAKER: OK—thank you very much for that. I’d just point out that I’m not responsible for who the voters send to this House, but the electors to this House would most certainly have an expectation of a high level of decorum in the conduct of our proceedings.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

SPEAKER: I was in the middle of talking about something. It’s exactly what we’re talking about. Just wait till people have finished talking. Now.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Seems like my timing wasn’t too wrong, but I just wanted to raise quite a serious issue. There was some quite, what I thought, unparliamentary language referring to members opposite to him, calling them “sick idiots”. I think that’s pretty disgusting and I just want raise with you what I think is the Deputy Prime Minister’s lowering of standards in this House. I could quote about five Speakers’ rulings that he has broken throughout this week, and I think this is setting a pretty low bar in terms of the kind of name-calling that we’re expecting in this place.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. If you want to raise a point of order, get the facts right first and don’t get up and say what someone didn’t say. Go and listen to the parliamentary record and the member will know, for the umpteenth time, he’s not understanding how this House is properly run.

SPEAKER: As usual in these cases, I will look at the Hansard and make a determination about whether or not the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings have been breached.

Question No. 8—Veterans

8. to the Minister for Veterans: What recent announcements has he made regarding Anzac Day?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government is making changes so that more veterans who have served New Zealand will be formally recognised as part of official Anzac Day commemorations. What many people don’t realise is that, as a matter of law, Anzac Day currently doesn’t commemorate the contribution that New Zealand forces have made in conflict since 1966, which was when the Anzac Day legislation was last updated. The final conflict mentioned in that Act is the Vietnam War. The Government is doing something about this by progressing a bill to amend the Anzac Day Act so that the day will officially recognise those who have taken part in more recent operations, including our peacekeeping forces, as well as those from previous wars.

Tim van de Molen: How has Anzac Day evolved over time?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Anzac Day commemorations were originally designed to commemorate those who had fallen at Gallipoli. Kiwis are grateful for the courage, comradeship, and commitment of men and women of the services, not only of the past but also, of course, the present, and Anzac Day is of course one of the key ways that we are able to express that as a nation. The service personnel of today are part of a long and proud tradition therefore, and so we think it’s important to acknowledge that all of those who have served New Zealand in time of war and other operations be officially recognised, and it is appropriate to do that through amending the Anzac Day Act.

Tim van de Molen: When will the changes to the Act take place?

Hon CHRIS PENK: We’re keen to make these changes as soon as possible. The Anzac Day amendment bill will be introduced to the House prior to Anzac Day of next year, and then pass into law ahead of Anzac Day 2026. I’d like to acknowledge with thanks the support of my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith as Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, in whose name the bill will currently sit.

Tim van de Molen: Why is the recognition of veterans important?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Veterans often tell me that recognition is the most meaningful form of thanks, and I suspect that colleagues across the House have probably heard similar sentiments expressed to them as well. Serving their country has come, in many cases, with great personal sacrifice that can never be fully repaid, but recognising the service personnel through official commemorations like Anzac Day does, of course, go some way indeed. I’m also looking forward to progressing other initiatives in due course alongside fellow Ministers and other veterans-supporting organisations such as the Royal New Zealand Returned Services Association, to ensure that we can better recognise the contributions of all those who have served New Zealand.

Question No. 9—Police

9. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement that it was “nothing new” for Police resources to be distributed according to the Government’s priorities; if so, why?

The member’s characterisation of that statement is not factual.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did he ask for Police to increase numbers on the ground in Auckland CBD in order to counter retail crime and public disorder?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was it his expectation that Police staff would be redeployed from neighbouring Police areas into Auckland CBD?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: It is my expectation that the Police and the commissioner will always operate with complete operational independence and decide where staff are deployed, and that’s exactly what they do.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why is it that Police consider that operational staff have been “ring-fenced” and not able to be deployed to demand, therefore creating a crime displacement?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I mean, I haven’t seen any of those statements. I’m not sure where the member is getting that from.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the Palmerston North Police Association delegate at yesterday’s conference correct when he said, “There is fear among officers that the Government gang disruption units will mean that other crimes that had been priorities for Police, such as family harm, will be forgotten.”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: He absolutely raised a genuine concern, and I was able to allay those concerns by saying that this Government takes all forms of crime and violence in the community seriously, and we’ve got a big piece of work to deal with family and sexual harm.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Police Association representative from South Canterbury, who said yesterday, “There is an increased fearfulness that rural policing is being hung out to dry as officers were redeployed into urban areas.”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I listen to everything that front-line police officers tell me. I spend a lot of time on the ground, getting around and seeing them, and I have to say that the job that our rural police are doing is outstanding, and they get great support from their provincial colleagues. I’ve seen an increase in the operations that the police are running to protect rural communities, especially those with boy racers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he concerned that there is a growing view within New Zealand Police that politics is directly influencing operational deployment decisions?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I don’t. I think there’s a growing view within our police service that we’re getting back to basics, that they’ll be given the tools, and they’ve got a Government that supports them, to get out there and actually do their job, roll up over the top of gangs, start to suppress boy racers, and get on top of violent retail crime. They know that this Government is supporting them to do that.

