Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially our action to restore law and order. We have had a massive couple of weeks, delivering on our agenda to keep Kiwis safe in their homes, their businesses, and their communities. Last week, Police announced dozens more cops are set to join community beat teams, on top of the existing teams already making an impact in the Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch CBDs. We have fresh powers coming for Police to go after gangs, with our new gang laws being passed by Parliament last week—although, I note, not by the Labour Party—and set to take effect later this year. Today, Parliament will have the first reading of our sentencing bill, designed to impose tougher sentences on violent and repeat offenders. I hope Labour will support that. Kiwis deserve to feel safe, and after years of the soft on crime approach from the previous Government, we have finally taken action to make sure they feel safe.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did he reject officials’ advice that $3 billion a year is needed to achieve child poverty targets but was all too willing to give $2.9 billion in tax breaks to landlords, and who does he think needs that money more: landlords or children living in poverty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, if spending more money was actually the answer to child poverty, it would have been solved under the last Labour Government, because they increased Government spending by 84 percent. That previous Labour Government spent tens of billions of dollars more, and yet child poverty went backwards in the last year of that Government to the tune of 23,000 more kids in poverty.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that he has overseen 22,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit since he took office when he has set a target of 50,000 fewer job seekers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we have rising levels of unemployment because—why? The previous Labour Government spent 84 percent more, drove inflation through the roof, drove interest rates through the roof, put the country into recession for the last two years, and as a consequence, if you’ve been lucky enough to survive all of that, as a business, yes, you end up with rising unemployment. But we are doing everything we can to get people off welfare and into work. What we won’t tolerate is 75,000 more people being added to unemployment benefits at a time of low unemployment, as we saw in the last Government.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How will this Government be able to meet targets of shorter stays in hospital emergency departments and wait times for elective treatment, when hiring for clinical staff has been frozen and Health New Zealand has not been funded to keep pace with inflation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I totally reject the characterisation of that question, because this is a Government that cares about health. We put almost $17 billion more into it. We’ve funded $2 billion into Pharmac, $600 million more into cancer drugs, and, actually, we’re making some good progress. We’ve got a lot of work to do to clear up the mess that’s been left behind, but, on workforce, the good news is we have more nurses working in the healthcare system—29,000 of them—than we’ve had at any time in New Zealand’s history, and this year we’ve got a record intake of GP registrars; 230 of them doing their registrar work right now.

SPEAKER: I’d just remind members that interjections should be rare and reasonable, and while it might be interesting to make your comments, it doesn’t particularly add to the public information.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that there are now 104 fewer police officers than when he became Prime Minister, as at 24 August, particularly when his Government had promised 500 more police, or is it not about the “frickin’ targets” after all?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, this is a Government that wants to restore law and order in New Zealand, and we are doing a fantastic job. It is a big job, but we are off to a good start. We have seen the Comancheros gang completely disbanded and taken out—fantastic. We’ve got brand new gang legislation coming in to give Police more powers and tools to fight back against violent crime. Gang members are one-quarter of 1 percent of New Zealand’s population and yet they drive up to one-fifth of all the violent crime, and that party didn’t support that legislation last week.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How does working from home affect the Government’s ability to provide services to the public when compared to the effect of disestablishing over 6,000 roles in the Public Service?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have big expectations of the Public Service. We want them to be highly productive, and we want them to be firing on all cylinders, because we’ve got a lot of problems to fix and we’ve got a lot of opportunities to realise. So we want people to know that they can have some clear expectations from this Government, which is very simply: it’s not an entitlement; it’s actually by agreement. That’s how it gets done.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will he take responsibility for his Government’s actions and stop blaming public servants and the Opposition for his own inadequacy and lack of leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we take full responsibility on this side of Government. That’s what we do each and every day to rebuild the economy, to lower the cost of living, to restore law and order, and to deliver better health and education. I’d just say, after six years of Government, I understand the bitterness, because you didn’t achieve anything.

SPEAKER: It may make members feel better if they do yell out some interjection, but I’d just ask you all to think carefully about how that is perceived publicly.

Question No. 2—Public Service

2. to the Minister for the Public Service: What recent announcements has she made on Public Service working arrangements?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced that the Government wants to see more public servants come into their place of work each day, and we are taking steps to make our expectations clear. Guidance to the Public Service will be updated to make clear that working from home is not an entitlement and must be agreed and monitored. While I acknowledge carefully defined working from home arrangements can benefit workers and employers, there are significant downsides that need to be recognised as well. Many good employers have been taking active steps to ensure their working from home policies are fit for purpose, and it’s time the Government did the same.

Nancy Lu: What are the specific expectations she announced yesterday?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Updated guidelines will reinforce the Government’s expectation that (1) working from home arrangements are not an entitlement and should be by agreement; (2) working from home arrangements should only be agreed to where they will not compromise the performance of employees and agency objectives; and (3), importantly, where arrangements are agreed to, there must be comprehensive oversight arrangements in place so that managers can be clear the arrangements are working as expected and productivity is not being compromised.

Nancy Lu: Why did she make yesterday’s announcement about working from home?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There are good reasons why employees have traditionally been physically brought together for work, as members in this House know. It allows for face-to-face conversation, the sharing of skills and experiences, and relationship-building. I think about the new grad who is starting out in an organisation. They need to observe, learn from, and form connections with their more experienced colleagues. Zoom and Microsoft Teams have significant limitations. Getting people back into the office will support those younger employees and mean managers can monitor team dynamics, including whether people are disengaged, struggling, or at odds with their colleagues.

Nancy Lu: What does this announcement mean for public servants?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Public servants can still work from home if arrangements are agreed and expectations around productivity and performance are met. Having some flexibility in working arrangements can be beneficial for employees and for employers; however, the Government is making its expectation clear that working from home is not an entitlement and that safeguards need to be in place.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes—in particular, the action we’re taking to support Māori education. Last week, the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, announced that for the first time—the first time—schools actually can use a purpose-built tool to check actually how a child is progressing in reading te reo Māori. That tool will be available to all kura and schools where students are learning te reo Māori from term 1, 2025. Our Government is committed to lifting educational achievement for all young New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori. Thanks to Minister Erica Stanford, we’re making that happen.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he agree with his statement that “acknowledgment feels hollow without the recognition that comes with redress. I regret that it is not something that we can give you today, but I assure you it is a priority for the Government in the coming months.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, our Government is taking very seriously the findings of the report on abuse in State care, as you well know, and we’re shaping for an apology for 12 November.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he agree that his decision to subject survivors to a ballot system to attend their own apology is “hollow”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. We will have lots of demand for people to be present at the apologies—we’ll make them as available as we can in many cities across New Zealand. We want as many people to attend as possible, but there will be limits, obviously, with respect to physical spaces.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Considering that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is one of the core recommendations in the abuse in care report, why has he decided to give his apology at the same time that the Treaty principles bill is set to be introduced?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t think that is the case.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he remain committed to the removal of section 7AA despite the fact that over 800 Ngāpuhi mokopuna are in care, and 12,500 in the churn of care, and the Waitangi Tribunal noted that the removal of 7AA will cause “actual harm” to tamariki in care?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of your question, yes.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Ni hao. Does she stand by her statement, “We are focused on supporting our economy to grow”; if so, how much has GDP per capita changed since she took office?