Hon Nicola Willis: Is there a growing view within front-line police officers that it’s pretty good to have a police Minister who backs them?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that’s a very good question. Look, our police service know that they have got a police Minister and a coalition Government that actually backs them and wants them to be successful and is making sure that we give them the powers to be able to go out there and do that.

Question No. 10—RMA Reform

10. to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: How does he justify his proposed inclusion of projects in the Fast-track Approvals Bill that have previously been denied by the courts?

The Fast-track Approvals Bill, which is currently still before the Environment Committee, will facilitate delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits. Where projects have previously been declined by the courts, they will have been considered under different Acts—for example, the Resource Management Act (RMA), the exclusive economic zone Act, or the Conservation Act—which all contain their own particular tests. That should not preclude them from being considered under the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which has its own particular legal test. It’s important to note that under New Zealand’s planning system, applicants who have had proposals turned down by courts are fully within their rights to amend those proposals and try again. The other thing to note is that listing projects in Schedule 2 of the bill does not automatically grant approvals for those projects. Expert panels will still need to consider the substantive applications against the tests in the final version of the Act. To help address this concern, Cabinet has agreed that applicants will be required to include information on previous decisions by approving authorities, including previous court decisions, in their applications.

Lan Pham: Why did Cabinet choose the fast-tracking of projects previously declined by the courts on environmental grounds, like dams and seabed mining, over projects like hospital developments for Nelson, Tauranga, Hawke’s Bay, Whangārei, Wānaka, and Palmerston North?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s the Government’s view that we can do a lot when it comes to the projects that are in the bill. It’s not to say that there may not be other projects in the future. I don’t want to preclude the final decision making of the select committee when the bill has not yet been reported back to the Parliament, but the Government has recommended that there will be the ability for the Minister for Infrastructure to refer projects in the future into the fast-track process.

Scott Willis: What does he say to the people of Waimate, who have been engaging in an Environment Court process to stop the Project Kea waste-incineration-to-energy plant and have now had this process undermined by it being included as a fast-track - listed project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, without commenting specifically about that particular project, I’m surprised to hear that the Greens are now opposed to the conversion of waste to energy.

Simon Court: Does Parliament have the right to make laws like fast-track to make it easier to deliver infrastructure and housing, and, if so, is replacing the Resource Management Act with a system based on property rights, as stated in the ACT coalition agreement, another example of this?

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister may like to answer briefly, but that is quite wide of the wicket as well.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Successive Governments have realised that the RMA and, indeed, things like the Wildlife Act and the Conservation Act are outdated and are not keeping pace with the level of economic development this country needs to grow, the houses we need to build, and the infrastructure we need to create for the future. That’s why the previous Government had two versions of their own fast-track regime legislation. That’s why this Government is doing its version of it as well, whilst we go forward with a replacement regime for the RMA that better recognises the balance between the development of our resources and our infrastructural needs with the environment. A myopic focus on the adverse effects on the environment of development projects means that, ultimately, it is too hard to do things. This Government is redressing that balance.

Scott Willis: Was it appropriate or fair for the then candidate and now MP for Waitaki, Miles Anderson, to tell the local Waimate community at a “meet the candidate” meeting that he shared their opposition to the waste-incineration-to-energy plant?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I don’t have any responsibility—

SPEAKER: Well, firstly, I would point out that the Minister has absolutely no responsibility for what a candidate might say—and I’m sure most party leaders would be happy with that ruling. Does the member want to use that question?

Hon David Parker: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. Just to be clear: this is part of your allocation but you’re not losing one for the question that hasn’t been answered.

Lan Pham: Will the Minister take personal responsibility for any environmental damage that occurs if projects that have previously been declined by the courts are now able to go ahead, and, if not, who will?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s not the way our legal system works or indeed our ministerial system. But the point I’d make in a general sense is that the Government is proposing that Parliament list 149 projects. Those projects will then be referred to an expert panel. The expert panel has the ability to decline those projects—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. You want to have that conversation? Have it outside of the House. Start again, Mr Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I was just making the point that the Government has recommended 149 projects for referral to the expert panels. The expert panels will have the ability to decline those projects, but the expert panels will also be required to apply environmental conditions to the permitting of those projects.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that the Waimate waste-to-energy project is the first large incineration project proposed in New Zealand; and that it was referred to the Environment Court at the request of the council so that the complex issues relating to greenhouse gas emissions from burning plastics could be properly considered, including with input from environmental organisations and locals, neither of whom will have a right of appearance before the fast-track panel?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, in a general sense, and I’m sure that some of the factors that the member is talking about will be considered by the expert panels.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding the Confirmation of Payee service?

I am pleased to share that, last week, the banks responded to my direction that I set out earlier this year and agreed to enhance protection of their customers by introducing a confirmation of payee service. Confirmation of payee allows customers to verify that the account name matches the account number, providing a crucial safeguard against scams like investment fraud where money is sent to fake business accounts. It also helps prevent common errors where people mistakenly send payments to the wrong account.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the time line for rolling out this service, and how will it be introduced?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: In February of this year, I instructed the banks to report back to me by the end of September and I’m pleased to confirm that they have delivered. The roll-out of the confirmation of payee service will begin next month and will be in place across 13 banks by Easter 2025.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will the confirmation of—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait a minute—OK.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will the confirmation of the payee system improve payment security for individuals and businesses?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The confirmation of payee system adds an extra layer of protection by verifying the payee’s name matches the account number before a payment is made. As members of this House will know, investment scams are a common form of scam, and it is one that is personally devastating to many people. Now customers will be able to check that the name of the bank account matches the information they’ve been provided with before they make a payment.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How does this service compare to similar systems in other countries?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: New Zealand’s confirmation of payee system follows international best practice and is similar to what has been implemented in the United Kingdom and Australia. Both countries have seen significant reductions in scams and errors. By way of example, the UK reported a 31 percent reduction in bank transfer fraud within the first few months of its implementation. I’m pleased that New Zealand banks will soon be catching up with the rest of the world, and Kiwis will benefit from enhanced modern security systems.

Question No. 12—Foreign Affairs

12. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Was New Zealand asked to co-sign the letter from 104 United Nations member States in support of the UN Secretary-General António Guterres after he was declared persona non grata by Israel; if so, did he or his office have contact about this issue with other Government party leaders or their offices prior to New Zealand’s decision about whether to co-sign it?

New Zealand made a public statement on 14 October which included the following quotes: “declaring diplomats persona non grata, is precisely the wrong direction … New Zealand supports the role of @antonioguterres, as UN Secretary-General, to travel widely around the world to support peace and prosperity and foster dialogue and understanding.”, and “We regret Israel’s decision to declare the Secretary-General persona non grata.” As for the letter, my understanding is that it was circulated in New York to all UN member States. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade judged that it was preferable that New Zealand express our views on the issue in our own voice and make our own statement of support of the UN Secretary-General. And that is what we did and this is what it looks like. [Holds up printed statement.] And it went out, so that’s the answer.

Hon David Parker: Isn’t New Zealand’s failure to sign the letter in support of the UN Secretary-General made worse by the recent bombardment by Israel of the UN peacekeeping mission on the Israel-Lebanon border?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We’re dealing with the issue of the letter that was co-signed by a number—and dare I say it, at the beginning it looked like there weren’t many signatories to it. By that time, I had already commissioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to put our own statement out, which is what I’ve just shown you now. That is an ancillary matter that’s happened, about which we’ve also made a public statement.