Yes, we are focused on supporting the economy to grow because New Zealand has, essentially, been in recession for two years and we recognise that the best way to improve the living standards and experiences of New Zealanders is to grow our economy faster. Since the September quarter of 2022, GDP per capita has fallen 4.6 percent. Since the December quarter last year, when we took office, it has fallen 0.8 percent. In other words, breaking that down, the GDP per capita fell 3.8 percent from the third quarter of 2022 through to the final quarter of 2023, and a further 0.8 percent from the final quarter of 2023 to the second quarter of 2024.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does having our skilled Kiwis who are leaving the country in record numbers affect GDP per capita?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, obviously what GDP per capita is affected by is two things: on the one hand, how many people there are; and, on the second, how much the economy is growing as a whole. Our goal, as I have said, is to grow the economy not just in the generic sense but on a per capita basis as well.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she worried about the drop in the Westpac McDermott Miller Consumer Confidence Index, which is now at its lowest rating since the country was emerging from the first COVID-19 lockdown in 2020?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do want to see both business and consumer confidence increase; that is why our Government is focused on policies that will ensure that is the case. That includes ensuring we have inflation under control so that New Zealanders can look forward to stable prices, having interest rates falling so that their mortgages and borrowing is less expensive, and ensuring we have real, tangible policies that will grow the economy faster—such as fast-track consenting, and many others. But my answer is going on a bit long.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she worried about the trade deficit, with the monthly trade balance being in deficit of $2.2 billion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do want to see our current account deficit reduce, and that is partly why our Government is so focused on doubling exports over the next 10 years. It is also why we are very reluctant to impose extensive new taxes on the economy, which could get in the way of growth and investment.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What role will her Government play in minimising the output gap?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Every day, I get up, I think about how we progress our agenda to grow this economy. Along this front bench and behind me and over there are a lot of MPs who have always recognised that you don’t make this country wealthier by having endless conversations about how to divide the pie; you do it by growing the pie. That’s why we are focused on sensible policies, on infrastructure, on regulation, on overseas investment, on trade, on innovation, on capitalisation. It’s why we know you can’t tax a country to prosperity.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What advice has she had, if any, on the benefits of rail-enabled ferries for the GDP of the South Island?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: None.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to restrict the sale and use of nitrous oxide for recreational use?

Thank you. The proliferation of nitrous oxide—commonly referred to as nangs, laughing gas, or NOS—presents a significant public health issue with potentially serious consequences. Young people in particular have been targeted by this proliferation. That is why, last week, we announced that the Government was taking action to restrict the sale and use of nitrous oxide for recreational use. This action enables police to prosecute the sale and use of nitrous oxide for recreational use, with a breach of this regulation being punishable with jail time or a fine. This move will help keep New Zealanders safe and halt the growth of an illegal industry around the supply of nitrous oxide for recreational use.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What impact has recreational nitrous oxide use had on communities such as Ilam?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This is an issue that the member has raised with me. As I said earlier, the proliferation of nangs has been particularly targeted at young New Zealanders both in Christchurch and nationwide. Given the significant risks and the potential for long-term health impacts, such as nerve damage, it was important to move swiftly. Our approach comes off the back of reports that the recreational use of nitrous oxide is on the rise, so we could not stand idly by.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What impact will this restriction have on those who provide nitrous oxide for recreational use?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This announcement clarifies the law for suppliers and users of nitrous oxide. As no products containing nitrous oxide have been approved for use under the Psychoactive Substances Act, this change makes it illegal to sell nitrous oxide or products containing nitrous oxide for recreational use. As a result, companies who are found to be in breach of this regulation by selling, offering to sell, or being in possession of nitrous oxide for recreational purposes could be convicted of up to two years jail time or a fine of up to $500,000. However, for those who use nitrous oxide for legitimate reasons, there will be no change.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other steps is the Minister taking to ensure people are safe from recreational nitrous oxide use?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This is a step in the right direction to protect New Zealanders from a harmful product. I have heard from many of my parliamentary colleagues that the recreational use of nitrous oxide has been a serious issue within their communities. However, we are still aware that more may need to be done. That is why I have directed the Ministry of Health to monitor the effectiveness of this change and provide ongoing advice about whether further restrictions are necessary. Our ultimate goal is to keep New Zealanders safe, so I’ll continue to monitor this issue.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes, I do.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he commit to no changes under his fast-track legislation to the legal protection status afforded to Queen Elizabeth II trust, or QEII covenants, which protect private property in perpetuity for conservation purposes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, that’s right.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How can we have confidence in the Prime Minister’s answer that QEII covenants will remain untouched when the fast-track approvals bill overrides up to 10 laws which all have some form of environmental protection?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It doesn’t override QEII covenants.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister admitting that the fast-track legislation overrides other environmental protections and laws?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m admitting is the fast-track legislation is designed to get things built in this country, and we are prioritising development because that’s what we need to do: we need to make sure that we actually get things built. We want more wind farms, we want more renewable energy, and I just encourage that member to support fast-track legislation—a great idea from the potential leader of the Labour Party David Parker; we just built on it.

SPEAKER: Just before the member speaks, I’m sure the Prime Minister appreciates support from the Government side of the House, but that loud noise does limit the way in which the rest of the public hears his answers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister’s fast-track legislation enable more coal mining in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This fast-track legislation is going to enable us to grow our economy, and that’s so important, because that’s actually how we keep low and middle income people in employment, and that’s something that, frankly, the Labour Party and the Green Party used to care about—workers. We’re the party of workers now.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When will we see the list of fast-track projects made publicly available, given that his Government has kept those secret throughout the only opportunity for public consideration and participation of this legislation at select committee?

Hon Shane Jones: Taihoa. Taihoa.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Yes, I’d ask Mr Jones not to interrupt the question when it’s being asked.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Shall I ask it again, Mr Speaker, or shall we go to the Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: You should start again.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When will we see the list of fast-track projects made publicly available, given that the Prime Minister’s Government has kept those secret throughout the only opportunity for public consideration and participation in this legislation at the select committee stage?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Soon.

Question No. 7—State Owned Enterprises

7. to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Ni hao, Mr Speaker. Are negotiations for the exit of the contract with Hyundai for new Interislander ferries still ongoing; if so, when can New Zealanders expect an announcement from the Government on replacement ferries?

In response to the first part of the question, yes. In response to the second part of the question, announcements will be made once Cabinet has made decisions.

Tangi Utikere: Who is correct: finance Minister Nicola Willis, who said on 1 July that an announcement about replacement ferries is expected within the quarter, and then, yesterday, by the end of this year; the Prime Minister, who this morning said end of this year, early next year; associate transport Minister Matt Doocey, who said in August that an announcement was “imminent”; or himself, who couldn’t confirm that a decision would even be made this year?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can only repeat my answer to my first question, which was that the announcements will be made once Cabinet has made decisions.

Tangi Utikere: How much have Government agencies, including KiwiRail, spent so far on the negotiations to withdraw from the Hyundai contract, and what is the final cost of scrapping the contract going to be?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, obviously, we’re in the course of a negotiation and it wouldn’t be in the interests of anybody to publicly comment while that is still going on. One figure that is not in dispute, however, is that the overall cost was heading towards $3 billion if we’d stayed with the arrangement that we were bequeathed from the previous Government, and this Government was not prepared to spend that much money.

Tangi Utikere: How is it that nine months after the Government’s rash move to scrap the replacement ferries, he still doesn’t know how much it would cost to get out of the contract or what the replacement ferries would even look like, let alone their cost and when they will be delivered?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In relation to rash moves, I think that starting off a project costing $775 million in November 2018 and leaving office with it at somewhere around $3 billion is my definition of a rash move.

Tangi Utikere: Is it true that no alternative ferry plan has been announced yet because the prematurely scrapped replacements with no plan by this Government for new ferries, and now disagreements are becoming apparent within the coalition, who simply can’t get their act together?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m not quite sure what the question was. Was there a question in that? Could I ask him to repeat the—

SPEAKER: I did hear a question in that. It was vague, but I did hear it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, no.

Tangi Utikere: Does he agree with Nicola Willis’ statement that Bluebridge “take passengers and freight safely across the Cook Strait every day, and I say, well, look, they’re doing a good job.”, given the Connemara’s loss of power incident on Thursday night; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I agree with her statement at the time. Of course, New Zealand has robust transport arrangements and it’s up to the regulators to ensure that safety remains, and that is very much a high priority for this Government and all New Zealanders.

Question No. 8—Education (Partnership Schools)

8. to the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools): What recent announcements has he made in relation to charter schools?

Well, many. Just last week, I announced a set of performance standards for charter schools. Charter schools represent a swap of extra autonomy for educators to ply their trade and educate children in return for additional accountability. This announcement showed that there will be additional requirements for charter schools to hit targets relating to attendance by students, achievement by students, and financial probity by the school.

Laura Trask: What recent reports has he seen regarding the number of charter school applications?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, we’ve actually been overwhelmed. There are some who say that this policy is not required; however, we’ve seen 78 entities put together applications which are quite detailed, to run charter schools, with only a few months’ notice. I think that speaks to the fact that people know that while we have passionate educators, while we have a great desire for education, what we’re doing is not working for too many children, particularly those that are disadvantaged. I’m very proud to be part of a Government that is doing something about it with new options in charter schools.

Laura Trask: What reports has he seen in support of charter schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I’ve seen a report from Matua Nathan Durie, who said he believes the current educational system has had its chance and failed for some students. He said, “For 100 plus years now the teachers union and the Ministry of Education and all the other official groups have had an opportunity to deliver educational outcomes for Māori and the results have been horrible”. He said, “We’re excited about it and I think the primary reason to turn to the charter school model”—

Tākuta Ferris: Is it a Māori initiative now?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —“was the flexibility it enables.” And I say to the heckler from Te Pāti Māori, it’s not a Māori initiative; it’s an initiative for all people who want more choice to determine their future. Te Pāti Māori is going to have to decide, are they on the side of giving every child a chance to succeed on their own terms or are they going to keep heckling from the sidelines, spewing division and hate.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. We acknowledge your guidance earlier that interjections should be short. Surely that should also apply to responses to interjections.

SPEAKER: Well, it should. Except that where an interjection is a direct attack on the answer the Minister’s giving, it’s not unreasonable that the Minister might respond to it. There are other Standing Orders that enable responses in that nature, but I would ask those who are engaging in those sorts of cross-House interchanges to desist from that.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does the Minister stand by his statement regarding charter schools that he “could quote extensive research”, and, if so, how much of this extensive research wasn’t funded by pro - charter school groups?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: First of all, yes, I absolutely stand by that statement. Second of all, yes, I can. However, it’s kind of difficult because, you see, once people look at the evidence, they become strongly pro - charter school. I think, if the Minister and her party was to look at the evidence, they might become in favour of charter schools too. But here’s the problem: that member put in a minority view on the charter school legislation, and it was three pages about the unions and the sob stories from the adults working in the schools, and half a page about the children’s learning. Those are the Labour Party’s priorities. We don’t share them over here.

Laura Trask: What is the time line for opening charter schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Those applicants are currently having their applications worked through by the charter school authority. The authorisation board, as soon as legislation passes, will be empowered to further assess them and look to sign contracts with the successful applicants in order for the first schools to open on the first day of term 1, 2025. It’s going to be a very exciting day for New Zealand—a tangible impression of charter schools being backed to give opportunities to those students.

Question No. 9—Police

Question No. 6—Cameron Brewer.

Hon David Seymour: 6?

My question is to the Minister of Police—

SPEAKER: Sorry—apologies, it’s question No. 9, for those who are watching. Cameron Brewer—start again.

CAMERON BREWER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Police and asks: how are Police delivering on his priorities of disrupting gangs—

SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member but the mike was off, so please start your question again.

9. to the Minister of Police: How are Police delivering on his priorities of disrupting gangs and organised crime and strengthening policing in our communities?

Last week, Police announced the deployment of 77 staff to the National Gang Unit and gang disruption units around the country, as well as 70 more officers added to the community beat teams. This work that the Police are doing builds on the outstanding work that they’ve already done to crack down on and disrupt gangs and strengthen policing in our communities, providing communities with a sense of safety and showing gangs and organised criminals that police control our streets, not the gangs. I want to acknowledge the work of Commissioner Coster in responding to my priorities and in my letter of expectations. He has served with integrity over the course of a long career with the Police, and I look forward to working with him in his new role.

SPEAKER: That’s good—just the last part of that answer was important but not necessarily relevant to the question.

Cameron Brewer: Where are community beat team staff going?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: In total, there will be 160 new staff on community beat teams: 11 in Northland, 63 in Auckland, 18 in Waikato, 17 in the Bay of Plenty, seven in Eastern, eight in Central, 17 in Wellington, four in Tasman, 10 in Canterbury, and four in Southern, with one national coordinator.

Cameron Brewer: How many new staff will be in each gang disruption unit?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Seven staff will be deployed to Northland, 14 to Auckland, seven to Waikato, 10 to Bay of Plenty, 10 to Eastern, seven to Central, seven to Wellington, and 10 to the South Island.

Cameron Brewer: What other work has Police done recently that delivers on his priorities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police announced recently that nearly every member of the Comancheros is now facing charges. The approach to policing gang runs has changed significantly, with the public no longer seeing their towns taken over and held under siege by gang members. Community beat teams have been extremely popular, with members of the public regularly telling me how much safer the increase in foot patrols makes them feel.

Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety

10. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with Christopher Luxon, who said modern slavery is an issue for which he would “march in the streets”; if so, how does she reconcile this with the disbanding of the Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group?

I agree that modern slavery is a concerning issue, and it should be appropriately punished where it has occurred. However, I would also like to point out that there are many measures in the justice system that are already in place to combat modern slavery practices. The Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group was established by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who recommended that it be disestablished—and I agreed with their recommendation. I do not have a view on what issues other political party leaders would march in the streets for, but I believe Chris Luxon when he says it. But I can share that my priority is to ensure New Zealanders have access to more and better jobs, and businesses have the certainty and confidence to innovate and grow. I know that there are still a lot of New Zealanders doing it tough right now with the cost of living, which is why I’m focused on doing my bit within Government to support a thriving economy so every New Zealander can reach their full potential.

Camilla Belich: Does she agree with Grant Bayldon, national director of World Vision, who in a letter on 4 April 2024 to the Prime Minister, said, “Disappointingly, Minister van Velden has not responded to communications or accepted invitations to discuss the issue, either from World Vision or the Government-appointed Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group. Consequently, Rob Fyfe, chair of the advisory group, resigned yesterday, citing that the situation was untenable.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I don’t agree. I don’t personally know this man. I’m sure he’s entitled to his opinions. However, I think it’s really important that my office does a fantastic job responding to correspondence that comes in and out of it, and we have received a fair amount of correspondence on modern slavery, and we do our best to respond to each and every issue.

Camilla Belich: Does she agree with Rob Fyfe, who in his resignation letter to her said, of her, “Modern slavery legislation is neither a priority for her or a topic that she has a genuine interest in or passion for.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Rob Fyfe is entitled to his opinion, but his opinion doesn’t mean anything more to me than the tens of thousands of small-business owners in New Zealand who are struggling right now. We get correspondence from them too, and we listen to all of them equally. Modern slavery is a concerning issue for me; it’s one of many concerning issues. But every Minister and every Government must prioritise their issues.

Camilla Belich: Does she agree with the Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group who emailed her stating that, “New Zealand has now fallen further behind our international trading partners, many of whom have increasing expectations of New Zealand to have frameworks in place to ensure modern slavery does not take place in global and domestic supply chains. This includes commitments set out in our recent free-trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: New Zealand’s free-trade agreements include a range of commitments to address modern slavery and promote human rights in supply chains. New Zealand has guidance and policies in place to encourage businesses to address modern slavery in their supply chains, and it’s my view that the guidance and policies the Government already provides would satisfy our free-trade commitments so businesses can get on and trade with confidence.

Camilla Belich: Why, given she has accepted the importance of this issue, has the Minister’s only actions when it comes to modern slavery—an issue that the Prime Minister said he would march in the streets for—been to stop all work by her ministry and refuse to meet with subject matter experts?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have outlined at length that I have priorities, as a Government Minister, of getting this economy moving, of making sure that businesses have confidence and certainty of the laws so that they can employ more people and have better jobs for them. That’s a priority that every Government should have. We always need to prioritise; modern slavery is important, but there are so many issues of importance.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister tell the House what those other priorities she’s outlined are, and perhaps how they benefit New Zealand workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have many priorities in this term of Government. Firstly, replacing the Holidays Act. There are so many businesses who want to do the right thing but are struggling to comply with the law and make sure that workers in New Zealand get paid their right entitlements. We want to reform health and safety so that people don’t feel like we’re doing tick-box exercises but New Zealanders and workers aren’t actually safer at work. It has to be clearer and simpler. We need to ensure that people in contracting arrangements and employment agreements are actually clear about the intention of that agreement when they sign up to it—that is really important for both businesses and workers in New Zealand. I want to make sure that everybody knows that WorkSafe and other areas under our employment relations system are working effectively and efficiently for the betterment of taxpayers and levy payers.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent updates has he received regarding the Government’s target to reduce households in emergency housing by 75 percent by 2030?

午安and kia ora, Mr Speaker. The number of houses in emergency housing has dropped by nearly 60 percent from our starting point of 3,141 households in December 2023 to 1,365 households as at 31 August this year—blue shoots. This milestone reflects various factors, including (1) having a target to reduce the large-scale and long-term use of emergency housing to bring it back to its original intent; (2) get the policy settings right, such as establishing the Priority One pathway to prioritise whānau with tamariki into social housing; and (3) focused investment to both continue emergency housing support services for two further years and to back community housing providers to deliver 1,500 social housing homes. We are committed to making sure emergency housing is being used for individuals and whānau who have genuine need for short-term stays in temporary accommodation.

Greg Fleming: How much is the Government spending to deliver emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: More good news to report. In each of the four previous financial years, the cost to taxpayers was roughly $1 million a day. As at the end of August 2024, emergency housing is now costing the taxpayer around half a million dollars a day. We’re heading in the right direction.

Greg Fleming: How many whānau and tamariki are benefiting under the Priority One pathway?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Priority One pathway fast tracks whānau with tamariki who have been in emergency housing for 12 weeks or more into social housing. The fast track implements our focus on getting tamariki out of emergency housing, giving them stable accommodation, and, from there, they can focus on more things like attending school regularly and structured literacy, and taking part in the opportunities that living in Aotearoa New Zealand can provide. Since Priority One started on 30 April 2024, there’ve been a total of 645 households housed under the Priority One category, and, of those 645 households, 1,311 are tamariki—every single one of those 1,311 tamariki have been placed into social housing homes.

Greg Fleming: Outstanding. What real-world impact is the Priority One fast track having on whānau and tamariki?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Several weeks ago, I visited a whānau in Tauranga Moana who had recently moved out of emergency housing and into social housing under Priority One. I met a young, single mum in her early 20s with four young tamariki. Her tamariki had been cycling their whole lives in and out of emergency housing with mum since they were born. She was eligible for Priority One and transitioned into social housing. When I spoke to her, she was overwhelmed and thankful for how quickly she was housed once Priority One had started. She told me that for all the time in emergency housing, it was just her and her babies sleeping in one bed. Our immediate focus is to get whānau and tamariki out of emergency housing, and it’s changing people’s lives for the better.

Question No. 12—Children

12. to the Minister for Children: Does she agree that Oranga Tamariki has a role to play in preventing abuse and harm before tamariki and rangatahi enter care; if so, how does she reconcile this with cutting $18 million to Oranga Tamariki prevention-focused contracted services?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, alongside other agencies as part of the wider children’s system and the community as a whole. That is why Oranga Tamariki spent over $500 million with community services providers last financial year and will do so again this year. In answer to the second part of the question, the first point I would like to make is that a large proportion of the $18 million the member refers to will be made up from the money Oranga Tamariki has recovered or will recover from where a social service provider has not delivered services that have been paid for. There can’t be a cut to a service if that service has not been delivered. The second point I would like to make is that we know from previous years that just spending more money does not get better results. This is a Government that’s focused on getting value for taxpayers’ money and making sure that when we are spending money, we’re actually getting the outcomes we’re paying for.

Kahurangi Carter: If she agrees that Oranga Tamariki has a role to play in preventing abuse and harm before children enter care, why did she say of Oranga Tamariki that “The funding they provide is for care and protection of children in State care. Nothing more, nothing less.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I believe I have said that Oranga Tamariki’s core purpose is to take care of children in the care of Oranga Tamariki that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. I’ve also said that there are many ways that children can come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, from many organisations.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she stand by her statement about Oranga Tamariki funding nothing more, nothing less than care for children currently in State care, “That’s what New Zealanders want their dollars spent on, and that’s what they’re getting, finally.”, and, if so, does she think that New Zealanders wouldn’t accept her spending their money on prevention so children aren’t at risk of going into care?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: A large amount of Oranga Tamariki’s money is spent on prevention. Everything they do is around prevention. Yes, I do stand by my statements that Oranga Tamariki needs to concentrate on the children that are in their care to make sure they’re meeting the national care standards and children get what they deserve when they are in Oranga Tamariki care.

Kahurangi Carter: If, as she says, supporting children in State care is the core function of Oranga Tamariki, whose core function does she think supporting children at risk of being placed in State care is?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This is an all-agency approach across Government with many ministries that have a role to play when it comes to kids in New Zealand. Ultimately, Oranga Tamariki is responsible for young people who come to their attention when they’re at risk of harm or when they need to be taken care of.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree with the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, who said to social service providers, “when the child protection system gets involved in a child’s life, it is usually because those who were meant to protect and care for them, have failed … This is one of the reasons I’m [focusing] on strengthening the local and regional responses”, and, if so, how does she think cutting funding for services that have no comparable local alternatives, like Presbyterian Support South Canterbury’s free counselling and Kia Puāwai functional family therapy, helps achieve these goals?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In regards to the first part of the question, absolutely I agree with that. Children do come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki when those who are supposed to care for them have failed, and Oranga Tamariki has to come in at a child’s worst moment and actually make sure that they are taken care of. It is disgusting that Oranga Tamariki has to exist. People need to step up and start taking care of their children.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can the Minister confirm that she has a commitment from other Government agencies that they will fund these prevention services she is cutting, or is the Government simply ignoring or deprioritising their statutory obligations to children?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can speak to what Oranga Tamariki is doing around their contracting, and that is making sure that they are focusing on their core purpose, which is children and young people in their care and young people that come to their attention, so that we are doing what we need to do to meet national care standards. Other Ministers are in charge of their portfolios, and if you would like to ask them that question, feel free.

SPEAKER: That concludes questions for oral answer. If those who have to leave could leave quietly. Other than that, I’ll call on—

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Sorry, is there a point of order somewhere?

Question No. 12 to Minister, 8 August—Amended Answer

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question.

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

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: On 8 August 2024, in response to a supplementary question on oral question No. 12 from Kahurangi Carter, in regards to savings Oranga Tamariki is making from getting money back from providers where services have been underutilised, I stated that the money is not going back into the main Budget and that this money would be redistributed back into front-line services. This answer was technically incorrect. What I should have said is that this money would be returned to the centre; however, Oranga Tamariki is receiving new money and this money will be reinvested into front-line services. It was not my intention to mislead the House; I was attempting to convey the overall picture of the funding Oranga Tamariki will have for front-line services and that Oranga Tamariki received more money than it returned in Budget 2024.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, should that personal explanation not have been delivered before the question asked to the Minister? It is entirely possible that the questions asked of the Minister today may well have been different if that clarification had been made before the question.

I take the point and recognise the opportunity that may have been lost, but I have to say it was my advice to take the point of order after question time. My apologies if there has been an opportunity lost; that wasn’t at all intentional or otherwise. The House will take 30 seconds to allow people to move to wherever they need to be.