Hon David Parker: Why is he not progressing formally recognising Palestine six months after he said it was a question of when, not if, given that like-minded countries, including Spain, Ireland, and Norway, have since done so?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because it’s one thing to make a statement because it’s an aspiration, but when it doesn’t have any chance of actually going into effect, the futility of that is as frustrating for the population you’re concerned about as it is for everybody else. We are not on a different page; we’re just far more common sense and practically aligned. For example, I’ve spoken to the foreign Ministers for Jordan, the Palestinian Authority I’ve spoken to, the Egyptians I’ve spoken to, the Turkish I’ve spoken to, and the Gulf States—a whole lot of countries have been spoken to; all aligned. But on this practical question—as to when you make a statement, can it happen and can it be established, and who will be the Government—there are still no answers.

Hon David Parker: Well then, given that the UN Secretary-General said he was “deeply alarmed by reports that a large number of communication devices [that] exploded across Lebanon”, killing, blinding, or injuring more than a thousand people, including children, what progress has New Zealand made in concluding who was likely responsible for that, given his answer to a primary question on 26 September saying it was too early to tell, and will he now condemn that barbaric act?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, when that act happened, of course, it was as a result of the people who perpetuated it being the recipients of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of rockets going on for month after month after month as though somehow there would be no consequences. The reality is we’re here in New Zealand and advocating—and have been for a long time, consistently across the political—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Are you comfortable with civilians being killed?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, we don’t just make a lot of noise like that member and don’t do anything about it. It’s just so typical of the Green Party—full of condemnation but haven’t got one idea how they’d help anybody, including finding one cent to help them the way we have.

SPEAKER: Good—that’s enough.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We have found millions to help them. So back to my point—

SPEAKER: Don’t.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is a serious issue and I wouldn’t expect it to be the result of that sort of arrogant comment.

SPEAKER: Yes, but you’re actually calling attention to it. But carry on.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m bringing attention to the practical, common sense—that too often in foreign affairs, people evince and evoke sentiments when it’s of no practical help to the people on the ground. In the end, people on the ground want real help. That’s what we’re seeking to do and have always done, and we have always consistently been, across the liberal divide and across decades, for a two-State solution, and we still are.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Minister requested or received any advice about economically sanctioning the State of Israel for its plausible genocide, and, if not, when, if ever, will Israel face those so-called real consequences that the Deputy Prime Minister talked about?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I have no intention of answering questions with judgmental statements such as “genocide” when no international body has made that allegation with any proof at this point in time at all.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That statement of “plausible genocide” comes from the ICJ, the International Court of Justice.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, it doesn’t—no, it doesn’t.

SPEAKER: Sorry, there is a point of order taking place. Don’t speak while a point of order is on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, if I may—

SPEAKER: No, you can start again.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister—the Minister of Foreign Affairs—just refused to answer the question which you did not rule out of order. So, firstly, I would like your response to that and whether the Deputy Prime Minister is indeed required to answer or at least address questions. To the second—

SPEAKER: Well, I was very close to ruling it out of order, because New Zealand, of course, doesn’t have an autonomous sanctions arrangement, therefore couldn’t do what the member was asking for, but—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, I asked about advice and whether there had been any asked for or received by the Minister’s office.

SPEAKER: The Minister certainly addressed the question. Do you want to say more?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact of the matter is that that member made a statement which is not backed up with international evidence, and the one she gave requires her to surely get a legal adviser in the plain language in which it was written which does not express what she said.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is that the point you want to make here?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah. That’s it.

Hon David Parker: Accepting the Minister’s statement that there are barbaric acts on more than one side in this conflict, did I understand his answer to my last supplementary to be that he will not condemn the use of exploding mobile devices that blinded, killed, or injured thousands of people, including children, as a barbaric act?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that when that member asked the question, he asked “Were there other statements we made?”. Well, yes, we did make statements with respect to the Israelis’ improper treatment of the Secretary-General. We also reflected on the proper concerns that happened arising from the attack which led to the UN peacekeepers in Lebanon being put in danger and risk. So we always have, and I would invite the member to follow the constant foreign affairs pronouncements, which we do on an almost daily basis.

Hon David Parker: When he was at the United Nations in recent weeks, did he express disquiet to the US about US financial and military support for the protracted and expanding war in Gaza and now Lebanon?

I have no recollection of mentioning that. We were talking about other matters closer to home.

I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill and the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill.